[0:00] >> it is five o'clock. I'm going to call to order the april 24th,
[0:05] 2024 board of education of cecil county work session. We have all board members and our student board member in attendance.
[0:14] we have a quorum. Ms. Rogers, will you please lead us in the pledge of allegiance.
[0:39] first on the agenda, we have the blueprint for maryland's future update. Dr. Lawson.
[0:45] >> thank you, ms. Holly. Just a few things before I turn it over to dr. Hammer and buckley.
[0:51] we are in the second year of the blueprint implementation.
[0:56] we've known for a few years now that there's a lot of pieces to it.
[1:01] I think on the surface, most people will agree on things like improved pay for our teachers,
[1:08] expanded pre-k for four-year-olds, more college opportunities for our high school students.
[1:15] there's a cost associated with that, and I think that has certainly probably caused some sticker shock around the state.
[1:23] I will give credit to the interim state superintendent.
[1:29] she has been very aggressive, I'd say, in the last two months. She has assembled a work group of eight county superintendents, of which I'm one,
[1:38] as well as representatives from the aib, rachel hise, brit kirwan,
[1:42] and ike leggett, as well as carey wright, the interim superintendent herself.
[1:48] they've really had an open ear to some of the challenges that we're facing,
[1:52] and I'm optimistic that they are in a position where they understand that for this to be successful for the next five,
[2:00] 10, 15 years, there may be opportunities along the way to take a step back
[2:06] and tweak the way the implementation was thought it would be back in 2021,
[2:12] '22 when the legislation passed. We have a presentation for you this evening.
[2:18] encourage you to ask questions along the way. We'll go through pillar by pillar where we
[2:24] think we are and where some of the challenges are. Feel free to have as much of a discussion about this as a presentation.
[2:31] with that, dr. Hammer. >> thank you, dr. Lawson. Good evening, everyone. Thank you.
[2:37] we literally a year ago in march were together and made
[2:42] a copy of this exact presentation to present this for you today.
[2:48] I can see us doing the same thing year after year, just giving you updates as the changes are being made to the blueprint.
[2:57] our goal today is that we're going to just give you some of those updates, as dr. Lawson shared with you.
[3:01] just a little bit of history on blueprint. As you know, this really is education reform.
[3:08] the goal of this is to really have an impact that is comprehensive in terms of changing
[3:13] what education looks like in the state of maryland to make it a world class education system in the nation.
[3:21] the recommendations for blueprint were made by the commission on
[3:26] innovation and excellence in education known as the kirwan commission that was chaired by brit kirwan.
[3:31] the legislation was passed in 2021. Updates have been made year after year to the blueprint,
[3:39] as dr. Lawson mentioned. As we're putting it into implementation,
[3:44] things may not be working as it was planned in the legislation. Those adjustments are being made as we go.
[3:49] those adjustments really are timelines and some of the language. Funding needs to be attached to this.
[3:55] this is a very expensive proposition to make this comprehensive change in the state of maryland,
[4:02] with over 3.1 billion over 10 years in the state of maryland.
[4:07] as you know, it is monitored at the state level by the accountability & implementation board,
[4:13] which is pillar 5. Just a little history lesson before we get started with our updates in cecil county.
[4:22] to get started, just as an overview, as you know, there are five pillars.
[4:27] pillar 1 is early childhood education. Our goal is that we're going to go
[4:31] through each one of these in a little more detail with you. I have some of our staff here with us today to answer
[4:37] any specific questions that you may have. Pillar 2, high quality and diverse teachers and leaders.
[4:44] you'll hear a little more about that, as well as our college and career readiness, pillar 3.
[4:48] pillar 4 are supports for students. Finally, the foundation really talks about
[4:55] the minimum adequate funding at the 75% level,
[4:59] which in terms of a timeline has been pushed another year.
[5:05] one thing of note is that there are many valued services and programs that are not a part of the blueprint.
[5:13] you can see several of them that are listed here, including making sure class sizes stay at
[5:18] a reasonably appropriate level to meet student needs. You can see safety and security are not included in the blueprint.
[5:25] neither are arts and music programs, world languages, extracurricular and athletics.
[5:29] technology is limited in terms of its inclusion, as well as employee benefits.
[5:34] the funds are flowing, but not necessarily to these very valued programs and services that are
[5:41] very much a holistic part of the educational program that we want to develop for our students.
[5:46] that's something that's important to know.
[5:51] >> real quick. Sorry. >> go ahead. >> have you had any discussion as to why class size,
[5:56] being one of them that I would think really important, was never added or discussed?
[6:02] has there been any conversation about that? >> not directly. I think the thinking is that really it's been
[6:10] said in many locals that they expect class sizes to go up.
[6:15] these are some of the unintended consequences, I think, that have happened.
[6:20] what we do know is that english learners, students with disabilities, compensatory education,
[6:27] college classes, pre-k, the workforce issues, apprenticeships, there are certain things that
[6:33] are absolutely being addressed and funded. This is what has me so concerned about the 75/25 split, is that the 25,
[6:42] I don't think as we move through this in the out years that the 25% is going to be enough because the 25% has to cover all of these.
[6:51] I worry that as we move through this, the 75/25, the math isn't correct.
[6:57] but again, I do think whether it's the state department, msde, or aib,
[7:03] aib is the accountability implementation board, I think they're in a position to pay attention to that and to listen.
[7:09] we will see. Take for instance, employee benefits. We know about the charge to have first year teachers at $60,000 a year by july 1 of 2026.
[7:20] nobody brought up the fact that what comes with that are increase in fixed charges.
[7:24] our fixed charges are upwards of probably close to 20%. As the salaries go up,
[7:30] so do the fixed charges, but there's no funding coming in just for the fixed charges.
[7:35] well, where is that money supposed to come from? From the foundation money.
[7:39] that's what I'm saying, this limited pot. Dual enrollment, dr. Buckley and dr. Hammer will talk about that in a minute.
[7:46] we know that dual enrollment funds have been cut almost in half, but yet we're going to be expected to deliver
[7:52] dual enrollment opportunities for our seniors going into next year. Frankly, the revenue is just not there.
[7:58] time after time, what we're seeing is that the revenue is not there to cover the things that the community is used to.
[8:04] the community is accustomed to having sports and these opportunities,
[8:09] whether it's world language, whether it's music, and there is no specific callout for that funding in the blueprint.
[8:15] I do think that's something that's going to have legislative attention in the coming years,
[8:20] as well as from the state and the aib.
[8:26] >> to get started, and again, please stop us with any questions.
[8:31] thank you, mr. Fernando. Under the leadership of dr. Johnson, pillar 1 is early childhood education,
[8:38] and this provides expansion opportunities for pre k of students ages 3 and 4.
[8:46] it also provides opportunities for public and private partnerships with the school system in private schools.
[8:55] there's also an increased number of early childhood qualified educators,
[9:00] not only teachers but also paraprofessionals who have certain credentialing to make sure that they
[9:06] have the skills and understanding to meet our youngest learners. Finally, a scaling impact and increase in the number of jd centers.
[9:14] we're going to show you next just where we are in terms of our implementation in cecil county.
[9:22] to start in 2022-23 school year, you can see the number of early childhood students we had,
[9:29] we had over 700 early childhood students,
[9:33] and four year olds were qualifying for a pre k program who were 185% of the federal poverty line.
[9:40] those students were qualified for the program. We also have three year old half day programs across the district then and
[9:49] only five judy centers at the time in 2022-23 school year.
[9:56] we had one private provider that provided 30 seats. That private provider is mount aviate academy.
[10:04] go ahead, miss dixon. >> does ccps pay mount aviate?
[10:09] >> ccps does pay mount aviate to have those seats there.
[10:13] 23-24 school year, you can see the increase in students are slowly starting to creep up in our early childhood programming.
[10:20] four year olds at 300% of the federal poverty line. The three year old program is still half day program,
[10:27] but we've increased, we've doubled our judy centers in cecil county, and we're really seeing a tremendous impact of that birth to
[10:33] age five programming to support those families and students.
[10:37] that scaling has been really quite influential. Again, we still only have one private provider who has
[10:44] come forth because the credentialing for that programming it's challenging and many people don't want to engage in it.
[10:56] >> why do we have a private providers there no room for those other 30 seats with us.
[11:01] >> it's part of the law. The law requires us to. >> I think, particularly some of the bigger counties,
[11:06] is that the school systems aren't equipped to deal with all the four year olds from a pure space perspective.
[11:11] I would say in cecil county, we have some challenges as it relates to space,
[11:16] building capacity, not as bad as some of these other systems. They're talking about having to add actually
[11:22] bricks and mortar to accommodate four year olds. As the bill was being drafted,
[11:26] the thinking was that we would rely on private partnerships, and what's happened now is that this has become in practice
[11:34] is that because the standards and the rigor of the program implementation is so high,
[11:39] a lot of the private partners don't want to touch it because
[11:43] they can't pay their people a certain amount of money because it's too costly.
[11:48] across the state, everybody is struggling to have enough private providers.
[11:52] >> cecil county has been described as a childcare desert by some,
[11:57] to have these qualified programs, and there's an excels qualification that you have to go through all of these standards.
[12:04] there's specific standards that you have to go through to be a childcare provider to have credentialing that includes space,
[12:13] number, student teacher ratio, training that you're required to have. Doctor johnson, I'm missing anything else?
[12:18] >> curriculum and instruction and assessment. >> curriculum and instruction and assessment that are all part of this excels qualifications.
[12:23] >> do your teachers in the private provider schools have to have certain credentials?
[12:30] >> I believe so. >> more so than just a daycare? >> yes.
[12:34] >> that's part of the cost. >> that's what's been turning all,
[12:39] many of the private providers. I'm sorry. >> step in. >> say that again. >> can you talk a little bit about head start and how that may influence this?
[12:47] >> you got [inaudible]
[12:54] >> our head start students and the seats they have right now, the struggle is the headstart program doesn't meet
[12:59] the maryland excels criteria for a level 5.
[13:03] because keep in mind, a private provider is offering a public school seat,
[13:08] so these students are public school students, they're just receiving the service that a private provider.
[13:13] one of the issues has been the federal legislation that protects headstart
[13:18] has kept those programs from meeting the excels criteria.
[13:22] that's an ongoing priority to try to get that corrected to make sure they have a chance to on board to the program,
[13:28] but right now they don't work together.
[13:33] >> what you'll see moving into next school year, we anticipate a lot of the same as what we've had in the past, with less expansion.
[13:43] we are looking to have an additional duty center, at least one more additional duty center that would qualify,
[13:49] but still only one provider, private provider is what we're forecasting for next school year.
[13:55] >> we've already been told that we will not receive funding for tier 2 students next year.
[14:03] mind you, tier 1, tier 2, tier. Tier 1 typically are students from poverty,
[14:09] and we are now going to include students with disabilities and english learners.
[14:13] those students will all be considered tier 1, and so they will have a seat in a four year old program.
[14:19] tier 2 and tier 3, this current year we're in,
[14:23] we did receive some funding for tier 2. Next year we're being told we won't,
[14:28] so that if we want to provide services to tier 2 next year,
[14:33] we are going to have to do that from the foundation money. Yet again, another example of not having the money,
[14:38] so it's going to have to come from the foundation cost. The board's position, we'd be interested in some feedback.
[14:46] right now, about three quarters of our students are tier 1. The other students that are in our current program are either tier 2 or tier 3,
[14:53] and it's all income based. I guess we could hold out hope and hope that
[14:59] some funding does start to follow these students. I think as we move into preparing for fy 26,
[15:05] there is going to be what's called a sliding scale where we will have the opportunity to start charging tuition for some tier 2 and tier 3 students.
[15:13] dr. Johnson and miss olpa on your toes back there, if I'm wrong.
[15:17] the state is looking at hiring a third party vendor to do the income qualifications,
[15:24] as well as tuition collection. Schools are not in the business right now of going to a family and saying,
[15:30] you haven't paid us your hundred $80 this week, your child can't come starting monday.
[15:35] that's nothing we've ever done. But right now the state is looking at picking up
[15:39] a third party to do it statewide to handle that for. To summarize this, we have concerns moving into next school year that
[15:47] there isn't funding to support any tier 2 and tier 3 students.
[15:51] I would not be surprised as we move into next year to see our pre k numbers go down to some extent.
[15:57] >> is there a formula already for the charging of the tier 2, or is that something to steel tbd?
[16:02] >> it is articulated the sliding scale, dr. Johnson. >> the overall recommendation right now is 3-7% of the family's adjusted income,
[16:11] and that's based on their federal poverty line percentage. For families that are 301% to 600%,
[16:18] that's that 3-7% range, and then families that more than 600% of the federal poverty line would pay tuition.
[16:25] >> the 300% is 300% of the poverty line for a family of four,
[16:29] which is $31,000 so that a family can make up to
[16:35] $90,000 for a family of four and they come as a tier 1 for pre k. Families that make more than that,
[16:42] a percentage of their income comes to the school system to cover, so you follow me on this?
[16:47] you can see how dicy it would get for the lead secretary asking,
[16:51] well, how much does your family make and then taking 3%. Well, now you have to pay,
[16:55] it puts us in the bill collection business, and again, something we are not equipped to do.
[17:02] >> do we have seats for those tier 2 and tier 3, if we.
[17:09] >> yes, we could make it happen [inaudible]
[17:15] >> do we have teachers for those? >> as we continue with expansion,
[17:20] that does remain a priority for us as recruiting early for those early childhood settings,
[17:24] both pre k3 and pre k4 settings, both of which need to expand.
[17:29] I would say getting teachers will be a challenge because across the state,
[17:33] every one across the state will be recruiting for more early childhood teachers.
[17:41] >> good question. Thank you. >> that's a nice segue into pillar 2.
[17:47] where in pillar 2, we're going to focus and talk about high-quality and diverse teachers and leaders.
[17:52] out of pillar 2, in comes the increase to the starting salary for teachers at $60,000,
[17:58] and that is effective july 1, 2026, so fy27, we have to be at that $60,000 mark.
[18:05] we have successfully negotiated with our teacher association so that we should hit that mark on july 1,
[18:13] 2026, so that should not be an issue. The next piece to that is the career ladder and incentive focusing on teacher leaders.
[18:20] I'm going to talk a little bit more about that on a graphic on the next slide where we get into what the career ladder is going to look like.
[18:26] that all has to be negotiated. We'll sit down with the association, we'll work through exactly how we're going to structure
[18:32] those levels that are spelled out on the career ladder. Overall, it's about raising expectations for teacher preparation and induction.
[18:40] based upon the conversation that we just had about early childhood educators and the scarcity that exists there,
[18:45] we're faced along with every other lea in the state of trying to find
[18:50] teachers at a time when colleges of education have a dwindling enrollment.
[18:56] so not only across the state of maryland, we are an import state for our teachers.
[19:02] primarily, we import our teachers into the state of maryland because we don't produce enough,
[19:06] but other universities throughout the country are also dwindling enrollments in their education programs.
[19:12] so at a time when we're trying to raise up the level of expectations and diversify our workforce,
[19:18] there's a decrease in those going into education, which is why we've got to grow our own programs and
[19:22] various other initiatives to develop and grow teachers here in cecil county.
[19:27] this next graphic, it's a little busy.
[19:32] this comes straight out of the blueprint. You'll note at the bottom,
[19:36] those first three levels there, that has to be negotiated and submitted by july 1 of this year,
[19:44] so we'll be sitting down and negotiating with the teacher association, and basically,
[19:48] what those first three levels are going to spell out, when you sign a contract and you come to work with us,
[19:53] you are a certified teacher, so you're going to be level 1. Where we have to then negotiate is,
[20:00] what does pursuing a master's or pursuing nbc,
[20:04] national board certification, or pursuing 30 credits of approved credits in a course of study, what does that mean?
[20:11] does that mean I take a class or I enroll in the program, whatever that looks like? They would then advance to level 2.
[20:17] then once they have completed either their master's or course of study or an nbc,
[20:22] the nbc only would advance to level 3.
[20:26] so why only the nbc? The national board certification has a certification process and the state has
[20:35] committed to paying $10,000 for every teacher that earns the nbc status.
[20:41] currently, right now, we have teachers that have a master's, they have an advanced professional certificate,
[20:47] they have a master's plus 30, a master's plus 60, and for each level of that,
[20:53] they receive an addendum to their salary. For example, if I have my master's degree,
[20:58] I receive an additional $1,975 currently. If I have my doctorate degree, I receive 5,425.
[21:06] with the implementation of the blueprint, they set a standard of $10,000 for national board-certificated teacher.
[21:16] you'll see on the next slide here an uptick in the number of people that we have pursuing that.
[21:21] you can, go ahead. >> does that mean that the master's and the doctorate
[21:26] isn't giving them anything extra, just the board-certified? >> correct, and that's spelled out in the blueprint.
[21:32] right now, we have negotiated those rates for the master's, the master's 30, the master's 60, and the doctorate,
[21:37] so that would be up to us to sit down and negotiate what that would look like. But by law, we're compelled to give $10,000 for a nationally board-certificated teacher.
[21:46] then as they earn renewals, they would earn an additional 8,000 for the first,
[21:51] 7,000 for the second, 6,000 for the third. Further, if they work in a high-poverty school or a school improvement,
[21:59] a school identified as a school of improvement status, they would receive an additional 7,000.
[22:03] for example, we will have two teachers next year that will have their base salary plus
[22:09] $17,000 because they're nationally board certified and they're working in a school improvement that's been identified.
[22:16] automatically, they will get that because of that certification. If they have a master's or master's plus 30,
[22:22] they would also receive that addendum as well. There's a lot of caveats buried within here,
[22:31] where we'll sit down again and we'll negotiate this with the association to work through that.
[22:36] we have to have those first three levels done this year, and then we'll advance forward from
[22:41] there into level 4 where we get into the lead teachers, distinguished teachers, and so forth.
[22:46] then there's also a leadership track there that would kick over on a license principle and distinguished principles.
[22:51] again, they would have to have an nbc in order to qualify in advance beyond as we go forward.
[22:57] but that's eight years out where that has to be fully implemented.
[23:01] >> how much does it cost to get nationally board certified?
[23:05] >> I'm going to forward to mr. Zimmerman, 2,000. >> two thousand. >> does the school system pay for that? >> $2000
[23:09] >> do we pay for that? >> we pay a third of that.
[23:14] correct. We pay a third of that. Advance. Yeah.
[23:21] >> dr. Buckley and maybe, mr. Zimmerman, can you speak to how the pay stipends for national board-certified teachers are covered?
[23:30] is it local money? Is it state money? What's the breakdown? >> the way that it's funded,
[23:36] it's about a 50/50 split. When a teacher is going to receive $10,000,
[23:42] the state will cover approximately 5,000 of that up to the 10,000.
[23:46] we can negotiate more than that, but the state would only cover that 50% of it up to the 5,000 threshold.
[23:53] the 8,000 for the first renewal, again, they would cover half of that, is that correct?
[23:59] they would cover half of that. If it's $8,000 that we negotiate,
[24:03] the state would pay 4,000, so we would be on the hook for the balance of that.
[24:07] on this slide, what you'll notice is this year, in fy24,
[24:14] we had 29 teachers that received that $10,000 stipend,
[24:18] so $290,000 of which half we paid for through our funds,
[24:25] through the state funds and local funding, and then the other half of that came directly as
[24:30] a pay go from the state to support that, and so that's the uniqueness that's there.
[24:36] again, you can see on this slide, prior to the blueprint,
[24:41] we had a practice where we would have two participants each year because we felt that we could support them,
[24:46] and once they earned their nbc, they would receive a stipend of $2,000.
[24:52] that was prior to the blueprint. Since the '22-'23 school year,
[24:59] we had the 29 teachers, we had none that we're working in low-performing schools,
[25:03] and then next year as we get into next year, we have 32 teachers,
[25:08] so that's $320,000 plus the two teachers that are going to be working at a low-performing school, an additional $14,000.
[25:15] right now, we have 79 teachers that are in the pipeline to become national board certified.
[25:22] that's $790,000, of which we'll be responsible for paying half. Approximately.
[25:28] >> this is a probably a good time to point out, and we've all heard it, particularly from county leadership that says,
[25:36] the blueprint is funded. When we pay local share,
[25:40] that that's enough for the blueprint. I would argue that's probably not untrue.
[25:46] but what it's doing is it's paying for the blueprint, it's not paying for anything else that we saw in those three or four slides ago.
[25:54] when we come to you on may 8th with a recommendation, not for a vote,
[26:00] but with just a model that we think will make ends meet,
[26:04] you will see the cuts will not be coming from those areas that are protected through the blueprint.
[26:11] >> but it's really [overlapping]. >> that is just fundamental to keep an eye on. >> it's really not paying for the blueprint if it's only 50%.
[26:17] >> special ed is woefully short, I would argue el has plenty of money,
[26:21] comp-ed is somewhere in the middle, dual enrollment is a mess,
[26:26] so it's hit and miss. >> so to your point, ms. Holly, those 79 teachers,
[26:31] you're looking at approximately $800,000, half of which is 400,000, that's going to have to come out of, I would assume,
[26:37] our foundational programming, so that would come from our foundation program, which, again, the earlier slide that we had,
[26:44] those pieces there where it's taking away from the other components that make our system go, if you will.
[26:52] >> can I ask what the threshold is for the low-performing schools? What is that? How many schools fall into that category, low-performing schools?
[26:59] >> right now it's just one. >> [overlapping] next year one. >> okay. >> right now, we just have one that's identified as next year.
[27:04] >> for next year. >> yes, the state does identify and they give us
[27:09] some flexibility to self-identify certain schools. >> correct. There's specific criteria around that the state uses to identify.
[27:16] >> the state defined low-performing school as one or two stars for two out of three years.
[27:22] that's why we're on the merit, yes.
[27:31] >> pillar 3. >> moving on to pillar 3. This pillar is chaired by dr. Foy,
[27:37] and this is college & career readiness. Some of the things you're going to see in pillar 3 are the importance in the goal,
[27:44] which is having all students meet college and career readiness standards by 10th grade.
[27:50] we also wanted to make sure to get to that that all of our curriculum resources and assessments are completely aligned to get to that metric.
[27:58] post college and career readiness, pathways and support pathways for students who
[28:03] do meet the mark and students who do not meet the mark to make sure that we're supporting all students through this process
[28:09] in their secondary education specifically high school. Then finally, the goal,
[28:14] long term, I believe it's in 2030, wes is that we have 45% of our students
[28:20] engaged in a youth apprenticeship program within the community.
[28:24] big goals and dreams, so we're going to show you right now just where we are in terms of process of that.
[28:30] how do you identify a student as college and career ready? >> dr. Hammer, what was that percentage?
[28:36] >> forty-five percent in youth apprenticeship programs by 2030, I believe.
[28:41] >> do we have enough businesses? >> we're working on it.
[28:45] >> in cecil county to do that? >> that's a problem, 45% is almost 500 students and
[28:51] currently we're probably closer to 25 students.
[28:58] that's a big, big lift, and again, across the state, it's a concern.
[29:04] >> for a student to be deemed college and career-ready, there is a new college and career readiness standard that will be utilized by the state.
[29:12] this was recently passed by the maryland state board of education. You see two options here.
[29:16] option 1 is at the top. If a student will be considered college and career-ready,
[29:21] if they achieve a grade point, average of 3.0 or higher that is unweighted.
[29:26] as for and, they also have to have math mastery,
[29:30] which means they have to have an a, b, or c in algebra or they have to have a proficient or above score on the algebra mcap.
[29:38] that's one path for ccr. The other option is that they score proficient or above on ela 10,
[29:46] mcap 10, or the algebra 1 math. The first option brings in gpa and grades,
[29:53] the second option does not, it's straight assessment scores. Those are the two pathways for students to be identified as ccr.
[30:01] with that comes funding. Let's show you where we are and where we have been.
[30:07] the fy23 and fy24 school years,
[30:13] we were using a previous ccr standard that was based on 2019 data,
[30:18] and that is because of covid impact. We have been using that standard for
[30:23] multiple years and you can see the dollar value that attaches to that. We had certain number of students that met that standard,
[30:29] and there is a dollar value that comes with each one of those students that met that standard that equals $737,000.
[30:37] as we have moved into next school year, we're still using the previous standard,
[30:42] but it's now based on the 2023 post covid data.
[30:47] you can see the significant decline in the ccr numbers that we
[30:52] have and the money that we have coming in to support those ccr students.
[30:58] what we see moving forward and beyond,
[31:03] it's going to be almost like a two-year lagging situation on our hands where data
[31:08] is going to come in from one year and we're going to have to use it to calculate the number of students.
[31:14] it would be from the past looking to fund students moving forward.
[31:21] we're trying to estimate the funding,
[31:25] we think moving forward, the funding is going to be pretty similar to what it looked like back in
[31:31] the fy23 and fy24 school years because the new expectations for ccr qualifications will be used.
[31:38] we believe that's going to be very helpful to us moving forward. I want to share what our participation looks like right now as
[31:46] a part of some of our pathway work, advanced placement courses. You can see how it has steadily increased from the '22,
[31:55] '23 school year to this current school year. The number of students and the number of courses those students have taken.
[32:02] dual enrollment is another area you can see that is slowly starting to increase,
[32:07] and then the career and technical education certifications that our students are earning at this point.
[32:13] it's in progress for this year because those assessments are happening as we speak.
[32:18] moving forward, you see we're in an upward trajectory here. However, we're going to have less money next year,
[32:24] half as much money to be able to support these initiatives.
[32:31] any questions about pillar 3?
[32:35] >> less money, but if we have to reduce the number of courses offered because of funding as well.
[32:44] >> that's a fundamental decision. If you honor all the requests,
[32:50] you're going to need to grab probably $300,000-400,000 additionally out of,
[32:55] once again, the foundation money. There's only so much foundation money to make this work.
[33:01] doctor foy has put together a model that I don't want to use necessarily the word restrict,
[33:08] but does provide some criteria for students to take courses.
[33:12] we know we have a certain amount of money that we can operate with. This is an area being discussed with
[33:19] the interim superintendents work group on the blueprint. We've made very clear, the local superintendents,
[33:25] that this is an issue for all of us because this is just a bad year because they're counting the number of
[33:31] students who are college and career-ready. Our funding has basically been cut in half.
[33:38] but we're going to apply, and this is the tricky part. We know the number of students are going to spike when we
[33:44] start using the 3.0 gpa minimum, you're going to see more kids,
[33:48] but that pot of money is staying the same. It's something we're really going to have to work hard to get through fy25.
[33:54] everything we're being told is that fy26 will be more favorable in this pillar.
[34:00] but yeah, it's going to take some creative work. Keep in mind that that money is intended to go for student certification exams,
[34:06] ap exams, as well as dual enrollment. >> do you know what enrollment looks like or anticipated for '24, '25?
[34:16] >> dual enrollment or overall enrollment? >> for apc and for dual because I've heard some kids talking about maybe not doing
[34:22] dual enrollment because of concerns about funding not be available to and they'd have to put more out of pocket.
[34:27] >> that's for sure. Doctor. >> as it stands now for high school students because they are in the scheduling process,
[34:37] we've had counselors reach out to students. Our numbers this year compared to last year,
[34:42] they are a little down just from the requests. There has been conversation probably at the school level in
[34:48] reference to dual enrollment and those things from experience. Our final number, what we have for request comes in in two weeks,
[34:57] actually, which report back to me the number of requests for dual enrollment.
[35:02] I'll have that final number in two weeks. >> dr. Foy, when they're going to their counselor to sign up for their classes,
[35:09] what are we telling them that's available for dual enrollment now? Is it less than what was before?
[35:14] >> we provide them four options. Last year, we had schools
[35:19] who had dual enrollment courses taught on the main campus at the high school,
[35:24] and I mean last year, meaning this current year, we also allowed students to take courses at cecil college remotely,
[35:30] and we covered the price of that. Next year, seeing the crunch that we're in,
[35:35] what we've shared with schools is that we will be able to support and cover those that are in house who meet a certain criteria,
[35:42] and we've laid that out to schools, mainly looking at students who are in poverty as being part of that criteria.
[35:50] but it's looking at the four options we have available, english 101.
[35:56] we also have available statistics, environmental science, and sociology are the offerings kids get for dual enrollment.
[36:04] however, if they choose to take other courses outside of the home school,
[36:08] that would be, of course, their parents' responsibility to cover.
[36:13] >> if a kid asked the question like, how much of this will be covered? They're not able to give them a real answer right now,
[36:20] like a short thing answer. >> once the final numbers come in, we could see.
[36:24] >> has it been like that all the time, though, because if 1,000 kids signed up, we wouldn't be able to support it, right?
[36:29] >> this year is unique in the sense that everybody is uncertain about the funding.
[36:33] I'll say it now, I was going to probably wait till a little later. This is what worries me most about the blueprint right now is that
[36:40] there is just some built-in structural inequities. It's not the kind of inequity that we're used to talking about,
[36:47] this inequity is really based on where you live. If you live in some counties who are robustly funding their public school system,
[36:55] their students are simply getting more opportunities. That simple.
[37:01] you have to question, what's the fairness in that?
[37:05] that if your student, let's just say baltimore county or carroll county, they get x.
[37:11] but because we live in a county that doesn't necessarily invest in the way other counties do,
[37:19] our students are limited in dual enrollment. Our four-year-olds are limited.
[37:23] can they come to school? You just go right down the list. I understand about being frugal and
[37:30] certain financial principles and all those kind of things. But try telling that to a 13-year old.
[37:36] what you end up with is a child who is simply not getting the same level of opportunities as a child who lives 26 miles down in 95.
[37:45] it's just that simple. We can rationalize that it's right or it's wrong or it's this or that,
[37:50] but what I'm saying is just the cold hard facts. I really truly worry about that.
[37:59] >> pillar 4 is chaired by mr. Raj,
[38:04] our director of student services and safety. Pillar 4, what you're going to see is concentration of poverty schools.
[38:11] you may have seen that flying through our budget reports. This is restricted funds that are coming to
[38:17] our school system that are to be used for a specific purpose, and these are in targeted schools so we'll go through some of
[38:23] the qualifications for concentration of poverty in a moment. These are, as I've said,
[38:29] targeted supports for historically underserved students and also supports for erels and our students with disabilities.
[38:36] this is what is supposed to be investing in in this pillar. The first piece is concentration of poverty.
[38:44] we're going to show you some of the qualifications for concentration of poverty first. There is a concentration of poverty personnel funding that first comes in,
[38:52] and that essentially pays for what's called a community school advisor in each school that's identified as well as a school nurse.
[38:59] those two positions are restricted positions that are coming in with state money.
[39:04] the qualifications for it. You can see right here, starting at fy '23,
[39:09] any school that was 65% over of the farms rate would qualify for the concentration of poverty.
[39:17] fy '24, this year, if you're at 60 or above, you're qualifying, so we've added a couple more, you'll see in a moment.
[39:24] next year, which is the final year, any school that's 55% or above the farm's rate will be
[39:30] considered a concentration of poverty school and receive the personnel funding, okay?
[39:35] there's another pot of money that comes in as well that's all required and restricted.
[39:40] this is the same phenomenon. This started in fy '24, that if you had 70% of your schools at the free and reduced rate,
[39:49] you received some a little bit of additional funding, which is called the per pupil funding.
[39:53] it's an additional pot of money that goes specifically to those extremely high poverty schools.
[39:58] so fy '25, it drops down to 65%,
[40:03] so that's what we're planning for for next year. It drops in 26 to 60%,
[40:08] and then it by '27, any school that's 55% or above is going to get this per
[40:13] pupil additional funding to support wrap around services and other things in those schools.
[40:20] so you may be curious to see how things have shaken out in cecil county.
[40:25] so using that criteria that you saw, there are four schools in fy '22-'23 school year, we received restricted,
[40:32] $1.1 million that came in for concentration of poverty to put that csa,
[40:38] as well as a school nurse in those four schools. Okay? This current school year,
[40:44] you can see the dollar value that came in from the state for the restricted funds,
[40:48] and it's the same schools, okay? Next year, what we are anticipating.
[40:54] you can see it's going to be a 2.7 amount of money that's coming in, not for class sizes,
[40:58] not for athletics, but for specific purposes, and it's for the csa and the school nurse.
[41:04] we have three schools that are going to qualify because of their poverty rate for the per pupil funding,
[41:11] and you can see the chunk of money that's coming in to those three schools for those wrap around services.
[41:17] you'll see gilpin manor over here started as a per pupil school,
[41:22] but then the state took it away this year, but they're going to be back next year in the per pupil.
[41:27] >> when you look at our state revenue in the budget reports, it will show that we have a $1.7 million increase in funding.
[41:36] right away, a typical person goes to the place, well, we can get more teachers with that.
[41:41] we can bring back middle school sports. We can do a whole hodgepodge of things.
[41:45] no, it has to be spent on concentration of poverty. It can only be spent on community school advisors in those nine schools and their nurse,
[41:54] and then some wrap around services just in those schools.
[41:59] that's just one of the more common things I see that's not fully understood by so many people.
[42:05] we did not get a lot of extra money from the state this year, but one point- miss hope,
[42:09] do you know off the top of your head, what's our state revenue increase year over year?
[42:14] well, 4 million total. >> probably not, but I can look it up for you.
[42:18] >> but the bottom line is it's in the neighborhood of 3.5- four million.
[42:23] but 1.7 goes to those nine schools for just those reasons.
[42:29] >> you said nurse and then what was the other one? [overlapping]. >> community school advisor?
[42:33] >> oh, silly. Okay. >> then some wrap around services which are tutoring, and those kind of things so this is so central.
[42:40] last year, we received $18 million. Today, I still see people on social media saying,
[42:48] well, they didn't buy any new teachers with that. Well, of course, we didn't because every single line is accounted for for something else.
[42:55] >> quick question for the wrap around services so if we have the extra money and say we have wrap around services like tutoring,
[43:02] that would be we could actually pay for a tutor to be in that school? I know we have tutors currently. [overlapping].
[43:08] >> yeah. There's a needs assessment that has to take place. Schools would determine how they're going to be utilizing those funds.
[43:13] it can be for health care services, support, access to resources in the community,
[43:19] consultation, things like that. There's specific guidelines that came out from the state
[43:25] recently that they hadn't had in the past so there's going to be some more oversight from the state about the requirements of
[43:31] concentration of poverty that we will be in line with, for sure. >> well, will it be able to be used towards paris then?
[43:38] >> no. No. It's it's not for personnel. It's for wrap around services really. The personnel are [overlapping].
[43:43] >> even though they wrap around the kid [overlapping] >> wrap around services means wrap around the traditional school day;
[43:48] before, after, outside the typical content; math, science, english, social studies.
[43:53] the wrap around services. >> if I can say something real quick to that, too, I think from what I'm hearing,
[43:58] this pillar is one of the one thing that a lot of people are confused about,
[44:02] and they really don't pay attention enough to this. I don't know if that's because it's not been socialized enough or people just aren't paying attention,
[44:07] but this might help people to really understand that those services are restricted.
[44:15] people are merging things together, and I think this is really important to get that information out going
[44:21] forward about these schools and criteria for them and so forth. >> I agree. I think that it's bonked into one number.
[44:27] >> yes. >> you see an increase of one number and you automatically think, well,
[44:31] there's more money, and it's really not unrestricted.
[44:35] >> another great example of that is prek at judy center, we've received considerable increases in prek, judy center.
[44:43] it's not doing a darn thing for class sizes at elkton high school, rising sun, northeast middle,
[44:48] not doing a darn thing for those class sizes. >> the total state increase is 1.3 million.
[44:56] that's because some things went up. Like concentration of poverty went up 1.7 million,
[45:00] but foundation went down 1.5 million so when you take all the pluses and minuses,
[45:05] the total increase from the state is 1.3 million at this time, for what we know for fy '25.
[45:12] >> that was over the 18 million from last year?
[45:16] >> this is just comparing this year going into next year, so from fy24-fy25,
[45:23] it's a 1.3 million dollar increase. >> but I think the answer to question is yes.
[45:28] the $18 million from last year hasn't gone away. It's still there. But again, it's spoken for.
[45:33] the things it was there to cover are still there to be covered.
[45:38] >> this final slide in pillar 4 shows the support that
[45:43] we have provided for our multilingual learners as well as our students with disabilities, and there's not a whole lot of change that's happening here.
[45:49] we are still within the confines of the law. But you can see moving from the 22-23 school year to the 23-24,
[45:58] you can see that we added a multilingual csa, which is, we have a staff member who has been engaging
[46:04] our students and families who don't speak english. She's been out in the community and rocking it out there, I will tell you.
[46:12] we've also added some additional special education staff, and expanded slightly our el teachers.
[46:19] I will tell you the last check, I think we just got an email, dr. Lawson, we have 416 students who do not speak english fully.
[46:25] their english as a second language. We do need to show some expansion in this area for sure,
[46:32] but I will reinforce that we are within the confines of the law, but this does have to expand as the blueprint moves along.
[46:39] any questions about pillar 4? Mr. Rasch just walked in,
[46:43] so he can answer them for you. [laughter].
[46:57] >> [inaudible] . >> I'm going to repeat that on the microphone. Mr. Rasch explained that some of the wraparound support can be
[47:04] behavioral services as well that would be provided in terms of wraparound.
[47:09] >> which is helpful. That's helpful.
[47:14] >> [inaudible] >> then does that pull in the paris then? Does this behavior? >> they would not necessarily be mental health support.
[47:20] those are trained mental health practitioners is what we would need.
[47:31] >> pillar 5. With pillar 5,
[47:37] this is the dot the is cross the ts, make sure all the boxes are checked, and there's one little caveat in there,
[47:43] and I'll talk a little bit about that. It's the aib, the accountability and implementation board.
[47:47] it is our local plans that we develop and we submit each year, and that it's monitoring and
[47:52] technical assistance from the maryland state department of education. However, the one piece that's in here that's buried within
[47:58] is that accountability piece and that's the 75%.
[48:03] this is the piece that you'll look at the bottom there and you'll see the different funding categories that we have.
[48:08] if you remember back to when we were talking about our budget, each student gets a foundational program dollar amount.
[48:13] if they're compensatory education, they get compensatory, if they're el, special education,
[48:18] they get additional dollar amounts. With this accountability measure, what they're saying is 75% of the dollars that come in with
[48:26] that student must follow that student to specific schools,
[48:31] and therein lies the challenge because what you're left with then are foundational kids,
[48:36] students, and dollars that aren't as free flowing for them in schools where there is also need.
[48:44] 24-25 next school year, the baseline for that is to be there.
[48:51] it's a no fault year, so we are not compelled to do that. 25-26, it's required currently.
[48:58] I know that during this past legislative session that recently wrapped up, there has been a great amount of discussion and
[49:05] debate and back and forth around this piece. I think doctor lawson spoke to that earlier when he said,
[49:10] it was just a number that was thrown out there and I don't know that folks fully understood the ramifications of the 75%.
[49:18] I think now as they've dug into it, a lot of that due to doctor lawson's leadership at the state level,
[49:24] we've seen the impact that that has. Leas across the state are really struggling with how do we make it
[49:32] work when these dollars for the compensatory education,
[49:36] el, special education, have to follow those students? They essentially become unrestricted dollars,
[49:43] and that's the challenge. That's something that we'll be monitoring, that's something we'll be working on as we move forward.
[49:50] but it's a no fault year next year. As of right now, it has to be implemented 25-26.
[49:56] we'll see what the next legislative session brings. Questions about pillar 5?
[50:01] >> I have one. >> yes. >> I'm going to make this very simple.
[50:06] if little susie comes in and she's a poor regular student,
[50:12] and she gets x amount of dollars. >> correct. >> from what I've understood in the past,
[50:17] that x amount of dollars doesn't necessarily stay with her, you would hope it does.
[50:22] does that money stay with her in her school? >> the local school systems have
[50:28] tremendous flexibility with how the money is dispersed across the county.
[50:33] we try to base it on student need, class size, needs of our students with disabilities.
[50:40] moving forward, once the 75, 25 split becomes in effect,
[50:45] that will now be predetermined for us. Probably the best way to put it.
[50:51] >> would it be safe to say it's really about those three put?
[50:56] >> yes. >> constitution of poverty, english learning and special ed. That's the money.
[51:01] >> there are four chunks. >> four here. >> the first is the foundation. Every child that walks in is a foundation student.
[51:07] the second is a student with disability. That student gets an extra chunk of funding that comes with that child.
[51:12] the third is students from poverty. That student gets an extra chunk of funding when they come in,
[51:18] and the fourth is english learner. You're non english speaking students, basically.
[51:22] there are four buckets, if you will. Every child gets something and then they get
[51:28] extra if they're part of an identified population. >> to simplify that question,
[51:32] the foundation is always there? >> everybody get foundation, it's probably [inaudible].
[51:37] >> it's the other three that we need to worry about moving, right? The other three? >> correct.
[51:42] >> but you could have a student who comes in who has all three of the bottom ones.
[51:47] >> you're correct. >> all of a sudden, that money goes to one school. >> 75% of that, yes.
[51:52] that's where we had run models earlier this year, and that was some of the consternation that we had
[51:57] earlier as we were going through the budgeting process and talking about the differences in like elementary schools,
[52:05] I think it was a model that we had up there with similar enrollment numbers, but different diverse populations and
[52:12] the dollars would have to go with one school versus the other school. >> the concept is right, really good,
[52:18] because obviously the school that has more of those kids have more needs and it's harder to educate so the more money should go to that school,
[52:24] but just the limited flexibility. You guys know better what school needs
[52:29] the more help than somebody in annapolis telling us that. >> correct. I brought this slide back up because these are those other components
[52:38] of the day-to-day make the school system go forward that have to come out of those foundational dollars.
[52:45] when that 75% rule hits those dollars that come with those students based upon their need,
[52:53] it leaves minimal dollars left that are unrestricted to dress the totality of what
[53:00] we have to do as a system to make it go forward.
[53:06] >> it basically leaves the foundation kids lacking for what they need.
[53:11] >> I don't know that it leaves them lacking what they need, but it certainly creates a challenge for us,
[53:16] and that's something that we've been talking about, I think, probably since october when we started having discussions around it.
[53:21] that would be understanding that that would be a challenge. >> that would be on top of instead of comment that you've made a lot.
[53:28] >> if it was on top of instead of. >> people have been pounding the drum for years
[53:35] about needier students getting more funding. It was never really I was always expected that it would be in addition to.
[53:45] now what we're finding is kind of instead of, and that's a lot of what we're seeing right now.
[53:50] >> if we had enough, then it would be okay if we had more going to these schools.
[53:56] >> that goes back to the inequity piece that I mentioned, when you receive money above local share,
[54:01] there's more flexibility with that money. Some of our counties that are funding their schools at a higher level,
[54:08] those students are benefiting in a number of different ways. >> doctor lawson, to your point, though,
[54:14] what would happen is that it will start being, these folks against those folks if you don't get.
[54:21] >> it's the natural thinking. Sure. >> that's what's happening now, two why are they getting more, but.
[54:34] >> you moved to a county that they're getting more. >> I was going to say it harkens back to what dr. Lawson said when we're talking about
[54:40] ccr and you've got students in different leas based upon funding that have greater opportunity to access a variety of courses and experience.
[54:52] >> it shouldn't be lost on everybody that our neighbor four miles to the east is new castle county.
[54:58] they have five school districts. Colonial red clay, brandy wine, christine and appoquinimink.
[55:04] four of those five in the last eight weeks, have passed referendum from their communities for a tax increase.
[55:12] the community has just yesterday in appoquinimink it came out and it won 7,500 to about 5,500.
[55:18] the community voted to increase taxes for additional funding for schools.
[55:23] and so we can die on the hill that will never spend more for schools.
[55:29] other counties aren't taking that approach. What happens is children in cecil county don't get the same benefits advantages,
[55:37] and that's particularly frustrating for an educator. >> I hate to say it, but it's already that way and it's only going to get worse.
[55:43] go to hartford county with your sports team and your kids walk into the school and say,
[55:47] oh, my gosh, this is so nice. They walk on the sports field and they say, wow, this is amazing.
[55:52] that's not including the classes that they get offered.
[55:56] my daughter went to university of maryland and she had roommates and friends from montgomery county, howard county,
[56:03] obviously, the counties around there and the the opportunities that they had,
[56:07] the ap classes that they were afforded that they could do.
[56:11] >> when you look at the total per pupil funding on that state on the list,
[56:18] and you see where we are, we're being asked to do the same exact thing as
[56:23] all these other counties with considerably less funding. I think that's really in a nutshell.
[56:29] >> diane, not to make it about sports, but we just played apo yesterday.
[56:35] we played and one, yep. You walk back on that field and it's like it was like a college field.
[56:41] I mean, they really have some it's apoqinmic it's in middletown.
[56:45] then we were at patterson mills last week, and again, another school that's it's like a college campus.
[56:51] one of their fields, and we won. >> that's enough. >> today, we play that
[56:57] >> that's enough. >> we won. >> do we want to move on?
[57:03] >> thank you to the board. >> as we close out our presentation, where we are and where we're going.
[57:09] march of 23, we had to submit to the aib the initial implementation,
[57:14] that was approved in june of 23. We did submit phase 2,
[57:18] part 1 response was submitted in march and next week.
[57:22] that plan will be submitted. We've had mr. Zimmerman has been working closely with
[57:27] our representative to work through the final pieces of that plan.
[57:33] everybody has been contributing to that. It's ready. It's just under review, if you will, at this point in this time.
[57:41] the final slide is, as we move forward, we will put together one page updates for each pillar,
[57:49] similar to the presentation that dr. Lawson made at elkton high school, where everybody was turning in unison with
[57:54] their pillar pages to provide an idea of where we're at what we're doing.
[57:59] we will update the strategic plan to align with the blueprint,
[58:03] and then it will be submitted on a yearly annual basis.
[58:07] that ties into that governance piece of pillar 5. That, I believe,
[58:13] other than if you want more information about the blueprint, you can log in.
[58:20] >> if 2025 for the 75 25 things a no fault year when it's not a no fault year,
[58:25] what's the fine or what's what happens? >> I believe this state can withhold up to 25% of your state revenue.
[58:32] >> correct. That's massive.
[58:38] >> thinking about rebelling, are we? Yeah. >> wow, joe.
[58:43] >> we'd be rebelling up to $35 million or so. Thank you.
[58:50] >> thank you. Miss heath, do you have a motion?
[58:56] >> I do. I move that the board of education enter into closed session to discuss personnel matters as
[59:01] pursuant to maryland annotated code general provisions, article 3-305b1.
[59:09] >> is there a second. >> second. >> any discussion? All in favor?
[59:15] >> aye. >> any opposed? We are entering into closed session.
[59:20] thanks for being here, guys.
[59:33] at this time, I'm going to reconvene in open session, the april 24, 2024,
[59:39] board of education of cecil county work session.
[59:46] the adoption of the agenda, is there a motion to adopt the meeting agenda as presented?
[1:00:00] >> a motion to adopt the agenda as amended.
[1:00:06] >> as presented. >> yes presented. >> there's a motion. Is there a second?
[1:00:11] >> second.. >> any discussion? >> all in favor say aye.
[1:00:16] >> aye. >> any opposed? Motion carries.
[1:00:20] consent agenda. Would anyone like to remove any items from the consent agenda before there's a motion?
[1:00:28] hearing none. Is there a motion to adopt the consent agenda as presented?
[1:00:36] >> I move that the board of education of cecil county adopt the consent agenda as presented.
[1:00:40] >> is there a second? >> second. >> any discussion? All in favor?
[1:00:44] >> aye. >> any opposed? Motion carries. Incoming student member of the board.
[1:00:52] we need a motion from a board member, please. >> I move that the board of education of cecil county appoint
[1:00:59] jazelle griffin as a 2024 2025 student member of the board.
[1:01:03] >> is there a second. >> second. >> hearing a second. Any further discussion? All in favor?
[1:01:11] >> aye. >> any opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations to jazelle griffin.
[1:01:17] as the new 2024, 2025 student member of the board,
[1:01:21] she is from perryville high school.
[1:01:26] next, we have an intergovernmental bid, value carpet 1, dr. Lawson.
[1:01:31] >> thank you, ms. Holly. As the board can see, there are six flooring projects with four of them coming from an aging schools grant,
[1:01:39] and two, those being kenmore and perryville high, will come from our fy 25 operating funds.
[1:01:46] with that, I recommend that the board of education of cecil county approve a contract
[1:01:50] with value carpet one for a total amount of $110,828.
[1:01:56] >> you've heard the recommendation. Is there a motion? >> so moved.
[1:02:01] >> second. >> any further discussion? All in favor say aye?
[1:02:07] >> aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Contract for utility equipment simulator, dr. Lawson.
[1:02:14] >> thank you, ms. Holly. I recommend that the board of education of cecil county approve a contract with cm labs for the purchase of software,
[1:02:21] equipment, installation, and training of a utility equipment simulator in the amount of $243,800.
[1:02:28] >> you've heard the recommendation. Is there a motion? >> so moved.
[1:02:33] >> second. >> any further discussion? >> all in favor? Any opposed?
[1:02:39] motion carries. Next step.
[1:02:44] I just want to briefly mention a press release that was issued by the county executive on april 23,
[1:02:51] accusing the superintendent of an ethics violation.
[1:02:56] we would ordinarily not comment on that matter except the county executives press release violated
[1:03:02] the confidentiality provision of the cecil county public schools ethics regulation gbcra,
[1:03:09] which is consistent with the state provisions and,19a05.
[1:03:16] ms. Hornburger's complaint has been forwarded to the ccps ethics panel,
[1:03:21] and pursuant to the confidentiality provisions, there will be no further comment by the board on the matter at this time.
[1:03:30] seeing we are at the end of the agenda.
[1:03:34] I want to thank everyone for their work, their long evening tonight and have a nice night. Meeting is adjourned.