[0:02] Oh, frontier schools.
[0:03] Good morning. I'd like...
[0:06] What's going on?
[0:12] Good morning. I'd like to call the April 14th meeting of the State Board of
[0:16] Education to order.
[0:18] You have your agenda before you.
[0:23] Move to approve the agenda.
[0:25] So Mike Matusik moved-
[0:26] Second.
[0:28] I have a second from Kerrie.
[0:37] All those in favor?
[0:39] Yes.
[0:40] Aye.
[0:41] Aye. Opposed?
[0:43] Thank you.
[0:46] Moving on to the minutes of the March 24th meeting, are there
[0:50] any additions or corrections of the March 24th minutes?
[0:56] If we have a motion, please.
[0:57] Move to approve the minutes.
[0:58] Board member Mike Matusik.
[0:59] Second.
[1:00] Seconded by Pamela Westbrook Hodge. All those in favor?
[1:04] Aye.
[1:05] Yes.
[1:06] Opposed? Thank you.
[1:09] Commissioner,
[1:10] if we could have your report, please.
[1:12] Absolutely. Well, good morning, everybody.
[1:14] Again, I'd like to just mention that we are enjoying our new space here in the
[1:18] Jefferson building. We have a beautiful space to hold our meetings, and
[1:21] to me, I just think it makes it so nice we can have
[1:26] other events in the same space. We just happened to have our employee recognition
[1:29] prior to this meeting, and it's just a wonderful opportunity for us to have a nice
[1:33] place to do these things.
[1:35] As far as my report this month, I want to touch on just a few things.
[1:38] One, I want to just express my gratitude towards our
[1:42] president of our governance committee, Board Member Brooks Miller, in providing us
[1:46] and kind of organizing and coordinating an opportunity for board
[1:50] members to go over and visit with various legislators yesterday, as an extra
[1:54] time out of their day, but I think that those connections and relationships are
[1:58] very important. So I appreciate that, Board Member Brooks, for sure.
[2:02] And as you know, we're getting ready to give a first blush of our strategic plan.
[2:06] That's later on in your agenda today.
[2:08] And I just want to reiterate that this is truly, truly a still work in progress
[2:12] piece, and this is an opportunity for you to see the
[2:16] progress and kind of where we are with this strategic plan work.
[2:20] I plan to have an opportunity to reach out to each one of you for specific
[2:24] feedback on this so that we can incorporate those things after this
[2:28] meeting, sometime between now and the next board meeting.
[2:30] And there may even be a survey that I will send out to the board just to make sure
[2:33] that we have good
[2:35] information around the direction we're going and the things that we're doing within
[2:38] the strategic plan.
[2:41] Another thing that I'd like to just kind of bring up is that, of course, we're
[2:44] planning our meeting in St. Louis for the May meeting.
[2:47] And thank you to Pamela Westbrook Hodge and Kerrie
[2:50] Casey, as well as our president, Mary.
[2:53] We've been working to make sure that the day prior has lots of opportunity and
[2:57] interesting conversation, and then obviously getting us a place to hold
[3:01] the meeting and all the logistics around it.
[3:03] I want to thank our staff for making this happen, as well as, I feel like that
[3:07] you three are kind of hosting us in St. Louis, so thank you.
[3:12] I've been working with Mizzou lately, doing some
[3:15] work with going into the College of Ed classes and having a
[3:18] conversation about the value of, and the true important
[3:22] profession that they're about to enter into.
[3:24] And then I've asked to sit on some panels, and the panels are about how you connect
[3:28] research to practice in education so that research can
[3:32] inform practice. I think it's very important.
[3:35] As you also know, we're diligently working on our AF
[3:39] report card that we received executive order, and we will be delivering that to the
[3:43] governor's office by June. I expect on the May meeting that we'll
[3:47] have an update, and possibly you'll have some information prior to that so you
[3:51] can see the progress and the work that we're doing there.
[3:54] We are on pace with meeting the deadline of June 20th to provide a model and an
[3:58] implementation timeline to the governor.
[4:01] Want to bring up that we constantly are working to improve our data analytics and
[4:05] our data visualization, and one of the things that we've been noticing is that we
[4:08] need to get a little bit tighter on how we are looking at all these
[4:12] research requests that come in for data, and there's been many of
[4:16] them that we just run the contract over.
[4:18] We've got to make sure that the contracts are current, and
[4:22] that we have the background checks and all those kinds of things around this data,
[4:25] because it is important for us to secure our data.
[4:31] I'll close with, this week is one of my most favorite
[4:35] things that I get to do, and I get to stand before thousands of Blue Jackets
[4:39] at Mizzou on Thursday. And this is where the FFA
[4:43] state
[4:44] group come together, and they receive honors in about 40, I think
[4:48] it's 46 or some odd priority areas, and so these state
[4:52] champions are receiving their awards there.
[4:55] It's really just an awesome sight, and if you have an opportunity to see
[4:59] that, it's high energy. Kids are excited.
[5:03] It really is a nice day. It's the 98th anniversary.
[5:06] 98 years they've been doing this, getting ready and close to their 99th, so we're
[5:10] excited. And with that, Madam President, that's the close of my
[5:14] report.
[5:15] Thank you.
[5:16] On the president's report today, we have music that many of you that are on live
[5:20] stream are hearing. It's provided by the All State Jazz Ensemble from
[5:24] the 2025 Missouri Music Educators Association Conference.
[5:29] For those of you in the room, our spotlight on
[5:32] success for this month
[5:35] is the Raymore-Peculiar School District.
[5:39] Thanks to the heavy equipment operator program, high school
[5:42] juniors and seniors at Raymore-Peculiar School Districts have the
[5:46] opportunity to learn how to operate heavy equipment.
[5:49] This program, which started in August of 2024 and was
[5:53] developed in partnership with the International Union of Operating Engineers
[5:57] Local 101, is housed in the LEAD Center,
[6:01] providing a space for the equipment and open land for students to use as they
[6:05] learn about equipment. Most recently, students were able to test their
[6:09] skills when the high school cross-country team was in need of a new course.
[6:13] Projects like this allow the community to see the good work that students are
[6:17] doing and allows them to show the skills they are
[6:20] learningThe district is also celebrating success in
[6:24] performance. Over the past year, Raymore-Peculiar School District
[6:28] has increased in its annual performance report scores by 4%,
[6:32] increasing scores in English language, arts, mathematics,
[6:35] science, and social studies. Great job.
[6:38] And let's look at the video on the heavy
[6:41] operators.
[6:59] Ray-Pec's really had a great idea with a lot of these student-driven
[7:03] projects. Being able to take an idea that administration came up with, and then be
[7:07] able to go to the students and go to the programs and see how they can support it.
[7:12] The initiation came from a need from the cross-country coaches.
[7:15] They had kind of been talking to Dr.
[7:17] Voelker and myself about the idea of a redesign of the course to help meet the
[7:21] increasing MSHA standards for the course.
[7:23] They were able to take it to the students and the teachers.
[7:26] And so from there, we just kind of thought, "What about our ATO students?"
[7:30] As soon as running was done for this year, and the last cross-country meets were
[7:33] over with, we started construction.
[7:36] So what they've transitioned from is not just sitting there, seeing
[7:40] pictures, watching video. Now we get to actually go out and apply it.
[7:43] So it's kind of a new thing, as in bringing in heavy equipment for the kids to
[7:47] actually get on. We've implemented new machinery that we don't even have out here.
[7:51] We've had a scraper and a dozer out on this site.
[7:54] We don't have those things here. Operators 101 supplied us with
[7:57] five 303 Cat Minis, five John Deere 325 Skid
[8:01] Steers. Also with part of Union is Kissick.
[8:04] They've donated a PC88 Komatsu and a smooth drum
[8:08] roller to the program. So right there is 12 pieces of machinery
[8:12] supplied. The kids can be on it. It's a good transition from this
[8:16] machine to bigger machines. So they see them, they're a little more intimidated,
[8:19] but now they've grown as individuals.
[8:21] Instead of having that intimidation, now they can't wait to get on it.
[8:24] We did this in three phases, kind of initially.
[8:27] We did a land clearing and grubbing.
[8:29] So that's where we take the trees, everything above the ground, then we do the
[8:31] grubbing, everything under the ground.
[8:33] Our second phase, we went over the pipe install.
[8:36] We have a creek down there, it's about 180 feet long.
[8:38] We installed a two-foot culvert. And then our third phase would've been our grading
[8:42] phase.
[8:43] The community sees the programs, they hear about the programs, but what are they
[8:45] really doing? I think maybe there's a thought that all these programs are
[8:50] just in a controlled environment, but then to actually see it go big picture
[8:54] and out on a full-size job site for this.
[8:56] This job site was six to eight acres.
[8:59] No limits, no boundaries, just out trying to get the job done.
[9:03] It's a lot harder than what you think.
[9:04] You can't just get in it and be perfect one day.
[9:06] You're going to mess up, but the more time you spend, the better you get.
[9:09] All the new equipment's probably the hardest part, but once you get it, get your
[9:13] time in, you can get it down pretty easy.
[9:16] I know that the skills I'm learning, they're not going to waste, and they're
[9:19] actually going to make a difference in the community.
[9:22] I was excited about it because we get to show what we learned.
[9:25] It showed me more what the job actually is like.
[9:30] It's made me more interested in wanting a career in this trade.
[9:33] It's exposed me to a lot of different opportunities and scenarios with different
[9:37] pieces of equipment, and I've felt like it's gotten my skills a
[9:41] lot better than what they were before.
[9:43] It's a very good program. It really helps you out, better than just going in blind
[9:46] out of a school like mine. But yeah, Ray-Pec sets you up very good.
[9:50] LEAD Center is a very good program.
[9:52] So I think this is probably what I will do, or something like this in my
[9:56] future.
[9:56] So what we're hoping for is to have this next generation of kids grow up, and
[10:00] they're going to be a little bit better and stronger for this program than just
[10:04] anybody coming in off the street.
[10:14] Pretty good?
[10:17] So doing great work, it looks like. That's wonderful.
[10:21] It is difficult to show the gratitude or express the gratitude
[10:25] of the work of so many in order to be able to do the
[10:29] business of education in the state of Missouri.
[10:31] We have local school board members and superintendents.
[10:34] We have state
[10:36] board members and our commissioner. We have many people in the department.
[10:40] We have professional associations we work with.
[10:43] But I would like to start out by thanking our commissioner, and
[10:47] for all her hard work, her multiple trips across the state
[10:51] this past month. I had a chance to join her down in Cape Girardeau,
[10:56] for our MASS 莫 meeting, and had a chance to visit with the
[10:59] superintendents in that region. We discussed what the board is
[11:03] doing, and all the activities, the responsibilities.
[11:07] And then we talked about all the work that the department's doing,
[11:10] including, the gubernatorial,
[11:15] AF that we are working with, the governor's office,
[11:19] and the strategic plan that we've been working on.
[11:23] Of course, we wanted it to come to the board before we give any
[11:26] details out. But just sharing what they are doing,
[11:30] and also encouraging them to share back with us the successes they're having
[11:34] in their schools, like the Spotlight.
[11:37] So we can share it across the state, because there is so much work being
[11:41] done. I also went to the Southwest MASS 莫 meeting on
[11:45] April 10th and had a great conversation, a lot of the very same
[11:49] information. Every board member is doing so much work, and
[11:53] I cannot thank you enough for what you're doing.
[11:57] As Carla mentioned earlier, we started out having our board meetings
[12:01] across the state in December, in Springfield.
[12:04] It was extremely well-received. We had many people come down.
[12:07] But it's also great for the local community to get to see what the state
[12:11] board does, and the many
[12:14] items that we address on a monthly basis,
[12:18] and the difficult decisions sometimes we have to makeSo,
[12:23] we're excited that we will have our May board meeting in St.
[12:26] Louis, as the commissioner mentioned.
[12:28] We have chosen two schools, and when I say we,
[12:32] actually Carrie and Pamela made the recommendations, and we let
[12:35] them choose the schools, which will be St. Louis Public School and Ladue.
[12:40] We'll do some tours. They are also planning some events on Monday
[12:43] night, so I hope the whole board will be able to attend.
[12:47] It's going to be a really interesting and enjoyable
[12:51] couple of days, so I'm very excited.
[12:54] So we'll have more details as far as hotels and evening
[12:58] times, but I'm really looking forward to it.
[13:01] And I do think that when we go to those regions, they
[13:04] enjoy seeing the state board come.
[13:06] I know it's more work for the department, but I think the collaboration
[13:10] across the state is a real positive, and I hope then we'll be off to
[13:14] Kansas City and maybe northern Missouri as well.
[13:16] So look forward to that as well.
[13:19] I want to thank Brooks Miller, who is our vice president and chair of the
[13:23] legislative priorities. He did put together a great meeting
[13:26] time for us yesterday, and I appreciate
[13:30] board member Casey Carey and John Otto, as well as the
[13:34] commissioner,
[13:36] Brooks obviously, and myself. We had a chance to meet with the governor and
[13:39] multiple legislators. It was very interesting and
[13:43] very transparent. And so I'll save the details for
[13:48] our chairman who put it together, but we really appreciate that work.
[13:52] We appreciate the extra effort, taking two days to
[13:55] come and spend for our state board meetings when we do these things, and
[13:59] that's because it means so much.
[14:02] John Otto will be online or with us today,
[14:06] joining us, and he will also be sharing some of the work he
[14:10] continues to do with the governance committee.
[14:13] I also want to extend a thank you to Melissa Randall
[14:17] and MSBA. We have asked them to
[14:21] do some video interviews of the state board members that we can
[14:24] share with the local school board members.
[14:27] We want to continue that collaboration and strengthen those relationships.
[14:30] Some of you've had the privilege of serving on a local school board.
[14:34] I have not, but I think having that collaboration communication
[14:38] is always helpful.
[14:40] And finally, just across the board, thanks to all the various
[14:44] committee members, because I think I see our committees digging in
[14:48] deeper, working harder. And so the work with the
[14:51] strategic planning, you've heard much about.
[14:54] They've done tremendous heavy lifting the last several months.
[14:57] Our governance committee that is led by John Otto, he's done
[15:01] tremendous work. Legislative priorities, we just shared
[15:05] kind of some of the exciting collaborations that we're going to expand
[15:09] on. And then our finance committee, which I know that Carrie's already got a chance
[15:12] to meet with Kyle and beginning that process that will help the
[15:16] rest of the board continue to understand more about the
[15:20] budget. Because, as we all know, it is a big beast.
[15:24] And so thank you again for all your hard work.
[15:28] Just wanted to take a minute to show some gratitude for everything you're doing.
[15:33] Next, we will have committee reports, and so if I could have
[15:36] Pamela Westbrook Hodge give an update on the strategic planning committee.
[15:42] Yeah.
[15:44] So that's a bit of a moot point based
[15:47] on Karla's updates.
[15:50] We have received back a very
[15:54] preliminary
[15:57] blush of the
[15:58] top-level priority. So what's not included in the presentation are the
[16:02] strategic roadmaps.
[16:06] Karla will present later
[16:09] the top level, which are the refined priorities,
[16:13] which will continue to be refined and undergo some work with
[16:16] Watershed, and I'll be working directly with Watershed.
[16:20] So
[16:21] we are progressing. What we ask for
[16:24] is your patience, because this is a
[16:28] considerable lift and a big departure from how we've
[16:32] done it in the past. We're swimming in great
[16:36] information from a lot of wonderful work
[16:40] groups, and it takes time to synthesize all of that information.
[16:44] The time it takes to develop a really great plan does
[16:48] not change the day-to-day work that needs to happen and is
[16:51] happening against the existing plan.
[16:54] So we're okay in terms of not missing any major
[16:57] deliverables. So
[16:59] we thank you for your patience. You'll get a great walkthrough from
[17:03] Karla later today, and we'll be getting one-on-one
[17:07] feedback from each of you and using that
[17:11] to create a more final draft.
[17:14] Absolutely. And now, of course, it's in agenda items, we'll be able to walk through
[17:18] some of that. But again, we're going to reach out to each member and make sure that
[17:21] you have an opportunity, as you've read it and had the presentation, to give some
[17:25] feedback as to what you think that maybe we're doing well and what you think that
[17:28] maybe we should consider as we go forward. Okay.
[17:31] Next, Brooks Miller, if you can give us an update on the legislative priorities.
[17:35] Sure. I appreciate the opportunity. Is John Otto on?
[17:39] He is.
[17:39] Is he on the phone? Can we hear you, John?
[17:42] Can you say hi or something?
[17:44] Yes. Can you hear me?
[17:45] Oh, okay. I thought maybe you-
[17:46] Can you hear me?
[17:46] ... already copped out. Yes, we've got you.
[17:49] No.
[17:50] Thanks.
[17:50] Not yet, anyway.
[17:52] I hope your mother's recovering at this point.
[17:55] Listen, I do have appreciation to those that participated in our
[17:59] conversations yesterday.
[18:02] I'm going to reserve my remarks to the very end and
[18:06] just have you all who did participate with this
[18:10] give some feedback on how you felt the conversations
[18:13] went. And so John, if you wouldn't mind, since you're
[18:17] not at the table, would you go ahead and lead off with that conversation a little
[18:21] bit?
[18:24] Oh, sure. Thanks for putting me on the spot.
[18:26] Well, I seem to do that a lot. And so you ought to-- sooner or later, you'll be
[18:30] more prepared, right?
[18:31] Yeah. No, I think that's my training from way back in law school.
[18:35] I'm used to the lightning strike method.
[18:37] So
[18:39] yeah, no worries. Yeah. No, I think the meetings went well.
[18:43] I think there was a consistent theme that we
[18:47] all agree that we heard from the different,
[18:51] from the governor and the other representatives that we met with.
[18:55] And so,
[18:57] that was kind of good to hear. We did hear that they
[19:01] or we, basically, for lack of a better word to say it, they have
[19:05] our backs or that they're backing us,
[19:10] as a board and whatever we're trying to do to make change and
[19:14] have some accountability for schools.
[19:16] And so,
[19:18] no, I think it went well. I think in the future, I think we need to
[19:22] have
[19:23] more or more often meetings, particularly with
[19:27] the governor. And I think, to be honest, to be frank, I
[19:31] guess, I think it would be also beneficial if we just met with
[19:35] just only board members, and met with
[19:39] the governor and the staff and things like that, just so that we can
[19:43] get some more
[19:45] clear
[19:46] feedback.
[19:49] Okay. Thank you.
[19:51] Kerry? Do you have...
[19:53] Thank you very much. And I would like to add the first of all, the thank you to
[19:57] you, Brooks, for getting this all set up.
[20:00] It was a really
[20:01] beneficial opportunity, I think, not only for us to hear about
[20:05] the legislature priorities, those that we met with, but also for them
[20:09] to hear from us and understand. It just built that
[20:13] collaboration and
[20:16] sense of understanding that
[20:20] we really all have the same objective, and that is to educate the children of
[20:24] Missouri in the most excellent manner possible and
[20:28] focus on those educational outcomes.
[20:29] So not to repeat everything that John just said, but what I
[20:33] found especially important was the clarity that came from each
[20:37] legislator,
[20:40] including our governor, as to what our priorities need to be, and that
[20:44] is our focus on literacy and numeracy, basic
[20:48] academic outcomes. And it was repeated over and over, stick to the
[20:51] basics, get the basics right. And it takes a
[20:55] lot more than what you think to get those basics right.
[20:58] There needs to be a number of other programs evolving at the same time, but
[21:02] not everything. And so the importance of always
[21:06] looking at what we're doing
[21:08] and understanding
[21:11] if and how it will meet that primary objective
[21:15] of will children read better, will children be
[21:18] able to have better
[21:22] outcomes in numeracy. So the message to me was very loud
[21:26] and clear.
[21:27] Keep our focus, work aggressively, be
[21:31] innovative.
[21:33] Just the way we've done it in the past may not need
[21:37] to be the way we continue to do it. Almost to do more with
[21:40] less in certain ways. Look at what we are doing with the money that we
[21:44] have and be more creative and get it done more quickly.
[21:49] So one of the things I want to comment on, I really appreciate Brooks doing this,
[21:53] is historically, board members have had personal relationships and met
[21:57] with their
[21:59] personal contacts. I know I had many conversations
[22:03] with Senator Eslinger before she became the commissioner.
[22:07] So I think having a formalized
[22:10] capital day together with the board and the commissioner, going to
[22:14] the offices was very productive. I think it was a really very
[22:18] positive step forward. The governor's office did offer to have regular
[22:22] meetings, so as I walked out, I said, "We'd like to get together quarterly." And
[22:26] they said, "We would like that as well." So I think just keeping the
[22:29] communication, because I think Board Member Casey made a really good point,
[22:33] is the flow of communication is both directions.
[22:36] Yes, they shared with us what their ideas were.
[22:39] Some of their ideas, we were like, "Now, those are actually legislative
[22:43] changes." So we'd have to have a legislative, which would, of course,
[22:47] happen across the street.
[22:49] But we could definitely support some of the ideas.
[22:52] And so that was the transparency and the honesty I really,
[22:56] really greatly appreciated. I also
[23:00] felt that I wasn't surprised by any of the comments.
[23:04] Mm-hmm.
[23:05] And it was great to be there with three other
[23:08] board colleagues and have this conversation together, because we do have
[23:12] these conversations together at various times.
[23:15] But this was much more cohesive, and I felt like when we
[23:19] walked out of there, we, as a group, kind of saw a
[23:23] trend. So Brooks, thank you again.
[23:25] Mm-hmm.
[23:28] And like I said, I appreciate everybody's time, and I know that it was difficult
[23:32] for some that
[23:34] had to work. You have work responsibilities, and that's certainly
[23:38] a priority by all means. But I do appreciate those
[23:42] that did participate.
[23:45] I think that from my perspective, and I beg you
[23:49] all that were there to correct me if I'm wrong.
[23:53] But in particular, the governor was adamant that this
[23:57] board
[23:59] is the responsible party
[24:01] to DESE.
[24:04] That we have the responsibility to provide the directions and
[24:08] what is needed
[24:09] for the kids, children of Missouri.
[24:14] And in particular, they called out the four new board members who
[24:18] were interviewed by the governor
[24:21] specifically for the purpose to bring forth this
[24:24] transition of leadership from the
[24:27] governorTo the board of directors.
[24:30] Now, am I correct in that? Does everybody agree?
[24:34] And I think that that's
[24:37] extremely important that we're aware of the
[24:40] expectations that are upon us and that we are
[24:44] responding accordingly.
[24:47] Mary sent me a text last night and said, "Good meetings,"
[24:51] and they were, "but what now?"
[24:54] Can I summarize it that way?
[24:55] That sounds great.
[24:56] So what now? And what role are we going to play
[25:01] as we continue on here as the
[25:04] leaders of the education system for Missouri?
[25:09] And I think that that's a very serious
[25:12] objective here that we've got to start talking about more frequently.
[25:16] And so that's where I come from. That's my
[25:20] takeaway. If
[25:23] we don't do our job and
[25:26] DESE does not
[25:28] grow, DESE does not respond to the needs of the students, that's
[25:32] our fault. That's our responsibility.
[25:35] And we need to take that very seriously.
[25:38] And when we talk about the governor's office, which it was a great, transparent
[25:41] conversation. The commissioner and the governor have been meeting
[25:46] frequently as they can, because they both have very busy schedules.
[25:50] But Drew, in particular-
[25:52] Mm-hmm
[25:52] ... when he called out the three very specifics, I think that's helpful.
[25:55] I think if we have clarity on the three areas of focus,
[26:00] I don't think we were surprised by their-
[26:01] No
[26:01] ... directives. And I feel like, including the commissioner,
[26:06] everybody's on board. So
[26:08] to Brooke's point, we're going to really push forward.
[26:11] Mm-hmm.
[26:11] And so thank you.
[26:13] And I'm going to follow up that during, when our
[26:17] two-month agenda comes up, I'm going to make a recommendation.
[26:20] And I don't know whether we have to vote on it or what the procedure's going to be
[26:23] or whatever, but that our June board meeting be
[26:27] taken up, half of it, with a conversation between
[26:31] the board and our chief executive.
[26:34] And review personnel,
[26:37] departments, and have a strategic conversation
[26:41] about where we're at, and where our strong
[26:45] points are, where our weak points are, and become much more knowledgeable
[26:49] about the operations of DESE, and where we need to put improvement
[26:53] and our resources.
[26:55] I definitely think we can-
[26:58] Thank you
[26:58] ... look at our June board meeting.
[27:00] John, and you're going to be doing our governance report
[27:04] here, so maybe you can comment on that.
[27:06] Yeah, I just wanted to chime in on what Brooks just said.
[27:10] I think that's one thing that I was going to cover
[27:13] when we get down to the consideration of the agenda item
[27:17] on adopting the commissioner evaluations, who I was going to discuss the
[27:21] timeline, and that's right. What Brooks just recommended was exactly what I was
[27:25] going to say, is that we're going to start
[27:29] our review, once we have the tool adopted, and then June
[27:33] would be the perfect timing to sit down and have a discussion between the
[27:37] commissioner and the board. And so
[27:40] I'll elaborate more on the details of that, but that's where I was going with that.
[27:45] Just to follow up on what Brooks said.
[27:46] And also, the
[27:49] governor's team sent us their summary of the three priorities.
[27:53] I wanted it to be very clear that we didn't
[27:55] mistake or misrepresent what they said.
[27:58] And so they sent that to me. I can share that with the rest of the board or the
[28:02] governor's committee, and I was going to incorporate those three
[28:06] goals into our
[28:10] goals and evaluation for the commissioner as well.
[28:14] That sounds great. Well, now it is time for the governance committee.
[28:17] Do you have additional that you'd like to add at this time, or would you like to
[28:21] reserve it for later when you-
[28:23] No, I don't have anything other than just that we will
[28:26] cover everything in the action items below.
[28:30] So don't want to waste time-
[28:31] Okay. Thank-
[28:31] ... repeating.
[28:32] Okay. Thank you so much. We appreciate it.
[28:35] Carrie Casey, if you can give us a update on both the finance
[28:39] meeting and the direction, what you're doing with your subcommittee.
[28:43] Thank you.
[28:44] Which will be renamed because the president cannot ever get it straight.
[28:50] Nor can I. So thank you very much. And,
[28:54] I just want to comment, I think that was an excellent discussion, Brooks.
[28:57] Thank you for, again, and John, I really support that
[29:01] recommendation. So from a finance committee perspective, again,
[29:06] to note that both John Otto and I are on the finance committee working
[29:10] with
[29:11] Deputy Commissioner Kyle Cruz.
[29:13] The finance committee met a few times, and, first of all, we did
[29:17] agree on our charter, roles and
[29:21] responsibilities,
[29:23] and those will be put forth before the board for approval.
[29:26] And again, a reminder that we'll always evolve just like everything else in the
[29:30] bylaws. So as we continue to do our work in the area of the
[29:34] finance committee, we'll begin to see maybe where changes in even our
[29:38] charter would be needed.
[29:40] The finance committee did review the reports that are included in today's board
[29:44] meeting, board materials. We raised questions for clarification
[29:48] and also made recommendations for format changes and more
[29:51] information so that we would have better insights
[29:55] that could be shared with the broader board.
[29:58] Please note that these reports, just like our bylaws, are going to continue to
[30:02] evolve.
[30:03] They will, as both John and I, and Kyle, can roll up our
[30:07] sleeves and work together, and we begin to analyze data and look at
[30:11] cost analysis as compared to some of the programs, looking at the way,
[30:16] the typical questions that we are all raising at the board meetings, are they being
[30:19] answered in these reports? And you will continue to see these reports evolve,
[30:23] both in their content and in their format, with deeper analysis
[30:28] provided to the board,
[30:30] so that we can have the proper discussions.The committee will
[30:33] bring those analysis and insights
[30:37] and further questions even, putting questions to the board, and
[30:41] not for the discussion that we need to have in future
[30:44] meetings.
[30:45] So with that, the committee does recommend that we approve today's reports.
[30:52] Thank you so much. Any questions?
[30:55] All right, so we will now move to the national-
[30:57] Can I tell a quick...
[30:59] Go ahead.
[30:59] There's a comment that is extremely important for me to say, and
[31:03] I apologize for forgetting it. But,
[31:07] during our visit yesterday,
[31:09] Perry was with us all the way through, and I just want
[31:13] to speak
[31:14] to his work, because it was very evident, and I want him to know this,
[31:18] but I'm glad he's not here, so I don't feel that I owe him
[31:22] anything or...
[31:24] But
[31:25] he is a resource for so many people over there.
[31:28] And truly,
[31:30] you could see that he had a relationship that we
[31:34] need in that kind of person. And I've spent a lot of years over in that building,
[31:38] and I know who the good people are, who the trusted people are.
[31:42] And I truly do believe that Perry is one of those individuals, and that we're
[31:45] fortunate to have him. So
[31:48] if anybody sees Perry, just say "Thanks, you did a good job."
[31:52] Okay.
[31:52] One of our commissioner's many great hires.
[31:54] Yeah. Mm-hmm.
[31:55] So thank you.
[31:55] Yeah, absolutely.
[31:56] I would add to that, he had such a command of information.
[32:00] Yes.
[32:00] He was able to respond
[32:03] very easily to the questions that not only the
[32:06] legislators had, but that we had even of him.
[32:09] So he was a tremendous support and resource.
[32:12] Yes.
[32:13] And we'll see him a little later-
[32:16] Yeah
[32:16] ... and we can reiterate. You can never hear too much gratitude.
[32:20] I won't say it, but somebody-
[32:20] Okay.
[32:21] Next, we will have our National Association of State Boards of Education
[32:25] report, which Carrie Casey.
[32:27] Great. Thank you again.
[32:29] So, NASBE,
[32:32] excuse me.
[32:34] NASBE did assist me in some research.
[32:37] I did research following our last meeting on the
[32:40] SRSA
[32:42] program and wanting to better understand it from a broader state
[32:46] perspective and even from a federal perspective, and I know that that's going to
[32:49] come up in the future. There'll be future discussions at the board level.
[32:52] So I won't go into that discussion here, but they were very, very
[32:56] helpful. And one of the things that they did was also
[33:00] coordinate a call for me with the Center for Assessments, which has
[33:04] worked with many of the states across the nation.
[33:07] So it was very informative. We'll have opportunity to discuss that further as a
[33:11] board.
[33:13] For all our new members, NASBE does offer a New Member Institute.
[33:16] It is a two-day meeting where they bring new board members from all of the
[33:20] states together. It's very helpful and informative.
[33:24] Helps you to understand the landscape across all the other states, not only what
[33:27] the role of NASBE is and how they can better support you, but you get to
[33:31] meet these newer board members and also hear
[33:35] just what the priorities are, the things that we talk about in our meetings.
[33:39] It's very informative. It will be July 7th and 8th in
[33:42] Washington, DC. I encourage you to attend.
[33:46] If you cannot attend, let me know. I would like
[33:50] to then organize at least a Zoom call for all of us to be
[33:54] able to talk to NASBE so you gain that deeper understanding.
[33:57] It wouldn't include the other states, but there are other opportunities there.
[34:01] But let me share what the other benefit of this is.
[34:03] The fact that you will be in Washington, DC.
[34:06] And when I was new in my tenure on the board, I had the
[34:09] opportunity to attend a different NASBE conference, actually, it was on
[34:13] legislative priorities, in Washington, DC,
[34:17] and I used that opportunity to
[34:21] meet with federal legislators. So I was able to meet with our Missouri senators
[34:24] and House of Representatives and receive, just like we did yesterday,
[34:28] their feedback, and more importantly, share with them what
[34:33] our priorities were on education in Missouri and inform them.
[34:37] It was very, very useful and I would encourage you to, again, if you're
[34:41] able to make this trip, to add that in as part of your
[34:44] travels.
[34:46] Carrie, real quick.
[34:47] Mm-hmm.
[34:48] I want to comment. I had a chance to do that as well as a new board member.
[34:52] There are lots of new board members there.
[34:55] You get to meet them, so you create some friendships.
[34:58] But the other thing is, there's a lot of experienced board members that help with
[35:01] that event, and I made a connection with a board member at that time
[35:05] from Arizona. And Arizona was much more
[35:09] evolved in charter. And when I first came on the state board, that
[35:14] was, for me, an area I really didn't have much knowledge about, because
[35:17] the southern part of the state does not have charter.
[35:20] So that was helpful, too. So the connections won't only be with
[35:24] new board members, but it'll be also with experienced board members who
[35:28] help with that event. So I kind of wanted to mention that, because it's nice to
[35:32] have resources outside the state as well, so you can compare
[35:36] and contrast. Because sometimes we get to thinking we're not doing things as
[35:40] well, and then you visit with the other states and you're like, "Oh.
[35:43] We are doing a pretty good job in particular areas."
[35:46] Yeah.
[35:46] So then that is helpful as well.
[35:49] Thank you, Mary. That was an important add.
[35:52] The next few updates I have, you might already be aware of because you
[35:56] should be on the email distribution list for NASBE.
[35:58] And if you're not, would you let me know?
[36:00] I can make sure then that you are added or let Brett know and we can do
[36:04] that. Because NASBE does really bring together
[36:08] not just other state board members for those kinds of discussions,
[36:12] but also they bring in external experts like the Center for Assessments to
[36:16] give updates, or
[36:17] there will be an article coming out in the next
[36:21] Standard that is with Dr. David
[36:25] Steiner from Johns Hopkins Institute of Education Policy.
[36:28] They do work across the spectrum of challenges that are faced
[36:32] in education today and bring in experts for
[36:36] good discussion and learning and
[36:39] I find it always very informative.
[36:42] So look for that article in the next edition of the Standard.
[36:45] Again, it comes out via email. It's on high-quality instruction
[36:48] materials.And it will provide what, at least at the
[36:52] title level, seven key questions board members should be asking.
[36:56] Further, there will be a high-quality instruction material exchange
[37:00] series. And what the exchange is are, they are
[37:04] just a series of calls on a particular topic that
[37:07] involve state board members, again, from across the country,
[37:11] to come together with these experts and just hear
[37:15] the presentation and then discuss it from their state's perspective.
[37:19] So there will be a high-quality instructional material exchange meeting.
[37:23] The next meeting in that for state discussion will be on Monday, May
[37:27] 11th. And they're usually 3:00 or 4:00 in the afternoon for about
[37:31] an hour. So I really encourage you to attend those.
[37:35] Further, in that same vein, there is an action group
[37:39] on math
[37:42] improvements and implementation.
[37:44] And that
[37:48] exchange meeting will be on Monday, April 27th, and that particular
[37:52] focus will be on math standards. So again, opportunity
[37:56] to understand.
[37:58] It's not our job to
[38:00] really be in the bowels of the operation, if you will.
[38:04] But if we don't understand some of those details, we can't make sense at the
[38:07] governing level. So to understand how the standards
[38:11] relate to
[38:13] the other aspects of testing and even our
[38:17] evaluation process and accreditation process, it really all does
[38:20] begin with the standards we set. How do the curriculums tie into the
[38:24] standards and so on? So anyway, a discussion on math
[38:28] standards will be at that meeting.
[38:30] And then the central region, NSBE does divide into regions, so the
[38:34] central region, which for us includes, I think, Nebraska, Illinois,
[38:38] Tennessee, Kentucky, and so on,
[38:41] there will be a discussion among just the central region states also
[38:45] on that same day, on April 27th, so it's pretty much a two-hour
[38:48] call. I was unable to attend the national-level
[38:52] exchange for this past month because of our meetings yesterday, so I'll
[38:56] get the notes and I'll share with you.
[38:58] I'll follow up on anything that was important that came from that at our next
[39:01] meeting.
[39:03] And that's it.
[39:04] Thank you so much, Carrie. We appreciate it.
[39:06] Next, we have our Modernization Funding Task Force update.
[39:12] Okay.
[39:14] I'm on the docket today.
[39:16] Thank you very much. So both Pamela Westbrook-Hodge
[39:20] and I have the pleasure of serving on this task force, which
[39:24] is headed by Dr. Carrie Monsis, and I can't say enough
[39:28] about the work that the task force is doing on behalf of the governor and his
[39:32] executive order. It is really, Mary, you mentioned earlier, a
[39:36] heavy lift. This is
[39:37] an extremely heavy lift, and the task force has, I think,
[39:41] brought very many talented people together,
[39:45] amongst which are Pamela and I, that we
[39:49] really appreciate this opportunity to dig in and better understand the
[39:53] funding formula and the challenges, not just with how we would want to see it
[39:58] change, but the challenges that exist across the spectrum
[40:02] to be able to change it. It's a very complex issue.
[40:06] So with that, here is our latest update.
[40:09] So we did meet for the seventh time on Monday, March the 30th.
[40:13] The task force received and discussed the recommendations from the Performance
[40:16] Incentives Working Group, which was tasked with identifying ways in which the
[40:20] funding model could reward quality student outcomes.
[40:24] The recommendations were partially informed by the outcomes-based funding
[40:28] model utilized in Tennessee for the past three years.
[40:33] Elements of the recommendation include the following opportunities for student
[40:36] performance to generate additional funding, either through high achievement
[40:41] levels or, very importantly, growth in
[40:44] student performance.
[40:47] The performance incentives will focus on the
[40:50] areas of early literacy at the elementary level,
[40:54] math and English language arts at the middle school level, and
[40:58] college and career readiness indicators at the high school level.
[41:04] As a group, we also heard updates on the methodology that can be used to
[41:07] determine the state funding adequacy target per student, as well
[41:11] as the methodology for calculating the local effort responsibility.
[41:17] Multiple funding formula scenarios are still being considered consistent with the
[41:21] governor's request to have up to three recommended options.
[41:25] The legislature is entering the final weeks of session, which has impacted
[41:29] our ability to have our next scheduled meeting, which was
[41:33] to be next week.
[41:34] So that has been canceled, and we'll be meeting again on
[41:38] June the 1st. And in that
[41:41] meeting, we are planning to discuss high-level cost estimates of the various
[41:45] options under consideration.
[41:48] And these meetings are available to listen to, and I encourage
[41:52] everybody interested to do that.
[41:55] So I have a quick question regarding that task force and
[41:58] discussion, and maybe
[42:01] I know that you can't commit too far because obviously you're still working on it
[42:05] as a group and there hasn't been final suggestions.
[42:08] I know you'll bring it before the board at least to make us aware of what you'll be
[42:12] presenting to the governor's office. Is that correct?
[42:14] Yes.
[42:15] Okay.
[42:16] Yesterday we heard a lot about sticks and carrots.
[42:21] And that's a very simplified way of putting things, but we all understand the
[42:24] concept. Those that are high performers and working hard, we want to make sure that
[42:28] we continue to facilitate and make it possible for them to continue that work.
[42:33] We don't want to hinder
[42:37] schools that need more support.
[42:40] So is there any conversation along that line?
[42:43] Absolutely. In fact,
[42:46] one of the key requirements within the executive order is that we
[42:50] implement a performance incentive.And
[42:55] the group and the presentations that we made last week,
[42:59] and again, modeled on Tennessee,
[43:01] really dig into the area of performance, growth,
[43:06] and
[43:07] status, if you will, on the key areas that we also heard about yesterday,
[43:11] academic outcomes and skills. Life
[43:15] skills, success-ready students, and their outcomes
[43:19] in high school. So
[43:23] that's the carrot.
[43:25] Right.
[43:27] The stick can't be, "Let's take money away," although we discussed it.
[43:31] There is nothing that is
[43:34] forbidden for discussion at the table, and a lot of good challenges are coming
[43:38] forward to help us think through. We want to be able to ensure that
[43:42] we are delivering the support needed to all
[43:46] schools
[43:47] to achieve excellent academic outcomes.
[43:50] And the construct of the formula is such that it focuses in the area of
[43:54] that state adequacy target that establishes the
[43:58] baseline, and then there are adjustments made based on
[44:01] various student-based needs,
[44:05] and the formula works from there. And is it ever
[44:08] enough? Maybe not.
[44:10] So our goal isn't to use the formula as a stick.
[44:14] Right.
[44:14] Our goal is to use the formula and this opportunity for
[44:17] performance incentives as a carrot to help those schools
[44:22] even earn more money, more importantly, with their growth measures.
[44:27] And, because not all schools are yet at that
[44:31] point of absolute achievement. In fact, many are
[44:35] not. And so our goal is to see them grow and encourage
[44:38] that growth, and to recognize that
[44:41] as a very important element of success.
[44:45] I did notice that a couple of different legislators made the comment about
[44:49] growth. I think they do understand that.
[44:52] So-
[44:52] The importance of growth
[44:53] ... some of it is because our commissioner was a prior senator and did a lot of
[44:57] the education along that line. So anyway, was curious.
[45:01] Board Member Mike Matusik.
[45:03] I would... Oh, go ahead.
[45:04] Go ahead, no.
[45:05] No.
[45:06] Thank you, Carrie, for the update.
[45:07] I was just going to ask, trying to refresh my memory on the
[45:11] process of all of this.
[45:13] At some point, the task force will wrap up its work,
[45:17] deliver recommendations to the governor, and then presumably, the
[45:21] governor's office will choose some version of
[45:25] those recommendations,
[45:27] go to the legislature for whatever legislative change is
[45:31] needed to implement that, right? I mean, that's the process?
[45:35] It is at a very high level.
[45:38] Those recommendations are due in December of this year.
[45:42] So,
[45:43] in what now seems like just a few months ahead of
[45:47] us,
[45:48] the task force will continue to meet, as mentioned, and we'll begin to look
[45:52] at this from a cost estimate standpoint.
[45:54] As we begin to work through that, I think there'll be more
[45:58] opportunities for both Pamela and I to have
[46:01] deeper discussions with our board here collectively so you have a better
[46:05] understanding of those options and have insight into what will be
[46:08] recommended to the governor. But then once the governor receives it,
[46:12] that is my expectation as well, that that's how the process will
[46:16] work. But Commissioner?
[46:17] Commissioner.
[46:17] Absolutely. That is, an executive order lays all that out, that we are
[46:21] to present three models for consideration, and the governor's office
[46:25] then will then begin their work, and then it'll be folded into a
[46:30] particular piece of legislation, because we have to have legislative authority to
[46:34] be able to change the funding system that we currently have.
[46:37] So yes, and then the timeline is creeping up on us, that's for sure.
[46:39] Very much so.
[46:39] And it's
[46:41] a lot of work.
[46:43] I have to admit that it's going to be a difficult lift.
[46:45] Anytime that you change a funding formula during a time of revenue going down,
[46:49] that makes it much more difficult for people to have an understanding of winners
[46:52] and losers, because you change stuff, there's going to be winners and losers.
[46:56] Anyway, we all have a lot of work ahead of us. I think it is time.
[46:59] It's been over 20 years. This formula has been really and truly
[47:03] refreshed and looked to see, is it meeting the needs of all of our students?
[47:06] And so I feel very confident this group put together is going to give some fabulous
[47:09] models, and we're going to continue to work with the governor's office and
[47:12] legislation. Even though we hand them the models, they'll still be asking questions
[47:15] and probably
[47:17] picking our brains again, right? This is what's going to happen.
[47:19] And one of the things-
[47:21] Thank you
[47:21] ... that it's important to acknowledge is Missouri, when they did it 20 years ago,
[47:24] we were very progressive. There are many states that are just now shifting
[47:28] to similar funding, and we're going to be even more progressive.
[47:32] So that's kind of exciting because there's been some real
[47:35] intentional funding for education.
[47:38] Although, I agree with the commissioner, it needed a
[47:41] refresh, and it is a heavy lift. Do you think, Carrie and
[47:45] Pam, that we could maybe during our July board retreat,
[47:50] hear a little more information, or is that too short a runway?
[47:53] No, I think in my opinion, and certainly,
[47:56] support what Pam will say as well, and rely on Dr.
[48:00] Moncet as the true expert in this space, if
[48:04] he is available to present to us for that discussion, that would be an
[48:08] ideal time with where we're at at that point.
[48:11] Yeah. I would just add to this conversation,
[48:15] first echo Carrie's point that
[48:19] having Dr. Moncet present a more substantive update would be
[48:22] great. But our biggest challenge is to make sure we
[48:26] don't introduce changes that
[48:31] create greater structural inequality.
[48:34] And so Carrie was very balanced in her
[48:38] comments around performance incentives.
[48:41] We don't want to
[48:44] provide incentives to schools that
[48:47] find it easier to grow
[48:51] their children because they've got all the structural advantage in the first place,
[48:54] and then we're just doubling down on
[48:58] um, contributing to that structural inequity.
[49:01] So the beautiful thing in all of this is that we'll be modeling
[49:06] every tweak-
[49:06] Mm-hmm
[49:07] ... that we're making. And,
[49:10] I think what
[49:13] would be beneficial for this board is to see the results
[49:17] of the modeling-
[49:18] Mm-hmm
[49:18] ... of the three options that are going to be presented,
[49:22] because that's where all the tweaking and the
[49:26] changing of the weights, and... So that modeling phase will be
[49:30] very important to make sure we don't do any harm.
[49:32] Mm-hmm. Board Member Millard?
[49:34] Yeah. A simple question here. So
[49:37] your task force, and I know you've been at it for seven or eight months
[49:41] now?
[49:42] Mm-hmm.
[49:42] Yeah.
[49:44] What is
[49:47] the problem you're trying to solve? In a sentence.
[49:50] Because if we have different models, and you're
[49:54] tweaking it, which you have to do,
[49:57] what is the ultimate outcome, and what are we trying to
[50:01] fix, firstly?
[50:02] We'd like to hear from both Pamela and Carrie.
[50:04] Yeah. No, no.
[50:05] Absolutely. And it absolutely is, to Mary's point,
[50:09] was a progressive
[50:11] formula-
[50:12] Yes
[50:12] ... devised back in its day, but there are elements of the
[50:15] formula, without going into a lot of that detail,
[50:19] that are outdated. And so the formula needs to
[50:23] better recognize, call it today's environment, and
[50:26] have the ability to ensure that we're meeting
[50:30] the needs of the students where they're most needed.
[50:35] Mm-hmm.
[50:35] And, so it's that balance, that is, a better balance
[50:39] that is required. There are some elements of the formula that
[50:44] need to be phased out and will potentially be
[50:47] phased out in the process of these options we
[50:51] present. There is a lot going on in our state with discussions around income
[50:55] tax. There have been a lot of changes that have happened in property values in
[50:59] our state over the last 20 years. All of that has its effect
[51:03] on the formula, and so how do we
[51:06] modernize the formula
[51:11] to address those conditions, not just for today, but for the
[51:15] future as well? Build a formula that has some foresight
[51:19] into it. Importantly, to address the carrot, I think performance
[51:23] incentives are important, especially recognizing the work of
[51:26] those schools that really
[51:31] have a big hill to climb. And Mary, you mentioned
[51:35] the stick, and not to derail from your question, but accreditation,
[51:39] accountability. The accountability,
[51:41] responsibility, and accreditation responsibility we have at
[51:45] this table is where the stick comes in.
[51:48] If you want to call it a stick.
[51:50] Yeah.
[51:50] But where our other areas of responsibility. But I'll hand it over to Pamela.
[51:54] And I want to hear Pamela's comment, but I have one quick comment I want to also
[51:57] do, and clarification. Carrots don't always have to be money,
[52:00] because we've all talked about recognition opportunities that we can do
[52:04] that don't involve money, but it really, some states have.
[52:08] And so we had, Carla, what was
[52:12] the federal recognition that we tended to do, and they recently cut that
[52:16] out this year?
[52:17] They had Gold Star and Blue Ribbon, and so the, I get them mixed up.
[52:21] I think Blue Ribbon is the federal piece.
[52:23] Correct.
[52:24] And so they were recognizing school districts for growth and for improvement
[52:27] scores and things like that. But with the change in administration,
[52:31] they've dropped that program, so we're starting to look out to see what
[52:35] we can do to recognize academic achievement and some of the things we want to
[52:38] highlight, and kind of beef up our Gold Star to incorporate some of
[52:42] the aspects of Blue Ribbon.
[52:44] So I just didn't want everyone to think I'm only thinking money out here. Pamela?
[52:48] Yeah. I would just love to just directly
[52:51] answer Brooks's question and plainly state it.
[52:55] The current formula is highly inequitable, because it's based
[52:59] on funding, it's based on local property wealth.
[53:03] Okay.
[53:03] And in rural areas, you have very
[53:08] low property wealth in comparison
[53:12] to affluent urban areas, let's say
[53:16] like Ladue or Clayton-
[53:18] Mm-hmm
[53:18] ... and the St. Louis region.
[53:19] Yes.
[53:19] And so
[53:21] Missouri, unlike neighboring states,
[53:25] the majority of school funding is local.
[53:28] Mm-hmm.
[53:29] If you break down the federal, state, and
[53:34] local components, the preponderance of that funding
[53:37] is local. So that dynamic
[53:41] creates huge swings in per pupil
[53:44] spending between poor rural
[53:47] areas and affluent enclaves like a Ladue or a
[53:51] Clayton, and not to single them out.
[53:54] So
[53:55] there are parts of the state that only get the state adequacy target, which is
[53:59] now a little over $7,000 per pupil, and then there are
[54:03] parts that get over 20,000.
[54:06] And so
[54:07] all the studies show you get what you pay for.
[54:10] Mm-hmm.
[54:11] And we have a responsibility to make sure that zip
[54:14] code doesn't dictate educational and life
[54:18] outcomes. And that's what we're trying to fix.
[54:21] Thank you. Thank you both. That's very helpful.
[54:25] And Pamela, I will share with the board.
[54:28] Yesterday, the number we kept hearing on the...
[54:32] It's not determined, right? Things have not...
[54:34] But they're looking at around 6,900.
[54:37] So to your point, it was slightly above seven.
[54:40] It looks like it could come back to 6,900.
[54:43] I don't think anyone wants to see that happen, but as we make
[54:47] adjustments and cuts, that's the most common number
[54:51] I heard yesterday. So for us to just keep in mind,
[54:55] obviously the two of you in particular, because you will have
[54:59] lots of impact on the future for education.Thank you
[55:03] both. Again, just an example of all the work that's going on behind the
[55:07] scenes, unrelated to board meetings.
[55:11] And
[55:12] I'll just end with this. So the whole point of the formula is to
[55:16] smooth that out
[55:18] and to make up
[55:21] that gap in communities that don't have
[55:25] the property wealth by increasing the state's contribution.
[55:29] Does that make sense?
[55:31] No, it does. And I can remember when it was
[55:35] passed 20 years ago.
[55:37] Mm-hmm.
[55:38] And if I reflect on how much has changed
[55:42] in property values and things in 20 years,
[55:46] it's pretty significant. So it's got to be very out of whack-
[55:50] Mm-hmm
[55:51] ... at the present
[55:53] time. It just can't help to be.
[55:55] And that goes back to Carrie's point about using frozen
[55:58] property values from
[56:00] 2005.
[56:03] So that goes back to her point. So
[56:07] yes, it is.
[56:07] Yeah.
[56:09] As professionally said, out of whack. For sure. Thank you.
[56:13] Let's move on to the consent agenda, please, and then we'll do a real quick
[56:17] break. How does that sound?
[56:19] Okay.
[56:21] So if you have any items that you would
[56:24] like to pull,
[56:25] please let us know.
[56:28] Otherwise, if I have a motion.
[56:30] Motion.
[56:32] Motion made by board member Carrie Casey. Do I have a second?
[56:37] Second.
[56:38] The second is by Mike Matusik. All those in favor say
[56:42] aye.
[56:42] Aye.
[56:42] Aye.
[56:44] Thank you. Okay, we will take a-- It is 10:00 on
[56:48] the-- It's basically 10:00? 10 after
[56:52] 10:00?
[56:52] Yeah.
[56:53] Okay. Thank you.
[56:54] Thank you.
[1:07:34] I
[1:08:30] can plug it in right here on this toolbox.
[1:08:34] Thank you.
[1:08:37] Welcome back to our board meeting for
[1:08:43] April.
[1:08:45] Got to get the right day. It's been a wild month.
[1:08:48] 14th. So we are now on to
[1:08:52] items for action.
[1:08:54] Our first items for action is the final consideration of a board order for
[1:08:58] rulemaking to amend the Missouri State Plan for Part B
[1:09:02] regulations implementing Individuals with Disabilities
[1:09:06] Educational Act, IDEA Part B.
[1:09:10] Assistant Commissioner of the Office of Special Education, Mark Wheatley, is
[1:09:14] here to present, along with our Deputy Commissioner, Kelly
[1:09:18] Jones.
[1:09:19] Good morning, everyone. Mark Wheatley, Assistant Commissioner with the Office of
[1:09:23] Special Education here at DESE. Thank you for having me today.
[1:09:26] If you recall, in December, we brought before you a
[1:09:30] notice for proposed rulemaking to amend 5 CSR
[1:09:34] 20-300.110, which
[1:09:37] relates to the Part B component of
[1:09:40] IDEA in the state plan for special education.
[1:09:44] Those proposed changes have been shared out to the various
[1:09:48] stakeholders throughout the regular process for rulemaking.
[1:09:52] We've received a comment from public, and now we are
[1:09:56] back today to ask
[1:09:59] you to consider an order of rulemaking to amend 5 CSR
[1:10:03] 20-300.110 of the State Plan for
[1:10:07] Special Education, Part B IDEA. So I will take you through
[1:10:11] a couple of quick reminders just to get you back up to speed on this
[1:10:15] process, or more particularly, the content that was
[1:10:19] discussed in the process. And really, the most positively
[1:10:23] significant change that was proposed in this came in Regulation
[1:10:27] 4, which involves free and appropriate public education
[1:10:31] and the IEP and the least restrictive environment.
[1:10:34] And part of the proposal for this order of
[1:10:38] rulemaking was to change the requirement
[1:10:42] of a post-secondary transition plan to be required
[1:10:46] prior to the end of the eighth grade year, as compared to the
[1:10:50] previously required component that they had to
[1:10:53] determine the post-secondary transition plan no later than
[1:10:57] the IEP for the period when the time the student turns
[1:11:01] 16 years of age. Why that's really significant and important,
[1:11:05] again, is because we have also a
[1:11:08] requirement, as part of a regulation with DESE,
[1:11:12] involving the individual career and academic plans, better known as
[1:11:16] the ICAPs. And that states that students
[1:11:20] must have those plans in place beginning no later than eighth grade.
[1:11:24] So we're really bringing those two components together to ensure
[1:11:28] that we are working in an efficient manner to
[1:11:31] identify both the students with
[1:11:34] disabilities as considered a member of the general education
[1:11:38] setting, since those students are general education students first.
[1:11:42] Aside from that, there are a couple other components that were modified,
[1:11:46] primarily improving clarity around some
[1:11:50] language in other regulations. So there were no
[1:11:54] significantly
[1:11:57] impactful changes. Much of it was in language, further
[1:12:01] clarification to help the LEAs ensure that they are
[1:12:04] complying to IDEA as it relates. And so that was
[1:12:08] included in
[1:12:10] Regulation 9 involving caseloads.
[1:12:13] There was always a minimum caseload requirement for those
[1:12:16] early childhood special education caseloads, and so we just clarified that to
[1:12:21] make sure it was very easy for the reader to understand,
[1:12:25] as well as clarifying IDEA requirements for
[1:12:28] students and family-paced education,
[1:12:32] involving home schools and students that are parentally
[1:12:35] placed in private school settings and their opportunities as
[1:12:39] it relates to IDEA. So with that, we received
[1:12:43] nine comments from five individuals.
[1:12:48] Six of those comments
[1:12:50] demonstrated concerns around the changes
[1:12:54] involving the minimum required caseloads, but actually,
[1:12:58] those caseload minimums didn't change at all.
[1:13:01] And then two comments were outside the scope of the proposed
[1:13:05] change, so they involved changes that were not included in the
[1:13:08] regulations that we were looking at during this time.
[1:13:11] And one comment was requesting an addition of
[1:13:15] a requirement that actually already exists in the federal regulations, and so
[1:13:19] Missouri already follows that with our state plan as well.
[1:13:23] So with that, no changes were made from the
[1:13:25] initial proposed amendments. So at this
[1:13:29] time, we are asking you to consider the order of rulemaking for those changes to
[1:13:33] the state plan.
[1:13:35] Do we have any questions or motion?
[1:13:37] So moved.
[1:13:38] Second.
[1:13:39] So, motion made by board member Carrie Casey and seconded
[1:13:43] by Pamela Westbrook Hodge. All those in favor?
[1:13:46] Can I ask a question?
[1:13:47] Okay. Yes, sorry, go ahead.
[1:13:48] That it's on the table. Is there
[1:13:53] a belief that the caseload is too high?
[1:13:58] When I was looking at the comments that you received,
[1:14:03] how do we know we're balanced there?
[1:14:06] You understand my question?
[1:14:07] Yeah. So,
[1:14:08] I think that based on the comments that I read as well, that's what I would
[1:14:13] suggest the commenters were replying to.
[1:14:16] But again, going back to that, that hasn't been a change that we've initiated.
[1:14:20] Yeah.
[1:14:20] So,
[1:14:22] I would have to do a little more research into that and determine-
[1:14:24] That's fine
[1:14:24] ... if there's anything that could be beneficial to share with the board regarding
[1:14:28] that. But at this time, I think that's where we are.
[1:14:30] Okay.
[1:14:32] Thank you.
[1:14:33] So, any other questions?
[1:14:35] We have a motion on the
[1:14:39] table along with a second. All those in favor?
[1:14:43] Aye.
[1:14:43] Aye.
[1:14:44] Aye.
[1:14:44] Opposed? Thank you.
[1:14:46] Thank you.
[1:14:46] Thank you for the report.
[1:14:48] Thank you, Mark.
[1:14:50] Next, we have consideration of approval of the charter school
[1:14:53] application for Frontier Steam Academy Elementary
[1:14:57] in Columbia. Assistant Commissioner of the Office of Quality Schools,
[1:15:01] Lisa Sereno, is here to present with her team.
[1:15:22] Good morning. Lisa Sereno here. I am, as President Schroeder
[1:15:26] said, Assistant Commissioner in the Office of Quality Schools.
[1:15:30] And we are here before you today
[1:15:34] with consideration of an application for a new
[1:15:37] charter school. This would be, if
[1:15:41] approved, the first charter school to request and
[1:15:45] to be opened in Columbia, Missouri,
[1:15:49] which as you are aware, the charter statute
[1:15:54] recently was updated to include
[1:15:58] charters
[1:16:00] being allowable in Boone County.
[1:16:03] Before we get started, I would like to introduce
[1:16:08] the charter sponsor from St. Louis
[1:16:11] University, Dr. Alexandra Boyd,
[1:16:14] and also Executive Director of
[1:16:18] Frontier Schools Incorporated. Did I get that correct,
[1:16:22] Mr. Eran Demirjian?
[1:16:24] Mm-hmm.
[1:16:26] Dr. Boyd, would you like to introduce the other representatives who are with you
[1:16:30] here today?
[1:16:32] Yes. Thank you so much and
[1:16:35] board, thank you for your
[1:16:37] service and your time.
[1:16:39] With us today, we have board member Cesar Cea.
[1:16:43] We also have Jennifer Gray, who's the Director of
[1:16:47] Communications. We have
[1:16:50] Elizabeth-
[1:16:52] Adunkeh
[1:16:53] ... Adunkeh, who is the Director of-
[1:16:56] Safety and Conduct
[1:16:57] ... Safety and Conduct. And we have Dr.
[1:16:58] Rizvil Ghaij, who is the Chief of Academics, and then Dr.
[1:17:02] Elyar Iskenderli, who is the Chief of Operations.
[1:17:07] Thank you.
[1:17:10] All right. So
[1:17:13] we want to start, before we actually go to the
[1:17:16] Frontier application at hand, and give you just a little bit of
[1:17:20] background,
[1:17:22] and just point out the authority around charter schools in Missouri,
[1:17:26] and in particular, your authority.
[1:17:28] I'm going to tell you a little bit about DESE's role,
[1:17:31] and then we'll present the application for you.
[1:17:35] So as you can see,
[1:17:37] many entities play a role in authorizing
[1:17:41] and governing charter schools from the legislature,
[1:17:46] sponsors who oversee the school performance, and then the local
[1:17:50] charter governing board,
[1:17:53] which forms that agreement with the sponsor, and
[1:17:56] they're responsible for the day-to-day operations and the governance
[1:18:01] of the charter school.
[1:18:03] The State Board of Education
[1:18:05] authority
[1:18:07] actually is to enforce
[1:18:10] regulations,
[1:18:12] develop regulations that primarily deal with sponsor
[1:18:16] activities.
[1:18:21] And today, we're going to focus on that
[1:18:24] primary role. So, the State Board
[1:18:28] reviews and approves sponsorship applications.
[1:18:31] So when we have an entity comes forward that wants to
[1:18:36] sponsor charter schools,
[1:18:38] the State Board of Education evaluates sponsors every three
[1:18:42] years.
[1:18:43] You consider applications for
[1:18:46] new charter schools, which we have before you today,
[1:18:50] and then, of course, you vote on those renewals that
[1:18:54] have been approved and recommended by the sponsors.
[1:19:00] So, what does the department do? So,
[1:19:04] the sponsor is responsible for having a
[1:19:08] policy and processes in place for new
[1:19:11] applications and also renewals. The department
[1:19:15] reviews those items, but we don't approve them.
[1:19:19] We're just reviewing them and then preparing a recommendation for
[1:19:23] you.
[1:19:25] In the case of a new charter application,
[1:19:29] the sponsor has to approve that new
[1:19:33] application before it comes to us or before it is
[1:19:37] submitted to you, the State Board of
[1:19:39] EducationWe have a committee
[1:19:43] inside the department that does review these applications,
[1:19:48] and also renewals prior to bringing them to you.
[1:19:52] We also publish the annual performance report and
[1:19:56] the report card for
[1:19:59] all LEAs, including charter schools, and
[1:20:03] we're responsible for retaining sponsorship fees
[1:20:07] and making sure those get to the right place.
[1:20:12] Okay. The application itself
[1:20:16] is provided by
[1:20:19] the charter school to the sponsor,
[1:20:22] and then within a specified time period after the sponsor
[1:20:26] receives the application, the proposed charter
[1:20:30] school must send it to the local school
[1:20:33] district, information about their
[1:20:37] application, and about their plans to open a school
[1:20:41] within that district.
[1:20:44] After that information is reviewed and approved by the
[1:20:48] sponsor, then the sponsor provides the department
[1:20:51] and the State Board of Education, as I mentioned, with the
[1:20:54] application. And then that starts a 60-day clock.
[1:20:58] So in statute, from the time that we receive that
[1:21:02] application, then we need to bring it forward
[1:21:06] to you, and you must consider it, and
[1:21:10] make a decision to approve or deny within 60 days.
[1:21:15] There's also a time frame within statute
[1:21:19] that specifies when applications must be
[1:21:22] received in order for you to consider them to be
[1:21:26] opened in the next school year. In this case,
[1:21:30] Frontier is seeking to open a new charter school
[1:21:34] in Columbia
[1:21:36] beginning in the '27-'28 school year.
[1:21:39] So it's not this next coming school year, it's
[1:21:43] the school year after that.
[1:21:52] Okay, so what is required in every application?
[1:21:56] Here you see a list of the things that must be
[1:21:59] included in applications for new charter schools,
[1:22:03] and these are called out in statute.
[1:22:07] The department evaluates these. And remember,
[1:22:11] this application created by the school, sometimes
[1:22:15] in collaboration with the sponsor, but it's the sponsor's
[1:22:19] responsibility before they bring it to us to first review
[1:22:23] it and approve it.
[1:22:25] Inside the department, we convene, through the charter
[1:22:29] office, a panel of experts to review the
[1:22:33] application and provide comments based
[1:22:36] particularly on their area of expertise.
[1:22:39] So we're going to be looking at, in these components that you
[1:22:43] see here,
[1:22:45] academic program design and instructional model,
[1:22:48] performance frameworks and assessment plans, accountability
[1:22:52] measures,
[1:22:54] governance capacity, board oversight,
[1:22:57] sponsor-school relationships, financial
[1:23:01] stability and budget assumptions,
[1:23:04] enrollment projections. We'll look at their descriptions of
[1:23:08] student services, including special education, English
[1:23:12] learner population, and how they support their needs of
[1:23:16] students. And then operational readiness, including
[1:23:20] staffing plans and compliance with state and federal
[1:23:23] requirements. What we're looking for
[1:23:27] when we review these-- Yes.
[1:23:29] Just a second. Board member Mike Matusik.
[1:23:31] Thank you. Lisa, just on these, all of those
[1:23:35] requirements must be met, right? If there was a missing check mark
[1:23:39] on any one of those,
[1:23:41] that would be an issue, correct?
[1:23:44] Right. So these are the components, the topics,
[1:23:48] that are required to be included in the application.
[1:23:51] Thank you.
[1:23:51] And so that's what we're looking for.
[1:23:53] And,
[1:23:55] to
[1:23:57] give you a little bit more detail, we're looking for statutory
[1:24:00] compliance. So we're looking for, does the
[1:24:04] application include the required elements?
[1:24:07] And we're going to provide feedback to the sponsor.
[1:24:11] We communicate with the sponsor on these matters if we see an
[1:24:15] element that is out of compliance with statute or
[1:24:18] rule. We also would provide feedback regarding best
[1:24:22] practice. So if we see some things that
[1:24:26] are out of compliance with statute, we would not bring that
[1:24:30] forward with a recommendation for you to approve.
[1:24:35] However, it is possible that we might send some feedback
[1:24:38] regarding best practice.
[1:24:42] That wouldn't necessarily preclude us from
[1:24:45] recommending the application for your approval.
[1:24:49] Thank you.
[1:24:52] Thank you.
[1:24:53] Okay.
[1:24:59] So now let's turn to the
[1:25:02] specific application.
[1:25:05] It's from Frontier Schools Incorporated, and that is
[1:25:09] the nonprofit that proposes to govern this new
[1:25:13] charter, which is Frontier STEM Academy Elementary
[1:25:17] in Columbia, Missouri.
[1:25:20] It also governs the Frontier schools that are already
[1:25:24] in operation in Kansas City.
[1:25:27] Frontier is sponsored by St. Louis University, and that's the
[1:25:31] same sponsor that's bringing the application forward that you're
[1:25:35] considering today.
[1:25:37] It's important to note that should Frontier
[1:25:41] STEM Academy Elementary in Columbia open, it would
[1:25:44] be a separate and distinct LEA from Frontier
[1:25:48] schools in Kansas
[1:25:50] CitySo,
[1:25:54] Frontier STEM Academy Elementary in Columbia, Missouri, as I mentioned,
[1:25:58] within the Columbia Public School District, it's currently
[1:26:02] without a facility.
[1:26:04] It does plan to survey facilities in the area
[1:26:08] that would meet the needs of the growing school
[1:26:12] that they are proposing.
[1:26:15] It requests a fall 2027 opening, as I
[1:26:19] mentioned, for the '27-'28 school year.
[1:26:22] And they want to start with students in pre-K
[1:26:25] through grade two, and then they would add a grade in each
[1:26:29] subsequent year until they would ultimately be serving those
[1:26:33] pre-K through fifth-grade students.
[1:26:38] Quick question. Sorry.
[1:26:41] Yes.
[1:26:43] Going back to that slide, is there a typo there?
[1:26:46] You said it's opening in fall '27, but this says '26-'27
[1:26:50] as the first year.
[1:26:51] Yes, that is.
[1:26:53] I apologize for that.
[1:26:55] Well, thank you.
[1:26:56] Okay.
[1:26:56] That was a question I-
[1:26:57] I had, too
[1:26:58] ... had in my mind, like-
[1:26:59] Yeah
[1:26:59] ... so are they going with the '27 or the '26 numbers?
[1:27:02] Thank you, John, for pointing that out.
[1:27:04] Yeah.
[1:27:09] The plan calls for Mr. Demirjian to continue serving
[1:27:13] as executive director of Frontier Schools in Kansas City,
[1:27:18] and also for him to serve as executive director of
[1:27:22] Frontier STEM Academy Elementary in Columbia.
[1:27:25] The same is true for Dennis L. Davis, the board chair,
[1:27:29] current board chair of Frontier Schools.
[1:27:32] The schools' board has plans to add additional members
[1:27:36] from the Columbia area,
[1:27:39] those that know the community and the population, and you'll
[1:27:43] see that the first is Dr...
[1:27:47] I'm not sure I'll pronounce this, Ilkay Budak?
[1:27:50] That's good.
[1:27:52] Currently employed with the University of Missouri.
[1:27:56] Their goal is to recruit members that meet certain priorities,
[1:28:00] and chief among those are that they reside in or have
[1:28:03] strong ties to the Columbia, Missouri, area.
[1:28:08] They reflect the diversity and demographics of the local
[1:28:11] community. They bring relevant expertise in business,
[1:28:14] community engagement, and other areas that are
[1:28:18] important to the school.
[1:28:23] And here we see the mission and vision for Frontier STEM
[1:28:27] Academy Elementary,
[1:28:29] provides insight into what they're calling for as a
[1:28:33] focus on STEM and continued learning.
[1:28:41] And here we see an excerpt, an
[1:28:44] example of the performance goals
[1:28:48] that are required in the performance contract
[1:28:52] between the sponsor and the charter school itself.
[1:28:57] So what this
[1:29:00] gives us some look into
[1:29:03] internal goals for each grade level that lead to mastery
[1:29:07] of content.
[1:29:09] And it also includes goals for operations,
[1:29:13] governance, and financial accountability.
[1:29:17] It's the sponsor's responsibility to take those goals in
[1:29:21] combination with state and federal requirements, and also the
[1:29:24] sponsor's own goals and requirements, and pull together this
[1:29:28] overall performance contract. So the sponsor has
[1:29:32] approved this performance contract.
[1:29:35] The
[1:29:36] school has agreed that it will
[1:29:40] comply with these goals in the performance contract.
[1:29:49] And the DESE recommendation is based on the sponsor's
[1:29:53] approval, and the charter office committee's review
[1:29:57] of the application and determination that
[1:30:01] the application is in compliance with statute.
[1:30:06] So here you have our recommendation.
[1:30:09] Do we have any questions?
[1:30:10] Yeah. I-
[1:30:11] Board member Carey Casey, and then I'll-
[1:30:13] I think Mr. Miller was first, and then-
[1:30:15] Oh
[1:30:15] ... I'll go Brooks.
[1:30:17] I have a lot of questions because I think this is the first application
[1:30:20] that as a new board member we've had.
[1:30:24] And I'll try to... Isn't this an
[1:30:28] application that is legally being challenged?
[1:30:32] Am I correct in that?
[1:30:34] That is correct.
[1:30:36] Okay. And
[1:30:38] you do not believe that that legal...
[1:30:41] John
[1:30:41] I know you can't talk about legal issues, but-
[1:30:45] ... does that, is that-
[1:30:46] John, can you come forward?
[1:30:47] Is it not relevant to the approval?
[1:30:51] We'll let the attorney answer that question.
[1:30:53] Yeah. And I think that that's what... Yeah.
[1:30:54] It is not. The board needs to do its work regardless of the status of a
[1:30:58] lawsuit or whether it even exists.
[1:31:00] Okay.
[1:31:00] So for those who may not have picked that up if they're listening, the answer
[1:31:04] to the question is, it is not relevant.
[1:31:06] The board needs to continue-
[1:31:07] Okay
[1:31:07] ... and do its work.
[1:31:09] Okay. And then just a follow-up question.
[1:31:11] If they fail to perform, and I know that as we've reviewed charter schools
[1:31:15] and such, have we taken away any charters from schools?
[1:31:19] It's not our...
[1:31:22] So-
[1:31:22] So if we grant them-
[1:31:23] So-
[1:31:23] ... we can't take them away.
[1:31:24] No. We
[1:31:26] don't have to agree to the sponsorship, but it's actually
[1:31:30] the sponsorship we take away, and we have done that.
[1:31:34] That is correct, and in fact, we have also moved
[1:31:38] schools
[1:31:39] from certain sponsors' portfolios into other
[1:31:43] sponsors,
[1:31:44] related to concerns about performance and capacity of the
[1:31:48] sponsor.
[1:31:51] Board Member Carey Casey.
[1:31:53] Thank you very much, andExcuse me.
[1:31:56] I appreciate all of the opportunity here to review your application, and thank you
[1:32:00] for coming before us.
[1:32:03] So I have several questions.
[1:32:07] Some are just information, but some are concerns.
[1:32:11] First of all, and I think more importantly, if you go back to the slide
[1:32:15] on goals.
[1:32:17] Academic achievement.
[1:32:21] Your goal is school-wide, that the percentage
[1:32:25] will either be of academic achievement, will be at or
[1:32:29] equal to or greater than Columbia.
[1:32:33] To me,
[1:32:35] if you only have 24 students starting out,
[1:32:39] in fact, then if you move to your earlier slide on
[1:32:43] the progression of enrollment.
[1:32:47] You're starting out with 184 students, but you're starting out at lower
[1:32:50] grades as well. This is important.
[1:32:52] You're starting out at pre-K
[1:32:55] and kindergarten. So more than half, 120,
[1:33:00] 130 of your students will be literally
[1:33:04] at the beginning of their learning years.
[1:33:07] I would expect that your academic goals would not be to
[1:33:11] equal Columbia Public Schools, but that they would always be to
[1:33:14] exceed Columbia Public Schools.
[1:33:18] It is more difficult when children transfer in
[1:33:22] at higher grades, no question. They come in behind.
[1:33:26] It takes a
[1:33:27] year or two years at least to make up one
[1:33:31] year of academic performance. So I understand
[1:33:35] that, but when you're already starting out at the lower grades with the youngest
[1:33:38] students,
[1:33:39] help me to understand why you're not setting more aggressive academic outcome
[1:33:43] goals.
[1:33:44] Yeah. That's a wonderful question.
[1:33:48] So I think the main point here is that it's a
[1:33:52] brand new school, so we'll be starting a brand new school.
[1:33:56] And it's traditionally best practice to do at equal
[1:33:59] to or above in the case where you're building in those first few years.
[1:34:03] So the first five years of operation, we want to give
[1:34:08] the operator time to establish the building,
[1:34:12] the culture, and all of those things that go along with it,
[1:34:15] communication with parents and building that collaboration with the community
[1:34:20] so that they can achieve higher proficiency rates than
[1:34:24] the district in which they operate.
[1:34:25] But just knowing the way that schools come to
[1:34:29] be and what the trajectory and timeline of those things
[1:34:33] happen to be, this is best practice for the original
[1:34:36] application for the first five years.
[1:34:39] So you envision that you will have academic
[1:34:43] goals that will actually be more aggressive-
[1:34:46] Yes, ma'am
[1:34:47] ... when you're day-to-day working with the charter
[1:34:51] leadership?
[1:34:52] Yes, ma'am.
[1:34:53] What
[1:34:55] instruction methods are you going to be using that'll be any different than what
[1:34:58] Columbia uses today?
[1:35:04] We will provide
[1:35:06] all the
[1:35:07] courses that Columbia has been offering.
[1:35:11] Plus, we will focus on STEM education.
[1:35:15] So we will have additional STEM courses, as well as
[1:35:19] some
[1:35:20] digital arts and music classes as well.
[1:35:24] And
[1:35:25] with our extracurricular activities, we will offer robotics,
[1:35:29] drone, science Olympiad, science fair type of
[1:35:33] competition. So we will offer those STEM education
[1:35:37] opportunities for our students.
[1:35:39] But doesn't Columbia have STEM schools themselves today?
[1:35:43] How will your STEM school be any different?
[1:35:46] So my understanding, they have two schools at this time, and they have
[1:35:50] 18,000 students. So it will be good to expand those
[1:35:54] opportunities for other parents as well.
[1:35:56] So we will offer additional STEM opportunities for
[1:36:00] the parents in Columbia.
[1:36:03] Board Member Pamela Westbrook-Hodge, and then I'll come back to you, Carrie.
[1:36:07] Yeah. Sure.
[1:36:07] So we have the other two.
[1:36:09] Yeah. Well, thank you all for being
[1:36:13] here. Thank you, Dr.
[1:36:15] Boyd. I'm just a tremendous fan of yours and to the
[1:36:18] entire
[1:36:20] executive leadership team of Frontier.
[1:36:23] I also want to acknowledge the leadership of Columbia Public
[1:36:27] Schools.
[1:36:29] They're in the room as well, and that's the district where this
[1:36:32] proposed school will be going.
[1:36:36] And I want to very publicly congratulate
[1:36:40] Columbia Public Schools for their growth over the last three
[1:36:44] years. Their APR has increased by about 20
[1:36:48] points, and that's remarkable.
[1:36:52] So kudos to you for
[1:36:55] those gains.
[1:36:57] So today's application troubles me for two
[1:37:01] reasons.
[1:37:03] One, based on current charter school statute, the
[1:37:07] voice of the people
[1:37:08] was not required to bring this school forward.
[1:37:12] So no one in Columbia has voted.
[1:37:15] The people in Columbia have not voted for this school.
[1:37:18] And I'm troubled when people whose tax dollars are being used to
[1:37:22] fund a school do not approve or govern that school.
[1:37:26] So that's one. Two, based on CPS's
[1:37:29] performance and academic trajectory,
[1:37:32] I don't understand the problem that we're solving.
[1:37:37] So what gap is this proposed school
[1:37:40] filling?
[1:37:43] And then I would also say,
[1:37:48] while pockets of challenge exist in every district and can be
[1:37:52] masked by overall performance of the district of any
[1:37:55] public school system, that district should be held
[1:37:59] accountable for addressing the needs of those
[1:38:02] childrenAnd creating a
[1:38:05] completely new school and a high-performing school
[1:38:09] system seems financially
[1:38:11] irresponsible. In particular, in a state
[1:38:15] that is struggling to make its current educational budget
[1:38:19] commitments and that is losing population,
[1:38:23] and our schools are shrinking, our enrollment bases are shrinking,
[1:38:27] and we're talking about creating a new school.
[1:38:33] And so finally, for the benefit of everyone who's listening,
[1:38:39] I just want to convey that you should be troubled that the current
[1:38:42] requirements do not include a requirement for
[1:38:45] fiscal efficiency. That's troubling.
[1:38:49] Yet, those current requirements and that law requires
[1:38:53] this board to approve the application because all the other
[1:38:57] requirements have been met.
[1:39:00] So, in summary,
[1:39:03] based on the denial of choice to the people of
[1:39:06] Columbia, based on the letter of objection from
[1:39:10] CPS, the stellar growth of CPS,
[1:39:14] I find this application problematic, and it's difficult for
[1:39:18] me as a financial professional to
[1:39:22] support it.
[1:39:24] Thank you, Pamela.
[1:39:26] Board Member Mike Matusik, did you have a comment earlier?
[1:39:31] I didn't.
[1:39:31] That maybe we missed.
[1:39:31] I mean, I do, but I think Carrie and Brooks might have had... Oh.
[1:39:35] Well, I-
[1:39:35] I'm going to come back to Carrie, so don't worry about her.
[1:39:37] If you've got a comment, please make it.
[1:39:39] Yeah.
[1:39:40] Well, I guess following up on what Pamela said, and then Brooks's
[1:39:44] question,
[1:39:47] going back to the statute, I guess, is it
[1:39:50] correct to say that for the board to not
[1:39:53] approve this application
[1:39:57] or that we would essentially have to
[1:40:01] have information or take the position that DESE has
[1:40:05] erred in its review of the application
[1:40:09] itself, right? In other words,
[1:40:11] if you've reviewed the application and
[1:40:16] believe that it meets all of the requirements,
[1:40:19] what authority does the board have to not approve it?
[1:40:23] So our understanding
[1:40:25] and in consultation with counsel that the
[1:40:29] statute...
[1:40:30] Yes, you are correct, Board Member Matusik.
[1:40:34] Thank you.
[1:40:34] Yeah.
[1:40:36] I'm sorry. Could you-
[1:40:36] Board Member Carrie Casey, you got a question, so let's move forward with that.
[1:40:39] Thank you very much.
[1:40:41] To that very last question and point, could you restate what he is correct
[1:40:45] about?
[1:40:45] Yes. Our understanding is that
[1:40:49] you have the option to approve or
[1:40:52] deny the application. Denial would be based on
[1:40:56] failure to meet the statutory requirements.
[1:41:00] And so,
[1:41:01] yes,
[1:41:02] in this case, then that would require you to
[1:41:06] disagree with the staff analysis that all of
[1:41:10] those boxes have been ticked.
[1:41:11] Thank you.
[1:41:13] And further on that point to what Pamela mentioned, is
[1:41:17] there a requirement specifically around,
[1:41:21] how did you word it, Pam? Financial-
[1:41:24] Fiscal, I think
[1:41:25] ... fiscal responsibility. Clearly it's very important.
[1:41:27] I think what Pamela's mentioning, I agree with her, is important.
[1:41:30] But how is that reflected in the statute?
[1:41:35] Right there.
[1:41:35] So I can't quote the statute to you, but I can show you
[1:41:39] that in the list that a financial plan
[1:41:43] is something that's a required element.
[1:41:46] They do have a financial plan. There
[1:41:50] were some comments that in the evaluation that we
[1:41:54] sent back,
[1:41:56] and asked for either clarification or
[1:42:00] suggested a
[1:42:02] change.
[1:42:04] So, Dr. Sereno, just to clarify, we're talking about the overall
[1:42:08] fiscal efficiency of the system, not the individual
[1:42:11] school. So-
[1:42:13] Right. You're talking about something different than what I'm talking about. Yeah.
[1:42:16] So...
[1:42:18] Yeah. It's two different things. Understood.
[1:42:20] And Commissioner?
[1:42:20] I'm just going to mention that when one
[1:42:24] statute says, yes, the board has opportunity to approve or
[1:42:28] to not support the recommendation of the department, is really based on the
[1:42:32] elements which they're required to apply.
[1:42:34] All of these things that you see on the screen right now are things that have been
[1:42:38] vetted by the department, that they have met the statutory requirements, and so
[1:42:42] that's why they're listed. So the
[1:42:46] idea that we would bring something to you that doesn't meet all the
[1:42:49] statutory requirements won't happen because then we would not be recommending.
[1:42:53] And really and truly, the only option here is to say, have they done their
[1:42:57] diligence, and is it an opportunity for them to move forward?
[1:43:00] And if I've had legal counsel to be even more specific,
[1:43:05] it's confusing in the statute. I can just say that.
[1:43:08] It says it both ways. So if they've met all the requirements by
[1:43:12] statute to be able to open up a school, then that's pretty much the position
[1:43:16] that we take as a department.
[1:43:18] Board Member Carrie Casey.
[1:43:19] Thank you.
[1:43:20] A very critical part of the success of any school lies with the board of
[1:43:24] directors of that school.
[1:43:27] The local board members have a significant responsibility towards
[1:43:31] ensuring good governance, overseeing that the
[1:43:35] school or the district is indeed achieving
[1:43:39] the goals that are established, and that those goals are
[1:43:43] appropriately established, meaning with the highest of expectations.
[1:43:47] So tell me more about the board of this school and who, or rather
[1:43:51] not who, but what training will they receive?
[1:43:55] And who will be providing that training, and what's the
[1:43:59] ongoing development of that board?
[1:44:02] Thank you for that question.
[1:44:05] So at St. Louis University, we are working with our schools to
[1:44:09] provide board training for all of the boards in our portfolio.
[1:44:13] Some boards are more mature than others.
[1:44:15] I will say that the Frontier board is especially efficient at
[1:44:19] this time.
[1:44:21] They get a ton of work done, and they do so
[1:44:24] within
[1:44:26] statute and best practice.
[1:44:29] The support that we will provide to them is annually we remind
[1:44:33] them of the things that everybody needs to be reminded of,
[1:44:37] like Sunshine Law and things like that.
[1:44:40] And then additionally, we will go in and work with schools to help
[1:44:44] them understand both proficiency and growth with the support of our SLU
[1:44:48] Prime team to explain those things, and make sure
[1:44:52] that board members are equipped with the right questions to
[1:44:55] push their executive director forward.
[1:44:58] So we do this at different levels with different
[1:45:02] boards. So we are customizing those board trainings.
[1:45:06] I will say,
[1:45:09] the board at Frontier does a really excellent
[1:45:12] job.
[1:45:14] And so a lot of times we use them as an
[1:45:17] exemplar for other schools when they may need support around their
[1:45:21] governance pieces. And then I'll also let Mr. Demirjian add on.
[1:45:25] Yes, we have
[1:45:26] nine board members currently
[1:45:30] in our board.
[1:45:32] We have the committees, school performance committee, facilities committee,
[1:45:36] governance committee, finance committee.
[1:45:39] They meet before the regular board meeting.
[1:45:42] We discuss all the items in the
[1:45:46] committee meetings first. And then
[1:45:50] in the regular board meeting, we would like to be as
[1:45:54] efficient as we can. We have board meetings.
[1:45:59] And so there are some opportunities sometimes for our board members
[1:46:03] from our association, Charter School Association.
[1:46:06] So when we have those
[1:46:11] opportunities, we
[1:46:12] send our board members. And our legal counsels,
[1:46:16] counsel time to time, give board training to our board members.
[1:46:20] And as well, also there are some internal trainings.
[1:46:24] Our chief operating officer, chief academic officer,
[1:46:28] they explain about the state test system, how we
[1:46:32] are doing. So instead of just giving the results, first
[1:46:36] we explain them how the system works.
[1:46:39] So generally, those items take 20 or 30 minutes to explain them
[1:46:43] first, and then to inform them about results.
[1:46:47] So we give also internal trainings to our board members.
[1:46:50] And I would also just like to take the opportunity to let you know, at
[1:46:54] the most recent meeting of the board, they
[1:46:58] passed a resolution to say that as board
[1:47:02] seats become open, they will prioritize finding board members
[1:47:06] from the Columbia area to fill the needs that are left by
[1:47:09] those vacancies. And as they were preparing this application, when
[1:47:13] they did have an opening for a board seat, they did go out and seek a member
[1:47:17] from the Columbia community to fill that seat.
[1:47:20] Board member Pamela Westbrook-Hodge.
[1:47:24] Thank you, all. Would
[1:47:28] it be, and you can tell me if it is, would it be inappropriate
[1:47:31] to hear from CPS regarding their STEM offerings?
[1:47:36] Since essentially we're determining whether or not this
[1:47:39] application is filling an unmet need.
[1:47:42] I'd refer to legal.
[1:47:43] Yes.
[1:47:45] And
[1:47:46] Joel?
[1:47:46] Joel.
[1:47:47] So
[1:47:48] we just need some guidance here.
[1:47:52] I think he gave us guidance earlier.
[1:47:53] Yeah. Would it be permissible to hear from CPS
[1:47:57] on their STEM
[1:47:59] offerings?
[1:48:09] We probably cannot at this time.
[1:48:10] What I'm hearing is that it's not advisable-
[1:48:12] Okay
[1:48:13] ... that it needs to be part of the agenda item and something like that.
[1:48:16] Understood. Thank you.
[1:48:18] Any additional que-- Oh, John Otto, you are on the line, so
[1:48:22] sorry. Do you have comments or questions?
[1:48:26] I did not. No, I just had to step away for a second, but I'm
[1:48:30] back now. So I apologize for missing the last portion of the discussion, but
[1:48:34] I don't
[1:48:36] have any questions.
[1:48:37] Board Member Brooks Miller.
[1:48:38] I just have a final comment because I'm assuming we're getting real close to taking
[1:48:42] a vote on this. And I really
[1:48:45] appreciate your comments, Pamela, or Mrs.
[1:48:49] Westbrook-Hodge. And-
[1:48:50] You can call me Pamela
[1:48:50] ... Oh, yeah. Well, I like to be respectful.
[1:48:55] But in
[1:48:57] my assumption, what you,
[1:49:00] our staff, are saying, because they've met all
[1:49:04] the requirements which we have said they're required to meet,
[1:49:09] we have no other option but to support this.
[1:49:13] Because you're approving the application based on the requirements.
[1:49:17] Correct.
[1:49:17] And they've been met.
[1:49:18] And they've been met. And so at this time, and I think
[1:49:22] those are great comments, but it would be
[1:49:25] inappropriate for us to move the goalpost
[1:49:30] because of the issues expressed here.
[1:49:32] And so for that, I will vote to support it. Just...
[1:49:37] And I think that would be a legislative process in order for
[1:49:41] actually to have those changes. So I think you had one additional comment
[1:49:45] you'd like to make.
[1:49:46] Thank youPresident.
[1:49:50] I just want to say
[1:49:51] that at St. Louis University, we believe that Missouri is
[1:49:55] our community and it's our job to make our community better.
[1:49:58] We like to sponsor schools that are innovative and/or support marginalized
[1:50:02] communities. Frontier STEM Academy does both of those things.
[1:50:06] And I also want to say that I'm very excited about the
[1:50:09] possibility of the leadership of Frontier working with the
[1:50:13] leadership of CPS to build something that's dynamic for the entire
[1:50:17] state, because both of their systems are improving
[1:50:21] drastically.
[1:50:23] And so I'm just really excited about the work that we might be able to do with this
[1:50:27] campus being in Columbia, using SLU Prime,
[1:50:30] using all of the resources we have at St.
[1:50:33] Louis University to increase and improve academic outcomes for
[1:50:36] students, and especially in math.
[1:50:39] I think the state is doing a great job of improving academic outcomes in
[1:50:43] reading and literacy. We know what that is.
[1:50:45] Our friends here at Frontier are doing an excellent job with math.
[1:50:49] In the last iteration of the MAP testing, the Black
[1:50:53] students improved proficiency by 13%.
[1:50:57] That's not just growth, that's a proficiency improvement of Black
[1:51:01] students in math by a whole 13%. So I
[1:51:05] just want to say that we're looking forward to working with
[1:51:08] everybody in the Columbia community to provide what's best for
[1:51:12] students. And so also so that their ZIP code does
[1:51:16] not dictate where they get their education from.
[1:51:20] Deputy Commissioner Lisa Saron.
[1:51:24] Notwithstanding any of the content, there is just one point of
[1:51:28] procedure. Should the Board of Education
[1:51:32] deny an application for a new charter,
[1:51:37] they are required to put that denial in
[1:51:41] writing and specify the statutory basis
[1:51:45] for the denial.
[1:51:48] And that's in the statute regarding new charter applications.
[1:51:52] Just wanted you all to be aware of that.
[1:51:54] Thank you. Do we have-
[1:51:56] I got-
[1:51:57] Any... Oh, John?
[1:51:57] Sorry, one more.
[1:51:58] Sure.
[1:51:58] Sorry, one more question. That said,
[1:52:02] can you provide, and maybe it's not even right now, but if you
[1:52:05] could... Obviously, this is
[1:52:09] just one step in this school
[1:52:13] opening, and
[1:52:16] there's obviously litigation going on.
[1:52:17] So if just somebody could give us an update on what the next steps
[1:52:21] are as the litigation proceeds or whatever.
[1:52:25] Like I said, I know this is just the one step-
[1:52:28] So anything-
[1:52:29] ... in our role in this.
[1:52:30] Yes. Yes. Board Member Otto, anything regarding the
[1:52:33] litigation would be something for a closed session.
[1:52:37] So we wouldn't comment on that. What I can tell you-
[1:52:40] Well, are we still a party to... I don't think we're a party anymore, are we?
[1:52:44] Litigation's public record, but at any rate, we can talk about it later.
[1:52:47] I just wanted to-
[1:52:48] Yeah
[1:52:48] ... get an update on this after the fact. That's all.
[1:52:51] Sure.
[1:52:51] That's really all I'm stating.
[1:52:54] So thank you, Board Member Otto. We appreciate that, and
[1:52:58] certainly something to think about.
[1:53:00] At this time, we now have a recommendation
[1:53:04] and on the floor to accept
[1:53:08] the application.
[1:53:10] Do we have a motion?
[1:53:12] Motion.
[1:53:13] A motion to accept by Carey Casey. Do we have a second?
[1:53:17] Second.
[1:53:17] Second by Mike Matusik.
[1:53:19] All those in favor?
[1:53:22] Aye.
[1:53:22] Aye.
[1:53:22] Opposed?
[1:53:23] Nay.
[1:53:25] Okay. The motion passes, and we appreciate
[1:53:29] everyone.
[1:53:30] I don't know if it's a point of order.
[1:53:33] Should we have a roll call vote on this? No?
[1:53:36] It's not required.
[1:53:37] It's not required.
[1:53:38] And nobody asked me to do it before we did it.
[1:53:40] Yeah.
[1:53:40] But we have one nay, and the rest were yeas.
[1:53:44] It carries.
[1:53:47] But if we wanted to have a roll call...
[1:53:49] In the future, you can just ask.
[1:53:50] Before?
[1:53:51] Mm-hmm.
[1:53:51] Okay. Thank you. I know sometimes-
[1:53:52] Yeah, we don't-
[1:53:53] ... we do it and sometimes we don't and...
[1:53:55] Well, there's certain sections where we absolutely have to do-
[1:53:58] Right
[1:53:58] ... individuals. But this is just in our regular motion, our
[1:54:02] action items, and so it's not required.
[1:54:04] Thank you.
[1:54:06] So thank you-
[1:54:07] Thank you
[1:54:07] ... for your time. We appreciate it.
[1:54:09] And thank you to Columbia Schools for attending. We appreciate that.
[1:54:13] Let's move now to our next item of
[1:54:16] consideration. It's consideration of the approval of commissioners'
[1:54:20] evaluation tool and governance policies.
[1:54:23] And Board Member John Otto will be presenting.
[1:54:26] So
[1:54:28] John, I will turn this over to you.
[1:54:32] All right. Thank you very much, Madam President.
[1:54:36] Just wanted to
[1:54:37] start off by saying again, I apologize for not being there in person.
[1:54:41] I had some personal family issues I had to attend to, and so I
[1:54:45] appreciate everyone being flexible
[1:54:49] in that regard. But
[1:54:51] just wanted to give an overview, I guess.
[1:54:54] So, as we discussed at our prior board meeting, we presented the
[1:54:59] draft of the commissioner evaluation tool.
[1:55:02] It's in the board materials from last month.
[1:55:05] We made a couple of minor edits to that, which is mostly regarding
[1:55:09] the timeline. Those are the comments that we received.
[1:55:13] And so
[1:55:15] that is what we are approving today, along with there are some
[1:55:18] corresponding
[1:55:22] changes to our board policies in connection with the adoption of the
[1:55:26] tool. And so we'll need to
[1:55:28] approve the amendments to
[1:55:32] our board policies, which those are in your packet for this month.
[1:55:35] There's a red line version that shows the changes.
[1:55:38] Most of the changes are to
[1:55:41] section 4D,
[1:55:44] and it's incorporating the changes that we discussed last month.
[1:55:48] It also incorporates
[1:55:50] a proposed timeline, and that timeline is really
[1:55:54] for going forward, butAs we discussed, or
[1:55:58] as Board Member Casey mentioned earlier,
[1:56:02] this document is
[1:56:05] new, and so there's going to be changes and amendments as we go.
[1:56:08] And so that's what the governance committee is tasked with.
[1:56:12] If there are changes needed,
[1:56:14] we will make them going forward. So this is our first amendment since this has been
[1:56:18] adopted. And there will be more, but just letting
[1:56:21] everybody know, just to clarify that these changes are not etched
[1:56:25] in stone at this point, but we can change them.
[1:56:28] We have flexibility going forward.
[1:56:30] But
[1:56:32] let's see.
[1:56:34] So yeah, again,
[1:56:36] the other changes
[1:56:39] to the policies are-
[1:56:42] Excuse me, John.
[1:56:43] Go ahead.
[1:56:44] Should we have a motion on that recommendation
[1:56:48] from the governance committee?
[1:56:50] And that is that change that you've recommended that we
[1:56:54] do at this time, because as you've said, this will be a dynamic
[1:56:58] process with our governance policies.
[1:57:00] But I think we need to have a motion to change that since we voted on it in
[1:57:04] January.
[1:57:05] Yeah. We
[1:57:07] can do it two different ways. We could either do one
[1:57:11] motion that adopts the tool and
[1:57:14] makes the corresponding amendments
[1:57:17] to our policies, or we can do one motion to approve
[1:57:21] the adoption of the tool as presented, the commission
[1:57:25] evaluation tool, and then another separate motion to approve the
[1:57:31] corresponding amendments to the policies.
[1:57:35] There's also one other section that's not necessarily related to
[1:57:39] the commission evaluation tool, and that's the inclusion of
[1:57:43] the committee charters in this, because they were not in the previous
[1:57:48] policies that we adopted. And so that's a separate change, so we could even
[1:57:52] do three motions if you want, or we could just do it all at one.
[1:57:55] I was preparing to just do it all at one-
[1:57:58] I'm comfortable as long as the other board-
[1:57:59] In one swoop. We're efficient. It'd be just the same.
[1:58:00] No, that sounds great. I'm comfortable as long as the rest of the board members
[1:58:03] are. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that, John.
[1:58:06] Okay. So yeah, I
[1:58:08] will actually read the motion at the end or recommend the
[1:58:12] motion, and then we can vote accordingly at the end.
[1:58:14] But
[1:58:15] yeah, so going back to
[1:58:19] the
[1:58:21] changes to the board policies, like I said, it includes an executive summary of the
[1:58:25] commissioner evaluation tool that we will be adopting today.
[1:58:30] And it also includes the committee charters.
[1:58:34] So we had previously adopted the governance committee charter, but this one now
[1:58:37] includes the rest of the committees, which is the strategic planning committee, the
[1:58:41] finance committee, and the legislative priorities committee.
[1:58:45] And those were previously sent out to the board.
[1:58:49] And so I didn't really receive any comments other than I know
[1:58:53] that the finance committee reviewed the finance committee charter.
[1:58:59] But if there are changes, like I said, just submit them and we will
[1:59:03] discuss and propose an amendment to the policies going forward.
[1:59:08] Are there any questions?
[1:59:10] Thank you.
[1:59:11] Uh-uh.
[1:59:11] No. Okay.
[1:59:13] So with that,
[1:59:15] there is one comment I did want to make with regards to
[1:59:19] the timeline
[1:59:22] for the commissioner evaluation tool, and so we can discuss that, but that will be
[1:59:26] included in this motion. And so,
[1:59:30] the proposed timeline, it basically goes on
[1:59:34] an annual basis, and it's taking into account
[1:59:38] that this tool and this process has already been adopted,
[1:59:41] and it's kind of inefficient.
[1:59:45] The efficiency of the process is already kind of incorporated in this draft motion,
[1:59:49] but since
[1:59:51] that timeline doesn't really
[1:59:54] align with where we are now, I think that
[1:59:59] at least with respect to the
[2:00:02] qualitative measures for the commissioner evaluation
[2:00:06] component, we can start that now because our commissioner has been in that
[2:00:10] role for at least two years, I believe, and all of this board has-
[2:00:13] Close
[2:00:14] ... I think most of this board is familiar with her
[2:00:18] for at least a year, and so
[2:00:20] I was going to propose that the commissioner can do a
[2:00:23] self-evaluation.
[2:00:26] We can do our board evaluation in May, and then we can have
[2:00:30] a closed session discussion here in June, which is what we kind of discussed
[2:00:33] briefly at the beginning of this meeting.
[2:00:35] But I do intend to send around a timeline that
[2:00:39] has kind of a modified
[2:00:42] timeline for this first year since we're establishing the baseline, and then going
[2:00:46] forward, it'll just be a regular cadence, starting
[2:00:50] with the start of 2027.
[2:00:53] And so I'll have that more in detail that I can
[2:00:57] send around after this meeting, but that's just kind of what I was thinking and
[2:01:01] discussing with some of the other board members, is that I think we
[2:01:04] can hit the ground running, particularly in light of our
[2:01:08] discussions with the governor yesterday and the priorities that
[2:01:12] they discussed.
[2:01:13] And so John, after this meeting, you will send us what you received from
[2:01:17] the governor's office as well as the timeline so everyone will
[2:01:21] understand exactly when you need to have
[2:01:24] our information back, right?
[2:01:26] Yes. And like I said, just initially, we'll start
[2:01:32] in May, with the May meeting. This'll obviously give me some time to get
[2:01:36] this timeline set up, and the tool is already finalized.
[2:01:39] But
[2:01:41] again, this is just the qualitative piece.
[2:01:43] The quantitative piece is the student data outcomes and things like that, and that
[2:01:47] data typically is not even available-
[2:01:50] Yeah
[2:01:50] ... until the fall. And so that's why
[2:01:52] we're establishing a baseline there, and I still was working with the commissioner.
[2:01:56] We're kind of waiting to hear back on some details
[2:02:00] on those items that were included in the initial draft of this,
[2:02:04] butIn the interest of time, I figure we can at least get started on the
[2:02:07] qualitative piece, and then the quantitative we can evaluate in the fall.
[2:02:11] Like I said, this will just be a modified timeline than what's in the
[2:02:15] tool. But I will send out the details
[2:02:19] before our May meeting, and then like I said, with the goal of we can all
[2:02:23] have a closed session discussion in June.
[2:02:28] That sounds great. We have a question from board member Mike Matusik.
[2:02:31] Hey, John. Thank you for that overview, especially on the updates.
[2:02:36] And I guess a question for you and for the board,
[2:02:41] the qualitative portion of the
[2:02:45] evaluation, is that something that we envision
[2:02:49] doing every year or just the first year, kind of like a
[2:02:52] mid-year-
[2:02:53] Every year.
[2:02:54] Every year-
[2:02:55] Every year
[2:02:55] ... mid-year type cycle separate from
[2:02:59] the rest of it? Or-
[2:03:01] Yeah, no, it is something that will be done annually every year.
[2:03:04] It's just
[2:03:06] typically, at least in my initial envision, and again, I'm not an HR
[2:03:10] professional. I'm kind of
[2:03:12] going by the seat of my pants and kind of what I've seen other
[2:03:15] school boards do and other professional organizations that I've been
[2:03:19] involved with.
[2:03:21] It was all going to be one process, but given the timing, that's why
[2:03:25] we kind of separated out to do the qualitative now and then the quantitative
[2:03:29] later. But if that works based on the timing of
[2:03:33] our... Like I said, we get data in
[2:03:37] the summer and then it's late summer, September, and so just
[2:03:40] to keep in line, it might be best to do the
[2:03:43] biannual kind of review. There was always going to be a
[2:03:47] mid-year review component anyway,
[2:03:49] but I think
[2:03:52] with the way that our timing works and being on a calendar year
[2:03:57] basis, I think we can start it this way, doing the qualitative
[2:04:01] first and then the quantitative later.
[2:04:03] Thank you. I have one-
[2:04:04] Sure
[2:04:04] ... just one quick follow-up to that.
[2:04:08] So
[2:04:09] most of the student performance data
[2:04:12] is
[2:04:14] finalized or published in
[2:04:16] September-ish. So
[2:04:20] is the sort of the January
[2:04:23] timeline to start the review process?
[2:04:25] There's a several month gap there.
[2:04:30] Yeah, no, that'll be modified. So like I said, once I was looking at
[2:04:33] this and if based on the timing, so what's in here now, that's
[2:04:37] why I was saying that what has been proposed
[2:04:42] as far as a timeline that we are adopting today will probably be
[2:04:45] modified later after we've kind of
[2:04:49] finalized our timeline and things like that.
[2:04:50] So
[2:04:51] like I said, that was kind of an initial goal based on where we are at
[2:04:55] now. But looking at the reasons you just said, like the
[2:04:59] data comes in September, October, we should start
[2:05:03] evaluating that right then. You know what I mean?
[2:05:04] There's no reason to wait, particularly with all the other stuff that we have
[2:05:08] going on at the end of the year. I don't want to delay things, and so that stuff
[2:05:12] will kind of work itself out once the dust settles, I'm hoping.
[2:05:16] But this is just the first modification to that.
[2:05:19] Thank you.
[2:05:19] If that makes sense.
[2:05:20] Yeah, thank you for clarifying that.
[2:05:21] It was a misunderstanding on my part, so appreciate that, John.
[2:05:24] No, no, no. It's easy to misunderstand.
[2:05:26] It's a lot-
[2:05:27] And Mike
[2:05:28] ... a lot of moving parts here.
[2:05:29] To your point, because of when the data comes in, and this
[2:05:33] is a new committee and it's been
[2:05:37] dynamic, but I think John's done such a great job.
[2:05:40] I think his encouragement, we vote on it at this meeting, we
[2:05:44] start assessing the first portion.
[2:05:47] We'll have a closed session in June where we can have discussion with the
[2:05:51] commissioner, and she can have discussion with us.
[2:05:53] And then to your point, it'll be fall before we'll have those
[2:05:58] numbers that we can really look at.
[2:06:00] And it may be possible that the board will then decide that
[2:06:04] they want to do their evaluation annually in January.
[2:06:07] So this first year is just getting it started.
[2:06:10] I think to John's point, he really wanted us to move forward.
[2:06:14] The commissioner's been very supportive and wants to see us move forward.
[2:06:17] But next year may be before you have
[2:06:21] completely utilized the tool as originally
[2:06:24] intended all at once, or it may stay, as John said,
[2:06:28] split, and the board can kind of decide that.
[2:06:31] Does that sound good, John? Am I
[2:06:34] accurate on that?
[2:06:36] Yeah, I think that summarizes what I said.
[2:06:39] So is there any other questions regarding that?
[2:06:42] Sorry.
[2:06:43] So Board Member Mike Matusik?
[2:06:45] Yeah, not a question about the timeline, but
[2:06:48] I guess how does the evaluation
[2:06:53] correlate with the strategic plan?
[2:06:57] Does the strategic plan
[2:06:59] need to be approved or in...
[2:07:03] We currently have a strategic plan that we're currently working with.
[2:07:05] Right.
[2:07:06] And then, of course, the refresh will bring additional metrics, hopefully available
[2:07:10] for us to have those kinds of quantitative pieces
[2:07:14] actually to be a little bit more transparent, and we can see what's
[2:07:18] going on across our state. But we have a strategic plan.
[2:07:21] We'll be doing a refresh. But yes, the evaluation will inform, or the
[2:07:24] strategic plan metrics and things like that will help to inform the
[2:07:28] evaluation.
[2:07:29] Thank you.
[2:07:30] And I think the June board meeting, there'll be some more discussion
[2:07:35] probably at the May and the June board meeting, right, with strategic plan?
[2:07:39] That was my understanding from earlier conversation.
[2:07:41] Correct.
[2:07:42] On the edits.
[2:07:43] Okay. Sounds good.
[2:07:44] Yeah. And to follow up on that, yeah, Mike, the
[2:07:48] strategic plan, once it's adopted,
[2:07:50] 100% portions of that will be incorporated into
[2:07:54] this tool and future tools and goal-setting items as well.
[2:07:58] And so since we didn't have it yet, I didn't want to wait before
[2:08:02] we even set the goals until this summer.
[2:08:04] I think a lot of those qualitative items
[2:08:06] areAs you can see from the tool,
[2:08:10] it's
[2:08:11] leadership style skills, things like that, that we all should be familiar
[2:08:15] with at this point. And like I said, I'm just trying to streamline the process so
[2:08:18] that we're not overwhelmed
[2:08:20] at the end of this calendar year. If that makes sense.
[2:08:25] Sounds great. Any other questions?
[2:08:28] So we have a recommendation on the floor. Do we have a motion?
[2:08:32] Yeah.
[2:08:32] Oh, sorry.
[2:08:33] I can read it here. So I
[2:08:36] wanted to be clear for the record. So the
[2:08:44] Governance Committee Commissioner Evaluation Subcommittee recommends
[2:08:49] approval of the Commissioner Evaluation Tool as
[2:08:53] it's presented. Also, the modified
[2:08:56] evaluation timeline as we've discussed, and also the corresponding
[2:09:00] amendments to our board policies.
[2:09:05] Okay. We have a motion on the floor. Do we have a second?
[2:09:08] Second.
[2:09:08] We have a second from board member Mike Matusik.
[2:09:11] Well, actually, that wasn't my mo-- somebody else has to move it.
[2:09:13] That was just-
[2:09:14] So moved.
[2:09:15] Okay.
[2:09:15] There you go.
[2:09:15] So Mike will move it, and Carrie has seconded.
[2:09:20] Do we have any additional questions? All right. Thank you.
[2:09:23] And John, thank you for your great explanation.
[2:09:25] So all those in favor of the recommendation?
[2:09:29] Aye.
[2:09:30] Opposed? Okay. Thank you.
[2:09:33] Thank you.
[2:09:34] Your great work. Yes. So now we are into
[2:09:38] our discussion items.
[2:09:41] And first up on our discussion items is governmental
[2:09:44] affairs update.
[2:09:55] Were your ears burning because Brooks was singing your praises?
[2:09:59] Don't believe that.
[2:10:02] I floated in here.
[2:10:03] Oh, okay. There you go. You did a very, very fine job yesterday, and I just
[2:10:07] shared that with the rest of the board.
[2:10:09] Thank you.
[2:10:09] I think you do very good work and have a great relationship.
[2:10:12] Yes. Thank you.
[2:10:14] With legislators.
[2:10:14] Well, good morning. Perry Goerrel, chief of governmental relations.
[2:10:18] Just going to give you a brief update.
[2:10:20] It honestly won't take a whole lot of time.
[2:10:23] Yesterday's
[2:10:26] connection with those legislators was a great opportunity for
[2:10:30] the state board members to visit with legislators and
[2:10:35] maybe get some direction or ideas, or listen to the ideas of which
[2:10:39] they have
[2:10:41] in the legislative process.
[2:10:44] As you all know, we're approaching the end of the session.
[2:10:48] There's about four and a half, five weeks left.
[2:10:51] And they still have a budget to pass.
[2:10:54] I'm sure Dr. Cruz here later will talk about the budget process, so I'm
[2:10:58] not going to talk about that a whole lot.
[2:11:01] But what I will share with you is that because of that process is still in
[2:11:07] process or rolling down the tracks, that takes floor time.
[2:11:11] And most of the conversation that we are seeing in and around the
[2:11:15] capital this year is truly focused in and around the budget.
[2:11:20] They do a heavily scrutinization of fiscal notes this year,
[2:11:24] and when it goes to fiscal review. So if a piece of legislation
[2:11:28] is passed out of one chamber and moving to the next,
[2:11:32] it'll go through a review process of what will that cost
[2:11:36] the state. And so there are times that pieces of legislation that
[2:11:40] may have a heavy price tag may slow down in that process,
[2:11:44] or if they do cross the chamber, may not get floor
[2:11:48] time on the other side. And so there are times that educational
[2:11:52] bills will have a fiscal note of some sort, and it will
[2:11:56] slow down. Now, if it's a practice or something that
[2:12:00] doesn't have a high fiscal note,
[2:12:02] we will see at times those things are moving.
[2:12:05] And so,
[2:12:07] I think I shared last week with you all about Senate
[2:12:11] Bill 1383.
[2:12:14] It's the Elementary Ag Literacy Bill.
[2:12:16] And what Senate Bill
[2:12:19] 1383 does, we had a pilot program back
[2:12:22] in 2020 that will introduce elementary ag
[2:12:27] in the lower levels. The reason why I raised this up
[2:12:31] is that that is the one education bill, although it's not
[2:12:34] titled the Department of Elementary and
[2:12:37] Secondary Education,
[2:12:40] that has the opportunity to become an omnibus bill.
[2:12:44] And so last week in the
[2:12:48] Special Committee on Emerging Rural Issues, they attempted to
[2:12:52] put 11 other subjects on that bill.
[2:12:54] Now, what I will share with you is that it failed, and the reason why it failed is
[2:12:58] that those members didn't have a true understanding of what
[2:13:02] that process looked like, why were they adding it to this bill.
[2:13:07] One of the bill sponsors was in that committee.
[2:13:10] And so,
[2:13:12] it failed to be added to Senate Bill 1383 on
[2:13:16] the House side.
[2:13:18] What I expect to happen sometime this week or next week on the
[2:13:22] House side is that Senate Bill 1383 will become the
[2:13:25] vehicle for other educational bills, and they will amend
[2:13:29] that bill on the floor.
[2:13:31] Now, to do that, they're going to have to change the title.
[2:13:34] And then when they do that, then it'll have to go back to committee, back to the
[2:13:37] Senate side. The Senate will either pick it up or it'll go to conference.
[2:13:41] And once it goes to conference, they make a committee, and they can strip off what
[2:13:45] they want to agree, and then it goes back to both chambers.
[2:13:48] Again, I told you there's four and a half, five weeks left, and they still got a
[2:13:51] budget, so there's a lot to happen in that.
[2:13:53] But Senate Bill 1383 and House Bill
[2:13:57] 2097 may become the vehicle for an omnibus bill for
[2:14:01] education this year. And so as we get towards the end of the session, we start
[2:14:05] watching that bill,
[2:14:07] and watching what will be added to thatWe
[2:14:11] have a bill that was actually,
[2:14:14] I won't call it necessarily a priority bill, but it was a cleanup bill.
[2:14:17] We call them cleanup bills for the department for this year, and
[2:14:21] that is House Bill 1627.
[2:14:24] Or yeah, 1626, Representative Haley has, and it's a current
[2:14:28] technical education advisory committee cleanup bill.
[2:14:31] That bill in statute, we wanted to clean up the terms, we
[2:14:35] wanted to clean up who could be on the committee, all those things.
[2:14:38] It's very non-controversial. It could be a consent bill.
[2:14:42] We would like for that to be attached to this bill as it moves
[2:14:46] forward. But to do that, they will have to change the title of the bill.
[2:14:50] And when they change the title of the bill, then it's like opening up the
[2:14:53] door. And when you open up the door, you don't necessarily control who
[2:14:57] comes in. And so I'm working on trying
[2:15:01] to change the title in a way that it does not open up the door
[2:15:05] for a lot of different things, but it still focuses on the current
[2:15:09] technical education, because that's truly what ag literacy is.
[2:15:13] So
[2:15:15] again, that bill there, Senate Bill 1383 and House Bill
[2:15:19] 2097 will be the vehicles. House Bill
[2:15:22] 2097 is on the Senate side,
[2:15:25] and so we'll be monitoring that bill on both sides
[2:15:29] of the chambers to see what is added.
[2:15:33] I think you
[2:15:34] heard me at the last board meeting, I spoke about House Bill
[2:15:37] 2748, the physical activity bill, requiring that
[2:15:42] physical activity be required for all students K through
[2:15:45] 12 for 60 minutes. That bill had a hearing
[2:15:49] this morning on the Senate side.
[2:15:52] The sponsor of that bill,
[2:15:56] it's encouraging. The bill sponsor has assured members
[2:16:00] that they will pare back that requirement of 60 minutes of
[2:16:04] physical activity for all students to be limited to only
[2:16:08] the elementary grades, and then to limit it
[2:16:12] down to
[2:16:14] 150
[2:16:16] minutes of work in that range.
[2:16:18] So the best that I can see now is that there'll be 10 minutes to the day
[2:16:22] added for physical activity above what is now being
[2:16:26] required for elementary students.
[2:16:28] Now, I've not seen that in writing.
[2:16:30] That's just the conversation that was had today.
[2:16:34] Because as we move forward and we look at these bills, we also have the
[2:16:38] literacy bill, which is House Bill 2872.
[2:16:41] And House Bill 2872,
[2:16:45] there's
[2:16:48] really two things that this bill does.
[2:16:51] The literacy bill from the House side
[2:16:54] will require EPPs or educator prep programs to
[2:16:58] only teach the science of reading.
[2:17:01] And so those prep programs will be
[2:17:05] required to do that now, and there's some reporting and vetting that we will have
[2:17:08] to do as an agency. But the piece that gives probably the
[2:17:12] most conversation has to do with
[2:17:15] this in and around third-grade retention.
[2:17:18] And so the House version has a very modified, a lot of parental
[2:17:22] involvement, parental consent, parental input, parental
[2:17:27] activity to that.
[2:17:29] But that bill, again, was heard this morning in the Senate committee along
[2:17:33] with the physical activity bill. There was a lot of conversation in
[2:17:37] and around third-grade retention.
[2:17:39] And so
[2:17:42] as you hear in the news, you will hear about whether or not
[2:17:46] we should be retaining third graders if they have a
[2:17:50] substantial or are on a reading success plan.
[2:17:54] And so
[2:17:55] House Bill 2872 will be one we monitor.
[2:18:00] We've not weighed in as a department on the third-grade retention
[2:18:03] piece.
[2:18:05] We have weighed in on pieces of it to ensure that the
[2:18:09] language matches up to what we are currently doing with Senate Bill
[2:18:12] 681, because it did change some language.
[2:18:16] It was using below basic, basic, proficient, advanced language,
[2:18:20] MAP testing, and we know that that language is not
[2:18:24] the same as when it comes to identifying students.
[2:18:29] And so we worked with the bill sponsor on that just in language, to ensure
[2:18:33] that it's obvious that it's based upon
[2:18:37] literacy and not MAP testing to make sure that we try to keep the two
[2:18:40] separate.
[2:18:43] The other bill that has made it out of the Senate chamber that I
[2:18:46] reported to you last month is Senate Bill 863.
[2:18:51] Senate Bill 863 is the
[2:18:55] Interscholastic Activities Association Appeals Board.
[2:18:59] There was a Senate substitute at one point in time that was
[2:19:02] bringing 100% of that association here,
[2:19:07] and it has been peeled back to, or rolled back to, is
[2:19:10] that the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
[2:19:14] shall oversee a board of five
[2:19:18] individuals.
[2:19:19] That will be another avenue to appeal
[2:19:23] certain things that are appealable, such as
[2:19:26] transfers and
[2:19:29] event situations that may arise that need a
[2:19:33] review or an appeals committee.
[2:19:36] It will not replace a board, the current board of this
[2:19:39] association. It will not replace the appeals process that
[2:19:43] they have currently in place. It will only become another
[2:19:47] opportunity or avenue for them to appeal to a different
[2:19:50] individual that is outside of that association.
[2:19:54] So,
[2:19:55] I don't know where that will go. What I do think is that
[2:20:00] it will probably have a good chance to making it through the House as it is.
[2:20:05] They probably won't make many changes to it because there is a sponsor on the other
[2:20:08] side that had kind of the same language to begin with.
[2:20:11] And
[2:20:12] soSenate Bill 863, I think will be something that
[2:20:16] will possibly get across the finish line.
[2:20:18] But again, there's four and a half, five weeks left of session.
[2:20:22] And what happens when any Senate bill goes to the
[2:20:26] House, they start piling things on it.
[2:20:29] And if they pile one thing on it,
[2:20:32] of any one thing, it goes back to the Senate.
[2:20:35] And
[2:20:37] remember I said there's four and a half, five weeks left.
[2:20:39] They have the budget to do, and the budget is going to take them a lot of
[2:20:43] time in the Senate. And so,
[2:20:48] time will tell whether or not that gets across the line.
[2:20:51] The other thing that's going to take time, and which they're going to start on
[2:20:55] tomorrow, is House Joint Resolution 173 and 174
[2:21:00] on the Senate side. And so,
[2:21:03] that bill there has to do with the
[2:21:06] governor's priority on income tax.
[2:21:10] And that bill, again, is also going to take time.
[2:21:13] I share these with you because last year
[2:21:17] at this time, many education bills had really made their way
[2:21:21] through and we knew exactly where they're going to be.
[2:21:25] The Senate is running out of time to do things, and because of that,
[2:21:29] the chances of some legislation or maybe
[2:21:33] any legislation, educational legislation getting
[2:21:37] through, the clock is ticking. So,
[2:21:42] that's all I have for updates.
[2:21:45] Okay. Thank you.
[2:21:47] Taking questions.
[2:21:47] So I think we have a question from Board Member Pamela Westbrook-Hodge.
[2:21:52] Yeah. I really want to make sure we collectively,
[2:21:56] intimately understand the impact
[2:22:00] of legislation that potentially
[2:22:04] lowers the revenue base for the state.
[2:22:08] So,
[2:22:10] 173 and 174, the income tax effort.
[2:22:15] Have we quantified the budgetary, the
[2:22:18] revenue impact if it is passed to the state, and
[2:22:22] then how that trickles downstream to funding our educational
[2:22:26] mandates?
[2:22:29] So, I don't know that we have dived into that
[2:22:33] extensively at the agency. In fact, I know that we have not,
[2:22:37] because we know that it's a part of the legislative process.
[2:22:40] It's in the legislative process. There are a lot of
[2:22:44] outside agencies and groups that have
[2:22:47] differing opinions of how it will impact.
[2:22:51] And so as an agency, we're not
[2:22:56] typically weighing in on that, but it's something that we have to be mindful of.
[2:23:01] And so, I'm actually
[2:23:05] going to defer this question to Dr. Cruz.
[2:23:07] I apologize, because he's the finance guy, but I think it's
[2:23:10] important to understand that this piece of legislation
[2:23:14] will impact all state agencies, and so...
[2:23:18] Or may not.
[2:23:20] Yeah. And I think the point I want to just
[2:23:24] underscore is all the COVID dollars masked
[2:23:28] the impact of all of those tax cuts.
[2:23:31] And so, with the COVID monies gone, we're feeling
[2:23:35] the impact of diminished
[2:23:39] revenues.
[2:23:40] Right.
[2:23:41] So,
[2:23:42] we need to understand how those
[2:23:45] cuts, and this particular cut, will impact
[2:23:49] the money that we will have available to run our
[2:23:53] state.
[2:23:55] Yeah. And I just-
[2:24:00] I think Dr. Cruz will be able to-
[2:24:02] I don't feel like we've-
[2:24:04] Yeah.
[2:24:04] We've considered the impact of those things sufficiently, and
[2:24:08] now we're struggling to meet our educational mandates.
[2:24:10] Yep. I believe Dr. Cruz will be able to answer.
[2:24:13] Commissioner.
[2:24:13] Let me just mention one thing. It is a little bit difficult to be able to
[2:24:17] assess exactly what the local revenue impact will be because there are so many
[2:24:20] variations in local revenue tax codes and
[2:24:24] all kinds of things that are-- Like each county would have their own
[2:24:28] different kind of tax code and levies.
[2:24:30] So it's hard to see overall, especially when we know that
[2:24:34] the local dollar is really the supporter of public ed in the state of Missouri,
[2:24:37] more so than federal or state.
[2:24:40] The reason I bring this up is because we have looked at and tried to
[2:24:45] estimate what would happen if.
[2:24:48] But running those scenarios through a formula or something is very hard to do.
[2:24:51] So here's what's problematic. If we can't do it-
[2:24:54] Mm-hmm. Yeah
[2:24:54] ... then how are those projections and models being made
[2:24:58] before the legislation is being-
[2:25:00] Well, there's fiscal notes on the legislation, and we are trying to provide as much
[2:25:04] information as we possibly can with what we do know. Yes.
[2:25:07] Board Member Casey, you had a comment?
[2:25:09] I think that's a really important point that Pam is making.
[2:25:12] I do have another question, but just to add a comment on that.
[2:25:15] But wouldn't it be
[2:25:19] the responsibility of the legislature to have the full,
[2:25:23] as best as possible, because-
[2:25:25] They do provide fiscal notes, yes.
[2:25:26] But we provide, but so does every other agency.
[2:25:28] Yes, every agency does too.
[2:25:29] But there
[2:25:32] is an overarching impact
[2:25:36] statement or study done. The governor wouldn't sign a bill without
[2:25:39] understanding what at least is believed to be the impact,
[2:25:43] because nobody-
[2:25:44] An estimate.
[2:25:44] Yeah. So that is something that's getting put together, just not in
[2:25:48] a... We provide input to a bigger, broader-
[2:25:51] Correct
[2:25:52] ... point.
[2:25:53] So the depart-
[2:25:53] Because it is important, to Pam's point.
[2:25:55] Yeah.
[2:25:56] I'm sure the Department of Revenue is putting together all the scenarios
[2:26:00] based upon the legislation that is currently being proposed.
[2:26:04] Mm-hmm.
[2:26:06] I am positive that that will be changed in the Senate to some extent because there
[2:26:10] were some carve-outs that were supposed to occur that haven't occurred or-
[2:26:13] Mm-hmm
[2:26:13] ... and maybe they've attached it by now, but it came
[2:26:17] out of the House, this House Joint Resolution came out of the
[2:26:21] HouseWithout some carve outs
[2:26:25] for some
[2:26:30] ag, for instance, agriculture, there was no exemption for that.
[2:26:33] So everything in ag currently is exempt from
[2:26:37] paying sales tax on wasn't carved out in the House.
[2:26:40] So expect that to happen somewhere, and it may have already happened.
[2:26:44] Okay, Carrie, you had a follow-up question.
[2:26:46] One other quick question unrelated
[2:26:49] to that particular bill. If you could go back, I might not have heard
[2:26:52] correctly. I think it was 2872 House bill, and you were speaking
[2:26:56] about-
[2:26:57] Literacy
[2:26:58] ... literacy.
[2:26:59] Could you re-explain what you stated about we're
[2:27:02] working to address language in that
[2:27:06] bill that would separate literacy from MAP testing?
[2:27:10] So the
[2:27:11] first
[2:27:17] presented bill had the same language that we use for MAP
[2:27:20] testing,
[2:27:22] below basic, basic, proficient, advanced.
[2:27:26] And we use approaching, and I can't remember.
[2:27:29] We use other language,
[2:27:32] to classify our readers. And what we didn't want to
[2:27:36] occur was we just wanted to match what we're currently doing
[2:27:39] in practice, what our school districts are
[2:27:43] using to identify. It's the classifications that we
[2:27:47] utilize for our readers. That's what we'd done.
[2:27:50] It wasn't necessarily changing the four categories, but it
[2:27:53] was making the language the same as what we currently have in
[2:27:57] practice.
[2:27:58] And it makes sense to have a common language, but that confuses me because
[2:28:02] we shouldn't have a different language.
[2:28:04] I know I've seen approaching and that before in our presentations,
[2:28:08] so I feel that we should be all using the same
[2:28:11] language, and if our MAP tests are
[2:28:15] rated at... We determine literacy
[2:28:18] based on whatever levels, cut scores included, and now
[2:28:22] the insertion-
[2:28:23] So the-
[2:28:23] ... of grade level.
[2:28:24] Yeah, so the thought behind that and the
[2:28:28] original inception of Senate Bill 681 is the language that was in
[2:28:32] Senate Bill 681.
[2:28:34] But also understand that
[2:28:37] these
[2:28:38] reading diagnostics that they're taking
[2:28:41] are not summative tests, and so these
[2:28:45] plans are developed over time with these students.
[2:28:47] It's just giving them where they at in the process.
[2:28:51] Whereas a MAP test, it's a summative test at the end,
[2:28:55] and so there needed to be a distinguishable difference.
[2:28:58] So the bill is not speaking to-
[2:29:00] The second one
[2:29:01] ... academic outcomes.
[2:29:03] No.
[2:29:03] It's speaking to-
[2:29:04] So I think the commissioner was going to have an explanation.
[2:29:08] Just to clear that up, I think the intent of the
[2:29:13] person who created the bill was that if a
[2:29:16] student is not reaching a certain
[2:29:20] point in literacy, to make sure these kids are reading by third grade.
[2:29:23] So they're trying to match up the literacy assessment with
[2:29:28] the language in the bill. So it's different than the summative MAP at the end with
[2:29:31] just English language arts.
[2:29:33] Also, it has to be aligned to literacy because that's the intent.
[2:29:37] That helps.
[2:29:38] Board Member Miller?
[2:29:40] And I don't know whether it's the same bill we're talking about.
[2:29:43] I think we're using different verbiage, but you talked about a three-year reading
[2:29:48] retention plan.
[2:29:49] Third grade retention, yep.
[2:29:50] Yeah. But that doesn't have anything to do with this?
[2:29:54] No, so third grade retention is a part of this-
[2:29:56] Yep
[2:29:57] ... bill.
[2:29:57] Well, so my question is, if this were to
[2:30:01] pass,
[2:30:03] what is the number of third graders that would need to be retained?
[2:30:09] I've seen that number somewhere but-
[2:30:10] We have an estimate because we do use these reading recovery plans in the zero one,
[2:30:14] kindergarten, first, and second grade.
[2:30:15] So we kinda have a sense of how many students have to or need
[2:30:19] additional support in reading. But as far as the number, when it gets to
[2:30:23] third grade, and when this actually comes into play, it'd just be a ballpark at
[2:30:26] this point.
[2:30:27] So what would it be?
[2:30:28] I don't have that answer but-
[2:30:29] So let me ask you this-
[2:30:30] Yeah
[2:30:30] ... is it a problem?
[2:30:32] I think that,
[2:30:34] anytime that you have a drop dead thing that's around
[2:30:38] time for a kid's learning, then yes, you're going to have some kids backing up.
[2:30:42] I do believe.
[2:30:42] And here's my point.
[2:30:44] Why is it that our policies need to be legislated?
[2:30:48] Mm-hmm.
[2:30:49] And why do we not develop them internally already?
[2:30:52] To me, it's really unfortunate that we have to have
[2:30:56] a bill come across that retains third graders
[2:31:00] because they can't read. Now, that seems like a very common sense
[2:31:05] that we as a department are responsible for-
[2:31:08] Mm-hmm
[2:31:08] ... and not the legislature.
[2:31:10] This is quirky here a little bit, I think.
[2:31:14] And sorry for using that word, but,
[2:31:18] I do not understand why the
[2:31:21] Department of Education, if there is a problem with
[2:31:25] third-grade reading performance, we are not taking
[2:31:29] steps to improve it.
[2:31:31] So,
[2:31:32] I do want to share,
[2:31:35] probably past stance
[2:31:37] with the department
[2:31:39] and the board in general has been on items like this to
[2:31:43] not necessarily develop policy. I think the
[2:31:47] board has that ability to work with the
[2:31:51] department.
[2:31:51] Yeah, the responsibility comes in the classification or accreditation of
[2:31:55] school districts, and if they don't hit the score, then they don't become.
[2:31:58] Yeah.
[2:31:59] So there's that. But as far as a rule or reg that specifies
[2:32:03] retention at the third-grade level, that hasn't been something that this
[2:32:06] agency has been driving.
[2:32:07] Okay.
[2:32:08] Right.
[2:32:10] And that's why they had to put a bill out there-
[2:32:11] Mm-hmm
[2:32:12] ... because we as an agency don't address it.
[2:32:14] And I'll get back to you as far as authority wise, because I'm not sure that we
[2:32:17] even have the ability to police it.
[2:32:19] Well, I disagree, but at the same
[2:32:22] time-I think it goes back to my first question, is
[2:32:26] how many kids would be retained? I don't believe we have that information
[2:32:30] to say, "This is a problem, and this is what DESE needs to be
[2:32:34] working on,"
[2:32:36] and then bring it from DESE to the legislature if we need to get it
[2:32:40] passed or whatever. It's
[2:32:44] frustrating for me-
[2:32:46] I think-
[2:32:46] ... for us to talk about this and-
[2:32:47] There's a little bit of a shift mindset, but
[2:32:51] to our commissioner's point, we want to make sure we do have
[2:32:54] the authority. But Brooks, I agree with you, based on the feedback we've been
[2:32:58] getting on some of these policies that
[2:33:02] they'd really like to see the state board lead, along with the
[2:33:06] department, in these particular areas.
[2:33:08] So Board Member Casey?
[2:33:10] Yeah, a couple of points. I certainly share your frustration, Brooks, on
[2:33:14] a couple of aspects of it. I think as we look
[2:33:18] towards a July agenda, that we
[2:33:21] continue or we build on the conversation that we attempted to have last
[2:33:25] July that maybe laid a foundation.
[2:33:28] Clarity and understanding the scope of authority of our board,
[2:33:31] because
[2:33:33] we mentioned it yesterday with the governor, we are a state of locals.
[2:33:38] So to what point can we set policy versus does it
[2:33:41] require legislation?
[2:33:43] Right.
[2:33:43] And there's a fine line there, I'm sure.
[2:33:45] And to the extent that we can influence policy versus set
[2:33:48] policy, and that we can influence legislation.
[2:33:52] Because I personally feel when we see a problem and
[2:33:56] we have evidence of after proper discussion,
[2:34:00] we agree that a particular policy would address that problem,
[2:34:04] we need to
[2:34:06] better understand our authority there.
[2:34:07] The other thing I would say is back to the point on the number,
[2:34:12] not to digress into a different, whole bigger conversation on
[2:34:15] literacy here, but we do see it, but we'd have to
[2:34:19] extrapolate it from the map results we get, and
[2:34:23] x percent of our students are basic and below basic, and
[2:34:27] then therefore... And we do see it at third-grade level and fourth-grade level in
[2:34:30] our various updates. And you can go in and extrapolate that
[2:34:34] information from other data. That goes
[2:34:37] to the point, though,
[2:34:39] the questions that
[2:34:43] we have
[2:34:45] should drive the information that we're receiving in our updates.
[2:34:49] And I think that's what we're doing through our committee work, is evolving
[2:34:53] that so with our input to the staff and working right
[2:34:57] alongside, they're part of our committees, that they can
[2:35:00] understand the kind of questions we're coming with and then provide the information
[2:35:04] to us in a way that helps us better see and
[2:35:08] better address the challenges that we're facing here.
[2:35:11] So can I res-
[2:35:12] Just, well-
[2:35:13] I need to respond to this, please.
[2:35:15] So Brooks would like to respond.
[2:35:17] Yeah. And here's where I somewhat disagree with you.
[2:35:21] Once again, we don't need to dig out that information.
[2:35:26] This institution needs to dig out that information.
[2:35:28] And that's what I'm saying.
[2:35:29] And they need to-
[2:35:30] What's disappointing is-
[2:35:32] Yes
[2:35:32] ... we don't have that information.
[2:35:35] You say we have it, but yet is third-grade
[2:35:39] reading a problem?
[2:35:42] And if it is, why are we not talking about that in our board meetings
[2:35:47] about the programs we're going to improve on and how we're going to make an
[2:35:50] impact on improving on that? It's a
[2:35:54] frustration for me that we look at this big book.
[2:35:58] I look at a big book every month. There's nothing about vision, there's nothing
[2:36:01] about improvements. And then we have to
[2:36:05] rely on legislators to come in here and push down our throat
[2:36:09] something that because we are not proactive.
[2:36:13] I'm not being disrespectful, it's just my feeling.
[2:36:17] We are not being proactive in the work that we're supposed to be doing.
[2:36:20] That's where I come from.
[2:36:22] But because we are a local control state, I have to remind everybody, we are a
[2:36:25] local control state.
[2:36:27] Okay.
[2:36:27] And we've had that conversation, too, with the governor's office as well.
[2:36:31] So we do have a little bit of a line
[2:36:35] that we have to balance and navigate.
[2:36:36] Madam Chairman, I'm going to make a comment.
[2:36:38] Okay.
[2:36:39] If that is the reason that we cannot do our job is because we're a locally
[2:36:43] controlled state, we need to disband the State Board of Education because
[2:36:47] we're not doing a darn thing. And I don't want to hear the excuses
[2:36:51] anymore why we can't do stuff, because that's what we're here to
[2:36:54] do. We're here to take care of business as it relates to education.
[2:36:58] And it's getting very frustrating
[2:37:01] to
[2:37:02] hear these things. I'm not throwing stones or anything
[2:37:06] else. This is the reality. We have a legislator who knows that
[2:37:10] it's important for third graders to be able to read.
[2:37:13] Do we support the bill?
[2:37:17] Does DESE come out and say, "Hey, we support that."
[2:37:22] So we take a neutral stance on all legislation?
[2:37:25] Okay.
[2:37:25] And that's Brook's point exactly.
[2:37:27] Yeah. No.
[2:37:28] We should not.
[2:37:28] This is ridiculous.
[2:37:29] Yeah.
[2:37:30] And I'm sorry to use those words-
[2:37:32] And so I-
[2:37:32] ... but I'm passionate about this, and we need to be making changes for the
[2:37:36] better of education in the state of Missouri.
[2:37:39] And quit kicking this ball down the road.
[2:37:41] And I'm frustrated and-
[2:37:42] Pamela, I'm going to let you speak-
[2:37:44] Sorry
[2:37:44] ... because you have waited about 15 minutes now to speak.
[2:37:46] Strategic plan. So I echo
[2:37:50] those sentiments. We
[2:37:53] need to
[2:37:56] keep our thinking caps on at all times, and
[2:38:00] just because something is or is not in statute
[2:38:04] does not relieve us of the responsibility to
[2:38:08] think.
[2:38:09] Right.
[2:38:10] And
[2:38:11] with that, I'm going to quickly
[2:38:14] pivot back to 173 and
[2:38:17] 174, because we have an obligation
[2:38:21] as board governors to think, not just to
[2:38:25] do what we're told to do, but to challenge things
[2:38:28] that constrain our ability to do what we're supposed to do.
[2:38:32] Right.
[2:38:34] We have a current charter school law that
[2:38:38] has gaps. It does not require a local vote, which
[2:38:42] is problematic because we are a local control state.
[2:38:45] Right.
[2:38:46] That is a problem.
[2:38:48] I agree.
[2:38:48] And it does not require fiscal
[2:38:51] efficiency of the entire educational delivery system.
[2:38:56] That is a problem.
[2:38:58] Secondly, we have a proposed income tax elimination,
[2:39:03] and based on studies that I literally just looked at,
[2:39:07] the projection is that it will create a $5
[2:39:11] billion hole in Missouri's budget,
[2:39:16] which has already been reduced by tax cuts.
[2:39:20] That will lead to an inability
[2:39:24] to fund public education.
[2:39:28] As governors
[2:39:30] who have legislative priorities, we should be concerned about these
[2:39:34] things.
[2:39:36] And it is not enough to say that if the
[2:39:39] requirements are X, then all we can do is just
[2:39:43] govern according to the requirements.
[2:39:45] No, our job is to challenge any requirement
[2:39:49] that will do downstream harm. That is our job.
[2:39:54] So,
[2:39:57] chairman of legislative priorities, I
[2:40:01] think these are things-
[2:40:02] Mm-hmm. I agree
[2:40:03] ... that we should be talking about.
[2:40:04] I agree totally. And our last vote was unfortunate because I think
[2:40:08] there were some very valid issues that it may be in statute with
[2:40:12] regards, but-
[2:40:13] He's talking about the charter-
[2:40:15] The charter
[2:40:15] ... that we had to vote on today.
[2:40:16] Yeah.
[2:40:18] Yeah. There was great comments brought up there, and there are definitely things we
[2:40:22] can do legislatively, and we've got a great legislative chair, there's no question
[2:40:25] about that. But I also think to Brooke's point,
[2:40:29] we also want to be able to develop policy when it's appropriate to develop
[2:40:33] policy without everything having to go through the legislative lens, so.
[2:40:37] And to his point, we should have an opinion
[2:40:41] on things that matter.
[2:40:43] Yes. I think the board-
[2:40:44] Like third graders should know how to read.
[2:40:46] You're right. And I do feel like that has been a push from the board
[2:40:51] for a while, for a couple of years. So
[2:40:55] I feel like I'm seeing positive trends in that direction, and we want to
[2:40:59] continue to do that. Now, Board Member Casey, if you don't mind, I'm going to call
[2:41:03] on Board Member-
[2:41:04] Excellent
[2:41:04] ... Schelle first, please.
[2:41:05] So let's see, how do I circle back to what my thought was?
[2:41:08] So totally hijacking our governmental
[2:41:11] affairs update, but just, if the only way that we can get things done is
[2:41:15] through legislation, and we're local
[2:41:19] control, then we had a comment yesterday-
[2:41:22] Mm-hmm
[2:41:22] ... that we had sort of some sidebar conversation about getting in touch with these
[2:41:26] supervisors and seeing where their local discussions are and
[2:41:30] what they're doing about third-grade reading.
[2:41:33] Mm-hmm.
[2:41:33] So if it's important there, if it's important here, and we're talking about it,
[2:41:36] then we need to go locally to them-
[2:41:38] Mm-hmm
[2:41:38] ... have them come here, present to us what they're seeing, what they're doing-
[2:41:41] Right
[2:41:42] ... about it, and then how we join forces with them and give them what they need to
[2:41:45] get it done. So, okay, so we've got a checkbox to where
[2:41:49] that's the only way we can get it done.
[2:41:51] But having the influential conversations-
[2:41:54] Mm-hmm
[2:41:54] ... maybe that'll get it done.
[2:41:55] You bet.
[2:41:56] So, I would like to continue that conversation-
[2:41:58] Sure
[2:41:58] ... of how we present that. Is it July retreat?
[2:42:00] Is it we have two or three of them come every meeting?
[2:42:03] How do we hold those locals accountable, I guess is the word.
[2:42:07] Mm-hmm. Commissioner?
[2:42:08] Sure. That was a great suggestion by our board members.
[2:42:11] Yes, having the state supervisors, being able to get some information about what's
[2:42:14] going on across the field and out and about.
[2:42:17] And Board Member Brooks, I'd like to just comment
[2:42:21] that what you're saying about all of these things that are
[2:42:24] so in your face, right? Is reading important? Absolutely.
[2:42:28] Have we known for several years that the literacy rate of the kids in the state of
[2:42:31] Missouri has been going down? Absolutely.
[2:42:33] You look at what happened in the MAP scores, anything else that you have as an
[2:42:36] academic performance indicator, and from COVID on, it went way down
[2:42:40] and has yet to recover where we would like for it to be.
[2:42:43] The thing that I think has been part of the
[2:42:47] work of this agency is that, yes, we
[2:42:50] want to be able to influence. We do do a lot of work in the areas in which we
[2:42:54] believe that they are insufficient and we need to be able to provide resources.
[2:42:58] The thing that I don't see, and when I was sitting over there as a senator, I
[2:43:01] couldn't see, is that where is it that we have the
[2:43:05] authority or some way of actually saying, "You
[2:43:09] will,"
[2:43:10] or... Because I can't reduce monies.
[2:43:14] The classification thing is in statute.
[2:43:16] All these things are as far as how we make them do what we believe
[2:43:20] is correct and right.
[2:43:22] And I know that it makes it feel like the board is
[2:43:26] irrelevant, and it's not. I do think that there is
[2:43:29] opportunity for us to look to see what is the actual authority and
[2:43:33] role of a board to implement things that are, like
[2:43:36] third-grade retention. If we think that's a good idea, do it.
[2:43:40] But I don't think that this agency has been put in that position,
[2:43:44] even though I've said the same things that you're saying.
[2:43:48] I've said the same things with what is the role of the department if you cannot
[2:43:51] influence the quality of reading and if you cannot make folks do what we think they
[2:43:55] we need to do.
[2:43:56] With all due respect-
[2:43:58] Mm-hmm
[2:43:58] ... and I mean this seriously,
[2:44:01] what is your job then? If you can't sit at this table and
[2:44:05] tell us what our responsibility is and what
[2:44:08] opportunities we have to improve or take action or
[2:44:12] im-
[2:44:14] Sure. And true
[2:44:15] ... then what is your job? And that's what my
[2:44:18] disappointment is, is that I've sat in here for seven
[2:44:22] months. We've seen no vision. Now, I know we're working on a strategic plan-
[2:44:26] Yeah
[2:44:26] ... which we've been working on for some time, and I'm certain it's going to be
[2:44:30] very comprehensive.
[2:44:31] Mm-hmm.
[2:44:31] But I also guarantee it's not going to say anything about third-grade reading
[2:44:35] So she does have academic performance-
[2:44:37] It doesn't say anything about third-grade reading.
[2:44:40] And let's get specific here. We don't have good numbers.
[2:44:43] We don't know what it's going to take.
[2:44:45] We
[2:44:48] are operating in a fog, in my opinion,
[2:44:52] without quality data to tell us what we ought to be doing.
[2:44:56] And when we talk about statutes, well, how do we change a
[2:44:59] statute?
[2:45:02] Ourselves?
[2:45:03] Yeah.
[2:45:03] The department? You make recommendations to the legislature.
[2:45:05] Okay.
[2:45:05] Because I can't file a bill.
[2:45:06] Okay. But that's fine.
[2:45:08] Yeah.
[2:45:09] But then that's what we ought to be doing.
[2:45:11] When we have a question like we had, which was extremely important,
[2:45:15] about the motion that we agreed to, that's wrong to have
[2:45:18] something that all it does is check the box, in my
[2:45:22] opinion. But at the same time, we're
[2:45:25] required to support it because that's what it said.
[2:45:27] We need to change the statute.
[2:45:30] And we do not-
[2:45:32] So-
[2:45:33] And this is an important conversation. I don't want to be interrupted with it.
[2:45:36] I'm just asking you, Madam Chairman, I think we need to leave this open
[2:45:40] if it's in line with what we can do and get feedback from other
[2:45:44] board members, whether you agree with it or not.
[2:45:47] Because-
[2:45:47] Well, I don't think anyone disagrees with you, Brooks, and I think that's the whole
[2:45:50] point we're all trying to make here. We all agree.
[2:45:53] There have been some pretty significant
[2:45:57] differences on the role of the board and the department
[2:46:01] in just the last three or four years.
[2:46:04] We've been able to put forward legislation which, when I first came on the
[2:46:08] board, the stance was we can't do anything.
[2:46:11] And our first legislation we put forward were things like
[2:46:15] looking at teacher pay and retention, looking at trying to
[2:46:19] create success ready. Up until that time, the department had not
[2:46:23] really ever put anything forward.
[2:46:25] And just like all things culturally, which you understand this
[2:46:29] because you were the executive director for
[2:46:33] the Jordan Valley for years. I've had my own practice.
[2:46:36] We have several of us who've been in businesses or work.
[2:46:39] Culture takes some time to shift. I think this is a really pivotal
[2:46:43] time. I'm super excited. That's what you can feel, too.
[2:46:46] You see this as a pivotal time. We can step up.
[2:46:50] We can do more.
[2:46:52] But I also think that, like yesterday,
[2:46:56] as we met with multiple legislators, there's differences of
[2:47:00] opinions of what are the priorities and how to approach them.
[2:47:04] And I just want us to be mindful of
[2:47:07] as much as we can work together and, like you said, have these open conversations
[2:47:11] because we've never had an open conversation like this-
[2:47:14] No
[2:47:14] ... at the board regarding the legislature. So I think that's very good.
[2:47:17] I think it's very healthy. I think the recommendation from
[2:47:21] Board Member Scholz, excellent. She'd mentioned it last night.
[2:47:25] There had been some conversation.
[2:47:27] I've been on the board seven years now.
[2:47:29] We've never really had the district superintendents come in and report what's
[2:47:33] going on, nor have most of us had a close relationship with our district
[2:47:37] superintendents, where we're not in the loop, we're not working together
[2:47:40] collaboratively. So there are many things moving forward
[2:47:44] I think we can do to address that are better.
[2:47:47] But I also just want to acknowledge that we have been moving forward.
[2:47:51] It's not like we've been totally standing still.
[2:47:54] And I
[2:47:57] am certain after you will have been on the board five to seven years, you'll
[2:48:01] have
[2:48:02] board members that will come in that will feel like there wasn't as much forward
[2:48:05] movement as there could have been.
[2:48:06] I disagree with you totally, because if I'm on this board in five years and it
[2:48:10] continues to operate this, I won't be on this board for five years.
[2:48:14] I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to sit in here and go
[2:48:18] through mundane facts and figures and no consistency on what we
[2:48:22] really know or don't know and how we can improve school
[2:48:26] performance.
[2:48:27] We don't even talk about what's our lowest, how many
[2:48:31] schools... And the other frustration I have, we put out a
[2:48:34] report that 91% of all schools are doing above
[2:48:38] average, I think it was.
[2:48:41] C or better.
[2:48:41] C or better.
[2:48:42] 70% are better.
[2:48:43] Okay, so we don't have any problems. We're 91%.
[2:48:46] That's not the message. I mean, that-
[2:48:48] It is confusing because the annual performance report,
[2:48:53] which gives you a listing of what it is that this board has
[2:48:56] established, historically has established-
[2:48:59] Mm-hmm
[2:48:59] ... as you get these points for these things that you do, that there are
[2:49:02] 90 some odd percent that are making C or better, which means they met the standard,
[2:49:06] which they're accredited.
[2:49:08] Okay. So that's-
[2:49:08] So 91% are accredited, yes.
[2:49:10] If they're all Cs, but-
[2:49:12] Well, I don't know if they're all Cs, but yeah.
[2:49:13] Yeah. We're saying that's okay. And- ...
[2:49:17] once again, I go back to it. What are the 20 schools in our state
[2:49:21] that we ought to be looking at to provisionally accredit because of their
[2:49:24] performance? We've never had a conversation about that.
[2:49:28] It's been-
[2:49:28] We've talked about St. Louis, but we have not taken a look at
[2:49:32] other schools, and that's one of the comments that the governor's office
[2:49:36] gave us yesterday. Where are the schools at that are really having
[2:49:39] problems that we need to be focusing on?
[2:49:42] Now, why does the governor's office have to tell us to do that?
[2:49:45] And why do we not do it ourselves?
[2:49:46] We do know the schools that are having trouble, the 20 of them or 25, yes.
[2:49:50] Then why aren't we discussing it at this board meeting and what we're doing about
[2:49:53] it?
[2:49:54] It has not been the role of the board to do those specific operational pieces, is
[2:49:57] what I'm saying.
[2:49:58] Board Member Casey.
[2:50:00] I love this.
[2:50:04] I think it is exactly the level
[2:50:08] of conversation that we should have at every meeting because there are
[2:50:12] many things that are challenging us in our state.
[2:50:16] And I think so much work is being done.
[2:50:18] Mm-hmm.
[2:50:18] Maybe it's not always understood or maybe it's just not always communicated.
[2:50:22] That's one side of it. But I think on the other side of it, it is all
[2:50:26] about our priorities, clarity on our priorities, spending
[2:50:29] time on our priorities.
[2:50:32] We have
[2:50:36] responsibilities within our agenda, and we spend time on rules and
[2:50:39] regs, and they make sense, and what was presented to us earlier was
[2:50:43] great. But at the same time, the bigger
[2:50:47] challenging issuesOf why aren't third
[2:50:51] graders reading? Why don't we have fiscal awareness?
[2:50:55] Looking at everything that Pam expressed.
[2:50:58] Those are so critically important, and that's where the thought
[2:51:02] leadership of this board needs to come in.
[2:51:03] There should not be a bill out there about third-grade retention that we,
[2:51:07] one, haven't weighed in on. But Brooks, I'll challenge you back.
[2:51:11] That's the role of your committee to know what's going-
[2:51:13] It is.
[2:51:13] Yeah. And to have discussed it and then brought it to the
[2:51:17] board.
[2:51:17] We should've talked about it yesterday with everybody we met to say, "We really
[2:51:20] support this bill, and do everything you can to get it across the line because
[2:51:24] this is how it's going to improve it."
[2:51:25] Yeah.
[2:51:26] I mean-
[2:51:27] And we welcome your leadership in doing that.
[2:51:29] Yeah. I'd like to finish. So I agree with that
[2:51:33] frustration, and that's why I think the work of our committees is so important.
[2:51:37] It is feeling like we're inertia
[2:51:41] here, that why we haven't. But this is our
[2:51:44] opportunity to do it. I think it's important that the
[2:51:48] legislative committee, through committee work, lead discussions on all
[2:51:52] these important questions that tie back into either
[2:51:55] proposed legislation already or
[2:52:00] new legislation that we want to propose, and then you bring a more succinct
[2:52:04] version to the board for conversation.
[2:52:07] The same thing is going to happen, is starting to happen in the finance committee.
[2:52:11] Operating budgets,
[2:52:13] delving into results of
[2:52:16] programs and cost analysis. The other thing will happen in the
[2:52:20] student... We'll call it the student outcomes committee at the moment.
[2:52:24] In terms of where we're going and what is happening, where
[2:52:28] are we seeing these problems, and then bringing the proper level discussion to the
[2:52:32] board. But I want to say another thing.
[2:52:35] It's like we're here for a given reason.
[2:52:38] A meeting or two ago, there was a complaint that we were here for too long.
[2:52:41] Well,
[2:52:44] we should be here for as long as we are needed to address these
[2:52:48] bigger issues. I would like to not spend as much time on some of the
[2:52:52] lesser issues and spend more time on this.
[2:52:54] We're working to maybe have a working lunch and leave at 1:30.
[2:52:58] We should be here till 6:00 tonight and spend the afternoon grappling with
[2:53:01] big questions. We need to change our
[2:53:05] methodology, I think, to a degree, because we have
[2:53:08] responsibilities in it. But we may talk only about literacy
[2:53:13] twice a year. I'm making that up. I'm sure we talk about it
[2:53:17] more.
[2:53:18] Okay.
[2:53:18] But we let
[2:53:21] agenda items drive our
[2:53:24] discussion instead of our belief in what's important to be
[2:53:28] discussing driving the agenda. And we need to take another look at
[2:53:32] that because we're not... And the strategic
[2:53:36] plan is absolutely going to help that to happen.
[2:53:39] Absolutely. Yeah. It will.
[2:53:39] But I really think we need to step back, and Madam
[2:53:42] President, from your role, and even you, Brooks, as
[2:53:46] the vice president and the commissioner, to really take a look at how our
[2:53:50] agendas can be structured in a way that we can
[2:53:55] be tackling, if you will, or discussing
[2:53:57] particular meaty issues and concerns
[2:54:01] and learn more about them,
[2:54:04] and have the right discussion so that the right input goes to
[2:54:08] whether it's legislature or
[2:54:11] back into the department. And the last thing I would say is,
[2:54:15] I'm waiting. When will we start talking about our
[2:54:18] next year's legislative priorities?
[2:54:21] Yeah.
[2:54:21] That's really important. And so that's the process I think we can
[2:54:25] be using to address all those very important concerns, because I
[2:54:29] totally agree with you.
[2:54:30] So one thing that I do want to address the 1:30.
[2:54:33] I don't know that anyone wanted to get out of here at 1:30.
[2:54:36] Wait, no. Right.
[2:54:37] But I understand your example.
[2:54:38] With the way our agenda's lining up, it looked like we-
[2:54:39] But when we did go till 5:00, pretty much every board member gave me a little
[2:54:42] feedback except you. So, we just know
[2:54:46] how much time. With that being said, on this particular agenda today,
[2:54:51] as you can see, our two biggest items, in my opinion, are coming up,
[2:54:56] right? Because we're going to talk about the strategic plan refresh,
[2:55:00] and I think that could take,
[2:55:03] I'm going to say an hour, hour and a half if we dig in very deeply, and I think
[2:55:07] that's kind of what the commissioner, you'd said it's going to be a lengthy
[2:55:10] conversation.
[2:55:10] I assumed it would be, yes. And I'm hoping that what you see in the strategic
[2:55:14] plan, you'll see where those specific pieces of how are we measuring, how
[2:55:18] will this board know, and some of that information will be provided through some of
[2:55:21] that work.
[2:55:22] But I do think, and-
[2:55:23] Go ahead
[2:55:24] ... to your other comment real quick, and John, then I'll call on you and Pamela.
[2:55:27] But the working lunch, the negative is that it doesn't
[2:55:32] allow us to sit around the table and visit.
[2:55:33] And there may be taking that 30 or 40 minutes for us to
[2:55:37] eat and sit around and visit because some of the conversation, that time that
[2:55:41] I think everybody wants so much, we can allow for that.
[2:55:45] So I'll be mindful of that if you all prefer to do that in the future.
[2:55:49] So with that said, John, I know you had a comment you were going to make.
[2:55:53] Yeah, no, real quick. I
[2:55:55] was going to make a kind of a jokey comment
[2:55:58] based on what Carrie said. I agree with everything she said about
[2:56:03] we need to be more intentional about organizing our agenda, be specific about
[2:56:07] what we want to talk about, and what you just said,
[2:56:10] President Schrog, with
[2:56:13] respect to the next two items being the most important.
[2:56:16] I think we should organize our agenda that way, knowing that
[2:56:20] if we're going to spend an hour and a half, and I think we made comments before
[2:56:24] about putting a timeframe or something like that, just so that we can kind of know
[2:56:27] what the big agenda items are. And that way we can
[2:56:31] focus.
[2:56:33] I just think that it would be good to
[2:56:36] have a better organized agenda
[2:56:40] going forward. Now, the joke I was going to make is that I don't want to stay till
[2:56:43] 6:00 o'clock, but
[2:56:45] if we need to, we need to. But at least knowing ahead of time
[2:56:49] that there are some big-ticket items or really important things, like
[2:56:52] particularly the
[2:56:54] The legislative priorities, I think those are things that we need to talk.
[2:56:57] I think that was a very good discussion we had, and that's what we need to be
[2:57:00] having every meeting, and we need to allow time for that.
[2:57:04] And so, I
[2:57:06] really just wanted to reiterate what
[2:57:09] Kerry said about
[2:57:11] organizing the agenda in a way that maximizes the
[2:57:15] efficiency of our meetings.
[2:57:17] Pamela?
[2:57:20] Ditto to everything that's been said.
[2:57:22] I love this conversation.
[2:57:27] We are
[2:57:29] in a state, in a local control state,
[2:57:33] that has almost
[2:57:35] 550-ish school
[2:57:39] districts.
[2:57:41] And
[2:57:43] an average local control state has about
[2:57:46] 350.
[2:57:47] Right.
[2:57:49] So, as we live with the
[2:57:52] aftermath of tax cuts, as we contemplate
[2:57:56] a $5 million or a billion dollar hole from an
[2:58:00] income tax cut,
[2:58:03] we need to find ways to more efficiently
[2:58:07] deliver educational excellence in this state because
[2:58:10] the
[2:58:12] appetite and the revenues for
[2:58:16] our budget are diminishing. That being
[2:58:20] said, if we're not, as a board, having a
[2:58:24] conversation about
[2:58:27] all of these school districts
[2:58:31] and whether or not we have both
[2:58:34] educational excellence and operational
[2:58:37] efficiency simultaneously,
[2:58:41] then we are not doing our
[2:58:45] jobs.
[2:58:47] And that is a conversation that no one wants to have,
[2:58:52] and we just don't bring it up, and we keep going about our
[2:58:56] business.
[2:58:57] And then there's this big white elephant in the room.
[2:59:01] And at some point, we've got to look at the structures that
[2:59:05] we're maintaining and figure out how we're going to
[2:59:08] deliver education more efficiently.
[2:59:11] Because that's the big elephant in the room that we're not talking about.
[2:59:16] And I hope and pray we don't have a
[2:59:19] retreat that doesn't address this big structural
[2:59:23] issue
[2:59:25] and the fact that we're not going to have the revenues to keep doing what we're
[2:59:28] doing.
[2:59:30] So,
[2:59:31] I just wanted to put it out there for all to hear, to hold us accountable
[2:59:35] to having a conversation about it.
[2:59:37] I do think the committee structure that is going to be more in-depth will,
[2:59:41] I hope,
[2:59:43] move things forward more because we have expanded on that.
[2:59:47] And also, I think we're giving our committees more latitude than what they've
[2:59:50] had in the past, and I anticipate that that will continue.
[2:59:55] With that being said, on the agenda as we go through,
[3:00:01] I'm definitely open for us to reorder it.
[3:00:04] I think the items for action, I think the assumption is that
[3:00:08] most of the time that's a little more efficient and
[3:00:12] quicker because you've had the data, we've discussed it.
[3:00:14] We're not asking anyone for an action item that hadn't been discussed at least at
[3:00:18] one board meeting and sometimes multiple.
[3:00:20] So it seems like it's easier to do those type of
[3:00:24] things like the consent agenda, quick reports,
[3:00:28] and then our action items so that when we get later into the day where
[3:00:32] we can have a little more time for discussion.
[3:00:36] There isn't
[3:00:39] any time frames that we have set on these
[3:00:43] meetings, but at the same time, I have had board members say, "I'd
[3:00:47] like to see us get a little more efficient. I'd like to move a little quicker.
[3:00:50] I don't want to be out of here at 5:00."
[3:00:53] So we're just trying to make everybody as happy as we can with this.
[3:00:57] So why don't we talk about that? Why don't we, as a board, we talk about that
[3:01:01] so that we hear everybody's opinion?
[3:01:02] And I want to know who says that we need to get out of here by 5:00.
[3:01:06] Now, I appreciate those that have the driveaways and things like that.
[3:01:09] We talk about this stuff and then we push it off.
[3:01:12] And because we have this ridiculous 60-day
[3:01:16] moratorium on issues for our agenda, we can't talk about it in
[3:01:20] 30 days, it's 60 days. And so you're pushing everything so far out,
[3:01:24] and this world's turning pretty darn fast.
[3:01:27] And we need to be able to address some of these things, but we've never had a
[3:01:30] serious conversation since I've been on the board about our roles and
[3:01:34] responsibilities,
[3:01:36] what we should and shouldn't be doing, how this agenda is put together.
[3:01:41] It's just business as usual it seems like.
[3:01:43] And-
[3:01:43] I'm teasing you, but I'm also serious.
[3:01:45] You were one that said how we don't need to be here till 5:00. I'm just so tired.
[3:01:49] I did not say that.
[3:01:50] Okay.
[3:01:50] I did not say that. Because I'm going to tell you, I've taken plenty of board
[3:01:54] meetings past where I needed to be.
[3:01:57] But if I felt it was important, by God, we're going to talk about it.
[3:02:00] Yeah.
[3:02:01] And I believe student education's important.
[3:02:03] So we stayed till 5:00 because-
[3:02:05] I don't-
[3:02:05] ... you did think it was important
[3:02:06] ... I don't care if we're here till 8:00 or 10:00.
[3:02:08] Okay.
[3:02:08] I don't. And I don't mean to speak for John who has to travel
[3:02:12] and Mike has to travel and Pamela and things.
[3:02:15] I'm here as long as we need it.
[3:02:16] What is more important than taking care of the children?
[3:02:20] Right.
[3:02:20] What is more important in our whole life besides our family,
[3:02:24] direct families, than taking care of kids and improving outcomes
[3:02:28] in education?
[3:02:29] True.
[3:02:30] We talk about these issues like we open them up in a box
[3:02:34] of C*****r Jacks or something, and then we throw it away, and these are
[3:02:37] extremely important.
[3:02:40] But unless if we as a board don't have any responsibility
[3:02:44] for any of that, then I think we ought to be able to get in and out in an
[3:02:47] hourI mean, that's just the reality
[3:02:51] of it.
[3:02:51] I think that's just such a great way to frame it, Brooks.
[3:02:55] Yeah.
[3:02:55] I mean, either we're in this or we're not in this.
[3:02:58] Yeah.
[3:02:58] And so I think we need to start with, we did try this
[3:03:02] last year, honestly, and you guys were so new.
[3:03:05] But to better understand, we've talked about it for years.
[3:03:08] Where does our authority rest? Where do we have that...
[3:03:14] We can repeat all the past conversation.
[3:03:16] Mm-hmm.
[3:03:17] First things first, let's make sure we really grapple with that
[3:03:21] and
[3:03:22] push the envelope on it as well. That was that discussion we
[3:03:26] had yesterday.
[3:03:27] Mm-hmm.
[3:03:28] And then the other thing is, let's
[3:03:31] get those priorities out that are part of the strategic plan, and
[3:03:34] put
[3:03:36] a meaty discussion item on every single agenda-
[3:03:39] Yeah
[3:03:40] ... that helps us delve into it. And then I leave that to you,
[3:03:43] Brooks, to the three of you. I got the authority here.
[3:03:47] Sorry about that. More respectfully, I think it is the responsibility of
[3:03:50] the
[3:03:51] executive group there-
[3:03:53] Mm-hmm
[3:03:53] ... to help discern that as to how that should-
[3:03:57] And truly, that is the plan with the strategic plan-
[3:04:00] Yeah
[3:04:00] ... is that once those priorities are agreed upon, then each agenda item addresses
[3:04:03] those priorities as we go forward.
[3:04:05] And I think it's great we have a strategic plan, but I think it's the biggest
[3:04:08] excuse for why we don't do something.
[3:04:10] Because we're going to put it in the strategy.
[3:04:12] No.
[3:04:13] Why can we not in 60 days make changes?
[3:04:16] Well, that to me, that concerns me, your point that
[3:04:20] I've always viewed the future agenda
[3:04:24] as informative but not
[3:04:30] cast in stone.
[3:04:31] Right.
[3:04:31] In other words, we can work with you to have something-
[3:04:34] I do think we have added a few things the next month.
[3:04:36] Sure. Okay.
[3:04:36] The past practices had been 60 days, but Brooks, you and I are very
[3:04:39] much aligned in that attitude there.
[3:04:41] Okay.
[3:04:41] And I think we have added some things.
[3:04:44] And you and I get to go over the agenda with the commissioner before it
[3:04:48] gets posted. So I feel like what I'm hearing is there
[3:04:52] is a charge being made by the rest of the board to you and I, and
[3:04:56] we'll talk through this and figure out how we can make sure
[3:05:00] we have discussion time for the important things.
[3:05:02] Gretchen and Mike, you've had a comment and things, but
[3:05:07] Mike, where do you stand on it?
[3:05:10] Yeah, I don't recall ever saying... I don't have an issue with time.
[3:05:14] I think my comment has been, if I'm here, I'm here.
[3:05:16] Yeah.
[3:05:17] I block my entire Tuesday. So I can't get here on Monday nights
[3:05:21] for work and family reasons, but Tuesdays are board meeting time.
[3:05:25] Mm-hmm.
[3:05:25] Good.
[3:05:26] I don't think I've ever said otherwise.
[3:05:28] Any-
[3:05:28] Oh, and sorry. I
[3:05:31] agree with what Brooks, the overall point he's making here.
[3:05:39] And that's all I'll say.
[3:05:42] Absolutely.
[3:05:42] Any other comments? Any questions?
[3:05:45] So Perry, do you have anything else that you need or want to add?
[3:05:48] I would say you do need to touch on our budget
[3:05:52] conversations from yesterday. I think the whole board needs to have some kind of
[3:05:55] concept of what we heard from the state rep, though.
[3:05:58] I think he wants it from our meetings versus Cal-
[3:06:01] As in-
[3:06:02] What the potential cuts to our budget might be.
[3:06:07] The forward look on the level of
[3:06:11] revenue at the state.
[3:06:12] Representative Fogle's comments with regards to this.
[3:06:12] I think Kyle's coming up.
[3:06:14] Here comes the CFO.
[3:06:15] So this has to do with Representative Fogle-
[3:06:17] I'm glad you came
[3:06:17] ... and the conversation that she had is that
[3:06:21] this year they're trying to cut right at 600 million plus within the
[3:06:25] budget.
[3:06:27] And then next year's budget is going to be looking for a
[3:06:31] million plus.
[3:06:32] A billion.
[3:06:34] Or a billion plus. Yes, a billion plus, not a million.
[3:06:36] Mm-hmm.
[3:06:37] And so, because of that, there are many things strategically,
[3:06:41] in that budget, is that everything has to
[3:06:45] be looked at with scrutiny and to determine,
[3:06:49] is it effective or not? And so, Representative Fogle was just
[3:06:53] laying out the picture
[3:06:56] about what future budgets will look like for all
[3:07:00] state agencies, not only this state agency.
[3:07:04] And I would share with you, that's why I share with you that
[3:07:08] any legislation moving forward
[3:07:11] this year not only is being scrutinized very heavily, but most
[3:07:15] of the conversation is in and around this year's budget because they
[3:07:19] know that next year,
[3:07:21] FY28 budget, because we're working on
[3:07:25] FY27 budget, correct? FY28's budget
[3:07:29] will be
[3:07:31] even further cuts. Whether they pass any income tax or
[3:07:34] not, there will be future cuts coming.
[3:07:37] And so, Representative Fogle was just trying to
[3:07:41] share with the group that there are future cuts coming,
[3:07:45] or further cuts coming with the FY28 budget.
[3:07:49] Yeah. And it wasn't education, but overall-
[3:07:51] Just the state in general
[3:07:52] ... the state in general.
[3:07:53] Yes.
[3:07:54] And that's to your concerns, what you're already dealing with,
[3:07:58] and what it could mean in the future.
[3:08:00] And I would just say from those conversations, I think we
[3:08:04] need to get our house in order.
[3:08:07] These are going to be big challenges for us going
[3:08:11] forward. And I think,
[3:08:14] we and the staff and everybody else need to have an
[3:08:17] understanding of these challenges and take it on, and
[3:08:21] we're going to win at this thing.
[3:08:23] Education is at not the second largest as far as funded
[3:08:27] departments. So, we are second only to, I
[3:08:31] think, Health and Human Services. Is that correct?
[3:08:33] That is correct.
[3:08:34] So obviously, you're always going to be a target when you're at the top.
[3:08:38] Yeah.
[3:08:38] And so there will be-
[3:08:39] And also understand there is a constitutional requirement in there,
[3:08:43] that has to be met.
[3:08:45] Okay. Board Member Westbrook-Fudge.
[3:08:47] I want to say this very plainly
[3:08:51] Given what's coming, we need to figure out how to do
[3:08:55] more with less,
[3:08:58] and do-
[3:08:59] I agree
[3:08:59] ... a critical analysis of our entire educational delivery
[3:09:02] system to figure out where we can
[3:09:06] restructure, retool to more
[3:09:10] efficiently deliver high-quality education.
[3:09:14] Exact statements that we made and discussed with the governor yesterday.
[3:09:18] Yesterday. Yeah.
[3:09:18] We need to be innovative in that regard. We need to do more with less.
[3:09:20] And that might be painful.
[3:09:22] Yes.
[3:09:22] Right. It will be painful. It's not going to be might.
[3:09:25] It will be painful, and we will have cuts.
[3:09:28] John, I can hear you have something to say.
[3:09:30] Yeah, I just said what you said. I said might be. It will be painful.
[3:09:34] But I did have one brief comment.
[3:09:37] This is going back to the agenda thing just for 30 seconds, but
[3:09:41] I don't want to disrupt Harry if he's got anything
[3:09:45] else.
[3:09:46] No, unless you have further questions.
[3:09:50] Okay. We'll go back-
[3:09:50] Yeah. Okay
[3:09:51] ... to the agenda.
[3:09:52] So yeah, just
[3:09:53] that I thought this was good discussion.
[3:09:55] I think, though, I don't typically like having board meetings where there's a lot
[3:09:58] of good discussion ideas, but then no action items out of it.
[3:10:02] Oh.
[3:10:02] So I think the action item is, the executive
[3:10:06] committee should meet
[3:10:08] before the next board meeting, should meet a week in advance or whatever,
[3:10:12] and go over the agenda and make sure that what's in there is what we
[3:10:16] want to talk about. And that way, going forward, that's the
[3:10:20] process.
[3:10:21] So Brooks and I-
[3:10:21] Because otherwise, we're going to keep running into the same issue every month
[3:10:24] unless we do something.
[3:10:25] Right. Brooks and I have done that the last two months.
[3:10:27] We obviously both need to hone in and do a better job.
[3:10:31] And that's what I was acknowledging. So we will. This will be our third month.
[3:10:36] Because I'm in the conversation, John, here's my thoughts to
[3:10:40] that. I approve it,
[3:10:43] and I don't question hardly any of it, but we don't know where
[3:10:47] we're going to say what should we put in here.
[3:10:50] What should the priorities of our agenda be?
[3:10:55] You know what I'm saying? I mean, I bet we've had this agenda for 10 years.
[3:10:59] How long have you had this agenda like this?
[3:11:03] I don't remember exactly if there's been much change.
[3:11:05] I do know that there's-
[3:11:06] Yeah. And I mean-
[3:11:06] ... there has been changes to it-
[3:11:07] Yeah
[3:11:07] ... but there's not been significant changes.
[3:11:08] So I guess that's what I'm saying. I think maybe we need to have a...
[3:11:11] And I'm happy to volunteer my time too, if you want,
[3:11:15] as part of the governance committee, since this kind of falls under the umbrella.
[3:11:18] But if you want, we can do that before the next meeting, just take an hour and have
[3:11:22] a Zoom call and-
[3:11:23] Yeah
[3:11:24] ... handle it.
[3:11:24] That sounds great.
[3:11:25] I think that'd be great.
[3:11:26] And I think it's so important what Brooks is saying.
[3:11:30] Not our biggest priority. Our biggest priority
[3:11:34] is ensuring excellence in education for these children.
[3:11:37] And
[3:11:39] how we get there, every little element of it is that level
[3:11:43] of priority, tackling these big questions.
[3:11:45] But I think it's that
[3:11:47] what we have discussed and what you, Carla, you've stepped up to,
[3:11:51] but we want more.
[3:11:53] Your vision, your
[3:11:56] priorities, and you've shared and discussed, and you update on some, but
[3:12:01] let's work on that even more so, and I know you'll do that through the strategic
[3:12:05] plan, but it can't be just the strategic plan and then refer
[3:12:09] back to the plan. We've got to continue to
[3:12:13] feel your leadership
[3:12:16] in the focus on the key issues that
[3:12:20] we should always be in front of or that should be in front of us.
[3:12:23] And I'm hopeful that that's where we're going with this.
[3:12:28] I'm trying to reinforce where we're going to go with the strategic plan, but it
[3:12:31] just can't be a bullet point reference over to that.
[3:12:33] It's got to permeate into actions within
[3:12:37] this board and the behavior within the board on what we focus
[3:12:41] on
[3:12:43] and how we focus on it.
[3:12:45] Absolutely.
[3:12:46] Good comments. Any other comments?
[3:12:49] So-
[3:12:50] Sorry.
[3:12:51] No. Board Member Scholze?
[3:12:53] Just to jump off of that. As an example, and then I'll stop.
[3:12:56] Just because, okay, well, so literacy is a huge thing.
[3:13:00] Numeracy is a huge thing. Well, how often is it actually an agenda item?
[3:13:04] It's not, because it's wrapped up in, "Oh, yeah, we got it in our strategic plan.
[3:13:08] Oh, we got it in a few legislative items." So therefore, food for thought,
[3:13:13] hey, how about that's a hot button item that we come back around to every single
[3:13:16] meeting and say, "Where are we at on that?
[3:13:18] Where are we at on that?"
[3:13:20] And we can definitely do that on those priority items, and we should be doing it.
[3:13:24] So, I think Brooks and I have our marching orders from the
[3:13:28] board. We'll work with the commissioner on that, and we will try to improve that
[3:13:31] for the May meeting, which will be in St. Louis.
[3:13:35] At this time, it is
[3:13:38] time for us to take a little... It's 12:15, so we're going to take a
[3:13:42] lunch break for about 30 minutes so you all can visit and have
[3:13:46] some downtime, and then we will resume at 12:45.
[3:13:49] I know that's rather quick, but hopefully that gives everybody time to
[3:13:53] have some downtime and some conversation. Thank you.
[3:13:57] President Schroeder?
[3:13:58] Yes, sir.
[3:14:00] Well, I'll text you or give you a call real quick.
[3:14:03] Okay. Sounds great. Thank you. Appreciate it.
[3:54:43] Welcome back to the April board meeting.
[3:54:47] And we are now moving forward to our next
[3:54:51] discussion item, which will be Deputy Commissioner of Finance and
[3:54:55] Administrative Services, Dr. Kyle Kruse, who will present on the
[3:54:59] fiscal year 2027 budget report.
[3:55:07] I'll
[3:55:14] be right there.
[3:55:17] Good afternoon. Kyle Kruse, Deputy Commissioner of Financial Administrative
[3:55:21] Services. I'm joined by Pam Victor, our Chief Budget
[3:55:24] Officer. I wanted to start by talking
[3:55:28] about my report today is actually in multiple pieces.
[3:55:31] There are three parts to the report. We'll keep it fairly brief. But Ms.
[3:55:35] Pamela, if you'd like, I can discuss briefly the income tax
[3:55:39] situation that you referenced in the last part of our session.
[3:55:42] Yes, sir.
[3:55:42] Or if you feel that's been handled, we can go forward.
[3:55:45] No, please.
[3:55:46] Okay.
[3:55:50] As I understand the legislation and the way it looks
[3:55:54] like it would be structured,
[3:55:56] the idea is to diminish the income tax over time
[3:56:01] and essentially given the legislature permission to replace the
[3:56:04] revenues that would be lost with other forms of
[3:56:08] taxation, whether it's increases on sales tax or use tax.
[3:56:13] And the crux of that, in my opinion, is that it's difficult to know
[3:56:17] where the legislature will land in terms of how aggressively
[3:56:21] they would try to pursue revenues that could replace the income tax
[3:56:25] that would not be coming in.
[3:56:28] I've also been
[3:56:30] watching discussion about the current drafting of the bill, and
[3:56:33] there's some discussion that some kind of a drafting error
[3:56:38] has emerged that would actually result in a multi-billion
[3:56:42] dollar decrease in just the first year, but I've also read
[3:56:45] that's going to be addressed. And so it's not clear
[3:56:49] yet where the actual truth lies or how that language will
[3:56:53] ultimately end up.
[3:56:55] So it's very difficult to predict right now what the final
[3:56:59] outcome should be if this legislation passes, and then if it
[3:57:03] passes at the ballot box.
[3:57:05] I will say that at the moment,
[3:57:08] there is difficulty in funding the current formula.
[3:57:12] And
[3:57:14] a move in this direction would seem likely to increase the difficulty
[3:57:18] to fund the formula going forward.
[3:57:20] And whether that difficulty is a billion
[3:57:24] dollar
[3:57:25] shortfall or a multiple billion dollar shortfall, and if that
[3:57:29] would all fall on education or not, I suspect it would not all fall on
[3:57:33] education. But as was mentioned earlier, education and
[3:57:37] health and services are probably the two biggest pieces that
[3:57:41] need general revenue. So I'm afraid that was an incomplete answer to
[3:57:45] your question,
[3:57:47] but I do see some difficult times on the horizon.
[3:57:52] Thank you.
[3:57:53] Challenging times.
[3:57:55] Challenging. Let's go with that. Thank you.
[3:57:59] Okay, now to the report that I have today, first off, I'd like to thank
[3:58:03] Mr. Miller
[3:58:04] for hisRequest in the past that we develop
[3:58:08] an executive summary of the budget, and
[3:58:12] included in your packet today was an early version of that summary.
[3:58:17] And I want to thank Ms. Casey, because since that first version was provided
[3:58:21] to her, she and I have had discussions, and we actually went
[3:58:24] back and have revised and expanded the executive summary.
[3:58:29] And so you have a new copy that's been printed at your station today.
[3:58:33] And, if I could point out just a couple of things.
[3:58:36] On the first page, you do have the total authorized budget for DESE
[3:58:40] for fiscal year '26. So that is current year,
[3:58:43] is about eight and a half billion dollars.
[3:58:46] And you'll see that
[3:58:48] general revenue is about just over half of our total, and the other
[3:58:52] portions come from federal funds, and then from other funds.
[3:58:56] And on the other funds, it's a variety of things.
[3:58:58] A large portion of that is actually Prop C
[3:59:02] dollars,
[3:59:03] and those are sales tax dollars that actually are distributed
[3:59:07] back to school districts. And that comes from a
[3:59:10] 1982 measure that passed a one-cent sales tax
[3:59:14] that was originally intended to go, I think, half the money to school districts and
[3:59:18] half used to roll back property taxes.
[3:59:22] However, in the years since, approximately two-thirds to
[3:59:25] three-fourths of our districts have received full waivers from their local
[3:59:29] voters. So now it ends up being a full revenue stream into a lot
[3:59:33] of districts. But that's a big portion of the other funds.
[3:59:37] I won't read to you the rest of the executive summary, but we
[3:59:41] did try to pool it
[3:59:43] in major areas of emphasis. And we did also try
[3:59:47] to put in the summary what percent of
[3:59:51] our total budget each of these items are.
[3:59:54] And we didn't describe in detail some of the very minor pieces or some
[3:59:58] pieces that really aren't under our purview.
[4:00:01] But if there are questions about the executive summary, I'd be happy to answer
[4:00:04] them.
[4:00:06] And I would just
[4:00:08] like to add that, again, Kyle, thank you for that.
[4:00:11] All the time we spent. And while this is absolutely a first pass at
[4:00:15] some revisions, we can see already we've been discussing
[4:00:19] format approaches, just more
[4:00:23] insightful information. Other areas that I've asked that
[4:00:27] we'll start to include are just a summary of any
[4:00:31] material differences that we should be aware of and key risks
[4:00:35] and concerns, so that the right level of-
[4:00:38] Mm-hmm
[4:00:38] ... issue is highlighted to us without having to walk through all
[4:00:42] the detail. And, so again, thank you, Kyle.
[4:00:45] And I know Pam and team contributed to this, but
[4:00:49] you'll be seeing
[4:00:51] future variations of this going forward to make it a more efficient
[4:00:55] read.
[4:00:57] Okay. Thank you for that.
[4:00:58] Are you happy with it? You understand the
[4:01:04] request?
[4:01:05] I think I do. And I find it to be a useful document as kind of a
[4:01:09] shorthand of the budget. So if it meets with the needs of the board,
[4:01:13] I'm happy we put it together. I think it's useful for all parties concerned.
[4:01:16] This is great.
[4:01:17] And I appreciate you doing it.
[4:01:18] Yeah.
[4:01:18] I really do.
[4:01:19] Okay.
[4:01:19] Well done.
[4:01:20] And it already highlights some questions that we will
[4:01:24] discuss at the committee level.
[4:01:26] John and I have had some brief conversation, just as you look at the headcount
[4:01:30] breakout, and you're wanting to better understand,
[4:01:33] wanting to offer better insights that helps the board
[4:01:38] better understand where our dollars are being spent.
[4:01:41] And also the-
[4:01:42] Its relation to other things.
[4:01:44] The task force recommendations. It's helpful that you're on the task
[4:01:47] force, so you kind of understand the direction of the conversation, although you
[4:01:51] don't know for sure where the governor will land.
[4:01:53] Sure.
[4:01:53] But it'll also, you and Kyle, you worked through it with John,
[4:01:57] can make these recommendations or at least keep us very informed on the
[4:02:01] board level-
[4:02:02] Mm-hmm
[4:02:02] ... which is nice that everybody doesn't have to dig as deep.
[4:02:06] True. We will continue to refine this document and
[4:02:10] provide updated versions in the future, but I'm glad that
[4:02:14] you find it helpful, and we'll work to keep doing that.
[4:02:17] I would note that in the packet that's in your online
[4:02:20] agenda, that the second part... Okay, I actually put two
[4:02:24] items together. This fiscal year '26 executive summary is the first
[4:02:28] part.
[4:02:29] And then the second part under that item, the actual PowerPoint
[4:02:33] slides,
[4:02:35] that is the fiscal year '27,
[4:02:39] the budget that's being considered by the legislature right now, update.
[4:02:42] And that document is exactly the same as it was last month because there have
[4:02:46] been no additional changes to it since that time.
[4:02:49] Last month, we had the House markups, and those were incorporated,
[4:02:53] and the Senate markups actually took place just today.
[4:02:56] Mm-hmm.
[4:02:56] So we should get the
[4:03:00] new numbers in the next few days, and at your next update
[4:03:04] on this topic, we'll of course, have a lot more information available.
[4:03:08] By then, actually, we will probably be past the date at which the budget will have
[4:03:11] been adopted, and we'll be able to tell you pretty much how things have
[4:03:15] played out, excepting the fact that there will still be
[4:03:19] governor vetoes and/or withholds and/or restrictions.
[4:03:23] But we'll provide you another update next month that probably will give you a
[4:03:27] pretty long, clear picture of what's going on.
[4:03:31] I want to discuss briefly, though, something not in your packet, but something that
[4:03:35] the president, Mary shrug, referenced earlier in terms
[4:03:39] of
[4:03:40] speaking with the legislators and shortfalls in the budget.
[4:03:45] And
[4:03:47] we've
[4:03:48] been going through and watching the formula and the payout for the formula.
[4:03:53] Right now, the state adequacy target is calculated to
[4:03:57] be $7,145.
[4:04:00] And that's the target that we would want each district to have per
[4:04:04] child through a combination of state and local dollars.
[4:04:08] When we start paying the SAT
[4:04:10] in July-We always start low, and the
[4:04:14] intention is to build up throughout the year, and at the end of the year, make
[4:04:18] everyone whole with the full SAT. And we do this because there have
[4:04:22] been times in the past when the funding did not materialize
[4:04:26] to pay out the full SAT. So rather than pay the full
[4:04:30] SAT from the word go,
[4:04:34] and then at the end of the year have a major discrepancy.
[4:04:38] Actually, in one year, I think around 2003, there was no June payment.
[4:04:42] And that's an awkward spot for a district to be in if they've been counting on this
[4:04:45] the whole year. So we tell schools, "Hey, be careful.
[4:04:47] We're going to start at a lower SAT and move up." We started at
[4:04:51] $6,900 this year, intending to move towards
[4:04:54] $7,145. And I've been checking on a monthly basis since
[4:04:58] about October, looking for the ability to move the SAT
[4:05:02] up. Well, it requires,
[4:05:05] A, the appropriation permission from the legislature
[4:05:08] to spend that, and B, cash on hand
[4:05:12] to actually do it. And we've not been able to move the SAT
[4:05:16] up off of that $6,900 number.
[4:05:20] And here's a little insight into what's going on.
[4:05:26] There's three funds I'd like to talk about.
[4:05:30] There's a lottery proceeds fund, state school monies fund, and
[4:05:34] a classroom trust fund. And I won't walk you through it in detail
[4:05:37] unless you'd like me to. But a few years ago,
[4:05:42] three, four, five years ago,
[4:05:44] we had an appropriation for lottery, especially, at about this level,
[4:05:49] and revenues were coming in at about this level.
[4:05:52] And what happened for a couple of years is that distinction, that
[4:05:56] gap, that increase, the excess, actually built up a
[4:06:00] balance in the lottery fund.
[4:06:03] Well, a couple of years ago,
[4:06:05] they switched it. And instead of
[4:06:09] appropriating the amount of revenue that could be expected in one year,
[4:06:12] or perhaps a little less, they began appropriating more dollars
[4:06:17] than could be expected to come in as a way to, I think, help
[4:06:21] use up some of that lottery proceed
[4:06:24] balance and get the money out to schools.
[4:06:27] As time went forward,
[4:06:29] that gap between appropriation and the actual
[4:06:33] projected revenue has kind of continued to exist.
[4:06:36] The appropriation's not yet been right-sized.
[4:06:39] So for fiscal year '26, that gap was kind of baked
[4:06:43] into the current year budget. And at this point, between the
[4:06:47] lottery state school monies fund,
[4:06:50] that's cigarette tax, and classroom trust fund, that's gaming
[4:06:54] dollars,
[4:06:55] we're projecting a shortfall of about
[4:06:58] $138.9 million between those three
[4:07:01] funds.
[4:07:03] And that's money that's been appropriated to the formula, but that we can't pay
[4:07:06] out. So at this point, we have notified schools.
[4:07:10] I actually went to the MASA conference a couple of weeks ago and
[4:07:14] put the word out that we are probably looking at an
[4:07:18] SAT actual paid this year in the
[4:07:21] 6,900 range. We may get a little above that, depending on what comes in.
[4:07:25] But at this point, that's kind of where we're at.
[4:07:28] Well, that has implications for fiscal year '27.
[4:07:33] Assuming the same numbers stay in the budget for
[4:07:37] appropriation, and assuming there's not a big growth in those
[4:07:40] revenues, and there's not projected to be.
[4:07:43] I think we're projecting $20 million increase in revenue in lottery.
[4:07:47] Then
[4:07:48] the shortfall in those three funds
[4:07:52] for fiscal year '27, next year,
[4:07:54] looks like about $118 million and change.
[4:07:58] So that would be money that couldn't be paid out for the formula.
[4:08:03] In addition to that, we actually had to ask for next
[4:08:06] year for an increase of
[4:08:09] $190.6 million
[4:08:12] in order to fully fund the formula as calculated.
[4:08:16] So you're looking at $190.6 million, which so
[4:08:20] far has not been put in any budget for the department to
[4:08:24] receive, and also the shortfall of $118 million.
[4:08:28] So it works out to about a shortfall of $308 million for fiscal year
[4:08:31] '27 if nothing changes.
[4:08:34] And that works out to
[4:08:38] districts can probably expect an SAT payment
[4:08:42] in the $6,700 range. And of course,
[4:08:46] we would start below that number. So we are probably headed back to a
[4:08:50] situation where we will pay out less next year than we
[4:08:54] did last year.
[4:08:56] So I wanted you to be aware of those factors that are in play.
[4:08:59] Pam did give me a little update from the Senate markup, and I
[4:09:04] was glad to hear that
[4:09:07] this discrepancy between appropriation and expected
[4:09:10] revenue has been noted,
[4:09:14] and there's some movement to rightsize
[4:09:18] the appropriation. Now, whether that'll play out to fully
[4:09:22] address the issue, I don't know. And there's also some other things that they're
[4:09:25] looking at doing in order to fund the formula with one-time money for
[4:09:29] fiscal year '27, which helps '27, but then
[4:09:33] it creates a hole for '28. So in Mr.
[4:09:37] Miller's terms, we're looking at challenging times-
[4:09:40] Mm-hmm
[4:09:41] ... current year
[4:09:43] '27, and very likely '28,
[4:09:47] barring some dramatic change in the revenue fortunes of the state of
[4:09:51] Missouri. So that was kind of what I wanted to make you aware of today.
[4:09:54] Kyle, we've got a question here-
[4:09:55] Yes
[4:09:56] ... and I've got a comment, too.
[4:09:57] And at some point, I don't think it needs to be today, but yesterday when we
[4:10:01] were talking about the budget issues and such,
[4:10:06] Perry said, "Well, it's not really this
[4:10:10] because there's this pool." And an understanding of funding streams,
[4:10:14] because are they tied--
[4:10:16] The other, like the sin tax and things like that, it's not tied to
[4:10:20] ourThat we have to
[4:10:22] pay so much off of general
[4:10:26] revenue, right? That's just the standalone amount that's
[4:10:29] determined all the way through.
[4:10:32] I'm not sure I follow your question.
[4:10:34] If you-
[4:10:34] Well, a lot of times they're matching dollars.
[4:10:36] Oh.
[4:10:37] If you make $10, we're going to give you another dollar.
[4:10:39] Yeah, that's not the situation.
[4:10:40] But that's not. So that's the way it is.
[4:10:42] Yeah.
[4:10:42] And so why have we seen a drop in those other
[4:10:45] funding?
[4:10:47] As far as lottery, gaming-
[4:10:48] Mm-hmm
[4:10:48] ... cigarette tax,
[4:10:50] this would be speculation, so it's worth exactly what you're paying for it today.
[4:10:53] Yeah.
[4:10:57] If it was
[4:10:59] the question being posed to me-
[4:11:00] Mm-hmm
[4:11:01] ... I have a suspicion that a few things are in play.
[4:11:04] First off,
[4:11:06] there are a lot of those gray market gaming machines.
[4:11:10] Oh.
[4:11:10] And I find they're located in convenience stores, which is where a lot of
[4:11:14] lottery proceeds come from. So I suspect that the gaming
[4:11:17] machines are
[4:11:20] scavenging from lottery proceeds. I think that's in play.
[4:11:24] I think, as far as the
[4:11:27] gaming revenues, riverboat and such,
[4:11:31] I suspect that now a lot of folks can gamble via your
[4:11:35] mobile device.
[4:11:36] Right.
[4:11:36] And I suspect that's probably taken a toll on the gaming revenues.
[4:11:40] And then a third thing, I suspect that in the state of
[4:11:44] Missouri, generally, there's only so much money that our
[4:11:48] citizens are willing to allocate out of their personal
[4:11:52] finances to gambling.
[4:11:55] Mm-hmm.
[4:11:55] And instead of
[4:11:57] increasing and going on, we're carving up the same pie in different
[4:12:01] ways and siphoning some off to the gaming machines.
[4:12:04] That's my take on it, and certainly not
[4:12:08] the end of the game.
[4:12:10] Okay. So one other question.
[4:12:14] Yesterday also, we talked about
[4:12:18] when we talk to legislators, we talk to people, when can we know...
[4:12:22] If we face this kind of deficit in our general revenue, you know
[4:12:26] what I'm saying?
[4:12:28] When can we, as a board, know where we're going to make that
[4:12:32] up?
[4:12:33] You understand what I'm saying? Because we've got to have a
[4:12:37] balanced budget, right?
[4:12:39] Yes.
[4:12:40] Yes.
[4:12:40] There's a balanced budget.
[4:12:43] And all I'm saying is, I've always felt like it's a good
[4:12:48] thing to be able to share what the impact of
[4:12:52] their decisions are going to impact over across-
[4:12:54] Sure
[4:12:55] ... this side of the street. And if there's a way that we can have an
[4:12:58] understanding about what that may be.
[4:13:02] Uh.
[4:13:02] And we're a little late now and things-
[4:13:04] Sure
[4:13:04] ... as far as the budget goes, but...
[4:13:06] Are you talking about if the SAT is paid out at less than
[4:13:10] the-
[4:13:11] Mm-hmm. Yeah
[4:13:11] ... projected amount, the calculated amount, what school districts will do?
[4:13:15] What school districts, what services they're going to have to draw back on, or
[4:13:19] what we, as DESE, are going to have to draw back on.
[4:13:22] Right. It will largely fall on school districts.
[4:13:26] We don't have the capacity internally in our budget to actually move things to help
[4:13:30] fill up-
[4:13:30] Mm-hmm
[4:13:31] ... the formula appropriation, and we don't have the money in our budget
[4:13:35] to do that.
[4:13:36] It'll be largely school districts, and the easy one to point to would be the fact
[4:13:39] that
[4:13:40] transportation dollars are very likely to
[4:13:44] decrease
[4:13:46] next year and possibly the year after from what we're paying currently.
[4:13:50] And so what that translates to is districts who end
[4:13:54] up trying to run fewer buses, longer routes, or
[4:13:58] there's actually,
[4:14:00] I hate to quote it, but districts are only
[4:14:03] required to provide busing service, I think for three miles
[4:14:08] and farther from the district. And a lot of districts pick
[4:14:12] up every kid.
[4:14:13] Mm-hmm.
[4:14:13] And so there could be a modification in at what point we offer bus service
[4:14:17] and what part we don't.
[4:14:19] As far as
[4:14:21] how it plays directly into
[4:14:23] other activities,
[4:14:25] we don't pay for bus rides to ball games.
[4:14:28] That's not part of the calculation. That's on the district.
[4:14:31] However, if you've got to make up
[4:14:36] money out of the general district budget to
[4:14:40] pay for just the bus routes, then it would affect all the other areas of the
[4:14:43] budget. That's one area that's really easy to enumerate.
[4:14:47] Another would be,
[4:14:49] if the formula's coming in short,
[4:14:52] schools would begin very likely,
[4:14:55] reducing their staffing by attrition.
[4:14:57] Mm-hmm.
[4:14:57] As teachers leave, not replace them.
[4:15:00] There could be situations where class sizes go up or even some
[4:15:04] programming is no longer offered.
[4:15:05] So it's a variety of responses depending on the district.
[4:15:08] And I-
[4:15:08] So-
[4:15:09] I just think it's good to have that and-
[4:15:11] Absolutely.
[4:15:12] So yesterday, during one of our meetings, early on, one of our very first
[4:15:15] legislator's comment was, and because I keep hearing,
[4:15:20] I feel like I've heard the question, "How are we going to
[4:15:24] gap the money-
[4:15:25] Mm-hmm
[4:15:26] ... changes?" And she said, and this is how it
[4:15:30] works because
[4:15:31] the Hancock Amendment, we have limited abilities, can't hold
[4:15:35] for rainy day fund, those type of things, that her recommendation would be
[4:15:39] to cut capital expenditures. I thought, that is a
[4:15:43] tough decision. You heard the same thing, Carrie.
[4:15:46] That's a tough decision, right? Because capital expenditures is part of
[4:15:50] our infrastructure, but I think she preferred to do that over
[4:15:54] programming.
[4:15:56] Mm.
[4:15:56] Because I think certainly early childhood education was one of the particular
[4:16:00] pieces. We all know the research shows if we can get kids into early childhood
[4:16:04] education, they will be more successful in
[4:16:08] everything that we're trying to get accomplished, reading, math-
[4:16:10] Sure
[4:16:10] ... everything.
[4:16:12] I would point out, our cigarette tax is
[4:16:15] if not the lowest in the nation, in the top
[4:16:19] five lowest in the nation. So there, Arkansas, Kansas, all
[4:16:23] around usHave a higher, as Brooks call it,
[4:16:27] a sin tax, but the cigarette tax.
[4:16:31] So as we have lost revenues coming in across the state,
[4:16:36] that's a tough one. But there are areas
[4:16:39] with, I think, education being important, as in
[4:16:43] healthcare, where I don't really understand why our tax is so low.
[4:16:47] That's what I'm going to say.
[4:16:48] Yeah. I will offer one bright spot.
[4:16:50] Okay.
[4:16:50] And that is the Prop C sales tax I referenced at the
[4:16:54] start.
[4:16:56] That fund, we've appropriated, I think, 1.3 billion and
[4:17:00] change to go out to districts the last two or three years, the same exec
[4:17:04] appropriation. There's actually been a balance built in
[4:17:07] that fund.
[4:17:08] Okay.
[4:17:09] We've actually had more money going into that fund than we've had permission,
[4:17:13] appropriation authority to send out.
[4:17:15] And so that
[4:17:17] balance, I think, is approaching $190 or $200 million
[4:17:21] right now. So there actually has been some discussion,
[4:17:25] that I understand, of potentially increasing the appropriation in Prop
[4:17:28] C to let us send more dollars out. And whether
[4:17:32] that'll manifest in the budget or not, I couldn't say.
[4:17:36] But
[4:17:37] that probably is the
[4:17:41] one bright spot there might be in school finance at the moment,
[4:17:45] is that sales tax has remained pretty dependable
[4:17:49] over the last few years.
[4:17:50] Well, it's good to hear.
[4:17:53] Okay. I'd be glad to answer any questions.
[4:17:55] Okay. Thank you.
[4:17:58] Thank you.
[4:18:00] For your work on this. I appreciate you both.
[4:18:05] Gary, we are very excited with you and John with the finance
[4:18:09] to continue to work closely with Kyle.
[4:18:11] And I do enjoy... Thank you, Kyle, for letting us know about
[4:18:15] Prop C and-
[4:18:16] Mm-hmm
[4:18:16] ... kind of more details.
[4:18:18] I think we certainly have a lot of work to do, but it's good work
[4:18:22] and informative work. It'll help the board.
[4:18:25] Absolutely.
[4:18:26] And the commissioner.
[4:18:28] Absolutely. Yep.
[4:18:28] And the department.
[4:18:29] And speaking of the commissioner, our next-
[4:18:33] There we go
[4:18:33] ... is, yes, we are ready for a discussion on the strategic plan.
[4:18:38] Come up, my friends.
[4:18:45] Hello, Evan.
[4:18:48] Oh.
[4:18:50] So I thought I would do it from here because it just seems more appropriate than to
[4:18:53] sit up there, because we're going to do this as a collaborative piece.
[4:18:57] The individuals that are joining me here for this particular agenda
[4:19:01] item, to my left is Jill Pecinski, I always mess up your last name,
[4:19:05] with Watershed. And then we have Evan Rhinesmith, and he's
[4:19:08] been helping us with our data, and some research, and some
[4:19:12] really good work. And the reason that I've brought these two folks up to help share
[4:19:16] where we are with strategic plan, is that they are folks who are
[4:19:20] weighing in with expertise around
[4:19:24] specifically metrics and research as to what is good practice and what it is that
[4:19:27] we want to see. They're bringing to the table a lot of information that has to do
[4:19:31] with across the states, these states that have truly made a
[4:19:35] difference and are moving things forward, so they're bringing that kind of
[4:19:38] information in.
[4:19:40] But really and truly, I could share the entire strategic plan with you and give you
[4:19:44] all the background, but I thought it was an opportunity for you to meet these folks
[4:19:48] and be able to see who we have on our team doing this work.
[4:19:53] And I need to mention before I get started also is that, even though it's just the
[4:19:56] three of us that are reporting to you, there are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds
[4:20:00] of people that have been engaged in this work, and we're going to give you some
[4:20:04] more detail around that. So to get us started, I will just...
[4:20:08] First off,
[4:20:09] I am not good at clickers, but I'll try.
[4:20:12] Okay. So here's our update. Obviously, we were charged with
[4:20:17] revamping the strategic plan, and we're very, very grateful, and I forgot to
[4:20:20] mention our strategic plan committee chair, Pamela Westbrook-Hodge,
[4:20:24] and just the oversight that she provides and the opportunity to work with her and
[4:20:28] bring her expertise to the table has been very beneficial.
[4:20:31] This strategic plan, I believe, the whole target is for it to lay out a clear
[4:20:35] and actual vision for addressing the most pressing needs of our state.
[4:20:39] And I'm going to repeat that, because I do believe we have a board member that
[4:20:41] says, "I haven't heard a vision." And hopefully, we're going to provide you a
[4:20:44] vision here, Brooks.
[4:20:46] That we need to achieve success, and in the upcoming years, DESE commits
[4:20:50] to measuring the ability to meet these goals and holding
[4:20:53] itself accountable, and that's the purpose of this document, for achieving these
[4:20:57] outcomes for students and stakeholders.
[4:21:00] What we're going to do today's presentation is to provide the board with a
[4:21:03] comprehensive update. We're going to overview what we have been working on for the
[4:21:07] past several months and the current status of the strategic plan, including the
[4:21:10] initial headlines, you could say, the next steps towards finalization, and
[4:21:13] implementation.
[4:21:15] It's important to note that we are not requesting final approval today.
[4:21:18] We're asking for, this is the information.
[4:21:21] We're going to ask not only later, but if you have any comments as we go
[4:21:25] through, to get a sense of, are we going the right direction?
[4:21:28] Is this the work that you guys like to see?
[4:21:31] So I'm joined today, as I mentioned before, by Jill Pecinski, Managing Director at
[4:21:35] Watershed Advisors, and Evan Rhinesmith, who's the founder of Blue Wing
[4:21:39] Educational Insights. And I've had the opportunity to work with these two and their
[4:21:43] team throughout this process, and I can tell you they bring measurable
[4:21:46] expertise for us to be able to develop this plan.
[4:21:50] So I'm going to turn it over, and Jill is going to introduce herself, and she's
[4:21:53] going to share a little bit about just her basic history of how we got
[4:21:57] here. Evan is going to come in and talk about the metrics around the things that
[4:22:01] we're going to be measuring and how we're going to be measuring it.
[4:22:03] And all this kind of folds into a lot of the conversation you guys were having
[4:22:06] previously. So I introduce Jill.
[4:22:09] Thank you.
[4:22:09] And here is your... I'll pass the clicker.
[4:22:12] I also always struggle with clickers.
[4:22:15] Nice to meet you all, and thank you, Commissioner, and thank you all for
[4:22:19] allowing us to be here and share about our work.
[4:22:22] As Commissioner said, I'm Jill Pecinski, I'm a Managing Director at Watershed
[4:22:25] Advisors, and I lead our K-12 systems team.
[4:22:29] Our work is to partner with states like Missouri to
[4:22:33] help
[4:22:34] Turn the fragmented world of education into a
[4:22:38] coherent strategy. And over the last several months, we have
[4:22:41] partnered with the commissioner and with the leadership at
[4:22:45] DESE,
[4:22:46] to synthesize the work of the work groups, to bring our own
[4:22:51] knowledge and expertise from states around the country,
[4:22:54] and to help shape that into concrete priorities that
[4:22:58] will ultimately drive improvement in the state.
[4:23:01] Now, I am under no illusion that a
[4:23:05] strategic plan in and of itself is going to change the experiences of
[4:23:09] kids, and I am excited about the work
[4:23:12] that is captured here, the way it brought together so many
[4:23:16] voices and the opportunity that it brings to get focused and
[4:23:20] clear about what matters most.
[4:23:26] This strategic plan refresh builds on the previous
[4:23:29] strategic plan,
[4:23:31] which had priority areas, and foundations.
[4:23:34] And that has guided DESE's work in the past.
[4:23:38] And this refresh is building on the work of these areas,
[4:23:42] and it is trying to get concrete. One question we asked over and over again is:
[4:23:47] What does DESE have to get an A on? What matters most?
[4:23:51] So this is not representative of all the work.
[4:23:52] There is so much work going on in the agency.
[4:23:55] This is what matters most.
[4:24:00] And that's what a strategic plan does, right?
[4:24:03] It guides the direction of the board,
[4:24:08] and it addresses those needs and ensures that everyone in the
[4:24:11] ecosystem in the state feels clear about
[4:24:15] what DESE is showing up every day focused on.
[4:24:18] It's about clearing out the noise and
[4:24:21] driving that focus.
[4:24:26] Mm-hmm.
[4:24:26] So I'm going to talk a little bit...
[4:24:28] Also please feel free to jump in with questions as we're going through.
[4:24:32] I want to share a little bit about the process,
[4:24:35] because I think,
[4:24:37] and this is thanks to Board Member Westbrook's initiative to
[4:24:41] get these work groups going. This work started in
[4:24:45] fall of 2025. There was a survey that went out
[4:24:49] across the state.
[4:24:52] We'll talk a little bit more about each of these pieces in detail in a minute.
[4:24:55] My team pulled together national and state data.
[4:24:58] So we did an audit of what is true already, what do we know, and when
[4:25:02] we look to states that are driving national
[4:25:06] trends,
[4:25:08] what can we learn from them to inform this process?
[4:25:11] And then the work group started the really work in earnest of bringing
[4:25:15] together stakeholders in the field,
[4:25:18] who are showing up every day trying to do this work, to think about
[4:25:22] what can the state do differently.
[4:25:25] I heard a lot of conversation today about the role of different parts of the
[4:25:28] system, and a big
[4:25:31] focus of these conversations was: What is the role
[4:25:35] of DESE,
[4:25:37] and how can they use their position to create
[4:25:41] change in the field?
[4:25:44] The work groups wrapped up their work in the
[4:25:47] winter. There's one group, the Transforming Underperforming Schools
[4:25:51] and Need-Based Funding... Sorry, that's two groups, that continued past that.
[4:25:56] And then the work group leads have been sort of synthesizing all that work,
[4:26:00] bringing that to DESE leadership and to our team.
[4:26:03] And what we have been doing is trying to take all of that and say, "Okay, across
[4:26:07] 10 work groups, we had tons and tons of feedback.
[4:26:11] How do we synthesize that up into a set of concrete actions?"
[4:26:16] And then, as you'll hear Evan talk more about, he has been helping shape
[4:26:20] how are we going to set performance metrics so that this doesn't just sit on a
[4:26:24] shelf, but actually gives us measurable outcomes that we can
[4:26:28] track over time.
[4:26:31] So
[4:26:33] from today, we're sharing sort of the first thought, and then that work will
[4:26:36] continue, and we'll talk more about that as we go.
[4:26:39] Absolutely.
[4:26:44] So again, I'll double-click in a little bit on the process here.
[4:26:50] The survey got responses from over 2,000 stakeholders from every
[4:26:54] level of the community.
[4:26:56] I think the next slide, or maybe two slides after this, has headlines
[4:27:00] from that survey. We did that national landscape scan,
[4:27:05] and we relied heavily on other national experts
[4:27:08] in each area to weigh in.
[4:27:12] And there were over 148 leaders from across the state who participated in those
[4:27:15] work groups, and that is really a huge feat. That is a big ask.
[4:27:18] These people are volunteering their time to show up, share their input,
[4:27:23] and guide this. And not just their time, but the time of DESE's
[4:27:27] team. They worked so hard to make sure those work groups were
[4:27:31] intentional and thoughtful.
[4:27:34] Again, the survey represented a huge swath
[4:27:38] of people across the state, and we
[4:27:42] asked people to focus on three things in the survey.
[4:27:46] First, where are we getting it right?
[4:27:48] What are some things that
[4:27:49] we can celebrate and say, "Okay, we're doing a good job."
[4:27:53] And we saw safe and healthy schools, early learning, and
[4:27:57] success-ready students and workforce development get the most
[4:28:00] support as places were
[4:28:03] doing well. Then, what could we do
[4:28:06] better?
[4:28:08] Educator recruitment and retention was a strong leader on where
[4:28:12] there's opportunity to do better.
[4:28:14] Literacy, and then while success-ready students and workforce development is a
[4:28:18] strength, it is also an opportunity.
[4:28:20] And of course, that is a big bucket to work on.
[4:28:25] And then lastly, we said, "What
[4:28:27] do you need DESE to do to create change in these
[4:28:30] areas?" And funding opportunities aligned to core priorities was
[4:28:34] a bigMost popular choice here, and you'll see that
[4:28:38] reflected in the strategic plan. I think commissioner has some
[4:28:42] really
[4:28:44] smart thoughts about how to do this in a way that aligns the priorities,
[4:28:48] right? This isn't just about more money.
[4:28:50] It's about using the money that you have more effectively.
[4:28:54] Policy guidance, always an opportunity to get clear about what districts and
[4:28:58] schools get. And then data reporting and transparency, which is a
[4:29:01] huge endeavor that the state has already taken on.
[4:29:07] All right.
[4:29:10] I think you went past one.
[4:29:14] Yep. Looked through.
[4:29:19] I said we did a national scan. I just want to
[4:29:22] highlight what we looked at in that scan.
[4:29:25] And on all of these, we looked at what is the current state
[4:29:29] in Missouri,
[4:29:31] both the good and the bad. What do we want to keep doing and not
[4:29:35] lose, and what needs to improve? And then also examples
[4:29:39] across the country. And we looked at data
[4:29:42] overall and trends over time. We looked
[4:29:46] at
[4:29:48] evidence-based practices in literacy and numeracy, and there's a lot of good
[4:29:52] stuff in literacy already happening in Missouri that we want to
[4:29:56] capture and scale and make sure is really reaching kids across the
[4:29:59] state.
[4:30:00] Mm-hmm.
[4:30:01] School improvement strategies in particular.
[4:30:04] How do we get into districts that are struggling the most, and what actually
[4:30:08] works?
[4:30:09] And then, of course, we also had early childhood workforce development, et cetera.
[4:30:13] And again, all of this stuff went into the
[4:30:17] ultimate document.
[4:30:18] Mm-hmm.
[4:30:19] And then, yes, 10 work groups,
[4:30:23] they dug into these topics.
[4:30:26] You will not see a strategic plan that is 10 different topics.
[4:30:29] That is too much to focus.
[4:30:32] So we pooled takeaways across all 10 work
[4:30:36] groups, and they are reflected in each of the priorities in
[4:30:41] the strategic plan.
[4:30:45] All right. That was a lot of process.
[4:30:48] I'm going to hand it back to the commissioner to talk about the high-level
[4:30:52] vision,
[4:30:53] and then we'll get into-
[4:30:54] Absolutely. And I want you to know that all throughout this process,
[4:30:58] both of these teams have been working directly with the work groups, directly with
[4:31:01] the leadership. So this has been an ongoing piece, and it's been something that
[4:31:05] every week we touch on to get to this place.
[4:31:07] So in the refreshed strategic plan, we're proposing key priorities and actions that
[4:31:11] will guide DESE's work over the next three years.
[4:31:13] It's important that these actions are aligned to DESE's vision for Missouri
[4:31:16] schools.
[4:31:17] So basically,
[4:31:19] I'm just going to go right here. Here's the vision for Missouri schools, and I want
[4:31:23] you to know that there's got three broad buckets here.
[4:31:26] So this is a shift from what you have seen prior, and what you saw prior was
[4:31:30] we had several different things
[4:31:32] within our
[4:31:33] poster of what it is that we are working on within the department.
[4:31:37] But I think you could see these three buckets, and you could find every child ready
[4:31:40] for their first day of kindergarten.
[4:31:42] So you see all of the things within literacy and early childcare.
[4:31:45] Every student experience excellent education.
[4:31:46] There's your academic performance, there's your accountability, Carrie, there's
[4:31:50] meet or exceed grade-level expectations, and then the far
[4:31:54] one is around post-secondary. So you have every student graduates high
[4:31:58] school and school ready for post-secondary success.
[4:32:02] Now, the reason that you have these emphasis is because we want to
[4:32:06] address the concerns that we have, and we do have concerns.
[4:32:09] When we look at the NAEP and we see that 73% of fourth graders are not proficient,
[4:32:13] 77% of eighth graders are not proficient in math, we have work to do.
[4:32:17] We also see that 10% of the kids 16 and above are neither working or going to
[4:32:21] school. We have work to do. We see that there's a quality
[4:32:25] piece around early childhood, 42% of our early childhood education
[4:32:29] programs did not meet or exceed. Well, that's of the ones that we measure.
[4:32:33] So there's tons out there as well. So we just want to make sure that we have
[4:32:35] high-quality opportunities for all our kids.
[4:32:39] One thing I will mention, though, is that we have made some progress because we
[4:32:42] have unified the state's early childhood programs from the Office of Childhood.
[4:32:46] We strengthened the educator pipeline and launched the nation's first statewide
[4:32:48] educator job board. There has been progress made.
[4:32:51] We've expanded for both students and educators
[4:32:54] to move towards more English language arts proficiency.
[4:32:57] And we developed new and improved data tools, which is really and truly the
[4:33:01] driver of this work, because if we can't measure what we're doing, then we don't
[4:33:04] have an idea of whether we're making progress.
[4:33:07] We know that there is more work to be done, and these areas for growth are the
[4:33:10] forefront for DESE as it considers the path forward.
[4:33:13] The strategic plan is focused on addressing these pressing issues.
[4:33:20] So here we are. In this refresh, we have six, what we consider to be
[4:33:24] key priorities. So you have the three big buckets. You have six priorities.
[4:33:29] And this will be over the next three years, informed by stakeholder feedback
[4:33:32] through the work groups and the study groups.
[4:33:35] Here's our priorities. So what I'm seeing is, is
[4:33:39] that when we look at what we're doing as a department and how we're moving
[4:33:42] forward currently, but obviously we're still taking
[4:33:46] information and feedback, so there could be some improvements here.
[4:33:49] But currently, we are looking at one through six, and I don't want to read them all
[4:33:53] to you, but I think you can see that number one is strengthen academic
[4:33:56] foundations, and then with great teaching, where you see all of the educator
[4:33:59] quality work. Focused support for underperforming schools and districts.
[4:34:03] We know that we have to lean in and be intentional and be able to address the needs
[4:34:07] of those school districts. I go on down the line and you can see that kindergarten
[4:34:11] readiness, secondary success, the data system work that we're doing,
[4:34:15] and also addressing the idea that we've got to have a true strategic
[4:34:19] addressing attendance, and in our safe and healthy schools.
[4:34:24] Okay.
[4:34:27] So from here, Jill's going to walk us through a little bit of the strategic
[4:34:31] plan priorities. So you have the big buckets, the priority, the goal statement.
[4:34:35] Well, she can do it. Go ahead.
[4:34:38] So, we have a lot of slides that follow, and I'm not going to read
[4:34:42] every single one to you.
[4:34:44] No.
[4:34:44] But I want to
[4:34:45] make sure you have a chance to skim them, and also you guys are
[4:34:49] welcome to reach out separately, and we can answer questions here or
[4:34:53] offline. But the strategic plan is
[4:34:56] structured with a goal statement, a set of
[4:34:59] strategies for advancing the priority.
[4:35:03] So there's two to four strategies for each
[4:35:07] of the priorities, and then measurable outcomes.
[4:35:11] Mm-hmm.
[4:35:11] And we're going to walk through, and Evan and I will tag team, and
[4:35:15] Commissioner, please feel free to-
[4:35:16] Sure
[4:35:16] ... jump in on each of these and just share what the headlines
[4:35:20] are. Evan, do you want to share anything on the measurable outcomes?
[4:35:23] Yeah. So the focus with the metrics conversation is really ensuring
[4:35:27] that within each priority area, we have this outcome
[4:35:31] that we're focused on.
[4:35:33] And to do that, it has to be measurable and actionable.
[4:35:35] We can't just say we're going to do something without having an actual plan to say-
[4:35:39] Yeah
[4:35:39] ... well, are we accomplishing this?
[4:35:43] And that's working within each of these work groups that feed into each of the
[4:35:47] priorities into those three big buckets that the commission was referencing.
[4:35:50] So we have to make sure that we have
[4:35:52] a plan to establish baseline data so we know where we sit today, and
[4:35:57] we can start to lay out the roadmap for what's coming next.
[4:36:00] Identifying the tools and resources that we need to collect timely
[4:36:04] information
[4:36:05] for each of these measures, because we have to be able to act on it in a
[4:36:09] relatively quick fashion. Three years is a...
[4:36:11] It seems like a long time, but that can move very quickly.
[4:36:15] Within that, you have to have a realistic time-bound goal.
[4:36:19] So
[4:36:20] we don't want to make progress for something that's going to take 15 years when we
[4:36:23] know that this plan is laying out what's supposed to happen over the next three
[4:36:26] years, and we need to have some sort of central platform that we
[4:36:30] can look at
[4:36:32] how we're doing and review and make sure that we're monitoring progress along the
[4:36:36] way.
[4:36:39] Okay.
[4:36:41] Good. Great. So
[4:36:42] we can jump to priority one.
[4:36:46] Mm-hmm.
[4:36:46] And I think as you see these slides, you'll see how this is structured.
[4:36:52] First priority,
[4:36:54] nothing changes in classrooms without great teachers,
[4:36:58] and this is our commitment to ensuring that the educator
[4:37:02] workforce has the support, resources, and tools that they need
[4:37:06] to deliver great literacy and math
[4:37:08] instruction.
[4:37:11] The four strategies that are named
[4:37:15] here, again, this is not the summation of all of the work in the
[4:37:19] state, but these are the four key strategies that
[4:37:23] we are naming as, we got to get an A on these.
[4:37:26] Mm-hmm.
[4:37:26] These matter most in the next three years.
[4:37:30] Supporting teacher... Well, actually, why don't we jump to the next-
[4:37:33] Sure
[4:37:33] ... slide.
[4:37:35] The text is small here. That's why I'm not going to read everything on here.
[4:37:38] No.
[4:37:38] But I do want to give you a chance to skim.
[4:37:40] We've got teacher recruitment, career planning, development.
[4:37:43] How do we get good teachers in the classroom and help them stay
[4:37:46] there? Second is scaling the usage of
[4:37:50] high-quality instructional materials and aligned professional
[4:37:54] learning across the state. So that means making
[4:37:58] sure districts know what those materials are,
[4:38:01] giving them the support to adopt those materials, and
[4:38:05] supporting their teachers to actually implement those every day in the classroom.
[4:38:09] This also includes letters, training, and other tools, particularly in the science
[4:38:13] of reading in those early grades. And this is in both
[4:38:16] ELA and in math. Third
[4:38:20] is supporting the usage of the state-approved literacy assessments statewide.
[4:38:23] One thing we heard as we were learning across the state is the assessment lists
[4:38:27] exist. There are good assessments on that list.
[4:38:30] Mm-hmm.
[4:38:31] And districts are getting there in terms of adopting them,
[4:38:35] and they still need support to do that and to use them
[4:38:38] effectively so that... I heard a conversation earlier today about- ...
[4:38:42] third grade retention. And you cannot retain kids in third grade if you
[4:38:46] don't know that they're behind in kindergarten, first grade, second grade, so
[4:38:50] that they ideally don't get to that place.
[4:38:52] Sure.
[4:38:53] And then lastly, I think a big conversation nationally is
[4:38:57] literacy coaching, and Missouri has a literacy coaching model.
[4:39:00] We want to make sure that every K through three teacher, particularly those in the
[4:39:03] highest need schools serving the students who are farthest behind, have
[4:39:07] that job-embedded coaching to help them make better
[4:39:11] decisions every day on how they deliver instruction.
[4:39:14] Absolutely. So you can see that you have the priority, you have the strategies, and
[4:39:18] now Evan's going to talk a little bit about the outcomes and this.
[4:39:20] So the outcomes piece is really the monitoring of how do we know?
[4:39:24] How do we know we're getting the job done?
[4:39:26] How are we focusing on the right things to
[4:39:28] show that we're making progress and that the department is relevant?
[4:39:32] So if you want to talk about the outcomes.
[4:39:33] Yeah.
[4:39:33] So each one of these priorities will have a list of outcomes to them.
[4:39:36] Yeah. And for each of the priorities, I'll sound like a broken record
[4:39:40] going through this. The focus with each of these outcomes is that we're making sure
[4:39:44] that they're measurable and that it's something that the department can stay
[4:39:47] focused on. And these are not just pulled from anywhere.
[4:39:51] It's done in partnership with each of the work groups.
[4:39:55] And you'll see that we had those separate work groups, all of them are feeding
[4:39:58] into separate priorities and how they all sort of work together.
[4:40:04] Not surprisingly, you'll see things like improvement on the map assessment and
[4:40:07] increasing access to high-quality training.
[4:40:12] We can adapt these a little bit to emphasize math, but we know that it's not just a
[4:40:16] lift and set sort of mentality, so we do have to focus a little bit more
[4:40:19] on what's coming down the pike-
[4:40:21] Yeah
[4:40:21] ... for mathematics in particular.
[4:40:24] And within this, the
[4:40:26] great folks in the teacher recruitment and retention work group gave some
[4:40:29] additional feedback that we're able to
[4:40:32] identify and loop in with this as well.
[4:40:38] Right, and then priority two.
[4:40:41] Great.
[4:40:42] This priority is really, in a lot of ways, just a double-click down of the
[4:40:46] first priority, which is how do we make sure that our most
[4:40:50] struggling schools and districts know that they are
[4:40:54] struggling, they have the data that identifies them clearly, and that they
[4:40:58] get the targeted support that will drive improvement?
[4:41:03] I think what's most interesting about this is it's strategies that have been pooled
[4:41:06] from across all the different working groups-
[4:41:08] Mm-hmm
[4:41:09] ... as key to driving change in underperforming schools and districts.
[4:41:13] So first is, again, you can't
[4:41:17] help those districts if you don't know who they are.
[4:41:20] Mm-hmm.
[4:41:20] And so one strategy here is about clear, transparent
[4:41:24] information on student performance.
[4:41:26] And part of this is the Innovative Assessment Demonstration Authority-
[4:41:30] ... and ensuring that as that pilot starts to gather data
[4:41:34] and we learn how it's going, we use that
[4:41:37] to
[4:41:39] think about what we can be doing to make sure we have strong assessments across the
[4:41:42] state.
[4:41:43] We have a question from-
[4:41:44] Yeah. Thank you
[4:41:44] ... Board Member Mike Matusik.
[4:41:46] Not a question on content, yet.
[4:41:48] This presentation,
[4:41:51] we don't have this on our computers, do we?
[4:41:54] We do not.
[4:41:55] We don't?
[4:41:55] No. I'm sorry.
[4:41:55] It was emailed as an attachment.
[4:41:57] Yeah. So okay.
[4:41:58] Okay. I'm sorry.
[4:41:58] So I have that open. I keep looking at my phone. I have it on my phone.
[4:42:01] I'm not looking at something.
[4:42:03] Yes.
[4:42:03] I'm looking at this.
[4:42:04] Yes.
[4:42:04] But I just wanted to make sure that-
[4:42:05] Yes
[4:42:05] ... and let you guys know I'm not just like-
[4:42:07] And as I mentioned, of course, we were still working on parts of this, and this
[4:42:10] will be posted as soon as the meeting's over, so you'll get there.
[4:42:12] Thank you.
[4:42:12] Both of those.
[4:42:13] I have it on my phone, but-
[4:42:14] Okay. Yes. We don't think you're looking at your phone.
[4:42:17] Well, yeah. So anyway.
[4:42:19] Okay.
[4:42:20] That's helpful to know. And if you need me to
[4:42:22] pause on anything so you can read from the screen-
[4:42:24] Yes
[4:42:24] ... let me know.
[4:42:25] And can you go back and explain
[4:42:29] to the board on the innovative, just to make sure that everybody's on the same page
[4:42:33] about what you're talking about with the tool there?
[4:42:37] Yes.
[4:42:38] Okay. Thank you.
[4:42:39] And others in the room-
[4:42:41] Sure.
[4:42:41] ... should feel free to jump in here, but
[4:42:44] the Innovative Assessment Demonstration Authority is a
[4:42:48] federal law that allows states to say, "We have an idea
[4:42:51] about how to deliver assessments or state summative
[4:42:55] assessments to students in a different way."
[4:43:00] It's not new that we all worry about over-testing for kids and
[4:43:04] the impact of those high-stakes tests at the end of the year.
[4:43:07] And so, a handful of states over the last decade have said,
[4:43:11] "Yeah, we have an idea." And-
[4:43:13] Mm-hmm
[4:43:13] ...
[4:43:15] a number of stakeholders in Missouri put forward the idea of a
[4:43:19] through-year test, which is an idea that we've seen states adopt across
[4:43:22] the country. And the idea is that instead of having one big
[4:43:27] scary test at the end of the year, you break that test up into pieces.
[4:43:31] You make the results available to teachers more quickly, so that instead of
[4:43:34] waiting till
[4:43:36] sometimes as late as August or later to-
[4:43:40] Mm-hmm
[4:43:40] ... get that end of year test, they actually are getting data along the way.
[4:43:45] And
[4:43:48] ideally, sort of take some of the stakes off for kids, too, you're sort of
[4:43:52] three smaller tests instead of one big test.
[4:43:55] Right now, Missouri,
[4:43:58] they piloted in, I think, five districts this year.
[4:44:01] Proof of concept. Mm-hmm.
[4:44:02] Yep. So truly just like, can we do this at all?
[4:44:06] And the part of the federal demonstration authority is you have to
[4:44:09] prove comparability. So they have a technical advisory group that is
[4:44:13] supporting the work that will be gathering data, both qualitative and
[4:44:17] quantitative, to ensure that the results, even though the test
[4:44:21] has been split up into three parts, that those results
[4:44:25] are comparable in terms of rigor,
[4:44:27] and relevance, and tied to the standards in the same way as the state
[4:44:31] test.
[4:44:32] Mm.
[4:44:32] So the next year will expand to
[4:44:35] more
[4:44:37] districts, and at every step of the way, DESE has to get federal
[4:44:40] approval and show that they are meeting those rigorous
[4:44:44] expectations in terms of technical
[4:44:48] soundness and
[4:44:51] comparability. And so the plan is it expands each year and
[4:44:55] in a small number of... So I think it starts in just fifth
[4:44:58] grade-
[4:44:59] Mm-hmm
[4:45:00] ... where it would, just for those students, replace the
[4:45:05] state assessment and the accountability formula.
[4:45:07] But again, all of that is dependent on
[4:45:11] the proof-
[4:45:12] Yeah
[4:45:12] ... of concept along the way,
[4:45:14] and it is still just-
[4:45:16] Been talking about today. Right. And the one thing that I want, that we have a
[4:45:19] commitment from the department, a commitment and actually obligation to our US
[4:45:23] Department of Education, is that they have to give us the approval all the way
[4:45:26] along to where it is the same rigorous, it is comparable, that we're not
[4:45:30] reducing rigor, that we're not lowering the bar.
[4:45:33] And that wouldn't be anything that I would be able to support anyway.
[4:45:36] Board Member Kerrie Casey?
[4:45:38] Thanks. I'll be brief.
[4:45:41] I
[4:45:43] think there is enthusiasm for "let's be innovative." It's certainly something that
[4:45:47] we have even just talked about today, the importance of being innovative,
[4:45:51] especially when it comes to how we're using our resources and in ways that we
[4:45:55] can more effectively reach the children. Totally for that.
[4:45:59] However, when it comes to this particular program,
[4:46:02] IADA, and this is a monumental change that I
[4:46:06] think in our initial discussion last month, brought
[4:46:10] about many questions. And this isn't the time to kind of drill
[4:46:14] into those questions, but I just want to reiterate the importance of a
[4:46:18] follow-up discussion on that at the board level to go over the kind of
[4:46:22] questions that we were posing and really pros and
[4:46:26] cons around this. And again, there's great excitement and
[4:46:30] reason for that excitement, but there's also serious concerns
[4:46:34] about the doability of this, if you will.
[4:46:37] And I did do some digging and research with the Center of
[4:46:41] Assessment last week and learned a lot more about what
[4:46:45] those states
[4:46:47] That we'd ever want to jump into something that we're not ready to do or that we're
[4:46:51] not going to be able to do well. So yes, absolutely.
[4:46:54] All right. So where are we at, Jill? Priority two?
[4:46:56] Yeah. So
[4:46:58] secondly here, and I
[4:47:00] am excited about this concept of a district
[4:47:03] playbook, and this is really about how do we get clear once we've
[4:47:07] identified the districts and said,
[4:47:10] "This is a challenge"-
[4:47:12] Mm-hmm
[4:47:12] ... how do we get really concrete about the steps that are
[4:47:15] taken, both in terms of process, like how do you get
[4:47:19] identified, and then also what do you do?
[4:47:22] So there's a commitment here to building that playbook,
[4:47:25] using district
[4:47:29] and school accountability to identify and
[4:47:33] target those supports.
[4:47:35] And then lastly, I
[4:47:38] talked about the commissioner's-
[4:47:40] Mm-hmm
[4:47:40] ... commitment on aligning funding and a priority here is streamlining
[4:47:44] grants management. That sounds so unexciting, but it
[4:47:47] is...
[4:47:49] Districts spend a huge amount of time filling out different plans
[4:47:53] saying, "Here's what we're going to do for Title 1.
[4:47:54] Here's what we're going to do for 1003." And
[4:47:58] there's a strategy here that would allow
[4:48:01] districts to streamline that work so
[4:48:05] that we know the limited dollars that we have are
[4:48:09] being targeted to the improvement strategies, particularly in these
[4:48:13] low-performing schools and districts.
[4:48:14] Yeah. This is the type of work that I've seen in other states that have come
[4:48:18] together, and pretty much what it is, you take all of these grants and federal
[4:48:21] programs, and you have one consolidated application.
[4:48:25] You can focus on the main objectives within the state and not all of these various
[4:48:29] things, kind of like a shotgun approach, more focused approach. So...
[4:48:33] And if underscore or highlight.
[4:48:36] I'm reading it. Well, basically, every one of
[4:48:39] these particular focuses, a lot of this
[4:48:43] came out of the Transforming Schools work, the work that we were talking about,
[4:48:47] especially that district playbook, because that truly is the first opportunity
[4:48:51] that we get to come in and do a rubric on a school system.
[4:48:53] You see that they're low. So then you come in, you have a rubric, you find out
[4:48:57] specifically what the issues are, you align your resources to it, and you put
[4:49:01] a plan together so that there's improvement.
[4:49:03] So it's not just a report out that says, "This many districts are
[4:49:07] failing." It's an opportunity for us to operationalize that work.
[4:49:13] And then-
[4:49:14] Board Member Casey
[4:49:15] ... comment more so maybe than a question.
[4:49:17] In that process, and much more to discuss, I think, as we
[4:49:21] dig deeper into the plan, that
[4:49:25] process prioritizes those schools.
[4:49:27] Yes.
[4:49:28] So the ones with the greatest needs, with the fewest resources,
[4:49:32] where
[4:49:36] our resources are aligned in a way that we are identifying
[4:49:40] the greatest needs.
[4:49:41] Yes.
[4:49:42] Mm-hmm.
[4:49:42] Absolutely.
[4:49:43] Hey, Carla?
[4:49:44] Yes.
[4:49:45] I just want to underscore, I'm sorry, Dr.
[4:49:47] Eslinger, that this is huge.
[4:49:50] This is a huge departure, a really good
[4:49:54] departure from past plans
[4:49:58] that kind of treated every,
[4:50:01] I hate to say it, treated everyone the same.
[4:50:03] Yes.
[4:50:03] DESE area supervisors have to show up differently in schools that
[4:50:07] are struggling, and they should be
[4:50:10] carefully monitored through metrics on a dashboard.
[4:50:14] So as we talk about the 20 that have the APR chronically
[4:50:18] below 70, those schools would clearly fall
[4:50:22] into this. It's the
[4:50:24] concerns that you were voicing earlier about where's the focus on
[4:50:28] those schools? Why aren't we talking about them?
[4:50:31] So this pretty much gives you an opportunity to do almost a diagnostic on a school
[4:50:34] system to where you can actually see where is it that you can make the immediate
[4:50:38] improvements and get the resources and time there.
[4:50:41] I believe that is a thing that we have not done as a department.
[4:50:44] If you think about it, the department has, I believe, historically
[4:50:48] been considered more of a library, where if you have resources, or if you have an
[4:50:52] interest, or if you have something that you need, call us and we'll try to help
[4:50:55] you.
[4:50:55] This is much more proactive.
[4:50:56] Much more proactive and leaning in on these areas that we know we need to focus on.
[4:51:01] Okay.
[4:51:02] Jill?
[4:51:02] Board Member Casey.
[4:51:03] One very quick question. Not to get ahead, but what's going
[4:51:07] to be important, and I hope you'll cover it by the end of the presentation,
[4:51:11] obviously next steps, but the importance of how the board's going to be
[4:51:15] informed about all these things on an ongoing basis, not just a
[4:51:19] once a year update or-
[4:51:21] Right
[4:51:21] ... just how you are going to-
[4:51:22] My goal would be obviously, and that's a great question, is that the changes in
[4:51:26] your agenda, which I suspected would happen after this comes about, each one of
[4:51:30] those priorities would be reflected in your agenda to where you're addressing
[4:51:33] priority one, priority two, priority three.
[4:51:35] Once you land on the six that you believe is what you want to do. Yes.
[4:51:40] Thank you.
[4:51:41] And Evidence can provide all the metrics so we can measure this.
[4:51:44] Yes.
[4:51:45] And Carla-
[4:51:46] Yes
[4:51:46] ... not to get in the weeds, but, and this is something I've
[4:51:50] had a concern over, we already have the data that shows that the
[4:51:54] least prepared instructors or teachers-
[4:51:56] Yes
[4:51:56] ... are in
[4:51:58] front of our most challenged schools and
[4:52:01] environments. It would be my hope and
[4:52:05] expectation that that data-
[4:52:07] Yes
[4:52:08] ... is clearly present
[4:52:10] as we talk about this priority.
[4:52:12] Right.
[4:52:12] Absolutely.
[4:52:14] Which will be monthly.
[4:52:16] Well, each month on your agenda, if you change your agenda-
[4:52:18] Yeah
[4:52:19] ... we agree.
[4:52:19] Right.
[4:52:20] All right. Are we ready for-
[4:52:22] I think for Evan
[4:52:22] ... Evan, do you have anything about this one? Mm-mm.
[4:52:24] I think the next
[4:52:26] slide has data metrics.
[4:52:28] Okay.
[4:52:29] And so I think one thing I just heard was an opportunity to add something on
[4:52:33] the percent of qualified teachers in this.
[4:52:35] Absolutely. So to just make sure that we're aware,
[4:52:39] each one of these outcomes, like Evan's going to spend time tomorrow with these
[4:52:42] work group leads that are DESE staff and try to really
[4:52:46] hone in on the specific metric to measure these
[4:52:49] outcomes.The difference that I'm seeing in this strategic plan
[4:52:53] development from what I've seen in previous pieces, I'm not saying it wasn't
[4:52:57] good, but we're building upon that, is that we're very specific about what the
[4:53:01] expectation is and having a metric around whether we're making a difference or not.
[4:53:05] And I think that is definitely moving the agenda forward.
[4:53:10] Okay. Evan?
[4:53:11] I was just going to offer the other-
[4:53:14] There you go.
[4:53:14] ... piece of this with
[4:53:16] as we're crafting the metrics and as you look at each of the priorities, what I
[4:53:19] think is shifting in this refresh of the strategic plan is you're
[4:53:23] combining and creating more opportunities for crossover between the
[4:53:27] different work groups and the departments.
[4:53:29] Mm-hmm.
[4:53:29] And that's an important aspect, especially when you think about focusing on
[4:53:33] underperforming schools, we have in there improvement in both ELA and
[4:53:37] math. While you
[4:53:39] don't want to measure both of those things simultaneously, you do want to have that
[4:53:41] embedded to say, "If we're going to see improvement, we have to
[4:53:45] have clear, coherent information and-
[4:53:49] ... a clear understanding of the metrics that are already available for schools so
[4:53:53] they can make those course corrections along the way."
[4:53:55] So it looked to me in the past slide that there was something about, and-
[4:53:58] We'll try to get us on the right slide
[4:54:00] ... I don't know if the board will make that decision or...
[4:54:02] But the percentage of increase in ELA, the percentage
[4:54:05] of proficiency increase in mathematics, right?
[4:54:09] Mm-hmm.
[4:54:09] So we will establish what that needs to be.
[4:54:12] That's also that measurable goal that we can use for the assessment tool.
[4:54:15] Yes.
[4:54:16] And the timelines with those goals.
[4:54:17] And the timelines, yes.
[4:54:18] Exactly.
[4:54:19] Okay. Pamela West-Cott.
[4:54:20] I just want to interject that the last time
[4:54:23] Carrie and I were challenged with the
[4:54:27] percentages by which... The goal percentages,
[4:54:33] it was really difficult for us to compromise
[4:54:37] on the amount of growth we wanted to see,
[4:54:41] and then temper that with realism and the growth that had
[4:54:45] actually been achieved, and what leaders
[4:54:49] felt was achievable. So I just want
[4:54:53] to get everyone to thinking about,
[4:54:56] you're each individually going to be challenged with
[4:55:00] that. We'll want the moon, and then we'll have to compare the
[4:55:04] moon to what's actually achievable with the
[4:55:07] resources that we have and other constraints.
[4:55:11] So,
[4:55:12] just prepare yourselves for-
[4:55:14] Mm-hmm
[4:55:15] ... for that very difficult experience
[4:55:19] because it-
[4:55:21] Well, that's why I brought it up.
[4:55:23] Yeah.
[4:55:24] Is so because we kind of slipped past that and
[4:55:27] I've heard a lot of discussion today about things we want to get done
[4:55:31] and who's responsible and how we're going to be accountable, but this is
[4:55:34] something where everyone's going to have to make those decisions.
[4:55:38] And you are right, everybody wants big growth,
[4:55:42] but we've got to look at... We don't want to set
[4:55:45] low goals.
[4:55:46] No.
[4:55:47] And so, I'm hoping we'll get some good guidance here.
[4:55:50] Carrie, I know you and Pam have been working on this, and you have some thoughts,
[4:55:55] so you'll be able to help guide us.
[4:55:57] I know with Brooks, that you hope that we can make big goals, what I
[4:56:01] call big, hairy, audacious goals.
[4:56:03] So how do we balance that out as we move forward?
[4:56:06] Absolutely.
[4:56:06] And this is-
[4:56:08] With fewer resources.
[4:56:10] Well, we had that conversation earlier today too.
[4:56:14] Oh, yeah.
[4:56:14] So... Yes.
[4:56:14] Okay.
[4:56:14] Okay.
[4:56:15] I have.
[4:56:15] Oh, yes.
[4:56:16] Mike Matusik?
[4:56:17] Thank you. Kind of another general question.
[4:56:20] I saw a copy of the draft strategic plan,
[4:56:24] I think, in late January. I
[4:56:27] got a copy from Kyle.
[4:56:28] Mm-hmm. Yeah. And that had-
[4:56:30] Has that been sent out?
[4:56:31] ... tons and tons of stuff in it. And part of the challenge with that, because
[4:56:34] every work group had,
[4:56:36] I don't know how many, 20 or 30, but anyway, so we have to bring it in.
[4:56:40] So the look is much different.
[4:56:42] But so has it been sent around since, and I missed the email or-
[4:56:46] It just came.
[4:56:46] This is the first-
[4:56:47] Today.
[4:56:47] This is the first that we've sent this out, this version, this cleaned up version.
[4:56:50] Last Friday.
[4:56:51] And we're not asking-
[4:56:52] What we shared with you was really not ready for prime time.
[4:56:54] Just draft. Mm-hmm.
[4:56:55] And not-
[4:56:56] Yeah.
[4:56:57] Yeah.
[4:56:59] So, so this-
[4:57:00] And today's really the first time
[4:57:00] ... these priorities, this is-
[4:57:02] The six priorities are the current draft of the strategic plan for your
[4:57:05] consideration.
[4:57:07] And it's just our first blush, as we've been saying.
[4:57:09] So-
[4:57:09] We get your discussion-
[4:57:10] Yeah
[4:57:10] ... here, and then I will reach out to each individual and make sure that
[4:57:14] this plan reflects what you believe should be included, get your
[4:57:17] feedback. We're continuing to work on the metrics, continuing to work with the work
[4:57:21] groups. We have some great feedback from Pamela as well.
[4:57:24] She's going to meet directly with the Watershed group and myself, and this is an
[4:57:27] ongoing process.
[4:57:29] My goal is that we get this done and that we're able to truly and be able to say,
[4:57:33] "Here's a metric. Here we're measuring it.
[4:57:35] Are we making a difference?"
[4:57:38] And what do we do? And what do we do if we're not?
[4:57:41] You indicated earlier today, Carla, that you would be
[4:57:45] reaching out to each of us-
[4:57:46] Yes
[4:57:46] ... individually for our feedback-
[4:57:48] Yes
[4:57:48] ... possibly even a survey. Did I hear that?
[4:57:50] Yes.
[4:57:50] Okay.
[4:57:51] Mm-hmm. There's the first blush of this.
[4:57:54] I would assume that you would like to have some time to digest and look at it and
[4:57:57] really be able to give me some specific feedback because I want to be able to have
[4:58:01] that reflected.
[4:58:04] Mike?
[4:58:05] Sorry. So,
[4:58:07] priority one for... I
[4:58:10] was talking with someone earlier about my prior
[4:58:13] superintendent was able to sort of dumb things down for me in a way that I could...
[4:58:18] Because this is a lot of complicated stuff.
[4:58:20] Yeah.
[4:58:20] There's only two of the board members that have been involved in this over the last
[4:58:24] seven or eight months.
[4:58:26] And so, I think they're able to speak
[4:58:30] about it more, I think, than most of us.
[4:58:32] But,
[4:58:34] so when I'm looking at priority one, for example,
[4:58:40] where it talks about literacy,
[4:58:43] so
[4:58:44] can you kind of get into a little bit
[4:58:48] more detail on how this strategic plan would improve literacy?
[4:58:53] There's things within the strategic plan, a priority that
[4:58:57] addresses increase in the number of letters trained teachers.
[4:59:01] There's
[4:59:02] specific
[4:59:04] strategies, I guess you would say, for each priority.
[4:59:07] Right. So I saw also the outcomes,
[4:59:11] for example,
[4:59:12] increase the percentage of grade three students earning proficient or above in
[4:59:16] ELA and math on MAP grade level assessment.
[4:59:21] Increase the percentage of districts that have adopted high-quality instructional
[4:59:24] materials in ELA and mathematics.
[4:59:27] Increase the percentage of teachers and school leaders experiencing...
[4:59:30] So,
[4:59:33] basically,
[4:59:35] educator training,
[4:59:38] that is what's going to solve
[4:59:40] literacy or improve literacy in the state?
[4:59:43] We have to have highly trained teachers or very good teachers in front of the kids,
[4:59:46] and research will tell you that that is the most significant indicator
[4:59:50] of kids being successful, is the quality of the teacher.
[4:59:53] If they have the ability to teach reading within we know the way we
[4:59:56] know is the best way to teach reading, we're going to have increased scores in ELA,
[5:00:00] increased scores in literacy. So it's all a build.
[5:00:03] But yes, that is the way in which you increase reading proficiency.
[5:00:07] I would also argue that the entire strategic plan-
[5:00:10] Yes
[5:00:10] ... is intended to improve
[5:00:13] outcomes in literacy and math. Everything that is in here is
[5:00:17] because those are inputs that we know
[5:00:21] contribute. Some of them are longer term, right?
[5:00:25] Changing an educator prep program is an investment far in
[5:00:29] the future because it'll take a long time before those teachers are delivering
[5:00:32] instruction in classrooms. Some of this, like
[5:00:36] providing direct support in our most struggling schools, is an
[5:00:40] immediate. Getting coaches into schools is an immediate thing.
[5:00:44] But all of these, including safe and healthy schools, all of that is about
[5:00:48] creating the environment aligned all the way from the State
[5:00:52] House-
[5:00:53] Yeah
[5:00:53] ... down to the classroom to ensure that teachers show up every day with the
[5:00:56] tools and resources and curriculum that
[5:01:00] research has shown will result in better instruction.
[5:01:04] I was in a
[5:01:05] school recently, it's a really exceptional school, it's in our neighboring
[5:01:09] state, Arkansas.
[5:01:12] And the principal was talking about
[5:01:16] how their job was to take everything else off of
[5:01:20] a teacher's plate so that they could-
[5:01:22] Focus
[5:01:23] ... deliver the quality instruction.
[5:01:25] So if that meant running copies for the teacher, they were running copies
[5:01:28] for the teacher. And so the goal here is to get really clear
[5:01:32] about what we want teachers to be spending their time doing, and that
[5:01:36] is delivering instruction using high-quality instructional materials
[5:01:40] aligned to the standards, using assessment
[5:01:44] data from-
[5:01:45] Mm-hmm
[5:01:45] ... rigorous assessments, starting with the early literacy screeners in
[5:01:49] kindergarten, to direct targeted supports.
[5:01:52] And I think you see a lot of the tools.
[5:01:54] When we look across Missouri, you see a lot of initiatives and strategies that
[5:01:58] are in and of themselves good. So the coaching strategy, letters,
[5:02:02] training, all of those things are good.
[5:02:04] Part of what the strategic plan is saying, how we bring all those together to
[5:02:08] create coherence and focus, and what are we asking teachers,
[5:02:12] districts-
[5:02:14] Mm-hmm
[5:02:14] ... or even DESE to do that's getting in the way of that, and how do we get that
[5:02:17] off their plate? I don't know if that answers your question, but that's how I think
[5:02:20] about it from sort of a national perspective.
[5:02:23] I know you guys have a lot more Missouri context, but that's-
[5:02:25] Mm-hmm
[5:02:26] ... how we try to think about what we elevated in the strategic plan.
[5:02:29] Yesterday, in the governor's office, that was the number one mandate, that we
[5:02:33] drive the literacy and the math, that we continue to get those
[5:02:37] numbers up and get back to the basics. That was number one.
[5:02:40] So, I do believe this is tying back to that.
[5:02:43] Karen Casey?
[5:02:44] And I think in our true fashion,
[5:02:47] as a board, we tend to want to jump ahead.
[5:02:50] And
[5:02:51] we're kind of already going there because- ...
[5:02:54] I really appreciate the framework that you're presenting to us, but this is
[5:02:58] not the entire strategic plan. This is not the end.
[5:03:00] You'll have specific roadmaps, and Evan will get into that just a minute, about the
[5:03:04] reporting out-
[5:03:04] Okay
[5:03:04] ... and how we're going to manage and make this operational.
[5:03:07] Yeah. Because to Mike's point,
[5:03:09] what we're seeing is very good.
[5:03:12] High level.
[5:03:13] But extremely high level, and until we can appreciate what those
[5:03:16] goals and the shooting for the moon and where we land, and maybe it's
[5:03:20] the dark side of the moon that now we're going to shoot for.
[5:03:23] It's just so important that we see the whole picture.
[5:03:26] And this is not intended to be the whole picture.
[5:03:28] No. These broad strokes, these priorities, strategies, and
[5:03:32] outcomes, we have to land on that so that we can build the operational
[5:03:36] side of it.
[5:03:37] So you'll get our feedback on this much-
[5:03:39] Yes
[5:03:39] ... of the strategic plan?
[5:03:41] Yes.
[5:03:41] But in parallel, Evan, you'll be working on...
[5:03:44] Okay. Correct.
[5:03:45] Mike?
[5:03:46] But this is what we'll actually be approving or
[5:03:50] considering next month, what we're looking at.
[5:03:52] If you're ready for that next month.
[5:03:53] Right.
[5:03:56] Okay. So I was so confused because I was looking at what Kyle had sent me back in
[5:03:59] January, and I was like, "Well, this looks nothing like that."
[5:04:02] Yeah.
[5:04:02] And I-
[5:04:03] That's why I was hesitant to send it to you, because it's just so much, and it's a
[5:04:06] draft, and so much moving parts, I was afraid that that would
[5:04:10] probably create a little bit of not sure what you see this
[5:04:14] time, because you're trying to compare the two, obviously. Yeah.
[5:04:17] I think we really want to make sure the board has a good look at things.
[5:04:21] So, what are our six most important priorities?
[5:04:24] And ultimately, when we finish with this
[5:04:28] conversation today,
[5:04:29] there could be a decision, there could be a lot of feedback that
[5:04:33] maybe there's something that's not exactly a
[5:04:36] priority. What I have seen is very much in line with what I feel
[5:04:40] like I've heard the board talk about, and also what we heard yesterday
[5:04:44] in terms of literacy and reading, addressing these, and
[5:04:48] transforming schools. That was the number two thing.
[5:04:51] Sarah asking-
[5:04:52] Oh, John? Sorry. Are you back?
[5:04:56] Yeah. I'm back. I'm sorry. I've been listening in.
[5:04:58] I'm in
[5:04:59] the
[5:05:01] On my phone. But just one thing to just chime in is that
[5:05:06] I think it might be helpful for those of us board members who are not on that
[5:05:09] committee
[5:05:10] to have... I know that we've been doing webinars and things like that, which has
[5:05:14] been helpful, and that might be a good opportunity for us to provide feedback and
[5:05:17] really do a deep dive and digest this.
[5:05:22] Because this is a lot, and we haven't really been involved at all
[5:05:26] other than occasionally talking about it at these meetings.
[5:05:29] And so I think if this is something that we want to
[5:05:32] adopt as a board, as our guiding principles, we should at
[5:05:36] least all of us have some more
[5:05:39] input-
[5:05:40] Sure
[5:05:40] ... and feedback into this.
[5:05:42] I think that the commissioner-
[5:05:44] What we're doing-
[5:05:44] Yes.
[5:05:44] I mean, that's the intent of this discussion, to kick off that part of the process.
[5:05:47] Right. I guess what I'm saying...
[5:05:49] Yeah, and that's fine. I just think this one board meeting just kind of sprung on
[5:05:53] us is not-
[5:05:54] Yeah.
[5:05:54] I want more bites at the apple is basically what I'm saying.
[5:05:57] Yeah.
[5:05:57] And you should, and I absolutely we will provide that.
[5:06:00] This is the first opportunity we've been able to roll this out-
[5:06:03] Yes
[5:06:03] ... and we're ready for feedback and for you all to take time and dive into
[5:06:07] this.
[5:06:08] And I think-
[5:06:08] We'll have workshops or-
[5:06:09] ... Commissioner, you've already talked about, you and Pam today, about moving it
[5:06:12] back even to June. So we'd still have between now and
[5:06:16] June, right?
[5:06:17] Mm-hmm. Sure.
[5:06:18] Yeah. And, I think-
[5:06:18] It's on your all's pace
[5:06:20] ... to John's point,
[5:06:21] first, I think we
[5:06:25] need a framework, and the framework is this
[5:06:29] is the what.
[5:06:30] Mm-hmm.
[5:06:31] The next layer down in the roadmaps is the how.
[5:06:34] Like, what are the specific strategies that we'll
[5:06:38] execute over the next three years-
[5:06:40] Mm-hmm
[5:06:40] ... to accomplish these high-level priorities?
[5:06:44] So,
[5:06:46] they're not bucketed the way that everyone is accustomed to seeing
[5:06:50] topically like literacy, mathematics, but all of those
[5:06:53] concepts are woven throughout-
[5:06:56] Yes
[5:06:56] ... each of the six.
[5:06:59] So maybe there's some mapping that we could do, and Carla and I talked about
[5:07:03] that-
[5:07:04] Yes. And I want you to know-
[5:07:04] ... to make it digestible.
[5:07:05] Yeah. We did, and with the help of these two folks here, and
[5:07:09] also people across this agency and others who have volunteered, we have
[5:07:13] done roadmaps with every one of the suggestions that came from those work groups,
[5:07:17] and we're able to lay it out to say, "Yes, it's included" or "No, it's not." So
[5:07:21] that we can have conversations around, is it something that is more of a
[5:07:25] build towards or whatever. So those documents will also be available to you
[5:07:29] as well.
[5:07:30] Sounds good.
[5:07:31] Again, the purpose of this conversation was-
[5:07:33] This is the what
[5:07:34] ... this is where we are.
[5:07:36] Just so we can have those, because really and truly, all the
[5:07:39] work that you're talking about wanting to do as a state board and
[5:07:43] be responsible for moving education forward can sit right here with
[5:07:47] these metrics and these pieces where you can show, "This is our work,
[5:07:51] this is how we know," and it truly creates an opportunity for our
[5:07:55] department to become relevant. So thank you.
[5:07:59] Mike Mattesi?
[5:08:00] Sorry, one last question, because I know we'll have
[5:08:04] webinars and things like that.
[5:08:05] Yes.
[5:08:05] But so, again, back to priority one with
[5:08:09] literacy.
[5:08:11] So the
[5:08:15] plan basically says that high-quality instructional
[5:08:18] materials and better educator training,
[5:08:22] those are the top two strategies to
[5:08:25] improve literacy in Missouri.
[5:08:28] Well, there's more priorities or more strategies on other areas within other
[5:08:32] priorities, right? There's more strategies that will address literacy, not
[5:08:36] just in priority one. Priority one is one place you'll see it, but you'll probably
[5:08:39] see it in some other places as well.
[5:08:42] In other words, not to harp on structure, but if we go...
[5:08:46] The vision that's on slide 13, right, is that every kid
[5:08:50] enters kindergarten ready to learn.
[5:08:53] Every kid gets an excellent education so that they are on grade
[5:08:56] level in English and math.
[5:09:00] And every kid graduates high school ready for whatever comes
[5:09:04] next. That is what everything in the strategic plan is intended to
[5:09:07] drive. And I do think I hear
[5:09:10] part of what you're picking on is,
[5:09:12] the only place in the priorities, in the sort of like headline goal, where you see
[5:09:16] literacy and math explicitly named is on that priority
[5:09:20] one. And I think we could do more to make it clear that actually
[5:09:24] every single one of these is in service of that vision.
[5:09:27] And it shouldn't be in here if it's not going to
[5:09:31] drive-
[5:09:33] Mm-hmm
[5:09:33] ... better literacy and numeracy outcomes.
[5:09:36] Absolutely.
[5:09:36] I don't know if that responds to your question, but that-
[5:09:38] It does. Well, and so, like the material that you're working, all sort of the
[5:09:42] details that... Will that get more specific in terms
[5:09:45] of high-quality instructional material?
[5:09:48] Does that mean more rigorous books that students are reading?
[5:09:52] Does that mean having reading assignments come home with students?
[5:09:56] Or
[5:09:57] what does that actually mean?
[5:09:59] That's on the roadmap.
[5:10:00] That's okay.
[5:10:01] It's in the roadmap.
[5:10:02] Yes.
[5:10:02] Okay.
[5:10:03] Yes.
[5:10:03] Yeah. So from the metrics standpoint, what we're also seeing is that we're
[5:10:07] outlining the outcomes, which is what we want to result from the activities that
[5:10:10] DESE will be committing to-
[5:10:12] Mm-hmm
[5:10:12] ... what we're asking every school in the state to be committing to as well.
[5:10:16] So that's the output side, where you're saying, "These are the actions that we
[5:10:19] are taking on. Here's how we're going to measure progress within each of
[5:10:23] these actions, and that will lead to the intended
[5:10:27] outcome of improved proficiency in math and ELA," and
[5:10:31] how each of these fall under the priority area.
[5:10:34] So for priority one, we are focusing on great teaching.
[5:10:38] What goes into great teaching if we want to improve literacy and math?
[5:10:41] It's we have to scale high-quality instructional materials.
[5:10:44] We have to ensure that every teacher has access to high-quality professional
[5:10:48] learning as well to improve their practice.
[5:10:50] That will result in improved outcomes for students as well.
[5:10:54] So that's sort of how it's getting structured underneath this, is we have this
[5:10:58] priority that focuses on something like great
[5:11:01] teaching. What goes into great teaching?
[5:11:04] Well, these are the things that DESE is going to require to say, "This is what
[5:11:07] great teaching looks like."
[5:11:09] Yeah, it's interesting that you talk about rigorous materials and reading, because
[5:11:13] I think we're also using shorthand when we say high-quality instructional materials
[5:11:17] for exactly that. So the high-quality instructional
[5:11:20] materials is a way in the sort of like education
[5:11:24] world that we talk about materials that are
[5:11:28] aligned to rigorous grade level standards, and the reason that
[5:11:32] is core to the strategy for improving outcomes is,
[5:11:36] TNTP actually did a big study, I don't know how long ago now,
[5:11:40] but they found that particularly in
[5:11:43] our lowest-performing schools-
[5:11:46] Mm-hmm
[5:11:46] ... and schools serving our hard-to-serve student populations, kids were
[5:11:50] getting grade materials that were on average something like two or three grade
[5:11:53] levels below-
[5:11:54] Ooh
[5:11:54] ... where the kid actually was. So how can you expect a kid at the end of third
[5:11:58] grade to be proficient on third-grade reading-
[5:12:01] You're not teaching
[5:12:01] ... when all you've taught them all year is first-grade reading skills?
[5:12:05] And teachers were consistently sort of, they would get students who had
[5:12:09] gaps,
[5:12:11] and they would dumb down the material to meet the kids where they were instead of
[5:12:14] supporting the kids up to reach where they were.
[5:12:17] And so we're sort of using shorthand in some of this in places where
[5:12:21] I think one takeaway here is how do we use language that is accessible to
[5:12:24] everyone? But when we talk about high-quality instructional materials, it
[5:12:27] is how do we make sure that kids are accessing grade
[5:12:31] level content every single day? And then teachers,
[5:12:35] well, if a teacher
[5:12:37] doesn't know what to do to help that kid who comes into third grade on-
[5:12:41] Mm-hmm
[5:12:41] ... a first-grade level-
[5:12:42] Need help with
[5:12:42] ... access, well, they need to both feel really fluent in the materials and
[5:12:46] understand, okay, can I give this kid tutoring?
[5:12:50] Can I send them different readings home?
[5:12:53] How do I help that kid get where they need to be?
[5:12:55] And that's where the coaching and additional sort of like surrounding support.
[5:12:59] So first is core instruction, tier one instruction, every kid
[5:13:02] getting grade level learning and the best way to scale that across a
[5:13:06] state, and this is really what we saw in Mississippi that drove their outcomes
[5:13:11] is give every teacher materials that we know are on grade level, make sure they
[5:13:14] have them in the classroom. That is where kids are doing that good reading, deep
[5:13:18] diving, reading, writing every day.
[5:13:21] Mm-hmm.
[5:13:22] And then surround that teacher and kid with the supports that
[5:13:26] allow them to access that. So again, maybe you already know all that,
[5:13:30] but I realized as you were asking that question that actually-
[5:13:33] Oh, I don't know all that
[5:13:33] ... we're just using this language that means something in the education world and
[5:13:37] might not transfer.
[5:13:38] But all of that
[5:13:40] detail will be in the roadmap.
[5:13:41] Yeah, it is in the strategies that are in-
[5:13:43] Are in here
[5:13:44] ... this deck.
[5:13:44] High-quality materials-
[5:13:45] Right
[5:13:45] ... professional development.
[5:13:46] Yeah.
[5:13:46] Yeah. Those things.
[5:13:46] But it doesn't explain sort of what that means, which we can-
[5:13:49] Yeah
[5:13:49] ... flesh out.
[5:13:50] I think suffice it to say, Mike, and I here
[5:13:53] can feel where you're coming from.
[5:13:57] But I think these roadmaps, again, devil in the details.
[5:14:01] These roadmaps are really important to see how it all knits together.
[5:14:05] Yes.
[5:14:05] This is the top-down look, and the
[5:14:09] roadmap will help us see it from a bottoms-up look,
[5:14:13] along with, very importantly, the
[5:14:17] goals and the timelines and the very specific goals
[5:14:21] and whether or not they're aggressive enough.
[5:14:23] And like Pam said, we're going to have very vigorous debate around all of those,
[5:14:27] I'm sure. So there's a lot more for the board to take in
[5:14:31] and discuss.
[5:14:32] And when will we see that all?
[5:14:33] Well, first we have to be able to agree upon, are these the right six
[5:14:37] strategies?
[5:14:38] Yeah.
[5:14:38] I mean, the priority areas. Is this the right six?
[5:14:40] And then do you agree with the pieces that we have
[5:14:44] underneath them describing those
[5:14:47] particular strategies? Are we measuring them with the right thing?
[5:14:51] Then you're going to see more of the operational side of who, when, what.
[5:14:55] But we have to agree upon this first.
[5:14:57] Okay. Thank you.
[5:14:59] Okay.
[5:15:01] Board Member Schall.
[5:15:02] Well, I'm just thinking out loud, and it'll probably be for the surveys and the
[5:15:06] conversation that we get between this.
[5:15:07] But since you called on me, just as you're talking, so
[5:15:11] the whole presentation, I was kind of writing down things for-
[5:15:15] Mm-hmm
[5:15:15] ... the next email or the next conversation.
[5:15:17] And every bullet point, it was like, okay, how?
[5:15:21] Okay, what next?
[5:15:22] Mm-hmm.
[5:15:22] Okay, how will this help? So as you were
[5:15:26] asking questions just now, let's get through these priorities to agree
[5:15:30] upon or further discuss the next conversation
[5:15:34] out of that, which will be an explosion into every one of these PowerPoint
[5:15:37] slides should have five or six more details-
[5:15:39] Operational pieces
[5:15:41] ... off of them later.
[5:15:41] That's right.
[5:15:41] Yes. And it will be okay, what will happen to the student
[5:15:45] at each of these priorities? What will happen to the teacher?
[5:15:48] What will we give them?
[5:15:49] Mm-hmm.
[5:15:50] So how will each one of those bodies be affected by this
[5:15:54] plan? Then what will the data or the outcomes
[5:15:58] be with transparency to the community members
[5:16:03] who own these children?
[5:16:05] And then where would the accountability be to where we
[5:16:09] get to have the feedback on the information, and then we get
[5:16:12] to discuss and assess changes
[5:16:16] if those outcomes are not acceptable.
[5:16:19] Mm-hmm.
[5:16:19] So that's just
[5:16:21] organizational stuff of what I expect the next conversation
[5:16:25] in a board meeting style.
[5:16:26] Mm-hmm.
[5:16:27] Right. And it could take us, we may include
[5:16:30] this as part of our July retreat.
[5:16:33] Sure.
[5:16:33] That's why we need to get dates. It could be August before we choose to
[5:16:37] vote on it. So we're trying to move forward,
[5:16:41] but also not so fast that everybody doesn't have chance
[5:16:45] for input and true understanding.
[5:16:48] Because when it's all said and done, the strategic plan is much like a mission
[5:16:51] statement in the business. It needs to be concise enough that the
[5:16:55] average employee should be able to repeat it and preferably
[5:16:59] understand it, right? What is the intention?
[5:17:02] So we want to make sure we do that, Mike, for you and for all of us here
[5:17:06] on the board. So this is truly a first blush.
[5:17:11] All right, so you've seen the first three priorities, then we have priority four,
[5:17:15] which is focusing around the post-secondary success.
[5:17:18] Oh,
[5:17:19] kindergarten.
[5:17:21] Pardon?
[5:17:22] Did we do kindergarten? Sorry.
[5:17:23] Oh, I didn't move it.
[5:17:25] I forgot to move it. We haven't done kindergarten at all?
[5:17:29] I don't think so. I thought-
[5:17:30] I might get this printer mixed up
[5:17:31] ... we just finished on- ... the transforming schools.
[5:17:35] Pardon me, you're doing kindergarten here as priority three?
[5:17:37] Mm-hmm.
[5:17:38] Okay. So here is priority three, basically.
[5:17:40] This is where your Office of Childhood and all of your early childhood work comes
[5:17:43] through, statewide leadership to maximize access and ensure every student
[5:17:47] shows up ready for kindergarten. And there's all these various
[5:17:50] strategies which are on the back page,
[5:17:53] right there.
[5:17:54] There's your strategies for that priority.
[5:17:58] Okay.
[5:17:59] One of the things I noticed, Carla, on the last slide, because we do
[5:18:03] have lots of children that come into the system-
[5:18:06] Mm-hmm
[5:18:07] ... that don't have the pre-K and don't have the prior learning, and I think you've
[5:18:10] kind of addressed that.
[5:18:11] Mm-hmm.
[5:18:12] Is that true?
[5:18:14] It will be addressed in the quality assurance in the
[5:18:18] pre-K areas.
[5:18:19] Well, it's on the first-
[5:18:20] The very first slide
[5:18:21] ... slide.
[5:18:21] The qual-
[5:18:21] Yeah.
[5:18:22] Yeah. Mm-hmm.
[5:18:23] Yeah. In kindergarten readiness, we really think about
[5:18:27] three pieces. Access, how do we make sure every kid
[5:18:31] has access to quality experiences before
[5:18:34] kindergarten? And that looks different for every family, but the goal is to make
[5:18:38] sure if a family is trying to seek care, they can get
[5:18:42] it.
[5:18:43] Two, how do we measure quality? How do we define quality?
[5:18:47] For a long time, in the world of early childhood, you can't just give
[5:18:51] kids a test to measure whether the classroom's doing a good job.
[5:18:54] So how do we make sure we know that the experiences that we're supporting in
[5:18:58] that space are of quality? And then,
[5:19:02] third, the early childhood system isn't really a system.
[5:19:05] This is true nationally. You've got
[5:19:08] childcare centers, public school-based
[5:19:11] centers or pre-K, you've got
[5:19:15] Head Start, and they all operate in silos and with different rules.
[5:19:19] And so being able to look across all those, and I'm looking at
[5:19:23] Deirdre, who is our exiting expert in the
[5:19:27] world of early childhood, and she was just telling me earlier about this, but this
[5:19:30] is what we see nationally. That getting these things to all work together
[5:19:34] requires a coherent system, and so one way to get at that
[5:19:38] here is thinking about the data infrastructure.
[5:19:41] And we still have kiddos that stay at home until they admit them to kindergarten,
[5:19:45] and they may or may not have begun the process of
[5:19:49] letters and numbers and colors.
[5:19:51] Mm-hmm.
[5:19:52] And those are things that we have to be mindful of, because as
[5:19:56] we're held accountable for success,
[5:19:59] that's a piece that's a little difficult.
[5:20:02] I assume, though, we'll have strategies in place.
[5:20:04] All kinds. So the one thing that I think is a real challenge for us when it
[5:20:08] comes to the
[5:20:09] zero to five population early childhood programs, is we really don't have a data
[5:20:13] system in place to collect data across all of these.
[5:20:16] So, that is also another push, that we have to be able to create an
[5:20:20] opportunity to collect data within these centers that these kids are being
[5:20:24] served.
[5:20:25] Okay, so we'll move on to the outcomes of priority three,
[5:20:29] which is the things that we're looking at right now to be able
[5:20:32] to... What is it that we can measure and see whether or not the
[5:20:36] work that we're doing with these strategies is having the impact that we'd like for
[5:20:39] it to do. So that is the priority three,
[5:20:44] and then if you guys have any questions, we'll go to priority four.
[5:20:49] So here's four. This is post-secondary success.
[5:20:53] Do you have anything to add to that?
[5:20:55] Jump right to the other end from early childhood-
[5:20:58] Post-secondary
[5:20:58] ... to high school.
[5:21:00] Mm-hmm.
[5:21:00] But interesting, high school has a lot of similarities to early childhood, which is
[5:21:04] you've got all these different actors in the system.
[5:21:08] And our goal is to make sure that kids get experiences outside of the core
[5:21:11] academics. So,
[5:21:13] this isn't about instead of core academics, it is in addition to core academics.
[5:21:18] How do we strengthen work-based learning and employer engagement, get kids
[5:21:21] experiences outside of the classroom that will carry them
[5:21:24] through?
[5:21:27] Expanding that early career exploration, that starts
[5:21:31] with counselors, and advising systems that enable access
[5:21:35] to exploration and information. And then,
[5:21:40] lastly is about career and technical education.
[5:21:44] For so
[5:21:46] long, CTE has operated in a silo. It is the sort of
[5:21:50] like if kids aren't cutting it in the academic world, we stick
[5:21:54] them over to CTE, and that is just not true in
[5:21:57] 2026.
[5:21:58] No.
[5:21:58] It is equally rigorous to the academic pathways,
[5:22:04] but families don't always understand that.
[5:22:06] And we want to make sure that we're supporting
[5:22:10] districts and our partners to deliver that and ensure-
[5:22:13] Mm-hmm
[5:22:13] ... that kids who want to and would thrive
[5:22:17] and benefit in a CTE experience have access to it.
[5:22:20] Absolutely. Have high academic achievement
[5:22:22] skills as well.
[5:22:23] Yeah. I would just have a question.
[5:22:27] And I may be totally off here, and please correct me if I'm wrong,
[5:22:31] but we spent most the morning talking about local control-
[5:22:35] Mm-hmm
[5:22:35] ... of schools. And so, how do we
[5:22:39] incorporate this
[5:22:41] into schools without buy-in from the
[5:22:44] superintendent who reports to a board?
[5:22:47] Sure.
[5:22:47] Yeah.
[5:22:48] Because opportunity, we go out to every
[5:22:52] regional meeting, our state supervisors, we have a network of regional
[5:22:56] professional development centers.
[5:22:58] There's all kinds of opportunities for us to connect with the school
[5:23:02] system directly and talk about, "These are things that work.
[5:23:05] We want you to be successful," and that kind of work.
[5:23:08] Me saying, or even this board saying, "You must do
[5:23:12] this," is very hard to police. But hopefully,
[5:23:16] obviously, we want to be able to get, "Here are some quality
[5:23:19] materials."How can we help you? And really approach it on a
[5:23:23] regional level.
[5:23:24] But it seems like that's already in place and we don't utilize it.
[5:23:28] We have not utilized it to the extent it should be, I don't believe.
[5:23:31] And I think that putting down these specific priorities and the specific
[5:23:35] outcomes drives the focus more
[5:23:39] so on best practice.
[5:23:40] Okay. So my challenge to you is, I'm not certain we have the
[5:23:44] capability to do this.
[5:23:46] Oh, I hope we do. Yes.
[5:23:48] Well, and so that's my challenge to you.
[5:23:50] Okay.
[5:23:50] I have real concerns about...
[5:23:53] I think that some of this stuff is really good.
[5:23:56] I think we already know some of it,
[5:23:58] and we have the opportunity to already address it, and we haven't done it.
[5:24:03] And so, that's a caution I throw to you.
[5:24:05] But I also know this is a grant, right?
[5:24:08] I mean, we have a grant that's paying for this?
[5:24:10] Mm-hmm.
[5:24:10] I thought this was a million-dollar grant that we had for-
[5:24:12] No, sir. This is just the work of the department.
[5:24:16] Okay.
[5:24:16] What we're trying to do is what I believe this board would like for us to do and
[5:24:19] charge us to do: become focused and strategic on the way in which that we can
[5:24:23] impact academic achievement for kids in the state.
[5:24:26] So that's my purpose.
[5:24:29] Okay, so priority four was around,
[5:24:32] preparing kids for secondary success. Here are the strategies around that.
[5:24:36] Strengthening work-based learning, expanding early career exploration,
[5:24:39] communication. Obviously, we know that strategic communication is huge because
[5:24:42] you're partnering with industry and with business leaders across the state.
[5:24:47] So we can go on to priority four,
[5:24:50] and that is the post-secondary success.
[5:24:53] And these are the outcomes that are around that. So you want to mention...
[5:24:57] And we are diving in, and I told you earlier that
[5:25:01] this group is working tomorrow, they're going to be with us all day
[5:25:05] with our various work groups and trying to really get
[5:25:09] very clear on the outcomes and the metrics around it to make sure that we do have
[5:25:12] the data available to measure the outcome, and that we can be successful doing
[5:25:15] this.
[5:25:16] Yeah, I would say, too, as we get clearer on the metrics and the outcomes-
[5:25:20] Yeah
[5:25:20] ... that gives you the opportunity to dive into exactly what you're-
[5:25:23] Yeah
[5:25:23] ... starting to highlight.
[5:25:24] Sure.
[5:25:24] Which is, if we are falling short of what the goal is-
[5:25:28] Mm-hmm
[5:25:29] ... how do we start to dive in and understanding from the baseline data within
[5:25:32] these metrics, are there certain pockets of the state where we're not seeing...
[5:25:35] Because these outcomes that you'll see on priority four are really focused heavily
[5:25:38] on access from the student side. So if we're seeing that, what
[5:25:42] structurally are we missing in certain parts of the state that might be preventing
[5:25:46] that?
[5:25:46] Yeah. And I totally agree with that.
[5:25:48] And I think it's just words like maximize.
[5:25:50] Well, what the hell does maximize mean?
[5:25:53] More.
[5:25:54] More. Yeah. There's nothing
[5:25:57] solid here at this point-
[5:25:59] Mm-hmm
[5:25:59] ... in this project, I think,
[5:26:01] to really give us an idea. And so, that's where my trepidation comes from.
[5:26:05] So
[5:26:06] please continue on. I don't mean to be a Debbie Downer.
[5:26:09] I'm just expressing to you the concerns I have, the way it
[5:26:13] stands right now and what our ability...
[5:26:15] Because we haven't had much effect in changing school
[5:26:19] performance
[5:26:21] to date.
[5:26:21] Excuse me.
[5:26:22] And now we're going to do all this, and
[5:26:27] I think every... The concern I have.
[5:26:29] That's-
[5:26:30] Well, I think part of what you're describing as well is we just don't have a clear
[5:26:33] line of sight yet on what the baseline is for a lot of these different outcomes.
[5:26:37] Correct.
[5:26:37] So we say we want to increase the percentage of students participating in
[5:26:40] work-based learning.
[5:26:42] Part of this process is we have to identify where do we sit today?
[5:26:45] Baseline.
[5:26:46] Yeah.
[5:26:46] And what can we say three years from now, this is what we want to accomplish.
[5:26:50] And to your point of we want to shoot for the moon, right?
[5:26:53] You set the high goal that is measurable and actionable
[5:26:57] to where you are at a point to say, "We wanted to do this, we didn't
[5:27:01] quite meet that."
[5:27:01] Mm-hmm.
[5:27:02] But we want to show measurable improvement, so you can say, "We may not have hit
[5:27:06] the goal, but we did make a big difference for a lot of kids here in the state."
[5:27:10] And the other thing I heard you say is if there are gaps throughout the state,
[5:27:14] like for example, early childhood education, we know we have
[5:27:17] 1,700 children on the list for the subsidized.
[5:27:21] We know that we'll have better outcomes if children get a chance to go
[5:27:25] through a formalized early childhood education program.
[5:27:29] Mm-hmm.
[5:27:30] But we, I guarantee, we have desert spots in the
[5:27:34] state.
[5:27:34] Without a doubt.
[5:27:35] Absolutely.
[5:27:35] And I'm sure we'll find the same for some of this
[5:27:39] CTE, right? That some of the industries, or there's not a lot of industries.
[5:27:43] Maybe it's all farming and farmland.
[5:27:45] So on that scenario, I think it's helpful at least to be able to
[5:27:49] have an understanding and then see if there's a way to address it, you
[5:27:53] know? And so...
[5:27:53] Yeah.
[5:27:54] But it's a pretty big sandwich to bite.
[5:27:56] It is a big sandwich.
[5:27:57] It is always a big sandwich.
[5:27:57] And my feeling is that,
[5:28:00] if we can't define third graders who can't read,
[5:28:04] why are we looking at such a broad
[5:28:08] effort here to start with?
[5:28:10] Think-
[5:28:10] Do you understand what I'm saying?
[5:28:11] Absolutely. But I think all of these priorities feed into and help
[5:28:16] kids become successful at third-grade reading.
[5:28:18] And there is a piece in here, I think we have a strategy in
[5:28:22] here that talks about the ability of the children to read at third grade.
[5:28:25] So it's part of the strategies that are here.
[5:28:28] So there's strategy four, priority four, post-secondary success.
[5:28:32] And here's five, and this is kind of...
[5:28:35] I made sure this was here because, to me, it's
[5:28:39] probably one of our weaknesses. One of our biggest weaknesses is this data
[5:28:43] system and being able to use quality data to drive decisions.
[5:28:46] And so we're doing some work there. I wanted to make sure it was reflected here.
[5:28:49] And this work continues on. So here's your priority.
[5:28:53] Those are the couple of strategies there, and then we have
[5:28:57] the outcome place right here. And these are the outcomes
[5:29:01] we're looking at to measure. But again, like I said, this will be things that
[5:29:04] are ongoing. And I think an important thing is that you'll get a document that
[5:29:08] shows here's your baseline for each one of these outcomes, so you can see where we
[5:29:12] started and where we're going, and put a timeline on those. Okay?
[5:29:17] Anything else? So there's priority five, and then we have priority sixAnd
[5:29:21] this is really around, we all know that one of our biggest issues
[5:29:24] is attendance, and we've got to make sure that we have opportunities to encourage
[5:29:29] high quality or to higher levels of attendance.
[5:29:32] And so these are strategies around to help school districts implement
[5:29:36] that. And you also see when we're talking about healthy schools,
[5:29:40] safe and healthy schools, we have lots of work around making sure that the
[5:29:44] kids are safe when they come to our schools.
[5:29:46] And so we are making sure that this is being reflected in your strategic plan.
[5:29:50] Here's your priority six. These are your strategies around priority
[5:29:53] six. Basically,
[5:29:57] you can read them. We'll dive into them further. There's four of them.
[5:30:00] And I think one of the things that it seems like a lot of words and a lot of stuff,
[5:30:03] but when you look at the limited number of strategies per
[5:30:07] priority, it is causing us to be very focused on what we're trying
[5:30:10] to get done. So getting this right first is the foundational piece
[5:30:15] of us being able to move our state forward.
[5:30:17] Here are the outcomes that we're looking at right now to measure priority six.
[5:30:21] So you see we just have a couple of them right there and go from
[5:30:25] there. So there's your strategic plan.
[5:30:27] You've got six priorities. You have lists of strategies.
[5:30:30] You have lists of outcomes. And I'm going to turn it over to Evan to talk about a
[5:30:34] little bit of the tracking that he's going to help us do,
[5:30:37] so that we can have a dashboard and monitor these outcomes in real time.
[5:30:40] Yeah. Part of the task that I've been given is helping to just have
[5:30:44] a clear line of communication, both across departments and offices
[5:30:48] within DESE, and sort of vertically as well.
[5:30:51] So we have a clear understanding of what have we already been doing,
[5:30:55] what do we have coming down the pipe, so we know what steps we have to take.
[5:30:58] And part of that is just we only have so many hours in the
[5:31:02] day that we can't occupy everything with meetings about what's been going on.
[5:31:06] We have to give everybody the opportunity to be able to get this work done.
[5:31:09] And we also have to have clear line of sight, not just within the department, but
[5:31:13] also for the board, so you can come back to the department as well
[5:31:17] and say, "We're not seeing the progress that we were hoping to see on some of these
[5:31:21] key metrics. What's sort of happening? What are we missing?
[5:31:24] What can we commit to, to sort of course correct on that?" So that is something
[5:31:28] that we are trying to build out right now, is just this clear tracking dashboard
[5:31:32] communication tool that we can use internally and hopefully
[5:31:36] be able to make a little bit more forward-facing so everybody has a clear line of
[5:31:40] sight on how are we doing on what we've committed to in these priorities.
[5:31:45] And I'm really excited about the tracking tool.
[5:31:46] I think that is going to be a game changer for us, is that we're going to be able
[5:31:50] to have at least quarterly updates on where are we going, how are we doing
[5:31:53] it?
[5:31:55] All right. So there's your six priorities, and basically just a little bit about
[5:31:58] moving forward, our next steps.
[5:32:01] We want this strategic plan to have a clear direction for DESE's work, and
[5:32:05] its impact will depend on strong, consistent implementation.
[5:32:09] Absolutely stay focused with the plan, don't get diverted, stay with the plan.
[5:32:13] In addition to what's included in this report, work group members
[5:32:17] provided valuable recommendations and feedback.
[5:32:19] We received so much good information from those hundreds and hundreds of people
[5:32:23] coming through. It's not like that stuff didn't get applied in other
[5:32:27] areas. It's just with a strategic plan, you have to focus on what is
[5:32:31] it that's going to move the needle.
[5:32:32] So that is why you see these specific things raised up.
[5:32:37] We want to be able to improve student outcomes.
[5:32:39] It also requires sustained partnership and a shared vision.
[5:32:42] This board, the department, community, we want this to be a shared vision.
[5:32:46] We all want good things for our kids, every single one of them.
[5:32:50] And with the leadership of the state board and the collaboration of these
[5:32:52] educators, families, stakeholders across the state, these great folks,
[5:32:56] excuse me, DESE's work will focus on aligning resources,
[5:33:00] supporting schools and districts, and maintaining our commitment to the goals.
[5:33:03] I've got a tickle. Excuse me.
[5:33:06] Sorry about that.
[5:33:07] Want some water or...
[5:33:08] Basically, measurable outcomes that are outlined in this plan give us true
[5:33:12] direction of where we're going to be going.
[5:33:15] So our next steps, we're going to collaborate with Watershed Advisors, continue on.
[5:33:19] I want you all to know the true expertise that we're bringing in,
[5:33:22] in that
[5:33:25] these folks have been working with other states on strategic plans.
[5:33:27] And so they're bringing a national perspective in, as well as all of that
[5:33:31] information we gathered. They're doing analysis and being able to focus on what
[5:33:34] really matters. We're going to collaborate with Evan on developing metrics, and
[5:33:38] we're going to also finalize strategic plan, and we had on here the May
[5:33:42] board, but we're going to be ready for whenever you guys are ready. Okay?
[5:33:45] So that is it, unless you have any more questions about all of this. Pamela?
[5:33:50] I'm sorry, Mary.
[5:33:51] You can kill me later.
[5:33:52] It's fine.
[5:33:53] But,
[5:33:56] we have to address,
[5:34:00] I think the priority areas are right.
[5:34:02] They're-
[5:34:03] Thank you
[5:34:04] ...
[5:34:06] they're stated a little differently, and there's overlap-
[5:34:09] Yes
[5:34:09] ... between the content areas. But
[5:34:13] the additions are the right additions, a
[5:34:17] focus on attendance,
[5:34:19] a focus on
[5:34:21] struggling schools.
[5:34:24] But the big white elephant
[5:34:27] is,
[5:34:29] that we have diminishing revenues against a backdrop of increasing
[5:34:33] needs.
[5:34:34] And that's not currently reflected in this
[5:34:38] plan, and we have got to address that.
[5:34:42] We'll take that.
[5:34:44] Any... Brooks, anything you want to?
[5:34:46] No, I agree totally. I think that is
[5:34:50] the elephant in the room, as you say, and it's going to be...
[5:35:00] The resources that go towards this, which will be probably pretty
[5:35:03] significant as far as human resources,
[5:35:07] to get it in place and things will
[5:35:10] probably-
[5:35:10] I think it plays... Yeah.
[5:35:11] Yeah.
[5:35:12] I think the resources to take to be able to address the things that are here, I
[5:35:15] think it goes both ways. Some things we won't be doing because they're
[5:35:19] not part of what this work is. So you're going to see where time of staff and
[5:35:23] time of resource, and those things are going to be more focused towards these
[5:35:27] intentional pieces that we believe moves the needle
[5:35:31] Carrie Casey.
[5:35:32] Thank you. And I agree, Pam, especially on the attendance point.
[5:35:35] And I definitely need to just step back and-
[5:35:38] Sure
[5:35:39] ... in the quiet and think about this and look at then a bigger picture even
[5:35:43] around it to
[5:35:44] give you other kinds of feedback.
[5:35:49] From the work that we've done in the past, Pam, from where we started, attempted
[5:35:53] to start five, four years ago,
[5:35:56] this is dramatically different. And it does, to me,
[5:36:01] embrace
[5:36:03] what I believe is the broad view
[5:36:07] of how we need to be looking at education and how all pieces come
[5:36:11] together. Obviously, devil in the details, important to
[5:36:16] measure, track, et cetera.
[5:36:18] But from a framework standpoint, at this point, without deeper
[5:36:22] study myself, I think we're in the right direction.
[5:36:26] I had a few quick notes that I'll just list off, similar to what
[5:36:30] Gretchen did, building on that beyond the specific goals and timelines.
[5:36:35] And Gretchen alluded to this, but it's very important that
[5:36:39] we see the governance and accountability within the control, et
[5:36:42] cetera. However,
[5:36:45] you, and I know you've been striving to do that already, and you've been working
[5:36:49] behind the scenes with the schools, but we need more visibility to that.
[5:36:53] And so while we don't want to measure every single thing,
[5:36:57] we have to be selective on, we want to measure
[5:37:01] results, but there are some critical components or
[5:37:05] actions that are going to be required within the plan that we have to
[5:37:09] also measure. And I'm not saying... And that would be one of them.
[5:37:12] Which schools are using high-quality materials? Which ones aren't?
[5:37:15] Which ones are using the assessment? Which ones aren't? That type of thing.
[5:37:20] So I just put that out there as a thought.
[5:37:22] Governance and accountability for each element in the roadmap,
[5:37:26] not only at the DESE level, but at the board level.
[5:37:30] Cost and budget reduction risks.
[5:37:32] How will each element in the roadmap lead to reading and math literacy?
[5:37:36] Do that weave together so that we can see.
[5:37:40] What barriers will you have to implementation?
[5:37:43] What other departments or organizational dependencies are there?
[5:37:48] Are obviously office of administration, possibly the whole data collection, but
[5:37:52] where else will we have dependencies?
[5:37:55] And, what org structure changes will be needed in your
[5:37:59] organization to support this?
[5:38:02] And in the process of the specific goals and
[5:38:06] timelines, I think it would be important to not only see, so that this can
[5:38:10] be more impactful, not only see that our goal is
[5:38:15] 100% of the children or 90% of the children will X.
[5:38:20] Mm-hmm.
[5:38:20] How many children does that mean? When we can relate to it in the
[5:38:24] number of, and I think it was the way Brooks alluded to the, or asked the
[5:38:28] question earlier. I know we know that because we know what our
[5:38:31] proficiency rate is, but it's lost on us when we don't think of it in terms
[5:38:36] of the actual number of children.
[5:38:38] And so it's important to see the percentage, and we need to see both in those key
[5:38:42] cases.
[5:38:43] And to Carrie's point, even at 75%, that
[5:38:47] doesn't, maybe some people think, "Well, that's not a very high goal." Well,
[5:38:50] 600,000-plus students.
[5:38:53] That's a lot of students to move forward percentage-wise, right?
[5:38:56] And so I think, one, it's helpful for the board, but also maybe
[5:39:00] helpful for the legislature and for the community in general to understand,
[5:39:04] because I think sometimes it's easy to lose track of the numbers.
[5:39:08] And I think it was Pamela who said earlier,
[5:39:11] on the average we have, many of the states have
[5:39:15] around 350 school districts. I think Florida-
[5:39:18] They're local control-
[5:39:20] Yes
[5:39:20] ... medium-sized-
[5:39:20] Yes
[5:39:21] ... states. Yeah.
[5:39:21] And Florida, who has quite a bit larger population than us,
[5:39:25] has 318. So volume does make a
[5:39:29] difference in this scenario in terms of the amount of work and
[5:39:33] effort, and it sounds like we have lots of resources, but when
[5:39:37] you really start looking at the numbers.
[5:39:39] So I think putting it that way kind of helps enlighten everyone
[5:39:43] a little bit about the volume and the lift that is involved here.
[5:39:47] I do think,
[5:39:49] Dr. Scholl's recommendation, too, of having our
[5:39:53] district superintendents come in and present every so often,
[5:39:57] because I assume when they come and present-
[5:39:59] Supervisors.
[5:39:59] Oh, yes. Well, supervising superintendents, right?
[5:40:02] Yeah.
[5:40:03] That they will actually address, and that's part of the
[5:40:07] benefit of having a strategic plan, so it can be very focused on
[5:40:11] what they're reporting back. How are we doing in early childhood education?
[5:40:15] How are we doing in CTE? How are we doing in terms
[5:40:18] of reading? And obviously, I think it's the legislature has moved
[5:40:22] forward on the science of reading, right?
[5:40:25] That they would like to
[5:40:27] implement that in all the educational programs.
[5:40:30] So obviously, they see the value in this as well.
[5:40:33] So it's not like chasing rabbits. But initially,
[5:40:37] we only put that forward three years ago.
[5:40:39] So,
[5:40:41] prior to that, everybody could use whatever system they wanted.
[5:40:44] So
[5:40:46] we can measure those things.
[5:40:47] Sure. Mike?
[5:40:49] Thank you. And I apologize for my confusion earlier.
[5:40:53] When Kyle had sent me the materials earlier in the year, it had all of the how,
[5:40:57] the metrics, here's the percentage of improvements, and that was what I
[5:41:01] was sort of expecting-
[5:41:02] Yes
[5:41:02] ... to see. I actually thought this was just a summary
[5:41:05] of the strategic... And that was why I was asking some of
[5:41:09] those questions. It was just confusion on my part. So.
[5:41:13] No worries. And a lot of the material, of course, we worked on was all of that
[5:41:17] data, which is some of the stuff that you received.
[5:41:19] Because all of these work groups had national data.
[5:41:22] They had what's going on in the state. All kinds of things.
[5:41:25] And so they could come up with things that were really addressing the deficiencies.
[5:41:30] Yeah, and it would
[5:41:32] So just to clarify, will we see all of that
[5:41:36] stuff before we vote on the strategic
[5:41:40] plan or no?
[5:41:42] Talking about the data that was used to inform?
[5:41:43] All of the how, sort of what I had seen earlier this year.
[5:41:46] It's the next layer, the additional layers of the plan, the
[5:41:50] final plan-
[5:41:51] Right
[5:41:51] ... as you pull it together.
[5:41:52] There'll be more material available, yes. I'm not sure exactly, but yes.
[5:41:55] And when we have a conversation, you can help enlighten me what you're looking for.
[5:41:59] But I think what you're talking about is more the how, a specific-
[5:42:02] Correct
[5:42:02] ... who, timeline.
[5:42:03] Mike was saying, will he get to see the how, and will we have time to discuss the
[5:42:07] how before we do a full vote, right?
[5:42:09] Yes.
[5:42:09] Carla, typically the how is in the roadmaps-
[5:42:12] Yes
[5:42:12] ... which is our methodology we've adopted from before.
[5:42:16] So when we meet offline, we can align on what the next layer down looks like.
[5:42:20] Sure. Wonderful. Thank you.
[5:42:21] But I think Mike's question, wasn't it, that when we vote, you'll have
[5:42:25] all the information before we vote?
[5:42:28] Yes.
[5:42:28] Was that not your question?
[5:42:29] Correct. Yes.
[5:42:30] Thank you. Yeah, I thought, and that's what he was asking.
[5:42:33] I assume we will-
[5:42:34] Yes
[5:42:34] ... see all of this. As a board member, I would expect to see it all.
[5:42:37] You'll see the full plan.
[5:42:37] I would say yes, and we'll meet
[5:42:41] offline and determine with our experts what that
[5:42:45] next layer down is. Traditionally, it's been
[5:42:48] roadmaps.
[5:42:49] Mm-hmm.
[5:42:51] And so we'll align on-
[5:42:53] Absolutely
[5:42:53] ... on what the how looks like.
[5:42:56] Thank you.
[5:42:56] Because that's important.
[5:42:57] Sure.
[5:42:58] And with that, I think that is-
[5:43:00] Board Member Otto, do you have anything to add? Any questions?
[5:43:08] No, I don't have any questions.
[5:43:09] Okay.
[5:43:10] Thank you.
[5:43:10] Okay.
[5:43:11] I just have one more quick comment, and that's a thank you to Pam.
[5:43:15] I know having been in-- And Carla as well, clearly the
[5:43:19] collective effort-
[5:43:20] Yeah
[5:43:20] ... of the team,
[5:43:21] because I know the heavy lift that it was to just
[5:43:25] bring this to this point,
[5:43:28] having worked in this space with you previously.
[5:43:31] And thank you for what you've done.
[5:43:34] This is
[5:43:35] hard
[5:43:37] work, and the challenge for me is the pivot
[5:43:41] from the clean buckets,
[5:43:45] literacy, numeracy, safe and health, those buckets
[5:43:49] to more blended priorities that
[5:43:52] traverse multiple content areas.
[5:43:55] But,
[5:43:59] because it's not as easy to just make it succinct.
[5:44:04] So,
[5:44:05] it's work in progress. Thank you for the support.
[5:44:09] Just having Watershed and Evan with us has been tremendous as
[5:44:13] well. I will challenge Watershed
[5:44:17] Advisors,
[5:44:19] if you could look at other states and
[5:44:23] give us insight on what other
[5:44:26] states have done structurally to
[5:44:30] advance efficiency, and in particular,
[5:44:34] so we're a 900,000-student,
[5:44:38] medium-sized,
[5:44:41] local control state.
[5:44:43] Typical number of school districts, about 350.
[5:44:46] So we're almost
[5:44:48] way past that. So what do
[5:44:52] other states with our context, local control,
[5:44:56] medium-sized, 900 K through 12 students, what have they
[5:45:00] done to advance
[5:45:02] operational efficiency and to make those educational dollars
[5:45:06] stretch
[5:45:08] structurally?
[5:45:09] There are great examples, and one of the things that I've seen across the state,
[5:45:13] and I'll let Jill answer the question since it was posed to her, is the
[5:45:17] consolidation of all the
[5:45:19] state grants and the federal grants into a focused, instead of just
[5:45:23] shotgun across, is much more efficient. But do you have any other?
[5:45:26] That is top of my answers. I will say,
[5:45:30] before we founded Watershed Advisors, my leadership team and
[5:45:34] I were at the Louisiana Department of Ed for about a decade.
[5:45:38] And in that time, our budget was cut in half.
[5:45:42] Not a
[5:45:43] single additional dollar came from the legislature to our agency,
[5:45:47] and we had to cut in half the size of our agency
[5:45:51] footprint.
[5:45:52] And
[5:45:54] as you can see in the latest NAEP results, we saw progress in literacy
[5:45:58] and math, and graduation outcomes, and
[5:46:01] attainment of credentials every single year
[5:46:06] over that period.
[5:46:10] Do I think that education resources should be cut in half? Obviously not.
[5:46:14] And it forced us to get really clear about
[5:46:18] what matters. And what has been the great privilege of doing this work in
[5:46:22] partnership with the commissioner,
[5:46:25] and with the DESE leadership and staff, is that willingness to
[5:46:29] say, "We have to get clear on our priorities.
[5:46:32] We cannot do everything."
[5:46:33] Mm-hmm.
[5:46:34] And
[5:46:35] that means, if I'm being honest, even within the strategic plan,
[5:46:40] it's still a lot.
[5:46:42] It's
[5:46:43] still a lot to do. We have to get really focused,
[5:46:47] and that means there are things that we're doing that
[5:46:50] might be legislative favor. There are things that have to be less
[5:46:54] important. So some of it is just the laser-like focus
[5:46:58] of, if I have 350 districts, some of whom I
[5:47:02] know are tiny,
[5:47:04] I cannot send them 10 memos in a week
[5:47:07] with this expectation, and the next expectation, and then the next
[5:47:11] one from 10 different offices in the agency.
[5:47:14] They can't keep the main thing the main thing.
[5:47:16] No. They can't. So how do we get
[5:47:19] clear, and the strategic plan is a step in that direction
[5:47:23] of saying, "Okay, well, if this is what we care about, then every communication
[5:47:27] that goes out to a district should be couched in this language so that they hear it
[5:47:30] over and over again. The thing we care about is rigorous grade-level
[5:47:34] instruction every day. Every memo you're going to get from us is about rigorous
[5:47:37] grade-level instruction every day." AndThere's also
[5:47:41] just institutional clarity.
[5:47:43] Absolutely.
[5:47:43] So I think some of the data system stuff we've talked about is about building those
[5:47:46] internal systems to make sure that everyone's working together.
[5:47:50] And I think a huge amount of the work I have seen you take over,
[5:47:54] and your leadership team, has been just
[5:47:57] getting the agency
[5:48:00] more clear on roles and responsibilities
[5:48:04] day-to-day, just basic customer service.
[5:48:07] When a district calls, we answer the phone, we help them.
[5:48:11] So it is some of that too. And then, the last thing I'll say is
[5:48:14] absolutely, I am so excited that
[5:48:18] Missouri is committed to pursuing the path of
[5:48:21] consolidated federal grant
[5:48:25] funding.
[5:48:27] When you talk about inefficiency, having districts do 20
[5:48:31] plus plans a year is such a waste of everyone's time, and then your team
[5:48:35] at DESE is reviewing 20 plus plans a year that are often asking
[5:48:39] them different versions of the same question.
[5:48:42] Yeah.
[5:48:42] But the best part about the approach is that it's not just
[5:48:46] going from 20 plans to one plan. It is about literally the plan will be a drop-down
[5:48:50] menu.
[5:48:52] What curriculum are you using?
[5:48:54] Who are your professional learning providers? Pick from this list.
[5:48:59] So we are no longer asking people to write lengthy applications.
[5:49:02] We're saying, "These are the six things we care about."
[5:49:05] Spending time on the things that matter.
[5:49:07] Yeah. Sorry, that was a long-winded application to say
[5:49:11] mostly the same thing that the commissioners did.
[5:49:13] Offers a lot.
[5:49:13] Really, it offers us good insight, though. Thank you.
[5:49:15] Yes.
[5:49:16] Yeah.
[5:49:16] But the work there is-
[5:49:17] Yeah, I'd say too
[5:49:17] ... because here, we're driving them to the right decision.
[5:49:22] Yes.
[5:49:22] Instead of everything they could possibly apply for, you're driving them to the
[5:49:25] right decision, so they do have good outcomes.
[5:49:28] Yeah. I will say one, actually, other thing, at the risk of when
[5:49:31] people are... I'm keeping you here instead of going home, but
[5:49:37] local control is something I hear in every state we walk into, and it is something
[5:49:40] I heard every day in my decade tenure in Louisiana.
[5:49:45] And that isn't to say it isn't real.
[5:49:46] It is absolutely real, and I believe deeply that the people
[5:49:49] closest to kids should make decisions.
[5:49:52] And the language we use is, "Make the right choice the easy choice."
[5:49:58] If you're a district superintendent
[5:50:01] in an under-resourced district with limited capacity, and you're
[5:50:05] probably driving the school bus and
[5:50:08] teaching the math class and coaching the football team,
[5:50:13] you don't have time to sift through a stack of
[5:50:17] resources and research the best curriculum.
[5:50:21] But you got to purchase a curriculum. It's still your job.
[5:50:24] How do we make that easier?
[5:50:26] Right.
[5:50:26] Not every district. Look, some of your districts are more than
[5:50:30] capable of doing that research themselves, and we're not
[5:50:34] saying we're going to stop you from doing that.
[5:50:36] But we are going to make it easier for the districts who want that guidance.
[5:50:41] And the way we did that in Louisiana is we said...
[5:50:45] First, we gave them all the resources. We said, "Here's all the tools.
[5:50:47] We're going to keep giving this. Here's the list." And then, as
[5:50:51] districts started adopting and said, "Okay, actually, we kind of like this," and
[5:50:54] they started talking to each other and they're like, "Actually, this curriculum's
[5:50:57] pretty good. Maybe have you tried it?" Then we said, "And by the
[5:51:00] way, if you are a struggling school, and you've been identified as one,
[5:51:04] and you want to use-"
[5:51:05] Mm-hmm
[5:51:06] ... school improvement dollars-
[5:51:08] You do this, this, and this
[5:51:09] ... you have to do this.
[5:51:11] And I think that's what's outlined here, is opportunity to get clearer about who
[5:51:15] is struggling, align the resources, and limit the
[5:51:18] set of decisions that your 350 districts are making.
[5:51:22] And in the process, drive accountability.
[5:51:24] Yes.
[5:51:25] Voluntary accountability.
[5:51:28] Absolutely. Thank you.
[5:51:29] Thank you.
[5:51:29] Well, I do want to say, I actually love the layout.
[5:51:33] I love the buckets. I
[5:51:35] was on the board when we did the
[5:51:38] prior strategic plan initially, as
[5:51:42] was Pam and Carrie. So
[5:51:45] to me, I think this really moves the needle
[5:51:49] of what we want done, and I think as we dig into it, it'll be
[5:51:52] great. But I think this is, at a high level, assuming the
[5:51:56] board agrees with it,
[5:51:59] this is easy for everybody to understand and to track.
[5:52:02] And I think sometimes that's been the biggest challenge in the past.
[5:52:08] Thank you.
[5:52:10] All right.
[5:52:11] And thank you to Jill and to Evan and to-
[5:52:13] Yes.
[5:52:13] Jill has her whole team here.
[5:52:14] Yes.
[5:52:15] This has been great.
[5:52:15] Everyone to actually do the work.
[5:52:17] They're ready to go.
[5:52:18] Team.
[5:52:18] So we're excited. We really are excited.
[5:52:20] We think that this is the right step for the department and the state moving
[5:52:23] forward. So thank you.
[5:52:24] Thank you.
[5:52:25] Thank you.
[5:52:25] Good work. We appreciate it.
[5:52:27] Yes.
[5:52:28] So, Brooks, Miller?
[5:52:31] I move that the State Board of Education go into closed session as posted by
[5:52:35] executive assistant to consider the following: legal actions,
[5:52:39] causes of action, litigation, or legal work product relating to
[5:52:43] the State Board of Education and the Department of Elementary and Secondary
[5:52:46] Education, as well as any confidential or privileged
[5:52:50] communications between those entities and legal counsel.
[5:52:53] Need a second for that.
[5:52:55] Second.
[5:52:56] We do not have any closed-
[5:52:58] We don't?
[5:52:59] We have a litigation report.
[5:53:00] Oh, we do.
[5:53:00] I was going to say, yeah.
[5:53:01] Is Jill going to give a... Oh, never mind. Didn't see that one.
[5:53:04] I don't think Jill plans on that.
[5:53:06] Go ahead.
[5:53:07] Who did the second?
[5:53:09] So do we have a second?
[5:53:11] Second.
[5:53:11] Oh.
[5:53:11] I don't know that we need it, but the-
[5:53:13] Lady Gretchen. Got it.
[5:53:17] So we have Brooks and Gretchen.
[5:53:20] Ms. Carrie?
[5:53:22] Yes.
[5:53:24] Mr. Miller?
[5:53:24] Yes.
[5:53:25] Mr. Matusik?
[5:53:26] Yes.
[5:53:27] Mr. Otto?
[5:53:29] Yes.
[5:53:29] Dr. Shull?
[5:53:30] Yes.
[5:53:30] Ms. Westbrooks-Hodge?
[5:53:31] Yes.
[5:53:32] President Schrog?
[5:53:33] Yes.
[5:53:34] I got to run as soon as we're done.
[5:53:36] Oh, hold on one second.