[3:31] Let's

[3:37] go ahead

[3:41] and get this

[3:43] meeting started. It's

[3:46] Mr. Otto.

[3:59] Our first order of business today is to

[4:03] do the oath of office for two brand-new board members that

[4:07] we're very pleased to have that joined our group and was

[4:11] appointed by the governor of our great state.

[4:13] And so with that, I would ask that Jordan Bradberry

[4:18] come up, as well as Robby Myers, and take the oath of office.

[4:23] Okay.

[4:28] So I have

[4:30] Jordan. I'll do Jordan first. We'll get Jordan taken care of, yeah?

[4:37] Okay. Well,

[4:39] we appreciate you being here and joining our group, and so the oath of office

[4:43] today.

[4:45] Raise your right hand, please.

[4:48] I-

[4:49] I, Jordan Bradberry

[4:52] ... do solemnly swear or affirm that I will support the

[4:56] Constitution of the United States

[4:58] ... do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States

[5:02] ... and the Constitution of the State of Missouri

[5:05] ... and the Constitution of the State of Missouri

[5:07] ... and faithfully perform the duties of a member of the Missouri State Board of

[5:11] Education

[5:11] ... and faithfully perform the duties of a member of the

[5:15] Missouri State Board of Education

[5:16] ... to the best of my ability

[5:18] ... to the best of my ability.

[5:19] Very good. Thank you. Appreciate it, Jordan. Thank you.

[5:31] No, I'll go ahead and get your oath done.

[5:32] Okay.

[5:32] How about that? Do you want it?

[5:34] I'll take it.

[5:35] Okay.

[5:37] Very good. So if you would, raise your right hand.

[5:40] I-

[5:41] I, Robby Myers

[5:43] ... do solemnly swear

[5:44] ... do solemnly swear

[5:46] ... that I will support the Constitution of the United States

[5:48] ... that I will support the Constitution of the United States

[5:50] ... and the Constitution of the State of Missouri

[5:53] ... and the Constitution of the State of Missouri

[5:54] ... and faithfully perform the duties

[5:57] ... and faithfully perform the duties

[5:58] ... of a member of the Missouri State Board of Education

[6:01] ... of a member of the State Board of Education

[6:11] So are photos being taken here?

[6:13] Yes.

[6:14] Yes, and we'd like to get a picture

[6:16] with you and your family as well.

[6:19] Okay. Yeah, they still have yet.

[6:22] Oh, my gosh. They didn't get hit by the alarm or

[6:24] anything?

[6:29] That's nice.

[6:30] Very good.

[6:31] Get your family up here. Yeah, absolutely.

[6:35] Your wife and daughter.

[6:37] Son. Okay, great.

[6:40] Wait.

[6:43] All right.

[6:45] Okay.

[6:45] Precious.

[6:47] She's my favorite daughter.

[6:50] Maybe I'll have-

[6:51] If you'd like.

[6:52] Oh, okay. Sure.

[6:53] I hear those-

[6:53] If you could, that'd be... Yeah.

[6:54] I can

[6:55] do it.

[7:09] Thank you.

[7:10] Yeah.

[7:10] Good job, hon. Thank you.

[7:10] Fantastic.

[7:11] Thank you.

[7:11] Thank you so much.

[7:11] Welcome to the board.

[7:15] See you later.

[7:20] There's my daddy.

[7:35] Okay, so we'll go ahead. Our second item of

[7:38] business is the election of officers.

[7:43] I, at this time, serve as vice president, and so,

[7:48] I need to call on...

[7:50] I do need to introduce Stacy Pries.

[7:55] I apologize. Dr. Pries is our interim superintendent of

[7:59] schools.

[8:00] She wrote some things down here about her experience, how great she

[8:04] was, and everything.

[8:05] I didn't write that.

[8:07] Not really, but we, I think would say, who are on that committee,

[8:11] are very much appreciative

[8:13] of her joining our program, her

[8:17] providing her skill set to our specific program, and truly

[8:21] assisting us in what we do. And it just

[8:25] worked out perfectly that you were available to us, and we're

[8:29] just thankful to have you. So, with that, we need to get

[8:33] election of officers taken care of. Do you have...?

[8:36] I do.

[8:37] Okay. Very good.

[8:39] Thank you, Vice President Miller.

[8:42] We'll now proceed to the election of officers for the Missouri State Board of

[8:45] Education. In accordance with board policy, the first office to be

[8:48] elected is the president of the board.

[8:51] So, at this time, I will open the floor to nominations for president of the

[8:54] Missouri State Board of Education.

[8:56] I move to nominate Brooks Miller for president of the Board of Education.

[9:00] I second.

[9:02] I move to nominate John Otto

[9:08] for president.

[9:12] Thank you. And a second?

[9:15] We need a second for that.

[9:17] Okay.

[9:19] Are there any

[9:20] additional nominations?

[9:23] Okay. Seeing no further nominations, the nominations for president are now

[9:27] closed. We will proceed to the vote.

[9:29] Board members, please cast your vote for president of the Missouri State Board of

[9:33] Education. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[9:38] Ms. Casey?

[9:39] Brooks Miller.

[9:41] Mr. Matusik?

[9:42] Yes.

[9:44] Me-

[9:44] Give me names, there are two.

[9:46] Well, hers didn't get a second.

[9:47] Didn't get a second. There's really only one.

[9:50] Oh, okay. Yes.

[9:52] Yes.

[9:54] Mr.

[9:55] Bradberry?

[9:56] Yes.

[10:00] Mr. Myers?

[10:01] Yes.

[10:02] Mr. Otto?

[10:03] Yes.

[10:05] Dr. Scholl?

[10:06] Yes.

[10:07] Ms. Westbrooks-Hodge?

[10:08] The same.

[10:12] Mr. Miller?

[10:13] Sure. Yes.

[10:20] Okay, very good. Now, we move to the vice president of the

[10:23] board.

[10:25] So-

[10:25] And I hand it back to you, Mr. President

[10:27] ... Yeah. Okay, very good. Thank you.

[10:29] Mm-hmm.

[10:29] So, at this time, we'll take nominations for vice president of the Board of

[10:33] Education.

[10:35] I move...

[10:36] This is Carey Casey. I move to nominate John Otto for the

[10:40] position of vice president of the State Board of Education.

[10:43] Second.

[10:44] We have a motion and a second. Are there any other

[10:48] nominations that would like to come forth at this time?

[10:54] Very good. Hearing none, we'll call for a roll call vote.

[10:57] Mr. Bradberry?

[10:59] Yes.

[11:00] Ms. Casey?

[11:01] Yes.

[11:01] Mr. Matusik?

[11:03] Yes.

[11:03] Mr. Miller?

[11:04] Yes.

[11:06] Mr. Myers?

[11:07] Yes.

[11:08] Dr. Scholl?

[11:09] Yes.

[11:11] Mr. Otto?

[11:12] Yes.

[11:14] Ms. Westbrooks-Hodge?

[11:15] Yes.

[11:19] Very good. Welcome, John, as the new vice president of

[11:23] the Missouri State Board of Education.

[11:25] Thank you.

[11:26] Certainly. Okay, so we'll now move on into

[11:30] our agenda. Has everybody had the opportunity

[11:34] to review the agenda? Are there any additions, corrections,

[11:39] and in particular, have you looked at the consent agenda to make sure there's not

[11:42] issues there that

[11:43] we would want to pull or have further discussion on?

[11:49] Cool.

[11:50] I think, in terms of the minutes of the previous meeting-

[11:54] Okay

[11:54] ... Oh. This is for the agenda of today's agenda.

[11:57] Agenda.

[11:57] Move to approve the agenda.

[11:58] Okay. Very good.

[11:59] Second.

[12:04] Okay. Now I call for motions for the minutes of the...

[12:08] Oh.

[12:08] Yeah, we've got to vote on them.

[12:10] Oh, okay. I'm sorry. I thought it-

[12:13] All in favor, yell-

[12:15] All in favor of the amend--

[12:19] I'm sorry.

[12:21] Where were we at? Agenda.

[12:24] Okay. So all in favor of the agenda as presented. Forgive me.

[12:28] Aye.

[12:29] Aye.

[12:30] Aye.

[12:32] Okay. Any opposed?

[12:34] Hearing none, that motion passes.

[12:37] Now for the minutes of the May 12th meeting.

[12:39] Has everybody-

[12:40] Move to approve the minutes.

[12:42] Is there a second?

[12:43] Second.

[12:44] Okay.

[12:46] All those in favor?

[12:47] Aye.

[12:48] Aye.

[12:49] Aye.

[12:50] And that passes.

[12:52] So now, at this time, we have the commissioner's report

[12:56] as slated. So go ahead, if you would, please.

[12:59] Once again, Dr. Preece is here as our interim, and

[13:03] will be providing this report.

[13:06] Thank you.

[13:08] First, I just want to thank the board again for entrusting me with this

[13:10] responsibility and taking some time last week to talk with me individually about

[13:14] your service on the Board of Education.

[13:16] Everyone has been very receptive and welcoming, staff have been

[13:20] fantastic, and their positive energy is contagious.

[13:24] I had the opportunity to attend the new superintendent's meeting on Tuesday and

[13:28] meet a few of our incoming school leaders. That was very exciting.

[13:32] Yesterday, I met with the governor's staff, and I have my first cabinet meeting

[13:35] tomorrow. So we're jumping right in, not wasting any time.

[13:39] In between all of these things, the staff and I have continued to advance the

[13:42] essential work at the top of the priorities of the board.

[13:47] Next, I want to introduce, we have new chief counsel,

[13:51] Megan Fork. Megan?

[13:54] Megan has been with us for about a month.

[13:56] She's back in the-

[13:57] You want to stand up, Megan?

[13:57] Yes. Stand so they can see you.

[13:58] I don't know. I'm short. It doesn't matter.

[14:02] Thank you.

[14:04] And then I did want to mention

[14:08] a former deputy commissioner, the gentleman who served as the deputy

[14:12] commissioner when I was here as the Deputy Commissioner of Learning Services, Dr.

[14:15] Ron Langford. And many people in this room know he passed away

[14:20] recently. Many people in this room and listening online knew former Deputy

[14:23] Commissioner of Finance and Administrative Services, Ron Langford.

[14:28] As I said, Ron passed away earlier this month.

[14:30] At his memorial on Friday, it was clear what an impact he had on education in

[14:34] Missouri, from his time as an educator and longtime superintendent in Webb

[14:38] City, to his role as deputy commissioner at DESE.

[14:41] Ron was honored by DESE as a pioneer in education at

[14:45] the annual conference for school administrators, I believe last

[14:49] year.

[14:50] So just wanted to acknowledge Dr. Langford and his contributions that

[14:54] he made to education across the state.

[14:59] Next, I have one

[15:02] shout-out to our Office of Special Education.

[15:04] They're kind of the quiet heroes, and they don't always get to come to the

[15:08] table with information. But they had their big review with the

[15:12] Office of Special Education at the national level, and

[15:16] their state performance plan was approved as meeting all

[15:20] requirements. They're one of only 20 states that have had

[15:23] that. And

[15:26] Mark said he's pretty sure that Missouri has the longest streak of

[15:30] meets requirements, that that's been going for about 15 years.

[15:32] So we're really proud of the work they do.

[15:34] Like I said, that it doesn't always come to the table, but they are

[15:38] a rock solid team, so we appreciate that.

[15:41] And then lastly, just a little bit of an update on the AF grade

[15:45] card

[15:47] report. We are doing our final edits to our executive

[15:51] order response regarding AF grading, and Assistant Commissioner

[15:54] Lisa Sereno has led that team, that includes stakeholders both inside and

[15:58] external to DESE.

[16:00] When I met with the governor's staff yesterday, they were very complimentary of

[16:04] Lisa and the department for the work that's been done so far.

[16:07] The response is due to the governor's office by June 30th, so we

[16:11] are making finishing touches on that, and won't have any problem hitting that

[16:15] deadline. So the next steps will be a review of the plan with

[16:19] this board in August, and then consideration

[16:23] of the AF grading framework by the board in September.

[16:26] So you'll have August to talk about it, discuss it, think about it, digest it, and

[16:30] then be ready to come back in September to

[16:34] give your approval or not.

[16:37] Dr. Preece?

[16:37] Yes, sir.

[16:38] So can you remind me, and is

[16:42] the A through F framework going to apply

[16:46] to this year's scores or next year?

[16:50] So that's part of the discussion that we're having

[16:54] right now. So we are to the point that we're

[16:58] finished with our work, right? We've worked with our stakeholders.

[17:00] We have the framework and everything.

[17:02] The sticky part gets into the logistics, and it's more technical than I want to

[17:06] delve into. But we're working with the governor's office on

[17:09] operationalizing that AF to get it out as quickly as

[17:13] possible.

[17:15] Just very briefly, we work with a central office of

[17:20] information technology, and they service all of the agencies.

[17:24] And so when they get new projects, they tend to just be in order of when they came

[17:27] in. And so the conversation I had with the governor's office yesterday was, "We

[17:31] understand that this is a priority for you, and we have done what we can do up to

[17:35] this point.

[17:36] We'll be ready to move forward, but

[17:40] this is the timeline that OAIT has given us for when they can produce it."

[17:44] So they were going to work with them and see if they couldn't accelerate that

[17:48] timeline a little bit so that it gets out at a decent time.

[17:50] Thank you.

[17:51] Okay. You're welcome.

[17:54] And that is all I have.

[17:56] Very good.

[17:56] Thank you.

[17:57] Thank you.

[18:00] With that, going into the president's report, we have Pamela Westbrook

[18:04] Hodge for the Strategic Planning Committee.

[18:06] No update. Thank you.

[18:09] Brooks Miller for the legislative committee.

[18:11] And for that, I'm going to just hand it over a little bit here to Dr.

[18:15] Preece, and give us an update

[18:17] Sure. One of the vacancies, as you are aware, is that

[18:22] Perry Goral has moved back to college and career

[18:26] readiness, and leaving the legislative liaison position as soon as I let him go,

[18:30] which I'm not going to do until we have somebody else.

[18:32] We are in the process of looking for good candidates for that

[18:36] position. So I came in and it had been posted,

[18:39] so the chance to look through all of those applications

[18:43] and recruit and see if there are any additional people

[18:47] who need to be part of that mix, and then we will start that right away.

[18:51] There is a sense of urgency to it. Fortunately, we're not in the middle of the

[18:54] legislative session right now,

[18:57] but there are, as you know, a couple of big vacancies and I'm

[19:00] thinking about and working on those, and I'll be sharing with you sort of where I

[19:04] intend to go with that. But we will have a leg--

[19:08] Hopefully, maybe by the next meeting, I can announce to you that we have a new

[19:11] legislative liaison.

[19:12] Great.

[19:13] Thank you.

[19:14] Thank you. Okay. With that, we'll go to the governance committee. John Otto.

[19:18] All right. I don't

[19:20] have much to update, but

[19:23] since the governance committee didn't really meet.

[19:25] But I feel since this falls under governance, that maybe we could

[19:29] discuss, or I'll just throw out some ideas and we can discuss later,

[19:33] the brief agenda for the board

[19:37] retreat next month. Since that's only a few weeks away, I

[19:41] figured we should probably talk about what we

[19:45] wanted to talk about. So, and this is just me as the chair of the

[19:49] governance committee, I'm definitely

[19:51] happy to discuss or take suggestions, but whether now or

[19:54] offline.

[19:56] But I was thinking just a

[19:59] one day, 9:00 to 3:00 type deal,

[20:03] where we just give an orientation overview to the

[20:07] new board members. We discuss

[20:11] the status or our goals with the strategic plan,

[20:15] committee membership, and as you know, we have a strategic plan committee, a

[20:18] legislative committee, governance committee, and a finance committee.

[20:21] And then there will probably be some ad hoc committees around

[20:25] the commissioner search. And

[20:29] then,

[20:30] also to talk about, since we're all pretty much new now and we're going

[20:34] to have a new commissioner, kind of talk about our vision and our strategy and

[20:38] goals for this board. So again, that's just suggestions off

[20:42] the top of my head. But I'm happy to discuss,

[20:46] because June, I think it's July

[20:49] 14th. That's pretty quick. That's going to be here pretty fast.

[20:53] Oh, go ahead.

[20:54] Go ahead, Mike.

[20:56] Mike Matusik.

[20:57] Yeah, I just want to echo what John said.

[20:59] I think

[21:01] trying to make the most of

[21:03] the next

[21:06] work session that we have, or retreat in July would be great.

[21:09] And I think my only

[21:13] comment really is that

[21:16] I would love for those meetings to be more of a discussion, right?

[21:20] Sort of a board discussion as opposed to sort of

[21:24] listening to presentations and asking a few questions.

[21:27] I think the board needs to have more time to discuss

[21:31] stuff and so that's the only comment I would make, but I think John outlined it

[21:35] well. Thank you.

[21:36] Ms. Casey?

[21:37] Yeah.

[21:38] I agree with all those comments, and I have a recommendation that now

[21:42] that we have a board president and board vice president,

[21:46] that

[21:48] you collectively meet and propose an agenda that you can share out to

[21:52] the board, and we can offer feedback to you and

[21:55] finalize the agenda within the next week.

[21:58] Yeah, go ahead.

[21:59] Yeah, I would also suggest if you have other items...

[22:02] So for me, one of the big things was, and I talked about, was

[22:07] where we end and where the local districts

[22:11] start.

[22:11] Mm-hmm.

[22:12] And I think that that's something that comes up routinely at some of our

[22:16] meetings, and I think if we had an understanding of exactly where our

[22:20] lines are and responsibilities and things, that would be very helpful.

[22:25] Okay.

[22:26] So is the date scheduled for that, is that on July 14th?

[22:30] I believe so, right.

[22:31] Has the location been announced?

[22:33] It'll be right here.

[22:34] It'll be right here. Perfect.

[22:35] Yeah, nothing fancy.

[22:36] Very good.

[22:37] Yeah.

[22:40] And...

[22:41] Yeah. And so I think if any of us have an

[22:45] immediate recommendation, just send a note over-

[22:48] Mm-hmm

[22:49] ... or a phone call and then you can pull all that together-

[22:52] Yeah

[22:52] ... and then we can all collectively review and finalize the agenda.

[22:56] Yeah, no, that sounds like a good plan, a good idea, and Brooks and I can touch

[23:00] base over the next week or so, and then get something out via email.

[23:03] And then depending on,

[23:07] this is just coming to me, depending on what

[23:12] we settle on for the agenda, I didn't know if we wanted to

[23:16] have a third-party facilitator to Mike's point.

[23:20] We can kind of get bogged down in discussion, and I would want to keep the meeting

[23:25] moving forward. So I don't know who that would be, but just throwing that out

[23:28] there. But we could talk about it

[23:30] offline.

[23:31] Yeah.

[23:33] What do you anticipate as far as time of meeting? How long?

[23:37] Like I said,

[23:38] just a midday, 9:00 to 3:00. That way, there's no overnight or

[23:42] anything.

[23:43] Okay.

[23:43] You kind of get to... And maybe do a working lunch or something like that, but.

[23:47] Except for Robbie, it'd probably be an overnight.

[23:49] Well, that's...

[23:50] I'm not getting up at 4:00.

[23:54] All right.

[23:54] Yeah.

[23:55] Any other questions about that, the board retreat?

[23:58] I'm certain there will be through the month, and please just don't hesitate to

[24:01] reach out to John or myself, and we'll get back with you

[24:05] on that.

[24:07] Okay.

[24:09] Mrs. Casey on the Finance Committee, please.

[24:11] Yes. Thank you, President Miller.

[24:14] So, the Finance Committee did meet during the month, and

[24:18] reviewed reports that you will see today, and let me summarize

[24:21] that. You will be seeing an executive summary of

[24:24] FY26. That is the current budget year, so

[24:28] we're really near the end of it, and you're going to see an

[24:32] update to the presentation that has been provided in our previous

[24:35] meeting. Our newest team member in the finance department,

[24:39] Rebecca, working very closely with Dr.

[24:42] Cruz, continues to make

[24:45] improvements, if you will, based on our feedback to the manner in which

[24:49] that data is presented. So, I hope you'll find today's presentation

[24:53] very helpful. And it'll also be helpful to our newest board

[24:56] members.

[24:58] Following that update on FY26, you will see a

[25:02] summary, not in the same format, but more of a written summary,

[25:06] on FY27. That

[25:09] summary, in future meetings, will evolve.

[25:12] But we'll get an update on where we stand with the changes that were made in the

[25:15] final budget from the appropriations standpoint, and where the governor

[25:19] stands on signature.

[25:22] The third thing that you're going to see today is going to be just an

[25:26] update on the preparation work to begin

[25:30] on FY28.

[25:33] So, on that point, I want to share that the

[25:36] committee, which consists of John Otto and myself, have had

[25:40] discussion about how we will move the

[25:44] FY28 budget forward with

[25:47] Dr. Cruz. And the committee will be meeting and reviewing all of

[25:51] the preparation details,

[25:53] the timeline, et cetera, for the FY28 budget.

[25:56] Of course, our interim commissioner will be involved appropriately as well.

[26:01] We will work, though, with Dr. Cruz to review, at a much more

[26:05] detailed level, all the line items and the programs that are funded,

[26:09] the justifications, the results, et cetera, and where the final

[26:13] recommendations will be

[26:15] at from the department's standpoint on what should be in the

[26:19] FY28 budget. We will then be bringing key

[26:23] insights and key questions for discussion at future board meetings to

[26:27] inform you of

[26:30] the inputs to the FY28 budget,

[26:34] how it will work. It just won't be a review of all the line items.

[26:37] We'll bring all of the material items and areas of

[26:41] concern, recommendations for change, et cetera, for a broader, full

[26:45] discussion, all in line with the timeline that will be spelled out by

[26:49] Dr. Cruz,

[26:51] so that we will all be prepared to make an approval

[26:55] in the appropriate meeting in the fall.

[26:58] Okay.

[27:00] Questions on that?

[27:03] Hearing none, thank you.

[27:08] Next on our agenda is the Missouri School

[27:12] Funding Modernization Task Force.

[27:15] Casey and Westbrook Hodge.

[27:19] I'm happy to provide the update, Mr. President.

[27:22] Fine. Thank you.

[27:23] The task force is now in the recommendation

[27:27] development phase of its work. At the June 1st meeting,

[27:31] members focused on the county property assessment ratios

[27:35] and two modeling options for the school funding formula.

[27:39] So, I'll talk about the county property assessment ratios

[27:43] first. So, great discussion

[27:46] with the State Tax Commission staff.

[27:48] We talked about the challenge of obtaining accurate market value

[27:52] data for real estate.

[27:55] That information is important because property values

[27:59] affect local tax capacity, property tax collections,

[28:03] and education revenue streams. The task force discussed

[28:07] whether the formula should continue using available assessed

[28:10] values, adjust local effort based on assessment

[28:14] ratios, reduce the role of assessed value, or

[28:18] recommend policy improvements outside the formula.

[28:22] With respect to modeling options for the school funding formula,

[28:27] we continued reviewing two modeling approaches.

[28:30] One that modernizes the current formula structure, and

[28:34] another that uses a combined wealth index incorporating

[28:38] both property and income measures.

[28:41] And then finally,

[28:43] we were asked to complete a prioritization

[28:47] exercise, and members,

[28:51] under a hypothetical $400 million limit,

[28:55] were asked to prioritize some of the elements of both of

[28:58] those

[28:59] modeling options. Again, this is not a final recommendation,

[29:03] but it will inform continued modeling.

[29:07] The task force remains on schedule with

[29:11] stakeholder feedback planned for the fall, and final

[29:14] recommendations due to

[29:16] Governor Kehoe by December 1st. That

[29:20] concludes my update, Mr. President.

[29:23] Are there any questions with regards to that?

[29:26] And that task force started meeting one year ago?

[29:30] Just about.

[29:31] Yeah.

[29:31] Yeah, summer 2025.

[29:33] Yeah. So, there's been a lot of work around this, and it's quite

[29:37] complicated.

[29:38] It's quite complicated. The biggest hurdle is

[29:42] accurate

[29:44] property values and-

[29:46] Mm-hmm

[29:47] ... because that's our primary revenue stream.

[29:50] And so, I'm not quite sure how much control we

[29:54] have over influencing the accuracy of

[29:58] those numbers.

[30:00] Mm-hmm.

[30:01] So, therein lies our big challenge we're trying to figure out how to work around.

[30:05] Sure. Brooke? Okay, thank you. Mr. Matusik?

[30:09] Pamela, just a quick process question.

[30:11] So, when the task force

[30:14] The task force will come up with multiple recommendations, several options

[30:18] for the governor. Is that correct?

[30:20] Yeah.

[30:22] Three is the mandate. Right now we're modeling two, which is, one, an

[30:26] update to the current formula, and then the new one that I just described.

[30:30] And so will the task force essentially vote on each of the

[30:33] recommendations that are being sent to the governor, or how does

[30:38] the task force decide?

[30:40] So, good question. We haven't gotten to the particulars of

[30:44] how we will make the decision. My recommendation

[30:48] would be to use a scoring rubric where we evaluate

[30:52] each option, so we objectively determine, based

[30:55] on important attributes, which one best meets

[30:59] those attributes. That would be my recommendation to be objective and fair.

[31:05] Thank you.

[31:05] You're welcome.

[31:07] President Miller?

[31:08] Yes.

[31:09] Thank you. I would like to also give an update on NASBE, the National

[31:13] State Boards of Education

[31:17] Association.

[31:18] So, for our newest board members,

[31:22] there is an organization called NASBE, the National Association of State

[31:25] Boards of Education, and we, as the

[31:29] state of Missouri, are members of this association,

[31:32] as are many or most of all the other states, as well

[31:38] as Guam, as a...

[31:42] Now I forgot the word, but an associated

[31:46] territory. Thank you. Of the United States.

[31:49] So, it is a very informative group.

[31:52] The association continuously brings together board

[31:56] members from all the states to discuss key topics.

[32:00] So we learn a lot from each other. They have monthly calls.

[32:03] They have working groups that might focus on a particular

[32:07] topic or undertake a particular project.

[32:11] They hold conferences. There's actually a new member conference that will

[32:15] be taking place in just a couple of weeks, and it might be too soon for either

[32:19] of you to travel to it, but it is very informative.

[32:22] There is a national conference that takes place at the end of

[32:25] October, and I invite all board members to travel to

[32:29] that, not that you're able to, but to be aware of it.

[32:32] I will be going, and as a new board member, if you're free to go, and I'll be

[32:36] sure that you receive the information,

[32:39] you would find it very informative.

[32:41] One, the ability to meet other board members from across the states,

[32:45] understand their structures, their challenges,

[32:48] and just making those relationships, but

[32:52] then also learn about key initiatives that are happening in education

[32:56] around the country.

[32:58] So, I will also make sure that you've been added to the mailing

[33:02] list so that you're aware of whenever phone calls, or they have a monthly

[33:06] exchange, as I mentioned, where all the states come together and give updates,

[33:10] and it's very informative. And from the June exchange, I would

[33:14] like to share just two key updates that

[33:18] the state of Illinois has just released their comprehensive

[33:21] numeracy plan. I know that has been an important focus of

[33:25] our department here. And

[33:28] so that is now available. It is modeled after their literacy

[33:32] plan that was released in 2024. Of course, we've

[33:36] had a literacy plan in place for a few years longer than that.

[33:39] But I have not yet reviewed the numeracy plan,

[33:43] but I've

[33:46] in fact forwarded it over to Lisa Sereno, so she is aware of it,

[33:50] and I encourage the department to be taking a look at that.

[33:54] Secondly, Indiana is adjusting their

[33:57] accountability model. Now, all states have different accountability models,

[34:01] so don't be confused with this update.

[34:04] How they view an accountability model is

[34:08] based on that A through F grade card approach.

[34:11] That is not where our accountability model is today.

[34:15] Our accountability model is based on

[34:18] the APR, the annual performance

[34:22] rating that is

[34:24] for all districts.

[34:26] However, in Indiana, they're making adjustments to their A through F model

[34:31] to begin to incorporate just a few things beyond, I

[34:35] think in one way, where we have our A through F,

[34:39] and we'll learn more about that in August.

[34:40] But one key point that they're doing is they're going to

[34:43] be scoring it at the individual

[34:46] student level,

[34:48] and the accumulation of the student scores

[34:52] will become the school score. Where

[34:56] in

[34:57] the initial model, and possibly in our model, it is starting out, and we'll

[35:01] again learn more about it, so I could be speaking incorrectly, where it is based on

[35:05] an average of the school score,

[35:08] not built at the individual student level.

[35:11] So, as Tracy said earlier, there's a lot of technical

[35:15] things to understand here. So, I encourage you,

[35:19] Stacy, to become familiar with the Indiana model.

[35:21] Not that it will change ours at this moment in time, because

[35:25] we're ready to submit our plan, but to be aware of what's happening in all the

[35:29] other states, so as we learn and evolve

[35:32] with the implementation of the A through F, it might guide us in the future.

[35:37] The next meeting will be on August 3rd.

[35:40] I will make sure, again, that you're made aware of it if you would like to join

[35:43] that in a Zoom meeting.

[35:46] And that's the update.

[35:47] Great. Thank you for that, Mrs. Casey. Appreciate it. Hey, one question.

[35:52] Do we have

[35:53] the conference this summer with school administrators that we had last

[35:57] summer?

[35:58] Yes. I would probably let

[36:02] someone else speak more to where the planning is for that-

[36:05] Yeah. I think-

[36:05] ... but it is carrying on.

[36:06] Okay. I was able to attend it last year, and I would

[36:10] encourage members of the board, if they had time, to sit in on

[36:13] some of the classes, or could attend and sit in on some of the classes, because I

[36:17] thought it was relevant.

[36:20] Yeah, I was just going to ask about that.

[36:21] I'm looking at online, it's July 26th through the 28th at

[36:25] Tan-Tar-A. Is that right? Yeah

[36:27] That is correct. It's July... Yeah, Kyle Kruse, deputy commissioner of Financial

[36:30] Administrative Services. It's July 26th, 27th, and 28th at

[36:34] Margaritaville Tan-Tar-A. The Sunday night session is largely a

[36:38] commissioner's welcome.

[36:40] Monday is the day when we have the general session.

[36:43] We have a keynote speaker, Ed Hightower, who actually is a former NCAA

[36:47] official and a school person. And then we have breakout sessions

[36:51] throughout the morning on a variety of topics.

[36:54] We have the Pioneers Luncheon to recognize our heroes in

[36:58] education, and then more breakout sessions in the afternoon, followed

[37:02] by a new superintendent's recognition in the evening

[37:06] on Monday. And the breakout sessions right now are set up, I think

[37:09] there's five different slots and

[37:14] four different sessions going on in each

[37:18] slot. So, it's a good variety of...

[37:21] I think we have 19 topics total, and a couple are being repeated.

[37:25] So, they'd be great, and I know everyone will be glad to see the state board there

[37:28] representing and supporting public education.

[37:32] The end

[37:33] morning is Tuesday, and there will be a

[37:38] guest speaker. Our superintendent of the year, I believe, is scheduled to be there.

[37:41] I'm double-checking that. I'll give a school finance update,

[37:45] and the commissioner will close us out.

[37:47] But we'd be glad to have you in attendance for any or all.

[37:51] And Dr. Kruse, we're close to finalizing that agenda, correct?

[37:55] And having all-

[37:55] We are very close

[37:56] ... those in place-

[37:56] Yes

[37:56] ... so we could send out the final agenda.

[37:58] Yes. What we're doing right now is finishing the titles and descriptions of each

[38:01] session, all the breakout sessions.

[38:03] We hope to have that done in the next week and a half, and we can provide that to

[38:06] you.

[38:07] Perfect.

[38:08] Thank you. Appreciate that. Last year, do you know what your attendance was

[38:12] last year from...

[38:14] Sorry to make you say, but it was well attended, I imagine.

[38:16] It is well attended, right.

[38:19] If I had to ballpark it, we're in the 500 and some person range.

[38:22] Mm-hmm. Yeah.

[38:24] So if you have time and could get up there, I think it would be an important

[38:28] or valuable resource of learning.

[38:32] So at this time, we have the consent agenda.

[38:36] Are there any items on the consent agenda requiring discussion?

[38:40] Move to approve consent.

[38:41] Second.

[38:42] Okay.

[38:43] Thank you, Mr. Matousek and Mrs. Casey.

[38:46] All those in favor of approving the consent agenda say, "Aye."

[38:49] Aye.

[38:50] Any opposed? Hearing none,

[38:53] we'll turn it over now to

[38:56] Dr. Paul Katnik. I think he's got several items that he's going to present today,

[39:00] and I welcome him to the board, to the discussion.

[39:15] Mr. President, members of the board, good morning.

[39:18] As you pointed out, I have several items for you coming up next.

[39:22] First time, I am Paul Katnik. I am the head of the Office of Educator

[39:26] Quality here at DESE. Our next seven items are about rules.

[39:31] But before we get into each of those, I wanted to provide a brief

[39:34] overview about both the purpose and the process for

[39:38] rulemaking. Missouri statute often explicitly states

[39:42] that the State Board of Education shall promulgate rules in

[39:45] particular areas or to address particular needs.

[39:49] In these upcoming agenda items, we'll be talking about standards for the mentoring

[39:53] of new teachers, because Missouri law says those standards should

[39:57] be established by the State Board of Education, and we do that by

[40:01] creating these rules. Your other agenda items are about certification

[40:05] requirements for educators, which Missouri statute says are set

[40:09] by the State Board of Education, and we, again, we establish

[40:13] those requirements and rules. All rules like this require approval

[40:17] from you as board members to ensure that we are compliant with Missouri law.

[40:21] This handout, which I believe all of you have received,

[40:25] is the process for getting rules revised and approved.

[40:28] Usually, preparing for this process that we go through with all of you

[40:31] takes a year or more. For our certification rules today, it actually has

[40:35] taken two years, and the reason for that is because it includes efforts

[40:39] of work groups of educators, of higher education, professional

[40:42] organizations, and stakeholders who determine what changes or

[40:46] additions should be made to a set of standards or requirements.

[40:50] This preparation phase also includes the involvement of two

[40:54] statutorily required advisory groups.

[40:57] One is the Missouri Advisory Council for Certification of Educators,

[41:01] we call that MACCE for short, and the other is the Missouri Advisory

[41:05] Board for Educator Preparation, called MABEP.

[41:08] These two advisory groups were created by statute to ensure that there is

[41:12] sufficient stakeholder input and involvement before we bring any

[41:16] recommended changes to you. In the upcoming items, you will hear us

[41:20] report on the extent of support from MACCE and from MABEP on our

[41:24] items. Once we have all that ready, this process begins, and

[41:28] it can take anywhere from eight to 12 months to fully complete.

[41:31] So, I'm just going to walk you through some of these steps that are contained here

[41:35] in the graphic. The governor's office first gets time to review the

[41:39] proposed changes. They can take up to a month.

[41:42] And while that review is happening, we are also routing the rule and any of

[41:46] its supporting documents through our department leadership, and

[41:49] also through the legal counsel, and we are submitting rules and supporting

[41:53] documents to the DESE rules team. We also often

[41:57] provide an information presentation to the State Board of Education to

[42:01] introduce the issue and forecast the upcoming changes.

[42:05] However, at that presentation, there is no vote from you at that time.

[42:08] We're just building your awareness around it.

[42:11] We did a March presentation for all of you board members and a May

[42:14] presentation on our upcoming items.

[42:17] At the next meeting, which is today's meeting, the State Board of Education will

[42:20] get an overview of the rule, including why the change is being made,

[42:25] who assisted in the work group The support of MACIE and MABEP and

[42:28] implications for the revised version.

[42:31] Then we'll be asking you as a board today to authorize publication in the Missouri

[42:35] Register, which allows us to post it for a required 30-day public

[42:39] comment period.

[42:41] Step three, then it's filed by Secretary of State and the Joint Committee on

[42:45] Administrative Rules. That usually takes about a month.

[42:48] It is then published, step four, in the Missouri Register, which

[42:53] contains all of the published rules, and it allows for a

[42:56] statutorily required public comment of 30 days.

[43:00] Our goal with rules that we bring to you is to get no public

[43:04] comment, and that's because we're hoping we've done our homework well enough ahead

[43:08] of time, that we've discussed it, everyone knows about it, and if there were any

[43:12] issues, we've addressed those even before we bring it to you.

[43:16] Step five, after public comment, we have three months to get it back to the State

[43:20] Board of Education, or we have to start this entire process

[43:24] all over again. This is to ensure that the rule is being changed, has

[43:27] current approval, and current support.

[43:31] Then at step six, there's a second presentation to the State Board of

[43:34] Education, and at that presentation, you'll hear a summary of

[43:39] all of the comments that we've received, and a

[43:42] response on whether a change will be made, and if so, why or why not.

[43:47] For these upcoming rules today, we will anticipate a second

[43:50] presentation being made to you in September.

[43:53] Final approval of the rule then gets requested from you at that meeting.

[43:58] If you approve, it's then filed with the Joint Committee on

[44:01] Administrative Rules in its finalized form for their

[44:05] review, which is mostly a technical review of edits

[44:09] to be sure it's internally consistent and also consistent with other

[44:12] rules. It is then filed with the Secretary of State's office,

[44:16] which manages the government rule process.

[44:19] If approved there, down to step nine, they are now posted in the Missouri Register

[44:23] with all other rules, and then the full text of the rule, step

[44:27] 10, is published in the Code of State Regulations, which is home

[44:31] to all the rules. And then step 11 is the effective date.

[44:35] In some instances, rules that we bring before you, one of them today, it'll be

[44:39] effective immediately. But in other ones, when we have to allow time for

[44:42] structures to kind of change and adapt, it may be a year or two

[44:46] down the road before it actually becomes effective.

[44:49] So now that we reviewed why and how the rule-making happens,

[44:54] we'll begin with agenda item F, which is on our

[44:58] mentoring standards.

[45:01] I am joined by Dr. Bobbi Jo Lewis. She's in my office.

[45:04] She's the coordinator of educator development in our office

[45:08] here. Among other responsibilities, she coordinates

[45:12] the Missouri Teacher Development System, what we call the

[45:15] MTDS. This program provides intensive support to

[45:19] thousands of teachers across the state. Many of them are new teachers.

[45:23] Missouri Statute

[45:25] 161.375, it states that the department shall develop

[45:29] standards for high-quality mentoring programs for beginning teachers.

[45:33] The standards shall be applicable to all public schools and shall be developed to

[45:37] ensure that required district mentor programs all meet

[45:41] common objectives. Subsection three of that law states that

[45:45] the board shall require holders of the four-year initial professional

[45:49] certificate to participate in a mentor program approved

[45:53] and provided by the district for two years.

[45:56] And this is applicable to every area of certification.

[45:59] Doesn't matter what kind of a teacher that you are.

[46:02] Research tells us, there's a lot of studies on this, that high-quality mentoring

[46:06] is essential for retaining new teachers.

[46:08] Numerous studies show us that teachers who receive high-quality support in

[46:12] the early years of their career remain in our profession longer.

[46:17] Improving teacher retention has been an essential focus of

[46:21] our department for the past six years, and it's also a priority area for

[46:25] the department's strategic plan. Thank you.

[46:29] We shared this slide with you last month in May when we did our information

[46:32] meeting, and we're just sharing it here again today as a reminder.

[46:35] Missouri has had over 7,700 beginning teachers

[46:39] enter the classroom. These new teachers influence the learning of well

[46:43] over 150,000 students. The retention rate of

[46:47] beginning teachers, which is the

[46:50] green line down there at the bottom, is the lowest category of retention when

[46:54] compared to other groups of teachers.

[46:56] The data shown here confirms why emphasizing high-quality

[47:00] mentoring is so important. Retention rates of first-year teachers, while

[47:04] improving in the last year or so, shows a steady decline over the

[47:08] past six years. This occurs for a variety of reasons.

[47:11] In exit surveys, the number one reason first-year teachers leave the

[47:15] profession, they tell us, is due to lack of support.

[47:19] Support for new teachers can come in a variety of ways.

[47:22] High-quality mentoring as a part of teacher induction helps support

[47:26] those new teachers.

[47:28] I'll now ask Dr. Lewis to describe the process and the changes we

[47:31] propose to be made to the state's mentor standards.

[47:36] Good morning. It's a pleasure to be here today.

[47:39] Stakeholder input is key to ensuring that any changes to rules that we

[47:43] propose will be good for the overall profession.

[47:46] A work group consisting of a variety of stakeholders met regularly for almost two

[47:50] years to create the proposed revisions to the mentor standards.

[47:53] The teacher organizations met with their members and brought back valuable feedback

[47:57] that was considered when these revisions were drafted.

[48:00] The revisions were approved unanimously by this work group, and there's a list of

[48:04] the work group members here on this slide.

[48:07] They were presented to the Missouri Advisory Council for Certification of

[48:10] Educators, MACIE.

[48:12] The advisory council is required by statute to review proposed changes to

[48:16] certification before they are presented to you.

[48:19] We presented these changes in their April meeting, and they voted unanimously in

[48:23] favor of the proposed revisions.

[48:27] This slide contains a link and a QR code that will take you to the current mentor

[48:31] guidelines. You can also access the new proposed mentor guidelines here

[48:35] as well.

[48:37] This next slide is a

[48:41] overview, highlights of the current mentor guidelines and the

[48:44] proposed changes.

[48:47] The current mentoring program standards were adopted by the Missouri State Board of

[48:50] Education in February of 2017. Since that time, there have

[48:54] been significant challenges in the recruitment and retention of beginning teachers.

[48:58] The current format is confusing and it's difficult to read.

[49:02] There are no clear definitions, and the phrases are outdated

[49:05] and no longer relevant in some cases.

[49:08] The current standards do not provide clear expectations of contact hours and do

[49:11] not clearly explain what it means for support to be ongoing.

[49:15] So as you take a look at this

[49:18] table, it shows the areas of the differences, it shows what the

[49:22] current guidelines show, and then the new proposed guidelines.

[49:25] So in the new guidelines, we're looking at clearly defining the Beginning Teacher

[49:29] Assistance Program, that's BTAP. You know there's lots of acronyms in education.

[49:34] What contact hours looks like. It clearly defines what ongoing looks

[49:37] like, and talks more about that mentor/mentee and the mentoring

[49:41] toolbox, and what role is taken place by the Professional Development Committee.

[49:46] We also take a look at defining more exactly what a mentor should be.

[49:50] Instead of focusing on a specific number of years, we look more at what they

[49:54] bring to the table, the experiences that they have.

[49:57] Those experienced teachers should be willing to attend ongoing professional

[50:01] development and mentor training so they can become the best mentor possible.

[50:05] And then school districts and charter schools will be able to ensure that regular

[50:09] meetings occur between those mentor and mentee.

[50:13] We also highlight in the new guidelines how confidential this

[50:16] is. This is not meant to be evaluative of those teachers.

[50:21] It is very important that this relationship is a back-and-forth

[50:25] communication and a sharing of experiences and knowledge, and it is not meant to

[50:29] be evaluative. And so we talk pretty clearly in those

[50:32] standards that it is not evaluative and that it is confidential except for

[50:36] in specific cases of individual safety and child endangerment.

[50:41] We also clarify the stakeholders that are involved in the program,

[50:45] what it should look like, who should be involved.

[50:48] It does retain the four release periods and the four observations, but it very

[50:51] clearly recommends the number of contact hours and how that should be broken down

[50:56] throughout the year.

[51:00] This slide contains a link and a QR code to the existing

[51:04] Appendix A. This is a companion document to the mentoring

[51:07] standards, and it also, as you can see, has the link and the QR

[51:11] code if you would like to look at the full

[51:13] document.

[51:16] This slide highlights the differences between the existing information in Appendix

[51:20] A and the new information that we're proposing for the new Appendix A.

[51:23] Appendix A of the state's mentoring standards was also officially adopted by the

[51:27] State Board in 2017. While Appendix A was meant to serve as

[51:31] a tool and provide clarity, districts found the topics to be overly

[51:35] broad and confusing and difficult to implement.

[51:37] Appendix A currently includes a matrix of roles of multiple stakeholders that are

[51:41] no longer relevant. Overall, the document is not user-friendly, and it does

[51:45] not have a formal way to track any of the fields.

[51:49] So this is also a table that shows an overview of

[51:52] the old Appendix A and the new proposed Appendix A.

[51:56] We really looked at simplifying it, making it user-friendly.

[51:59] That was the number one complaint that I received from districts.

[52:02] And so we looked at really making this form to be something that they can

[52:06] use.

[52:07] We narrowed down the scope. We got rid of external

[52:11] stakeholders, really focused on that relationship between the district, the

[52:15] administrator, the mentor, and the mentee teachers.

[52:18] We included logs, signatures, dated records for usage.

[52:23] Really looked at trying to make the different sections clearly

[52:27] identifiable so they could have a clear understanding of what is expected from each

[52:31] role. And we also turned it into an action-oriented checklist

[52:34] instead of

[52:36] a chart that was difficult for them to read.

[52:43] I often receive questions from districts searching for tools and other

[52:46] items that would help them with their existing mentoring programs.

[52:50] A lot of districts lack the resources or capacity to create

[52:54] items that can be easily accessed and used.

[52:56] Based on this feedback, I'm very excited to share with you the mentoring toolbox.

[53:01] This is a compilation of tools that districts can use to help strengthen their

[53:04] mentoring programs. The toolbox will be available,

[53:08] I hope by August 15th when school starts.

[53:11] But

[53:12] all districts in Missouri can use it.

[53:14] There is a link embedded here that will take you to the tools, or you can use the

[53:17] QR code. But basically, these are things that they can use, and they

[53:21] can easily adapt to their own district.

[53:23] It really helps them with some clearly

[53:27] defined agreements between the mentors and the mentees, what those

[53:31] roles look like, and really just helps lay out an entire mentoring

[53:35] program for the district if they choose to use it.

[53:37] Again, it is by choice, but it is available for those districts that would like to

[53:40] use it.

[53:45] So, item F on your agenda. We now, with that

[53:49] information in front of you, recommend that you authorize publication of

[53:53] these new standards,

[53:55] and that will allow us to put it out for public comment.

[53:58] So moved.

[54:00] Is there a second?

[54:01] Second.

[54:02] We have a second. This is Westbrook Hodge. Now, can you take some questions?

[54:07] Yes, please.

[54:09] I have maybe a couple questions. Does every school district

[54:13] in the state of Missouri have a mentoring program?

[54:16] Every school district has to mentor their new teachers. That's a requirement.

[54:20] That is a requirement.

[54:21] Right. And so this toolbox is to give them the tools to help them do it

[54:25] well.

[54:25] Is there a fiscal note with it or anything?

[54:29] No.

[54:30] They're just required to do it.

[54:31] Correct.

[54:34] It's interesting to me that

[54:37] If you were superintendent and were dealing with teachers leaving and

[54:41] things of that nature,

[54:43] that

[54:45] we're kind of micro telling them what they need to be doing to keep

[54:49] teachers.

[54:51] It's just strange to me

[54:54] how we

[54:55] take on this responsibility of mentoring,

[55:00] when really it should be taken on by leadership. That's my opinion.

[55:03] Yeah.

[55:04] And I appreciate-

[55:04] The actual requirement is that new teachers be mentored for a

[55:08] period of two years, and that it be provided by the district.

[55:11] What this represents is a resource that you can use.

[55:15] We don't make them use the toolbox, but we have it available to them if they'd like

[55:19] to. And based on the feedback we get, a lot of districts would like the

[55:23] extra resources to help them do a better job at it because they know

[55:26] retention, especially of early career teachers, is tied so

[55:30] closely to how they support them in the early years of their career.

[55:35] Okay.

[55:36] Any other questions?

[55:38] Mrs. Casey.

[55:38] Thank you.

[55:40] Dr. Kantnik and Bobby, thank you so much for the update.

[55:43] Do you

[55:45] ever go out and assess the mentoring programs that are

[55:49] in place, and look for best practices across the different districts, and

[55:53] have a method for districts to come together to share best

[55:57] practices?

[56:00] So I do actually travel the state as my role, when

[56:04] I look at programs for Missouri Teacher Development System.

[56:07] So I do have a chance to talk to administrators and teachers.

[56:10] And so while it's not an evaluative process of their programs, I

[56:14] do talk to people in all the regions, and I bring that information back.

[56:18] And then we also had other individuals from stakeholders around the state involved

[56:21] in the work group that worked on this mentoring program, mentoring standards.

[56:25] But I do not do an assessment of that, no.

[56:28] And do we have,

[56:31] specifically an ability to tie data back

[56:35] to the mentors and their... And maybe that is a point you covered

[56:39] earlier in the data on the success of the mentoring

[56:43] programs and their likelihood of staying longer and

[56:46] their effectiveness in the classroom, tying it back to

[56:50] that cohort of then academic outcomes.

[56:54] Yeah. That's the retention data that we shared with you previously.

[56:57] Okay. Yeah.

[56:57] So we're able to follow cohorts of new teachers. Dr.

[57:01] Lewis a couple of years ago updated the Beginning Teacher Assistance Program

[57:04] standards. And about that time, we saw an uptick in

[57:08] retention rates. So we think we can attribute some of that

[57:12] to us doing a better job of supporting new teachers, which happens through the

[57:16] Beginning Teacher Assistance Program and through these standards that were-

[57:19] But it's not directly tied by knowing they followed

[57:23] this methodology and therefore these are the outcomes as opposed to other

[57:27] methodologies in their mentoring.

[57:29] Right. And I think that's respecting what President Brooks-Miller was

[57:33] saying about, it is a district obligation to be sure they're

[57:36] mentored. And so we try to provide aggregate data that says how are we

[57:40] collectively doing in this area.

[57:43] And one final point, just maybe a recommendation that to have

[57:48] an annual call or not

[57:51] necessarily at our annual conference, but where everybody could participate.

[57:55] At the conference, you have to pick and choose what you're going to

[57:59] participate in. But some method where schools can come

[58:02] together through

[58:04] a facilitation by the department to

[58:08] understand each other's mentoring programs, share best practices, et cetera.

[58:11] In some ways that's kind of happening.

[58:13] The Beginning Teacher Assistance Program happens simultaneous to mentoring,

[58:17] and Dr. Lewis has trainings that happen all across the

[58:21] state for those very same teachers, and that's where she gets the feedback on how

[58:25] mentoring is happening.

[58:26] Oh.

[58:26] We do have a program through MTDS that is for mentors.

[58:29] It's the Foundations of Mentoring.

[58:31] And so they come from around the state and can participate in those programs in

[58:34] their regions, and have a chance to talk to other teachers that are mentors, and

[58:39] develop those skills.

[58:40] Good. Thank you, Dr. Lewis and Dr. Kantnik.

[58:43] Thank you.

[58:44] Any other questions?

[58:45] I have a question, Dr. Lewis and Dr. Kantnik.

[58:48] Will the mentors themselves be required to have a mentor?

[58:54] No, that's not a requirement.

[58:55] Okay.

[58:55] Yeah. It's highly recommended through the standards that they get training,

[59:00] and that's where part of what Dr. Lewis offers is

[59:04] there's a resource for them.

[59:05] Okay. Thank you.

[59:08] Mr. Otto.

[59:09] Yeah, I have a question. Sorry, it's not really on topic, but there's a slide in

[59:13] here about the retention for first year

[59:16] teachers. It shows the line-

[59:19] Yes. Mm-hmm

[59:19] ... and everything. So, it's kind of making me have other questions that aren't

[59:23] really related to the mentor-mentee program, but,

[59:27] I think some information like this or graphics like this on just overall teacher

[59:31] retention and historically would be helpful for

[59:35] us to know. And like I said, this is off topic, but maybe for the future-

[59:38] Yeah

[59:38] ... if we could-

[59:40] We-

[59:41] Yeah, there's an annual recruitment and retention report that gets sent to the

[59:44] general assembly. It gets sent to you first, and includes

[59:48] data just like this, plus additional workforce data, which I think is what you're

[59:52] getting at.

[59:53] We've done, I think, a pretty good job of tracking workforce data over the

[59:57] last several years, and so that's why you're able to see six years of data

[1:00:00] here, because we think the historic trends are really important to watch.

[1:00:04] And so there's a whole report

[1:00:06] that's done each year for you.

[1:00:08] What time of the year?

[1:00:10] December. It's due to the general assembly by the 15th of December.

[1:00:13] So it gets presented to us in the fall.

[1:00:15] Yeah. We provide it to you, and then we send it to them.

[1:00:18] Okay. All right. So we can expect to see that in the-

[1:00:21] And I'm happy to send you last year's if you'd like to see last year's report.

[1:00:24] That'd be helpful. Yeah.

[1:00:25] Okay.

[1:00:25] Thank you.

[1:00:27] Other questions?

[1:00:29] We do have a motion and a second.

[1:00:32] I'll call for the vote. All those in favor of approving?

[1:00:36] Aye.

[1:00:36] Any opposed?

[1:00:39] Hearing none,

[1:00:41] rule passes.

[1:00:42] Thank you.

[1:00:43] Thank you.

[1:00:45] Thanks.

[1:00:54] Paul, it's pretty much your show today, huh?

[1:00:56] Mm-hmm.

[1:00:57] He's taken over.

[1:00:58] Yeah. Anybody need a Tylenol real quick before we go on?

[1:01:02] Okay. I'm now joined by Dr. Daryl Fridley.

[1:01:04] He's the coordinator of educator preparation.

[1:01:07] He manages the approval process for educator preparation programs across the

[1:01:10] state. The approval of these programs is contingent on the

[1:01:14] graduates meeting the certification requirements that are set by you as a board.

[1:01:18] The degree program itself, and the learning content and classes for that degree

[1:01:22] program, are under the authority of the university as they work to

[1:01:26] meet the standards set by the Department of Higher Education and Workforce

[1:01:30] Development. And I just pull that out to help you

[1:01:33] understand your authority as a board is over the requirements of the

[1:01:36] certification itself, not over an actual

[1:01:40] program.

[1:01:41] Being an approved program means that they are able to recommend candidates for

[1:01:45] certification because they have met your requirements that you have set as a board.

[1:01:49] In our office, the Office of Educator Quality, we work directly with educator

[1:01:53] preparation programs. We also issue certificates of licenses

[1:01:57] to teach through our certification system.

[1:01:59] We have, just for some numbers for you, we have about 80,000

[1:02:02] educators in the state. Many of them have multiple areas of certification,

[1:02:06] so our system manages about 600,000 active

[1:02:10] certificates. And then we also support practicing educators who are

[1:02:14] teachers and school leaders, much like the development of the mentor standards for

[1:02:17] new teachers you just heard about in the previous item.

[1:02:20] Thank you.

[1:02:22] One piece of educator quality is the preparation of new teachers.

[1:02:26] As a reminder, there are three main levels the board can use to influence the

[1:02:30] quality and numbers of educators completing educator

[1:02:33] preparation programs. Your first area kind of

[1:02:37] oversight is educator certification.

[1:02:40] You have the authority to alter requirements a candidate must meet to earn

[1:02:43] certification. Recent actions that have been taken by this board

[1:02:47] include a path to certification in middle and secondary computer

[1:02:51] science, also revisions to the requirements for certification of

[1:02:54] literacy specialists. And we'll be doing more of that

[1:02:58] today. The second area is program approval.

[1:03:01] The board decides which institutions and organizations are authorized

[1:03:05] to prepare teachers. And then your third area of oversight is

[1:03:09] annual program accreditation. You determine which of the approved

[1:03:13] educator preparation providers will be eligible to continue

[1:03:17] recommending candidates for certification in the coming year.

[1:03:21] Our recommendations today are related to the first area, educator

[1:03:25] certification. As we already talked about today, those requirements are approved

[1:03:29] by you as a board. Dr. Fridley now will explain the recommendations we are

[1:03:33] bringing to you today in detail.

[1:03:38] Good morning.

[1:03:39] All the recommendations we're bringing to you today are related to the

[1:03:43] process of becoming a teacher and making that process more

[1:03:47] transparent and understandable, and therefore, more

[1:03:50] navigable for individuals who want to become teachers.

[1:03:53] This is in line with the governor's great initiative on

[1:03:57] improving efficiency in government.

[1:04:00] So we want to make it easy to understand the process.

[1:04:05] The first two rules we are recommending for changes are connected to each other.

[1:04:10] I'll just make a note here. In our presentation, we'll refer to just the

[1:04:14] final number. You see the rule numbers are relatively long,

[1:04:19] but they're all in chapter 400, and so we'll just refer to

[1:04:22] 500. The first, Rule 500, is a rule that describes the basic

[1:04:26] requirements for all teacher certifications and all routes by which

[1:04:30] someone can achieve teacher certification.

[1:04:33] The second, 210, describes a path to teacher certification that

[1:04:37] is not included in 500, but should be.

[1:04:46] The general implication of Rule 500 is that it includes all

[1:04:50] routes to teacher certification, but does not

[1:04:54] currently meet that objective. It doesn't include routes that teachers may

[1:04:58] take with the American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence, or

[1:05:02] ABCTE,

[1:05:03] Teachers of Tomorrow, or via reciprocity with other

[1:05:07] states. To address that, the proposed Rule 500 adds

[1:05:11] ABCTE language

[1:05:13] from 210, adds new language referencing Teachers of Tomorrow,

[1:05:18] and adds a section explaining certification through reciprocity.

[1:05:23] It also clarifies some aspects of the process for adding

[1:05:26] additional certifications.

[1:05:28] Just a quick comment about reciprocity.

[1:05:31] Currently, Missouri has in statute that we accept licenses

[1:05:34] from any other state. We're really one of the few in the country that if you're

[1:05:38] licensed as an elementary teacher in Idaho, you

[1:05:42] get the equivalent comparable certificate in Missouri just by presenting your

[1:05:46] license from that state.

[1:05:48] What Dr. Fridley is describing here is that should be articulated in

[1:05:52] Rule 500, and it's not. And so one of the proposed changes is to get that

[1:05:56] language in there.

[1:06:01] The other main change to 500 is structural, and you'll

[1:06:05] note simply collecting all the requirements for certification into a single

[1:06:09] section instead of several. Again, just trying to make it

[1:06:13] more easy to understand. Having moved the language about

[1:06:17] ABCTE into Rule 500, the related proposal is to rescind Rule

[1:06:21] 210. So if you looked at that in a vacuum, you'd think we were getting rid of

[1:06:25] a particular route, but that's not the case. We're simply moving it.

[1:06:29] I'd also like to note one item that looks like a change, but isn't.

[1:06:32] The requirement for a 3.0 GPA in professional

[1:06:35] education has been removed from this rule.

[1:06:38] That's not a change, a removal to the

[1:06:41] requirements.

[1:06:44] It is in the appropriate rules for all the specific certification

[1:06:47] areas, as you'll see when we get to those rules.

[1:06:49] So it's still a requirement, it's just in its more appropriate place.

[1:06:53] Both of the main advisory groups for educator preparation and certification, the

[1:06:57] Missouri Advisory Board for Educator Preparation, and the Missouri

[1:07:01] Advisory Council of Certification for Educators, have voted

[1:07:05] to approve these two recommendations.

[1:07:09] So we are now on agenda item G.

[1:07:13] With the movement of ABCT out of 210, 210 is no longer

[1:07:17] necessary, and so our recommendation today is

[1:07:21] your authorization to rescind Rule 210.

[1:07:27] Okay, so we have a request.

[1:07:30] Do I hear a motion for the recension of that, is it 210?

[1:07:34] 210, correct.

[1:07:35] Rule 210.

[1:07:36] So moved.

[1:07:37] Second.

[1:07:38] Okay. Carrie Casey,

[1:07:40] Mike Watusik.

[1:07:42] Okay, John.

[1:07:44] In the motion, can

[1:07:46] we clarify that you're rescinding it, but moving it to section 500?

[1:07:50] Well, we will follow that up with H, which talks about-

[1:07:53] Oh, there's another one

[1:07:53] ... all the stuff we've added into 500.

[1:07:55] So that's why we're kind of doing them together with you.

[1:07:57] Got it.

[1:07:59] And to clarify or reconfirm, this is for publication

[1:08:03] in the Missouri Register, so this will come

[1:08:07] before us again-

[1:08:08] It will, yeah

[1:08:09] ... with the comments received and the final recommendation and vote for approval.

[1:08:12] Right. Once they publicize, it'll get 30 days of comment, and then Dr.

[1:08:15] Fridley and I'll be back in September.

[1:08:17] We'll let you know everything we heard about it, and then only then does it become

[1:08:21] official.

[1:08:24] Further questions on it?

[1:08:27] Okay, so

[1:08:28] did you make the motion, Mrs. Casey?

[1:08:32] And you seconded, John?

[1:08:33] I second.

[1:08:34] Okay, Mike.

[1:08:35] So all those in favor of the motion as presented?

[1:08:38] Aye.

[1:08:39] Any opposed?

[1:08:41] Hearing none, that passes.

[1:08:42] Thank you. And then we're on item H, and this one is Rule

[1:08:45] 500, and it now includes ABCTE. It includes Teachers of

[1:08:49] Tomorrow. It includes an explanation of

[1:08:52] reciprocity, and it's got some structural updates, and

[1:08:56] we're asking for your authorization to publicize for public comment of this one as

[1:09:00] well.

[1:09:02] So moved.

[1:09:03] Second.

[1:09:04] Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any further questions?

[1:09:09] Thank you for all the information.

[1:09:11] I know a lot of these are

[1:09:14] structural or updates, technical changes,

[1:09:18] consolidating sections, but if there is something in any of

[1:09:22] these that

[1:09:23] is sort of bigger than that or if there's opposing comments

[1:09:27] that, as part of your discussions with stakeholders, it would be helpful to hear

[1:09:31] that. I don't think there usually is.

[1:09:33] Like you said, usually when you bring stuff here,

[1:09:36] you've worked a lot of things out with stakeholders.

[1:09:40] Mm-hmm. We have. And the votes from MACI and MABE are

[1:09:44] important, because that's their chance to

[1:09:48] kind of direct your attention to that, and both were unanimous on these

[1:09:52] being good ideas.

[1:09:53] Thank you.

[1:09:56] Okay, any other questions?

[1:09:58] Excuse me. All those in favor say aye.

[1:10:00] Aye.

[1:10:01] Any opposed?

[1:10:03] Hearing none, that passes as well.

[1:10:04] Thank you.

[1:10:08] The next proposed rule change relates to certification to work with

[1:10:11] children for whom English is not their first language.

[1:10:14] This is an area of increasing need.

[1:10:16] The process of reviewing this rule began with requests from districts actually

[1:10:20] in need of these teachers.

[1:10:23] To accomplish this project, DESE pulled together a work group of educators from

[1:10:26] around the state, and we'd like to right now publicly thank those people for

[1:10:30] their work.

[1:10:33] So you see we have both K12, DESE, higher ed.

[1:10:42] The major revisions recommended by the work group include,

[1:10:46] first, adding a recommendation from an educator preparation provider

[1:10:50] as a requirement for certification.

[1:10:52] Currently, this area is one of the only areas of

[1:10:56] certification in which this is not a requirement.

[1:10:59] This addition will increase accountability and ensure a greater level of quality

[1:11:02] control.

[1:11:04] Next, changing the name of the certification from English Language Learners

[1:11:09] to a certification in English Language Development.

[1:11:14] This makes more sense, and the professionals on the work group

[1:11:18] inform me that that's in line with the language of the field.

[1:11:24] Next, removing some general requirements that are typically included in an

[1:11:27] initial certification. This is similar to previous revisions in other

[1:11:31] advanced areas recently. For example, gifted education

[1:11:35] a year or so ago.

[1:11:40] Revising the competencies to make them more clear and better aligned

[1:11:44] with the field. These more detailed competencies will more

[1:11:48] clearly communicate the state's expectations.

[1:11:50] If you compare those

[1:11:55] recommendations to what is current, you'll see that what is current is

[1:11:59] much more general, much less specific, and they thought it was

[1:12:03] important that they be very clear about what somebody should be able

[1:12:07] to do and know when they get out of a program.

[1:12:10] So is that the

[1:12:12] teacher or the student?

[1:12:14] These are the competencies for the teacher candidates-

[1:12:17] The teacher

[1:12:17] ... coming out who are going to get that certification.

[1:12:19] Thank you.

[1:12:22] And then it does

[1:12:25] reduce the content hours from 18 to 15, and the context is

[1:12:28] initially the group was asked to consider how this area of certification

[1:12:32] might be made available at the initial certification level.

[1:12:35] Currently, it's just an add-on. So you have to have a certification, and then

[1:12:39] you can add it on. After

[1:12:42] investigating that, they found that it was not possible at this time because

[1:12:46] of the difference in content hours.

[1:12:49] But the small reduction in required hours will make it more possible for teacher

[1:12:53] candidates to fit the coursework for this certification into their undergraduate

[1:12:57] experience. So it would not be initial, but it makes

[1:13:01] it easier for a program to integrate that if somebody

[1:13:05] had 15 hours available, had a space available.

[1:13:09] The work group believes that the reduction in hours, and these are people who

[1:13:13] are working with Working in the area, including

[1:13:16] training people, they believe that the reduction in hours will not

[1:13:20] adversely affect the quality of preparation, since the expectations for

[1:13:24] graduates have been made more explicit, and they think that the

[1:13:28] result

[1:13:32] will be more people who have gone through a program who have

[1:13:36] been prepared instead of

[1:13:39] the number of people right now we have who are just filling these positions without

[1:13:42] the training.

[1:13:44] In addition, the work group identified some complications with obtaining

[1:13:48] certification through reciprocity in this area. Dr.

[1:13:52] Kadnick mentioned reciprocity, and

[1:13:55] there are some challenges with that in this particular area as an add-on.

[1:13:59] While the work group was unable to resolve the issue, the Office of

[1:14:03] Educator Quality is working to address this.

[1:14:05] So, I want to point out that even when we can't figure out a way to address an

[1:14:09] issue immediately, we take the input

[1:14:13] from these professional work groups very seriously.

[1:14:16] And so we continue to work on that issue, and we will address it.

[1:14:20] Yeah. The issue with the reciprocity is that this particular certificate is called

[1:14:23] a lot of different things in other states.

[1:14:26] And what statute tells us is we can issue a comparable certificate, and

[1:14:30] so we're trying to match titles, and that's a little problematic

[1:14:34] when the titles don't match up, and then you have to try to get to the

[1:14:38] actual preparation coursework underneath it.

[1:14:40] It's just going to take a little more time for us to figure out a clean way to do

[1:14:43] that. So, we wanted to get these changes moved through now,

[1:14:48] and then we'll go back and try to figure that one out.

[1:14:50] So, we are now on agenda item I.

[1:14:55] So both advisory groups,

[1:14:57] Missouri Advisory Board of Educator Preparation, MABEP, and MAECI, the

[1:15:01] Council for Certification, voted to recommend approval.

[1:15:04] Based on that support, the valuable efforts of the workgroup, and the need for more

[1:15:08] teachers, we are recommending that you authorize publication and allow us

[1:15:12] to put this out for public comment.

[1:15:17] So moved.

[1:15:17] Do we have a motion? Okay. Pamela Westbrook Hodges made the

[1:15:21] motion. Is there-

[1:15:22] Second.

[1:15:22] Okay. Mike Matusik, a second. Are there any further questions on this?

[1:15:26] Mrs. Casey.

[1:15:28] Thank you.

[1:15:29] Could you clarify, if you could go back to the summary of the

[1:15:33] changes, the changing the name of the certification area

[1:15:37] from English Language Learners to Development.

[1:15:40] Is that affecting only the

[1:15:43] EPP program, or is that going to result in changes

[1:15:47] in the program that's actually

[1:15:50] administered in the schools?

[1:15:52] It just changes the title of the certification.

[1:15:56] So schools-- I'm not sure exactly what schools do, but there

[1:16:00] are people in schools on this committee who thought it was

[1:16:04] fine. But it would not automatically change anything in schools.

[1:16:09] It would just say, "This is the certification that the person has."

[1:16:13] And that seems to match nationally what's happening with the title of this

[1:16:17] particular area, and so we didn't want to be out of step with what

[1:16:21] was happening nationally in this area.

[1:16:23] Okay. Thank you.

[1:16:26] Do we have any further questions on this topic?

[1:16:30] Hearing none, all those in favor?

[1:16:33] Aye.

[1:16:34] Is there any opposed?

[1:16:36] Hearing none, the motion passes.

[1:16:38] Thank you. We're down to our set of the final three.

[1:16:45] We brought this last set of recommendations to you first in March, and we did

[1:16:49] a webinar

[1:16:51] to explain that for some. Since that time, we have discussed them with a

[1:16:54] variety of stakeholders, and we've made adjustments accordingly.

[1:17:01] If you'll recall, we mentioned to you in March, for those of you who are here,

[1:17:04] that requirements for certification in 599-12 and

[1:17:08] K-12 areas vary widely. You can see from this chart

[1:17:12] just how different some areas are.

[1:17:15] For example, agricultural education and physical education both

[1:17:19] require more than 50 hours of content.

[1:17:22] While areas like art, computer science, which was just recently approved

[1:17:26] by this board, and world languages, that includes Spanish,

[1:17:29] French, German, require only 30 hours.

[1:17:33] That's a difference of more than a semester's worth of courses.

[1:17:37] There is no clear justification for these differences overall.

[1:17:41] Instead, they are an unintended consequence of DESE's commitment

[1:17:45] to collaborating with practitioners.

[1:17:47] Historically, where groups of content experts were created to determine

[1:17:51] specific certification requirements.

[1:17:54] Those groups worked in relative isolation, however, focusing primarily on the

[1:17:58] content knowledge they thought a teacher would need to be

[1:18:02] aware of,

[1:18:04] and not the broader context in which the teacher is getting that

[1:18:08] training,

[1:18:10] like thinking about the total number of hours and the cost of

[1:18:14] college and those type of things.

[1:18:17] And so we ended up with this disconnected variety of

[1:18:21] requirements. You'll also notice that there are several areas with

[1:18:25] 24-hour requirements. We put those on here because they're a

[1:18:29] part of what we're talking about generally today, but those are the

[1:18:33] 59 or the middle school areas, and we included those just so you'd have

[1:18:37] context for these proposals.

[1:18:42] In addition to differences in content requirements, we also found differences

[1:18:47] in pedagogy requirements across different certification

[1:18:50] paths. For example, the temporary authorization

[1:18:54] certificate in the first column there only requires

[1:18:57] 24 hours focused on teaching skills and knowledge or

[1:19:01] pedagogy,

[1:19:03] while certification in 912 areas requires 36 hours.

[1:19:07] Again, we found no research-based justification for any of

[1:19:11] these wide variations.

[1:19:13] The current structure makes the path to becoming a teacher more confusing and at

[1:19:17] times longer to complete.

[1:19:19] Of course, more time in school has real financial costs, as you can see from the

[1:19:22] blue cells across the middle.

[1:19:25] These are the estimated costs just for the courses required in each

[1:19:29] category. They do not include the cost of an overall college

[1:19:33] degree. So when you look at, say, 9-12,

[1:19:37] those courses,

[1:19:39] those fit into a degree. The

[1:19:43] TAC, the TAC, and the alt cert are on top of a degree because

[1:19:47] you have to have a degree first to be in those programs.

[1:19:50] So we're talking about very real financial

[1:19:54] barriers to students moving forward and becoming

[1:19:58] well-prepared teachers.

[1:20:03] We chose to address these particular grade levels because the percentage of

[1:20:06] comprehensively prepared teachers is lower in these grades than in the

[1:20:10] overall first-year population. When we shared this

[1:20:14] chart in March, Ms. Westbrook-Hodge requested that these data

[1:20:18] be disaggregated further according to a measure of

[1:20:22] effectiveness.

[1:20:25] So in response, we divided first-year teachers into two

[1:20:29] groups, those who were hired in school districts whose most

[1:20:32] recent APR score was 80 or above, and those hired in

[1:20:36] districts with an annual performance report score below 80.

[1:20:41] This chart shows the distribution of first-year teachers in the higher-scoring

[1:20:45] school districts. You may note that the percentage of teachers comprehensively

[1:20:48] prepared by a Missouri educator preparation provider is higher than the

[1:20:52] percentage in the overall chart we just showed

[1:20:57] in the previous slide. And the percentage of teachers with either no

[1:21:00] certification or only substitute teacher licenses is much lower

[1:21:04] also.

[1:21:05] So, for our new board members, our existing board members have

[1:21:09] seen this data a couple of times already.

[1:21:12] But we've taken a cohort of first-year teachers, and we've asked the question: How

[1:21:16] did they get to become a first-year teacher?

[1:21:18] And the dark green went through a traditionally prepared

[1:21:21] program. Those are the ones with higher effectiveness, higher

[1:21:25] retention rates. That's the desired route.

[1:21:28] Then there are folks who come through either from a different state through that

[1:21:32] reciprocity we've talked about, or they're coming through an alternative area,

[1:21:36] which eventually they'll join the people in the green, but they're not

[1:21:39] done yet. But they're already in front of a classroom of teachers, teaching while

[1:21:43] they're finishing.

[1:21:45] The yellow are two legislatively mandated

[1:21:49] routes. That's ABCTE and Teachers of Tomorrow.

[1:21:53] And then we have teachers who are only on a sub cert or don't have any

[1:21:57] area certification who are also teaching students.

[1:22:00] And this is what that cohort looks like when the school district's

[1:22:03] APR is 80 or above, meaning they're a higher-performing school

[1:22:07] district. Dr. Fridley will show you next what happens when we look at the school

[1:22:11] districts below 80, so it's a lower-performing school

[1:22:15] district.

[1:22:16] And I would also mention, if somebody might ask, "Well, why do we care about this?"

[1:22:19] We do have

[1:22:21] data, for example, that those who finish a comprehensive program

[1:22:25] have a higher retention by 15 to 20 points over

[1:22:30] many of the others. As you can imagine, people who come in with just a

[1:22:33] substitute certification are not as likely to stay.

[1:22:37] So in terms of the mentoring that Dr.

[1:22:39] Lewis was talking about, you're starting over again each year

[1:22:43] instead of that consistent mentoring over multiple years.

[1:22:48] And that little light green slot there is worth noting.

[1:22:52] Those are people who are provisionally--

[1:22:55] they're nearly completed. They're on a provisional because they're close to being

[1:22:59] done.

[1:23:00] We refer to those often as student teachers of record.

[1:23:04] Those are student teachers who are not having the

[1:23:08] full student teacher experience.

[1:23:10] They are the teachers of record while they're doing that final internship.

[1:23:15] And last semester, in the fall semester of this year, about a

[1:23:19] quarter of our student teachers in the state were functioning

[1:23:22] as teachers of record. So that changes things.

[1:23:25] The other thing that I would note about the dark green, the comprehensively

[1:23:29] prepared, that's the area in which this board and this

[1:23:32] department has the most oversight.

[1:23:35] When we talk about the changes that we're going to suggest here,

[1:23:38] they affect the dark green the most.

[1:23:41] If we're going to

[1:23:43] affect somebody's preparation before they go into teaching, that's where

[1:23:47] we can have that

[1:23:49] influence. So we care about that because we can improve

[1:23:53] things in that area much more than we can, say, out of state or even the

[1:23:57] alt cert, where they're going to have the experience, but they're not going to get

[1:24:00] it before they start teaching.

[1:24:02] Mm-hmm.

[1:24:05] So this chart shows the same distribution in school districts scoring below 80

[1:24:09] on the most recent annual performance report.

[1:24:12] The percentage of teachers comprehensively prepared by Missouri educator

[1:24:15] preparation providers is more than 15 percentage points lower

[1:24:19] than in the previous group, and the percentage of teachers with no certification

[1:24:23] or only a substitute license is more than 15 percentages higher,

[1:24:27] percentage points higher.

[1:24:29] Assuming these districts hire this large number of unprepared first-year

[1:24:33] teachers, at least in part because they are having difficulty finding

[1:24:37] qualified teachers, increasing the number of comprehensively prepared

[1:24:41] teachers will benefit these school districts most.

[1:24:44] The following proposals are intended to do just that.

[1:24:51] It's within this context just described that the department is proposing these

[1:24:55] changes to all certification areas for grades five through nine,

[1:25:00] nine through 12. So the five through nine would be typically middle school, nine

[1:25:04] through 12 high school, secondary.

[1:25:06] And K through 12, which are areas that cover the entire

[1:25:10] gamut, like art and music.

[1:25:13] So one thing it would do is it would set required pedagogical knowledge for all

[1:25:17] three areas to 24 hours. This would bring these areas in line

[1:25:20] with the 24 hours already approved by this board for the

[1:25:24] temporary authorization certificate.

[1:25:27] Certification. Within those 24 hours, they would remain or require

[1:25:33] three hours dedicated to literacy instruction.

[1:25:36] This is the number of hours already approved for K-12 certifications

[1:25:40] and is more than is currently required for a temporary authorization certificate.

[1:25:45] Recent changes have made literacy requirements more explicit in these areas,

[1:25:49] and we will revisit those in the near future to make sure that

[1:25:52] teachers are well prepared to support reading development in older

[1:25:55] children.

[1:26:02] In terms of content knowledge, these changes would

[1:26:07] move the

[1:26:08] requirement for 5-9 to 21

[1:26:12] hours, and the minimum requirement

[1:26:16] for 9-12 and K-12 to 30 hours.

[1:26:19] Those must be aligned with the Missouri

[1:26:23] Learning Standards and the certification test framework.

[1:26:31] While this change will result in a significant reduction in hours in some areas, 10

[1:26:35] of the 24 9 through 12 and K-12 areas

[1:26:39] already have requirements within three hours of the proposed

[1:26:43] rules of 30, and those are indicated by the green bars.

[1:26:46] So, you can see that while it'd be a big change for some areas,

[1:26:50] on the whole, it's not

[1:26:54] a major change. It should also be noted that

[1:26:57] institutional

[1:27:01] programs are free to require more hours.

[1:27:04] This is just setting a state minimum that

[1:27:07] institutions

[1:27:09] cannot go lower than. And again, we've already approved several

[1:27:13] programs at 30.

[1:27:18] So, when I first started visiting with you this morning, I talked about that

[1:27:22] preparation phase that happens even before we get to a day like

[1:27:26] today, where we're sitting in front of you, and I mentioned that sometimes it could

[1:27:29] be two years of work that happens before we even show up

[1:27:33] here. This is an area where we've spent that much time, because

[1:27:37] it's a bit of a significant shift, and we wanted to make sure we talked to

[1:27:40] everybody. The tension we're trying to get right is to make

[1:27:44] it easier to understand to be a teacher, and to make sure

[1:27:48] that they have what they need to be successful, but not too

[1:27:52] much. And if we can't defend some areas having

[1:27:56] 50 hours while others have 30, then we have to really take a look at that, and

[1:28:00] that's what we've been exploring for two years.

[1:28:02] That's the big number of groups that we've been talking to,

[1:28:06] checking this out. We've visited with these different content areas.

[1:28:10] We've run numbers of what we think the benefit will be to the state, and some of

[1:28:13] those benefits are immediate. For example, if there are PE

[1:28:17] candidates out there that have 30 hours today and are still

[1:28:21] needing to take 20 hours to be a PE teacher, with this

[1:28:25] change, they could immediately be eligible to be a teacher.

[1:28:27] So, it's going to get us more teachers in the classrooms.

[1:28:30] And not only more teachers, but more comprehensively prepared teachers, which

[1:28:34] is that dark green, which are our best candidates for being

[1:28:38] effective teachers and best retention rates.

[1:28:41] And that's what we're trying to accomplish here.

[1:28:43] We took this, as we always do, before both advisory groups, our MABEP group

[1:28:47] and our MACE group, which you've heard about all morning.

[1:28:50] And both of them have voted to approve this revision.

[1:28:53] And based on that support, the need for more teachers in

[1:28:57] these areas, we are recommending your support on this.

[1:29:01] So, we'll start with item J. This is for our 5-9 middle

[1:29:05] schoolers. We're asking for your authority to publicize

[1:29:09] this rule and get public comment that we'll bring back to you in September.

[1:29:15] So moved.

[1:29:16] Second.

[1:29:17] So, we have a motion and a second. Are there any other questions that come

[1:29:21] before us on this?

[1:29:25] No question. Just a comment. I know the rule-making processes

[1:29:29] can take many, many months or years in this case, and

[1:29:34] we're sort of getting through all of this in 45 minutes or something.

[1:29:37] But I do appreciate the way you guys present the information, hit the high

[1:29:41] points. I like the visuals personally.

[1:29:44] It makes it easier for me to understand.

[1:29:46] But I know it takes a lot of work to get to this point and still a lot of work to

[1:29:50] be done after. So, just wanted to say thank you

[1:29:52] for both being comprehensive in your

[1:29:56] explanation

[1:29:57] and making it

[1:29:59] relatively quick, right? So we're not here for six... But thank you.

[1:30:02] I think you guys do great.

[1:30:04] Thank you.

[1:30:05] President Miller.

[1:30:06] Yeah.

[1:30:06] I do have one comment.

[1:30:08] Please proceed.

[1:30:08] Thank you. And I echo that.

[1:30:11] I really do appreciate, it's difficult when we're reading

[1:30:15] the narrative, if you will, in our preparation, so to have this summary

[1:30:18] is very helpful.

[1:30:21] When you do come back, because this is for posting

[1:30:25] to go out into the register, and you'll be coming back for our

[1:30:29] final approval, this item as well.

[1:30:31] We anticipate September.

[1:30:33] Good. When you do come back, as this as with any

[1:30:36] other recommendation where appropriate, I would like you to present

[1:30:40] how

[1:30:42] you are going to be able to track the effectiveness of this

[1:30:46] change.

[1:30:48] And I realize that won't be instantaneous.

[1:30:50] It would take a period of time, but what would you do to better

[1:30:54] isolate academic outcomes

[1:30:57] associated to this change, or retention, or both?

[1:31:01] We can certainly do that.

[1:31:02] Thank you.

[1:31:05] Okay. Any other questions?

[1:31:10] All those in favor say aye.

[1:31:11] Aye.

[1:31:12] Any opposed?

[1:31:14] Hearing none, that motion passes.

[1:31:16] Thank you. Item K, this is now for 9-12, so these are our high school, 9

[1:31:20] through 12. Same actions to standardize the pedagogy and the content

[1:31:24] hours. We're asking for your authorization to publicize this rule.

[1:31:28] So moved.

[1:31:29] Second.

[1:31:30] We have a motion and a second. Are there any questions with regards to this?

[1:31:35] Hearing none. All those in favor say aye.

[1:31:38] Aye.

[1:31:39] Any opposed?

[1:31:41] Hearing none.

[1:31:43] Thank you. And item L, this is now for K12 education, and the exact

[1:31:47] same changes to this one.

[1:31:48] So moved.

[1:31:49] We have a motion.

[1:31:51] Second.

[1:31:51] And a second. Any questions on this?

[1:31:56] Okay, call for the vote.

[1:31:57] All those in favor, say aye.

[1:32:00] Aye.

[1:32:01] Any opposed, likewise?

[1:32:04] Okay.

[1:32:04] Thank you.

[1:32:05] Thank you.

[1:32:14] So now we're down to, let's see here,

[1:32:18] letter M.

[1:32:21] Ivy.

[1:32:22] L.

[1:32:22] Is it L?

[1:32:24] L.

[1:32:25] No.

[1:32:25] No. It's Ivy.

[1:32:26] Here.

[1:32:26] Yeah.

[1:32:29] President Miller?

[1:32:32] Would you introduce yourself?

[1:32:33] I will. I'm Lisa Ivy. I'm a program administrator at the Office of

[1:32:37] Childhood.

[1:32:43] Okay. Thank you.

[1:32:45] Okay. So good morning, and just thank you for this opportunity to follow up

[1:32:49] on this. So just to remind the board, this is a

[1:32:53] follow-up to the rule amendment that we presented back in

[1:32:57] March.

[1:32:58] So this has gone out for the 30-day comment, so we are

[1:33:02] back in front of you guys today to do the

[1:33:05] final order.

[1:33:09] Okay.

[1:33:11] Just a little bit of history about this to reiterate what we presented back in

[1:33:15] March. But the rule itself is remaining the same.

[1:33:18] However, we are requesting an amendment to the incorporated by reference

[1:33:22] material that is part of that rule.

[1:33:25] That incorporated by reference material is the Early Childhood

[1:33:29] Development Act Administrative Manual.

[1:33:35] That administrative manual is made up of

[1:33:38] 10 items that are required.

[1:33:42] We are requesting to amend three of those

[1:33:45] items. The first item that we are requesting is an

[1:33:49] amendment so that the parent educators are able to attend

[1:33:52] eligibility meetings with families that are connecting to the First

[1:33:56] Steps or to Early Childhood Special Education Services.

[1:34:00] This is an opportunity for the parent educators to provide support for

[1:34:04] that family when families are going through that eligibility

[1:34:08] process.

[1:34:11] And then within that same item, we are also asking to

[1:34:14] expand the language for mass screenings, developmental

[1:34:18] screenings, which encourages more screenings for all children under

[1:34:22] the age of kindergarten entry.

[1:34:28] In addition, we're asking to amend item

[1:34:32] five, which is the language around curriculum and

[1:34:35] training. So this is required by the Parents as Teachers

[1:34:39] National Center, and the National Center has gone through a name

[1:34:43] change with their curriculum, and we are requesting to update the language

[1:34:47] in our administrative manual to reflect that name change of the National Center.

[1:34:52] And last is item six.

[1:34:55] This item is around data-sharing agreements.

[1:34:58] So this is a practice that we've actually had in place for a couple of years

[1:35:02] now. But it has been outside of the scope of the

[1:35:05] administrative manual, so we want to update the administrative manual for some of

[1:35:09] those data-sharing agreements.

[1:35:14] So, as I had mentioned, this had gone out for public comment.

[1:35:18] We did not have any

[1:35:21] comments outside of our department.

[1:35:22] The department did make two internal comments.

[1:35:26] One of those was an error that was in the website link, to review

[1:35:30] the incorporated by reference material, so we did have the website link

[1:35:33] updated to reflect the current link.

[1:35:36] And then the second internal department comment is where we

[1:35:40] identified an additional clarification that was needed, and this was

[1:35:44] just to ensure some clear requirements and interpretation around personal

[1:35:47] visit and the documentation around that.

[1:35:55] So barring no questions,

[1:35:57] the department is recommending that the State Board of Education issue an order of

[1:36:01] rulemaking to amend the 5 CSR

[1:36:04] 25-100.330.

[1:36:11] We have a rec-

[1:36:11] So moved.

[1:36:12] Mike Matusik makes a motion. Second?

[1:36:15] Second.

[1:36:16] Otto, making the second. Any further questions on this subject?

[1:36:21] Thank you for the information. So again, just a general question.

[1:36:25] In the development of this,

[1:36:28] I know there were no comments obviously, but are

[1:36:32] these again just technical kind of updates,

[1:36:35] so no opposition from anybody that you're aware of?

[1:36:38] No. We did not receive any public comments.

[1:36:41] In the creation of this, or the revision of the administrative manual, there is a

[1:36:45] stakeholder group that composes of several of our parent

[1:36:49] educators, in addition to the Parents as Teachers National

[1:36:52] Center and the Missouri

[1:36:55] Parents as Teachers Association.

[1:36:57] So they were all involved in the revision of these documents.

[1:37:00] Thank you.

[1:37:01] Mm-hmm.

[1:37:03] Other questions?

[1:37:04] Just a comment on the Parents as Teachers.

[1:37:06] My mom excuse me,

[1:37:09] was a

[1:37:11] classroom teacher for 30 years, then 20 years as Parents as Teachers,

[1:37:15] and she passed away last week.

[1:37:19] But the number of families, I'm sorry, that came forward on

[1:37:23] those visits, and the difference it made,

[1:37:26] if you don't know about the Parents as Teachers program, it is

[1:37:30] something that's worth examining because it makes a real difference,

[1:37:33] especially in certain neighborhoods.

[1:37:35] And

[1:37:36] I got to hear those testimonies last week.

[1:37:40] I appreciate that. Thank you.

[1:37:41] Thank you, Robert. Appreciate that

[1:37:45] Any other comments, questions?

[1:37:49] Hearing none, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor, please say aye.

[1:37:52] Aye.

[1:37:53] Any opposition?

[1:37:56] And that is unanimous. Thank you for your work on that.

[1:37:58] Thank you.

[1:38:00] Okay. I think right now we're going to take a short break.

[1:38:03] And if you would, we'll go for 15 minutes.

[1:38:06] So if you'd come back at 10:20, we'd appreciate it.

[1:43:39] On behalf of

[1:43:43] the American Marketing Association, please accept this certificate commemorating

[1:43:45] your-

[1:52:54] On our agenda, we are down to

[1:52:59] letter N

[1:53:00] of 11, and so that's

[1:53:04] Dr. Sereno. And so,

[1:53:07] we welcome your group here. It seems like you brought the whole team, or most of

[1:53:11] the team, so look forward to your presentation.

[1:53:13] Thank you, President Miller. Again, my name is Lisa Sereno.

[1:53:17] I'm Assistant Commissioner in the Office of Quality Schools.

[1:53:20] And, with me today is Shaneka Williams, who is our Director of

[1:53:24] Charter Schools.

[1:53:26] We're here to review applications for renewal

[1:53:30] of charters for two schools, and we're going to

[1:53:34] begin with Hope Leadership Academy.

[1:53:37] It's located in Kansas City, and it is sponsored by St.

[1:53:41] Louis University. And so I'd like to introduce the folks from

[1:53:46] SLU who are with us here today. Alexandra Boyd

[1:53:49] is Assistant Dean of School and Community Partnership.

[1:53:54] Benton Brown is Assistant Dean of Teacher Education.

[1:53:58] And Casey Shahid

[1:54:02] focuses on leadership in the college.

[1:54:05] Have I got you all correct, doctors?

[1:54:08] Yeah.

[1:54:08] All right.

[1:54:10] Before I turn the presentation over to Shaneka, and then

[1:54:13] ultimately to the sponsors, I just want to outline

[1:54:17] for you what you're going to hear in this presentation.

[1:54:22] Shaneka's going to give you just a brief reminder of how

[1:54:25] renewal fits in with the other charter tasks

[1:54:29] for the department and for you as a state board of education.

[1:54:34] She's going to talk about how DESE reviews the materials and

[1:54:38] looks at the sponsor's renewal decision-making process,

[1:54:43] and hit the high points of the statutory requirements

[1:54:47] for renewal considerations.

[1:54:50] She's also going to talk a little bit about our focus on the

[1:54:54] performance expectations in the contract between the

[1:54:58] charter school and the sponsor itself, and how

[1:55:02] we view that in terms of how it plays into the renewal

[1:55:05] decision.

[1:55:07] And then one other thing before I turn it over to these

[1:55:11] folks is that,

[1:55:13] just a reminder, renewals under statute are authorized

[1:55:17] by the sponsors. And in most cases,

[1:55:21] DESE will put these in the consent agenda and present them to

[1:55:25] you as a board for ratification.

[1:55:28] Once in a while, there will be something that

[1:55:32] calls our attention, and we will

[1:55:36] pull those out and actually want this board to

[1:55:40] discuss and review in a little bit more detail.

[1:55:43] And the situation for Hope Leadership Academy, we had

[1:55:47] concerns about the academic category in the performance

[1:55:51] contract and the student performance.

[1:55:54] And so,

[1:55:56] Shaneka did ask the sponsor to come and

[1:55:59] describe to you their decision-making process

[1:56:04] around this renewal

[1:56:06] And she's got, as I said, she has some things that she would like to review with

[1:56:10] you. So I'll turn it over to Shanika.

[1:56:12] All right. Thank you.

[1:56:15] So first, let's talk about authority.

[1:56:18] Now, the authority for charter schools is spread

[1:56:22] across multiple entities, from the legislation that

[1:56:26] make the laws and the State Board of Education that enforce those

[1:56:29] laws, and the charter sponsor that oversees and monitors

[1:56:33] the charter school, and the charter school board

[1:56:38] that governs the LEA.

[1:56:42] Today, we are going to focus on the State Board of Education's

[1:56:46] primary role related to sponsor activities.

[1:56:49] And as you can see up here, the State Board reviews and

[1:56:53] approves sponsorship applications,

[1:56:56] enforces regulations when it comes to sponsoring,

[1:57:01] evaluates sponsors every three years or

[1:57:05] for cause.

[1:57:07] SLU's next evaluation is going to be the school year

[1:57:10] '27, '28.

[1:57:14] You also review renewal applications and

[1:57:18] new charter school applications.

[1:57:21] The sponsor is responsible for having a policy and

[1:57:24] process for renewals and new applications,

[1:57:29] and approving those applications before they are sent to DESE,

[1:57:33] and ultimately, the State Board.

[1:57:37] Shall we pause for a question?

[1:57:40] Yes, ma'am. Yes.

[1:57:42] And I'll be brief.

[1:57:43] Mm-hmm.

[1:57:44] So can you clarify for this board,

[1:57:47] in particular, we have a lot of new members,

[1:57:50] precisely what the State Board is

[1:57:53] approving today?

[1:57:55] So, what

[1:57:57] we ask for at the end of each renewal, and you will see the

[1:58:00] language, is basically, we are recommending

[1:58:04] to you the sponsor's recommendation.

[1:58:08] So you are approving that we looked over that

[1:58:12] application, and we saw that there are no statutory

[1:58:15] discrepancies,

[1:58:21] thank you, and that everything checks out, and we're sending

[1:58:25] that to you to say, "Yes, you have met all the

[1:58:29] statutory requirements. We

[1:58:31] will

[1:58:36] send forth the sponsor's approval for this application."

[1:58:40] So basically, you're saying that they met all the statutory requirements

[1:58:44] for that.

[1:58:46] What you do do is when that sponsor is

[1:58:49] evaluated, we also evaluate all renewals that were

[1:58:53] in that timeframe. So we look at the renewals that might have

[1:58:57] seemed a little bit on the line or on the cuff, and we go

[1:59:01] through that process that that sponsor takes, and we evaluate that

[1:59:04] sponsor based on the renewal decisions that they have made.

[1:59:09] So today, the recommendation that we're

[1:59:12] presenting is the sponsor's

[1:59:17] authorization to renew for five years.

[1:59:20] And you will see when you look at the recommendation language and when we get to

[1:59:23] that,

[1:59:24] that language is a little bit different this time than

[1:59:28] is typical. Usually, the language is just we

[1:59:33] present the sponsor's recommendation for renewal for the five-year

[1:59:36] period,

[1:59:38] as outlined in its contract with the charter school.

[1:59:42] In this case,

[1:59:45] we are adding a contingency to that-

[1:59:48] Yes

[1:59:49] ... motion, which asks the sponsor to come back

[1:59:52] and

[1:59:54] renew its review

[1:59:56] and provide information to the department and the board after

[2:00:00] the '26, '27 school year.

[2:00:03] So, to keep it really clear and succinct, our yes

[2:00:07] vote today means what?

[2:00:09] Yes vote today means you authorize continuation

[2:00:13] of the charter school.

[2:00:15] And a no vote means?

[2:00:18] No vote would

[2:00:21] mean that you would not ratify the

[2:00:24] sponsor's renewal. State

[2:00:27] statute says that, and I'm

[2:00:30] paraphrasing-

[2:00:32] Mm-hmm

[2:00:32] ... if we need Megan to clarify, we can, or Shanika.

[2:00:35] Mm-hmm.

[2:00:36] The state statute says that if the sponsor

[2:00:39] authorizes the renewal, and the department

[2:00:43] and the board find that it's in statutory

[2:00:46] compliance, that the State Board shall approve the renewal.

[2:00:50] And it does say "shall." And so we get all the information and

[2:00:54] the data and the documentation from the sponsor.

[2:00:58] We review that, and using the data requested, and

[2:01:02] this is in Statute

[2:01:04] 160.405.9, using the

[2:01:08] data requested and the revised charter application under

[2:01:11] paragraphs A and B of that same statute, the State

[2:01:15] Board of Education shall determine if compliance with all

[2:01:19] standards

[2:01:21] were met in this subsection. The State Board of

[2:01:24] Education, at its regular scheduled meeting, shall vote

[2:01:28] on the revised charter application.

[2:01:34] Thank you.

[2:01:37] So that's where we are currently.

[2:01:40] We have reviewed these charter applications.

[2:01:43] We have also talked to the sponsors.

[2:01:46] So I'm going to talk a little bit about our process as

[2:01:48] well. As you can see, you have the profile for the

[2:01:52] school that is being renewed currently, Hope Leadership Academy.

[2:01:56] They are currently sponsored by St. Louis University.

[2:01:59] Their previous sponsor was the University of Central Missouri.

[2:02:02] So within this five-year contract, the University of Central Missouri

[2:02:06] was sponsoring the school for the first year, and St.

[2:02:10] Louis University took over that contract for the rest of the

[2:02:14] term

[2:02:15] Our process in the office of DESE is to get the application from the

[2:02:19] sponsor. We look through the application for

[2:02:22] compliance to statute, making sure that they have met all

[2:02:26] the

[2:02:27] regulations that they should meet as far as the renewal goes.

[2:02:31] After review, we go back to the sponsor and ask any lingering

[2:02:35] questions. Is there something that we saw that wasn't

[2:02:39] quite up to standard?

[2:02:41] Does the data look a little iffy? We will talk to the sponsor about

[2:02:45] that, and we will start to

[2:02:48] look for ways that they could either

[2:02:52] not go back, but go forward, looking at their

[2:02:55] contracts and looking at

[2:02:58] their performance goals and what that looks like moving forward.

[2:03:02] Because by the time the application gets to us, the sponsor has made

[2:03:06] their decision,

[2:03:08] and

[2:03:09] their decision to renew. If it's a decision not to renew, we wouldn't get

[2:03:13] an application.

[2:03:21] So here you will see enrollment for Hope Leadership Academy.

[2:03:24] It remained around 100 plus students for the last five

[2:03:28] years. Now, one of the questions that we talked about with the sponsor

[2:03:32] is that Hope has put in a request to

[2:03:36] increase enrollment next school year to 300.

[2:03:39] We will discuss that a little further on in the renewal,

[2:03:44] but the sponsor is also ready to discuss that as

[2:03:48] well.

[2:03:52] Here, you will see the demographics for the school.

[2:03:55] All this is the same in both renewals, so you will see this

[2:03:58] information. And again, this information is

[2:04:02] for informational purposes only.

[2:04:04] It is not necessarily something that the sponsor looks at when they're making

[2:04:08] their decision to renew.

[2:04:13] This is 90/90 attendance. Now, this is the

[2:04:17] school, Hope Leadership Academy,

[2:04:20] beside Missouri as a whole. This is not something that the

[2:04:24] sponsor would normally look at, but the sponsor does take into

[2:04:27] consideration the 90/90 attendance of its schools,

[2:04:31] and the sponsor has already talked about things that the school is currently

[2:04:35] working on to raise attendance. They're looking at

[2:04:39] a three-tier system that they're going to be working on, Hope is going to be

[2:04:43] working on. So the sponsor has discussed these changes with the school

[2:04:47] already.

[2:04:51] This is your assessment slide, and

[2:04:55] so it talks about the performance of Hope Leadership Academy,

[2:04:59] KCPS, and Missouri.

[2:05:01] Now, again, a lot of these things the sponsor does not look at when it comes

[2:05:06] to making a decision, or they may consider.

[2:05:09] But one of the things that the sponsor has to consider, and is in

[2:05:12] statute, is how the school stacks up to the local district,

[2:05:16] not the state. So that state part is just for your

[2:05:20] information, and this is performance data.

[2:05:26] You see the same in math as well.

[2:05:30] Can we pause there?

[2:05:31] Yep.

[2:05:31] Just one thing before you move on. I was trying to get this with attendance.

[2:05:35] Could you just very quickly explain what the 90/90 attendance rule is in case

[2:05:39] that's not clear? It's part of the accountability system.

[2:05:42] Sure.

[2:05:44] Just a sentence or two.

[2:05:45] It's

[2:05:46] a measure

[2:05:48] of--

[2:05:50] The goal is that

[2:05:53] 90% of our students are, 90% or more, are

[2:05:57] in school 90% or more of the time,

[2:06:02] attending school.

[2:06:03] Anything above 10% is

[2:06:07] considered chronic absenteeism.

[2:06:09] So that 90% benchmark is an

[2:06:13] important one.

[2:06:15] It is one of those things that is also reviewed with the

[2:06:18] APR score, so it's a part of that whole thing.

[2:06:23] So could I just follow up on-

[2:06:24] Mm-hmm

[2:06:24] ... that a little bit? So I was kind of impressed that

[2:06:29] academically, they seemed to be either equal to or

[2:06:33] above the local public school.

[2:06:36] But with a 90% being out of compliance

[2:06:39] there,

[2:06:41] I mean, I know that that's a chronic issue in public schools and charter

[2:06:45] schools probably as well. But

[2:06:48] what are they doing to bring those students up who are chronically

[2:06:52] absent?

[2:06:52] Well, that's a great question, and that's one of those questions that we talked to

[2:06:55] the sponsor about. So maybe Alexandra, can you talk about the

[2:06:59] three-tiered monitoring or

[2:07:03] three-tiered chronic absenteeism system that they're working on?

[2:07:07] Yeah. Thank you so much. Alexandra Boyd, St.

[2:07:10] Louis University. So the school

[2:07:14] is very much aware of the attendance

[2:07:17] concerns. The students are in pre-K

[2:07:21] five, and I will note that

[2:07:25] pre-K students, this was their first year having pre-K, and so getting that

[2:07:30] kind of

[2:07:32] routine in place

[2:07:34] did take a while. But they're going to essentially have a

[2:07:37] three-tiered assessment to do

[2:07:41] school-wide. Tier one is school-wide incentives for everybody, positive

[2:07:44] recognition, consistent communication with parents and things like that for

[2:07:48] attendance. Tier two is conferences with families who

[2:07:52] might be starting to get close to that

[2:07:55] 10%

[2:07:57] high absenteeism rate, and they will have those, and

[2:08:01] kind of improvement plans, and ways to support the family

[2:08:05] should there be barriers to them getting their children to school

[2:08:09] on time. And then tier three, they will use individualized

[2:08:13] support and intensive case management So they will use

[2:08:17] a little team to support acute needs in terms

[2:08:20] of supporting attendance across the school.

[2:08:24] They're going to conduct weekly reviews,

[2:08:28] and they're going to do same-day outreach phone calls

[2:08:32] with structured follow-up within 48 hours

[2:08:35] of students missing.

[2:08:38] And then they'll also have established grade-level attendance goals and monitor

[2:08:42] progress and celebrate success there.

[2:08:45] So those are their plans for improving attendance

[2:08:49] rates.

[2:08:49] And these are some of the things that we talk about during the renewal

[2:08:53] application process. So when we meet with the sponsor and we see

[2:08:57] these things, we go back and say, "So what is going on?

[2:09:00] What have you talked about with the school?

[2:09:01] What is changing

[2:09:04] that you see that makes you want to renew this school?" And the

[2:09:08] sponsor's going to talk a lot more about that later.

[2:09:10] And also,

[2:09:12] on these measures, how does a sponsor hold the school accountable for these

[2:09:16] things?

[2:09:16] Absolutely.

[2:09:17] Are they part of that performance contract?

[2:09:20] Thank you. I guess a question on attendance, and maybe it

[2:09:24] goes to the authority of a charter school, but if you have students

[2:09:28] who are

[2:09:30] at school less than 50% of the time,

[2:09:34] does the school have a

[2:09:37] mechanism to

[2:09:40] get rid of that student? I'm not saying get rid of

[2:09:44] the student, but what happens, right?

[2:09:46] If you have students attending a charter school and they're only showing up one or

[2:09:50] two days a week,

[2:09:52] and I think a lot of charter schools have some kind of lottery process to get

[2:09:56] into them,

[2:09:58] you probably have a long waiting list of students whose attendance might be better.

[2:10:02] How does that work?

[2:10:04] Yeah. That's a really great question.

[2:10:05] I just want to point out that this chart is saying that

[2:10:10] 56% of the students attend 90% of the time,

[2:10:14] not that they attend 50% of the time.

[2:10:17] And so

[2:10:20] I think it's the same for all public schools in the state, right?

[2:10:24] You have an attendance problem, you work to support the family to

[2:10:28] see what the problem is. If attendance persists, you could work with a

[2:10:32] truancy officer if that's the right way to go.

[2:10:35] And then if the

[2:10:39] family and the student don't come after...

[2:10:43] I get my states mixed up. I've been in a couple of states doing this work.

[2:10:47] I think it's 10 days. If they're gone for more than 10 consecutive days, you

[2:10:51] can un-enroll that student.

[2:10:54] That's for 10 consecutive days.

[2:10:55] Yeah, and that's for any

[2:10:57] school district.

[2:10:58] Thank you.

[2:10:59] President Miller.

[2:11:01] I've got a question.

[2:11:04] What percentage of these days would you say are a family

[2:11:07] vacation or a doctor's appointment or things of that nature that

[2:11:11] could be put into this data that would swing it one way or another?

[2:11:15] I don't have that

[2:11:19] level of data. What I would suspect, though, just from having my own

[2:11:23] child in elementary school, is that a majority of it

[2:11:27] is them being sick or because they're a

[2:11:31] small child, their parents might be sick and might not be able to make it.

[2:11:35] And I'm clearly biased. My son has asthma, so that's why he's

[2:11:39] out more than he should be.

[2:11:40] Oh, thank you for answering that. So

[2:11:43] what I'm hearing is there's no quantifiable data that

[2:11:47] you all have.

[2:11:48] The data exists-

[2:11:49] Okay

[2:11:49] ... I just don't have that level of detail in front of me right now.

[2:11:51] Got you. Okay.

[2:11:52] Yes.

[2:11:52] No, thank you.

[2:11:54] Mrs. Casey.

[2:11:55] Thank you, President Miller, and I'd like to address this both to

[2:11:59] the full board, but also our new commissioner.

[2:12:03] Attendance and chronic absenteeism is a critical concern, as has

[2:12:06] been noted by many here,

[2:12:09] not only across the state of Missouri, but across the nation.

[2:12:13] We've raised it in past meetings. We've heard from different

[2:12:16] schools on the three-tier plan on various

[2:12:20] mechanisms where they have been successful.

[2:12:24] Not necessarily, though, utilized in all schools, and maybe

[2:12:28] not all consistently successful.

[2:12:31] What I want to recommend, there is a

[2:12:34] lot of work being done, in particular by one

[2:12:38] organization called Attendance Works,

[2:12:41] and that we take this into either our retreat

[2:12:44] or a planned future discussion

[2:12:48] where we, one, delve into this issue with very good

[2:12:52] data from around the state on what's happening with chronic

[2:12:56] absenteeism across our districts, where programs are

[2:13:00] working, where they're not, why is the absenteeism occurring.

[2:13:04] Just do a thorough analysis, and we also then work and

[2:13:07] partner with Attendance Works to understand the work that's been done in the other

[2:13:11] states and the recommendations, and just really bring

[2:13:15] this issue to the forefront, not only for us as a board,

[2:13:19] but for our legislature.

[2:13:22] There are policy changes that I believe will be effective here,

[2:13:26] and also for our communities. It really

[2:13:29] bears us shining a spotlight on this throughout the

[2:13:33] state at the importance of this issue and what can be done to

[2:13:37] address it and ideally fix it.

[2:13:40] Okay. Any other comments? We kind of got off track-

[2:13:43] You're fine

[2:13:43] ... from your approval, but-

[2:13:44] I guess I would like to comment. So I just completed a white paper around chronic

[2:13:48] absenteeism. It's in draft format,

[2:13:51] and where we looked at some schools in the St.

[2:13:53] Louis area, but it forced us to also look at some of those organizations,

[2:13:58] Spark Well, Attendance Works, just to see what was happening, and

[2:14:02] you're absolutely correct. It is nationwide.

[2:14:04] And so we are hearing from

[2:14:07] students, we heard from district leaders.

[2:14:10] No matter if it was an affluent community or a not so

[2:14:14] affluent community, we saw some of the same trends.

[2:14:16] But I would love to, when you have your retreat, maybe we'll have time.

[2:14:19] Maybe our draft will be in final format. I can share that.

[2:14:23] And also, the SLU PRIME Center has current research around

[2:14:27] chronic absenteeism as well, and we can possibly get that to you so it could be a

[2:14:31] discussion point.

[2:14:32] Thank you.

[2:14:33] You're welcome.

[2:14:35] So on this slide, you will see

[2:14:39] renewal requirements. Like I said, the previous slides are

[2:14:43] really more informational than they are the requirements that the

[2:14:47] sponsor actually looks at when it comes to making these decisions.

[2:14:51] So this is what we review when the application comes to us,

[2:14:55] including the data that DESE provides to all public schools.

[2:14:59] So fiscal viability, academic record, and compliance.

[2:15:03] Now, where we saw an issue was the academic record, and this

[2:15:07] prompted us to, you'll see at the end when we come to our

[2:15:10] recommendation, make more of an adjustment to the recommendation,

[2:15:15] and talk to the sponsor about what this looks like moving forward.

[2:15:19] Because of course you can't change anything that has already been done, but what

[2:15:23] does this look like moving forward in the process that they see

[2:15:27] with Hope Leadership Academy?

[2:15:30] So part of that is looking at finance.

[2:15:32] Now you will see here that in the capital

[2:15:35] expenditures we see in school year '22 and '25,

[2:15:39] there wasn't

[2:15:41] anything there. And so,

[2:15:43] part of our talking to the sponsor, we talked about what could have happened there.

[2:15:47] And the school explains it could have been some equipment,

[2:15:50] technology, furniture, or other qualifying purchases were

[2:15:54] categorized under different expenditure codes.

[2:15:57] But fundraising efforts have been happening, and intentional investment have

[2:16:01] increased the per pupil expenditures.

[2:16:04] So you'll see that there as well.

[2:16:09] And of course, all schools need to have that 3% fund balance

[2:16:13] minimum, and as you can see, the school was above that for at

[2:16:17] least four out of the five years of this contract.

[2:16:21] Now this is where we get to the things that the sponsor looks at

[2:16:25] and meets with the school about. This is what is known as their

[2:16:29] annual report or annual review with the school.

[2:16:33] Every sponsor has one, but every sponsor does it a little

[2:16:37] differently. Now there are baseline things that they look at in these

[2:16:40] performance goals, including the things listed here.

[2:16:44] You will see Mets or Not Mets or Partially Mets.

[2:16:48] This is the way that we simplify some of the performance

[2:16:52] information that the sponsors provide for us, but each

[2:16:56] sponsor tweaks theirs a little bit differently.

[2:16:59] So we're going to talk about those Partially Mets and Not Met.

[2:17:02] And Shanika, you might go back for just a minute.

[2:17:05] Mm-hmm.

[2:17:05] So it is true, correct, that each of those

[2:17:08] categories, academics, financial management, down through

[2:17:11] operations, we see those evaluated by every sponsor-

[2:17:15] Every sponsor

[2:17:16] ... every time.

[2:17:16] Mm-hmm.

[2:17:16] Thank you.

[2:17:17] Correct. We see these things every time.

[2:17:20] Now,

[2:17:21] the way that they look at how they're going to

[2:17:25] monitor those things may be different with each sponsor.

[2:17:28] So it might not be as simplified as I'm making it here, but

[2:17:32] this is why we added the slide to talk a little bit more about the

[2:17:35] Partially Mets and Not Mets, so you can understand what the sponsor was looking

[2:17:39] at.

[2:17:46] So you can see that

[2:17:48] Hope Leadership Academy, again, didn't meet all of

[2:17:52] their academic

[2:17:54] performance goals. And so the

[2:17:58] sponsor has looked at this issue, has talked to the school

[2:18:02] about it, has made some changes when it comes to their performance

[2:18:05] contract and the measurements that they're going to look at, and also the

[2:18:08] consequences that will happen if they're not meeting their performance

[2:18:12] goals. So the sponsor's going to talk a lot more about that, a lot more

[2:18:16] than I can.

[2:18:21] Then we also look at the new performance contract.

[2:18:24] So how does this stack up to what was the

[2:18:28] current performance contract? And you will see the way SLU sets

[2:18:32] theirs up, they actually have three

[2:18:35] sections. So they have a standard, the measurements and evidence that they're going

[2:18:39] to look at for that standard, and then they also have what

[2:18:42] will happen if they do not make these

[2:18:45] outcomes. What do we plan on doing if the school

[2:18:49] themself do not make these outcomes?

[2:18:51] And again, the sponsor's going to talk a lot more about that.

[2:18:54] But these are some of the things that you will see in all sponsors' performance

[2:18:58] goals. When we talk about achievement goals, looking at MAP, you

[2:19:02] talk about growth, and you look at curriculum.

[2:19:05] A lot of sponsors look at these things.

[2:19:06] They just may look at them in a different way.

[2:19:15] So now here's our recommendation, and Lisa Sereno talked a little bit about

[2:19:21] this at the beginning. And this is where the

[2:19:24] department presents SLU's recommendation for the State

[2:19:28] Board of Education to authorize Hope Leadership Academy to

[2:19:32] continue operations pursuant to the charter's renewal

[2:19:36] granted by SLU.

[2:19:40] And what we would like to see is for SLU to come back

[2:19:44] and give us an updated report once they get the data from the

[2:19:47] '26, '27 school year, which we're currently in.

[2:19:52] Now, this is important because a lot of times we never get to see that fifth

[2:19:56] year of data in these contracts because the contracts end

[2:20:00] in June. So we look at only four years of data.

[2:20:04] But this, when SLU comes back, you will get to see that fifth year of data in that

[2:20:08] contract and how the school has performed.

[2:20:11] So they're going to come back and tell us all about that.

[2:20:14] Now, Alexandra

[2:20:18] Boyd and her team will take over from here to provide more

[2:20:22] specifics in the information that I gave, especially about the

[2:20:26] performance contracts and the reasons why they wanted to renew Hope

[2:20:30] Leadership Academy.

[2:20:36] Thank you, Shaneka and Lisa.

[2:20:41] While we were on break, you'll see we handed out some

[2:20:45] slides for you guys. Is it on here too?

[2:20:48] He's pausing it.

[2:20:50] Okay.

[2:20:50] Putting it up now.

[2:20:54] You should have a copy of our latest

[2:20:58] annual report for the Office of School and Community Partnerships.

[2:21:02] This highlights the work that we do in our charter authorizing

[2:21:06] office, and also with our schools.

[2:21:09] And then you also have printed out a slide deck,

[2:21:13] but it'll be on-screen too to follow along.

[2:21:15] And then there's also a letter of support in there from Black KC,

[2:21:20] which is a community-focused

[2:21:23] nonprofit in the Kansas City area.

[2:21:27] So those are the things you have.

[2:21:32] Before I get started, I just want to mention that our Dean,

[2:21:36] Gary Ritter, and then the Executive Director of SLU Prime,

[2:21:40] Colin Hitt, who usually attend these meetings with me, they

[2:21:45] send their regrets, but they are at a national convening to talk about

[2:21:49] growth measures. And so

[2:21:53] I got to get the Avengers on my team this time with Dr.

[2:21:56] Brown and Dr. Shaheed. So thank you guys for joining us.

[2:22:00] So I'll walk you through why SLU is renewing HLA, Hope Leadership

[2:22:04] Academy. It's a great question, and I'm looking forward to answering it.

[2:22:09] I want to talk to you a little bit first about the Office for School and Community

[2:22:13] Partnerships and our commitment and our strategic support for the

[2:22:16] schools in our portfolio.

[2:22:19] Talk about Hope's positive response to accountability so far,

[2:22:23] their growing community engagement and investments.

[2:22:27] Talk about the way they are exceeding growth expectations,

[2:22:31] and also talk about the relative opportunities for

[2:22:35] students if Hope Leadership Academy didn't exist, where they would likely

[2:22:39] attend, and then conclude with our high-stakes,

[2:22:43] high-priority contract goals. There are many of them.

[2:22:46] I pulled a few out for our discussion

[2:22:50] today.

[2:22:51] So first of all,

[2:22:54] our commitment is to build intentional

[2:22:58] partnerships that increase high-quality Pre-K 12 seats.

[2:23:02] We like to sponsor schools that are innovative and schools that

[2:23:06] serve students who are traditionally

[2:23:09] marginalized, and we would love if we could do both in one

[2:23:13] school.

[2:23:16] The strategic supports we offer are we work with

[2:23:19] our high-quality schools, we work with them on expansion and

[2:23:22] replication. As you all know, we were here a couple of months

[2:23:26] ago asking to expand Frontier into Columbia,

[2:23:31] and that's an example of a replication for us.

[2:23:35] Then we also work around either turnaround or closure.

[2:23:38] So if there's a school that's not quite as high quality as we would like it to be,

[2:23:42] we will work with that school to see if we need to move towards turnaround, if

[2:23:46] there are assets there, or if things are too far

[2:23:50] gone and we need to move to closure.

[2:23:53] We also support with professional development.

[2:23:56] Plugging right now on July 22nd through 24th, we're

[2:24:00] having a Summer Learning Institute at St.

[2:24:03] Louis University hosted by my office that's free to anybody

[2:24:07] who wants to come. So you guys are welcome to join us.

[2:24:11] We also host for our portfolio

[2:24:15] schools,

[2:24:16] a connection point called Roots and Reach. And Dr.

[2:24:19] Shaheed, would you tell us a little bit about Roots and Reach?

[2:24:22] Sure. It's a quarterly convening with our executive directors and school

[2:24:26] leaders so that we can meet around sharing best

[2:24:29] practices as it relates to MSIP 6. So our last meeting was

[2:24:33] around board governance, and what it looks like is almost like a

[2:24:38] fireside chat where our executive directors are talking about their school.

[2:24:42] So whether it's the executive director of Frontier or Academy Lafayette,

[2:24:46] where Hope and our other schools in our portfolio can ask those intimate questions

[2:24:50] and really learn side by side. And so we believe

[2:24:53] excellence is about sharing and collaboration.

[2:24:56] So that's the purpose of the Roots and Reach convening.

[2:24:59] Thank you, Dr. Shaheed. And we're looking into expanding that down

[2:25:03] to the middle management roles as well.

[2:25:05] So past the executive directors to the instructional coaches, the

[2:25:09] special ed directors, things of that nature.

[2:25:12] Then we also have the GAINS cohort, which is running

[2:25:16] in collaboration with SLU Prime and School Smart Kansas City

[2:25:20] and the Community Foundation in St. Louis.

[2:25:24] What we're doing there is we have found schools that are extremely

[2:25:27] high growth, and most of them with high direct certification numbers or high

[2:25:31] free and reduced lunch numbers to figure out what it is that they're doing

[2:25:35] to get that high growth and see if it's something that can be replicated in other

[2:25:39] parts of the state.

[2:25:42] And then, of course, our charter portfolio schools will be

[2:25:46] one of the first audiences for that report when it comes out.

[2:25:50] And then Dr. Brown, could you talk about our support for

[2:25:54] teacher certification?

[2:25:55] Absolutely.

[2:25:57] So one of the things at SLU that we believe strongly in is

[2:26:01] supporting diverse teacher

[2:26:04] certification pathways.

[2:26:06] You may have heard that we recently expanded to an online program

[2:26:10] that supports both St. Louis and Kansas City and the entire state,

[2:26:14] with a two-year program that allows paraprofessionals in schools

[2:26:18] to be certified to move towards a full bachelor's degree

[2:26:22] to become certified to teach in schools that they're already currently

[2:26:26] working in. And we continue to look at ways

[2:26:30] to support not just creating great teachers,

[2:26:34] and leaders in our schools, but supporting the community

[2:26:38] itself, through Dr. Boyd's office, and the

[2:26:42] work that we do across the state

[2:26:45] We also offer various educational leader trainings and

[2:26:48] credentials, from principalship all the way up to

[2:26:51] superintendents.

[2:26:53] And last, it's been mentioned several times, our Prime Center Policy Research

[2:26:57] Center in Missouri Education. I was very happy to hear the question

[2:27:00] about attendance, because our Prime Center has been doing some work-

[2:27:04] Mm

[2:27:04] ... and continues to do some work on really getting into the data of what's

[2:27:08] causing this, because it's something that is plaguing not only our state,

[2:27:12] but our nation. And so, it's great for us to be able to

[2:27:16] rely on high quality research coming out of the

[2:27:20] Prime Center, not only to inform our decisions when it comes

[2:27:23] to charter authorization, but also some of the wider questions

[2:27:27] that we have existing in education.

[2:27:31] The last thing I'll say is in teacher certification, it really excites me as

[2:27:35] someone who works in teacher ed to be able to partner directly with

[2:27:38] schools so that some of our new teachers coming out of colleges of

[2:27:42] education can be a part of the various schools that we support,

[2:27:46] whether that be traditional public schools, charter schools, private schools,

[2:27:50] things like that, so that they can see the rich diversity in what exists in

[2:27:54] education in Missouri. And this is one way that we can help,

[2:27:58] as an institution, feed great teachers into classrooms like at Hope

[2:28:02] Leadership Academy. We truly believe that that's a pathway

[2:28:06] that exists, and that we hope to be able to capitalize on.

[2:28:09] And thank you so much. And I just wanted you to know all of the

[2:28:13] things that we do to support our schools as we walk through this data and talk

[2:28:16] about Hope Leadership Academy in particular.

[2:28:19] You'll see when they joined our portfolio, we worked to support leadership at

[2:28:24] Hope to improve on logistics and

[2:28:27] structure, and operational practices.

[2:28:30] So they quickly changed from partially met to met on several standards.

[2:28:34] I also want to note that over the general trajectory,

[2:28:38] academic achievement has improved.

[2:28:41] Not as quickly as we would like, but it is heading in the right

[2:28:44] direction. So even though it says partially met across, just know that's partially

[2:28:48] met with some improvements happening in those sections.

[2:28:52] I want to highlight here that Hope Leadership Academy has done a great job in

[2:28:56] working with the community and working to provide a school that the

[2:28:59] community wants.

[2:29:01] Most recently, they've received half a million dollar funding for

[2:29:05] expansion, to have a larger building, enroll more students,

[2:29:10] and better support those students.

[2:29:12] From that investment, they'll be able to add an additional instructional coach

[2:29:16] in math. They had an instructional coach last year that really focused

[2:29:20] on ELA, and so now they'll add an instructional coach on math

[2:29:24] with those added funds.

[2:29:28] And then want to talk to you about Hope exceeding growth

[2:29:31] expectations. So here you can see Missouri's

[2:29:35] distribution of growth scores

[2:29:39] across the state. The average using the prime growth score is an

[2:29:43] 85. You'll see in ELA, Hope Leadership Academy got

[2:29:47] a 94.2. That means that they're

[2:29:50] performing in growth better than about

[2:29:54] 96% of other elementary students.

[2:29:56] So there are about 1,000 schools in that group, and they're

[2:30:00] 38th out of 1,000 in terms of ELA growth.

[2:30:03] For math, they're 220 out of 1,000 for ELA

[2:30:07] growth, which means they're doing

[2:30:09] better than about 78% of other elementary schools in math.

[2:30:13] And what that essentially means is that they're doing a really good job of

[2:30:16] helping to catch up students,

[2:30:19] taking them where they are, and growing them more than what is expected over the

[2:30:22] year.

[2:30:25] Here you can see about the proficiency.

[2:30:28] We're going to talk about that too, and then the other schools that are in the

[2:30:31] neighborhood,

[2:30:33] where HLA is. So you'll see

[2:30:37] I have HLA is at the top because it has a

[2:30:41] 94 in the ELA growth score. The proficiency

[2:30:45] rate is only 11%, but I want to tell you why we're focusing on

[2:30:49] the growth score, because what you don't see in the proficiency number is

[2:30:53] that there were several students that covered upwards of

[2:30:57] 60, 80-point scale scores, and came within

[2:31:00] 10 points or fewer of becoming proficient.

[2:31:04] So that's not going to show up in that 11%, but that's what's showing up in that

[2:31:08] growth. So there were students who made incredible growth

[2:31:11] gains in ELA over this past year.

[2:31:15] They're outperforming at least one neighborhood school in straight proficiency, and

[2:31:18] they're outperforming all the neighborhood schools in growth, as well

[2:31:22] as

[2:31:24] the Kansas City public schools, and the state average

[2:31:28] is 85.

[2:31:30] Here's for math. Math is not as nice of a story, but they still have

[2:31:34] the highest growth score for the schools in their neighborhood.

[2:31:39] And as I said, with the investment from Black

[2:31:43] KC, they'll be able to hire a math interventionist.

[2:31:46] And so we hope to see that growth sustained, and as a

[2:31:50] result, an improvement in proficiency.

[2:31:55] Here are the high stakes contract goals,

[2:31:58] for examples for you. So just so you know, we're really focused

[2:32:02] on pushing students out of basic and below basic into

[2:32:06] proficiency. So because of that, one of the high stakes contract goals

[2:32:10] that we have

[2:32:11] says that all students who previously scored a basic or below basic,

[2:32:15] the average of those students will score

[2:32:19] higher than expected on their growth score.

[2:32:21] And if

[2:32:23] that doesn't happen, then we'll send a letter of concern out to the school and

[2:32:27] work with them to build

[2:32:30] a plan for improvement. If

[2:32:34] the

[2:32:35] plan is deemed insufficient, then we will put them on probation, and

[2:32:39] then we will tell them exactly what we think they should do and carry out at the

[2:32:43] school.

[2:32:44] And so that's for ELA and for math. And just one other note, that if the

[2:32:48] school meets fewer than half of its academic achievement standards in any year,

[2:32:52] it will pause new student enrollment for the upcoming school year.

[2:32:56] So we're focused on supporting Hope so that they can be

[2:33:01] ... stronger for the students and the community.

[2:33:04] And if they don't do that, we will move towards closure.

[2:33:08] And

[2:33:09] I just want to note that renewal is not a stamp of approval for

[2:33:13] status quo. It's something that we want to do to continue to support

[2:33:17] improvement. And we believe if HOPE Leadership Academy did not exist,

[2:33:21] students would be going to schools where proficiency is

[2:33:25] around the same, but growth is a little bit lower, where they wouldn't necessarily

[2:33:29] be pushed past proficiency staying with the program.

[2:33:35] Then also, I'd just like to highlight in our

[2:33:38] annual report, if you look on page 17, you

[2:33:42] can see the image of the growth scores for our entire

[2:33:46] portfolio.

[2:33:48] And you can see that Hope Leadership Academy has the single

[2:33:51] highest growth score for the entire portfolio, and that's a

[2:33:55] 94.2 in ELA. That's higher than

[2:33:59] Frontier's math growth score, which is the highest in the state.

[2:34:03] So I'd just like to note that we're doing good work, and we're pushing for better.

[2:34:07] I'm happy to entertain any questions you have.

[2:34:12] Mrs. Casey.

[2:34:13] Thank you, President Miller.

[2:34:15] And thank you for this additional information.

[2:34:17] It's helpful, and I think it will...

[2:34:21] We still have work to do in this area, but this is a good start

[2:34:25] of being able to provide more specific details

[2:34:29] about the plans for improvement at a specific

[2:34:33] charter school or any school.

[2:34:35] A couple of various questions. If I look back at your

[2:34:39] slide on how Hope Leadership Academy is building for the future,

[2:34:44] you

[2:34:45] indicate new curriculums.

[2:34:50] My first question is, have those curriculums been vetted to ensure that they're

[2:34:54] deemed high-quality instruction materials, and are they on the

[2:34:57] approved state curriculum list?

[2:35:01] Yes, ma'am. That's where the

[2:35:04] curriculum was sourced from the state-approved list.

[2:35:06] They looked at what was on the list and then found what best fit

[2:35:10] the student body. They're using the McGraw Hill text to

[2:35:14] support their curriculum.

[2:35:17] Thank you.

[2:35:18] I don't see any mention of assessment tools that are being

[2:35:22] used in this particular-

[2:35:24] Mm-hmm

[2:35:25] ... update. So, the same question, are the

[2:35:28] assessment tools being used

[2:35:32] on the list of approved assessment tools?

[2:35:36] Yes. They're using i-Ready.

[2:35:38] Okay. And then how regularly will you

[2:35:42] as a sponsor review those assessment results?

[2:35:45] So, as a sponsor, we attend every single board

[2:35:49] meeting of our charter schools, and so we require that

[2:35:52] those details are reviewed at the board meeting.

[2:35:56] And so we will see them either before, perhaps at an

[2:36:00] academic meeting or in the board meeting where they're reviewed,

[2:36:04] and so within a couple of weeks of the

[2:36:07] results.

[2:36:09] So, and my last question in this area, and turn it

[2:36:13] over, the contract goals.

[2:36:16] Yes.

[2:36:17] There's nothing specific here. There's no specific

[2:36:21] targeted goal that they will grow by X, or an actual...

[2:36:25] There's descriptive-

[2:36:27] Mm-hmm

[2:36:27] ... but there is not a specific measurement-

[2:36:30] Mm-hmm

[2:36:30] ... defined. So what are the targets for growth?

[2:36:33] How much are you expecting

[2:36:36] HLA to grow, and by what cohort and

[2:36:40] what timeframe?

[2:36:41] Yeah. So, we expect HLA to exceed growth

[2:36:45] expectations from now until they

[2:36:49] are on par with the district and the state.

[2:36:52] But exceed could be 1% or 5% or

[2:36:56] 20%. There should be a specific goal.

[2:37:02] I'll turn it over.

[2:37:03] Mm-hmm.

[2:37:05] Mrs. Westbrooks-Hodges.

[2:37:06] Thank you, Mr. President. I think what

[2:37:10] Carrie is getting at, and what I'm thinking is, at what point does growth

[2:37:14] show up in the status column?

[2:37:16] Yeah. No, I appreciate that question.

[2:37:18] Right. And so

[2:37:20] first of all, I'm a big fan of SLU and the Prime Center and the

[2:37:24] work that you're doing, and I really deeply appreciate the

[2:37:28] focus on growth and growing our children.

[2:37:31] Thank you.

[2:37:32] When can we expect to see... So what are your projections-

[2:37:35] Yeah

[2:37:35] ... and when do we move from growth to-

[2:37:38] Mm-hmm

[2:37:38] ... an expectation of a particular status at a particular

[2:37:43] time?

[2:37:44] Yeah.

[2:37:44] So what's your-

[2:37:45] I appreciate-

[2:37:45] ... two years? Is it three years? When are we going to get there?

[2:37:47] Yeah. I appreciate the rephrase of the question.

[2:37:51] So

[2:37:52] in my experience in working with schools that are doing turnaround work here in

[2:37:56] Missouri,

[2:37:57] when students are with a program for three consecutive

[2:38:01] years, we should expect to see an increase in proficiency for the

[2:38:05] students that have stayed with the program for three consecutive years.

[2:38:09] If we get above expected growth for three consecutive years,

[2:38:13] that usually results in a movement from one bucket to the

[2:38:17] next, from below basic to basic, or basic to proficient.

[2:38:19] Hold on to that. So the next question is, we see the

[2:38:23] attendance challenges. Talk about mobility

[2:38:28] and how often these

[2:38:30] cohorts are turning over, and if we

[2:38:34] expect that we can achieve the

[2:38:37] persistency and the

[2:38:40] progression-

[2:38:41] Mm-hmm

[2:38:41] ... of the same cohort of students.

[2:38:43] Yeah, no.

[2:38:43] Is that a challenge?

[2:38:44] That is definitely a challenge, and that's one of the reasons that it's so

[2:38:48] exciting to work in the School of Education that authorizes schools

[2:38:52] because we're working to support individual schools, but

[2:38:56] we're also working to support the overall sector.

[2:38:59] So the things that we learn from other schools, we'll try to implement at Hope,

[2:39:03] and hopefully positively impacts public education.

[2:39:07] Are you seeing an impact

[2:39:13] Do you have that long tail data to say you're impacting mobility?

[2:39:19] Not on this first run of our white paper, but there are some

[2:39:23] districts that are. But I can say-

[2:39:25] That's the ultimate goal, right?

[2:39:26] Yeah.

[2:39:26] To-

[2:39:27] Yeah.

[2:39:28] And the goal is, like Dr. Boyd said, to replicate what is working in

[2:39:32] certain districts.

[2:39:34] What we found, and I think someone asked the question about parents and vacations,

[2:39:38] there is a conversation that we're not having about a population

[2:39:42] of students who have the means to take

[2:39:46] a vacation in midweek, right before the holiday break, and so

[2:39:50] those three days add up. So we've not built partnerships with the business

[2:39:54] community to say, "Hey, can you work with us as a school district?" And I'm kind of

[2:39:58] talking too much, because this is research that we have not delved into, but would

[2:40:02] like to spend more time talking to the business community, and people like Dr.

[2:40:05] Boyd. Not to point her out, she admitted herself how her son misses several days

[2:40:09] of school because of his illness. But we have those educated

[2:40:13] professionals, and they have the means and the resources, and they can

[2:40:17] stay with nanny or grandmother. That's impacting the attendance rate.

[2:40:20] But that's not included in when we're talking about chronic

[2:40:23] absenteeism. That conversation is not normally had.

[2:40:26] It is so much work to be done, and we won't just scratch the

[2:40:30] surface with one organization, one set of data,

[2:40:34] one research paper, of course.

[2:40:38] But we are having the conversation with some of the schools.

[2:40:43] So we have Maplewood Richmond Heights alongside Confluence Academy.

[2:40:47] Look totally different in terms of their attendance data, but could we

[2:40:50] share some of those conversations and dialogue and best practice?

[2:40:54] We're not there yet, but that's the goal.

[2:40:57] Mr. Otto.

[2:40:59] Yeah. This is

[2:41:01] kind of going back to the high-priority contract goals.

[2:41:04] And so, I see that the measurement you just described

[2:41:07] was growth year over year.

[2:41:11] And you did mention that

[2:41:13] if they don't meet those standards, you'll pause new student enrollment, and then

[2:41:17] eventually

[2:41:18] close the school. So how long, what's the runway there

[2:41:23] if they are not

[2:41:25] meeting their... Because the numbers, I

[2:41:28] hate to shine a spotlight on it, and I don't know what the causes were, but

[2:41:32] 92, 93%

[2:41:36] below basic is not really good, right?

[2:41:38] And so,

[2:41:39] to focus on those prime numbers, yeah, they grew

[2:41:43] from 93 to 73, but that's going to

[2:41:47] plateau at some point, I think. Or maybe it isn't. I don't know.

[2:41:50] Maybe they're

[2:41:52] really improving the students. But it's kind of easy to go from

[2:41:56] really bad to okay,

[2:41:58] and then to keep moving forward from okay to

[2:42:01] good and great and everything like that.

[2:42:02] But

[2:42:04] really my question is, what's the timeline?

[2:42:06] How long are you going to give them

[2:42:09] to keep showing improvement?

[2:42:11] Yeah. And I just want to say that

[2:42:14] the growth measure that Missouri has is a really strong, robust measure.

[2:42:18] And so it's not necessarily... Typically, you would think it's easier to grow

[2:42:22] if you're a lower proficiency than if you're a higher proficiency.

[2:42:25] That's not necessarily the case. So I just want to state that.

[2:42:28] But in terms of your question for the timeline,

[2:42:32] we're going to review the results of

[2:42:35] this most recent iteration of testing to see if

[2:42:39] they produced the same amount of growth and improved proficiency.

[2:42:43] So once we receive that information, I'm hoping by December,

[2:42:47] we'll be able to make that decision about whether or not we need to move into the

[2:42:50] letter of concern for an improvement plan or not.

[2:42:53] If we do have to move into a letter of concern and improvement plan

[2:42:57] basis, if we're on the same page and we are

[2:43:01] agreeable to the plan in place, and the plan is

[2:43:04] executed well, then we should be fine.

[2:43:07] If not, the school will be closed within the following 18 months.

[2:43:11] Okay. Thank you.

[2:43:14] Mm-hmm.

[2:43:15] So the recommendation is the sponsor, SLU, recommends

[2:43:19] a five-year renewal. Oh, I'm sorry.

[2:43:22] No.

[2:43:22] Yes.

[2:43:24] Oh.

[2:43:25] Go ahead. Go ahead and finish.

[2:43:26] Okay.

[2:43:26] And then I'll come back.

[2:43:28] This recommendation is based on the sponsor's analysis of the comprehensive

[2:43:32] body of objective evidence. The department presents SLU's

[2:43:36] recommendation that the State Board of Education authorize Hope Leadership

[2:43:39] Academy to continue operations pursuant to the charter renewal

[2:43:43] granted by SLU effective July 1st

[2:43:48] of 2026 for a five-year period. Per the

[2:43:51] contingencies outlined in the performance contract and the sponsor's

[2:43:55] additional review of academics,

[2:43:58] an update to the State Board of Education following the

[2:44:02] '26-'27 school year.

[2:44:06] Do we have a motion for that?

[2:44:10] Motion.

[2:44:11] Second.

[2:44:11] And a second. We have a motion and a second, so now we'll discuss it.

[2:44:16] Mrs. Casey.

[2:44:17] Thank you very much.

[2:44:18] Do we, as a board, have an option to recommend less than a five-year

[2:44:22] renewal?

[2:44:23] Unfortunately, statute does not

[2:44:26] have anything for that. We don't have a up to in

[2:44:30] statute, so it's either five or 10 or

[2:44:34] nothing.

[2:44:35] Okay. Thank you for confirming.

[2:44:38] I don't know the most appropriate way to address this point.

[2:44:42] It was stated earlier that you will require the

[2:44:47] sponsor to come back with an update-

[2:44:50] Yes

[2:44:50] ... at year one. I would like to further amend the

[2:44:54] motion to include that point, that the sponsor will

[2:44:58] come back

[2:44:59] each, and I would like to

[2:45:02] go beyond your recommendation that it be

[2:45:05] just in this next year, but that they come back annually

[2:45:09] during this five-year period until they meet their

[2:45:13] goals.

[2:45:17] Yeah, there needs to be a second.

[2:45:18] Oh, I'll second the amendment to the motion.

[2:45:21] Okay. So we have an amendment to the motion, and it has been

[2:45:25] seconded.

[2:45:26] So any discussion on the amendment?

[2:45:30] Mr. Matusik?

[2:45:32] No real discussion, just a question.

[2:45:35] Brad, do you have that, what you need? Okay.

[2:45:38] Okay, any other questions?

[2:45:41] Sorry, just a point of clarification.

[2:45:44] I know Board Member Westbrook Hodge asked at the beginning,

[2:45:48] what if we vote no, basically. Really paraphrasing,

[2:45:52] but

[2:45:53] I took a look at the statute, and I want somebody to correct me, but it looks like

[2:45:57] if the

[2:46:00] school meets the requirements, then we have to

[2:46:03] approve. There's no

[2:46:06] no. But at least from what I can tell,

[2:46:09] under 160.403,

[2:46:13] the only real authority that the state school board

[2:46:17] has would be to deny a sponsor who

[2:46:21] sponsors charter schools who we may or may not approve of. Is that correct?

[2:46:25] Absolutely. So you'll

[2:46:29] see, like this new board, some people who haven't been here

[2:46:33] for long enough will see the evaluation of sponsors come forth.

[2:46:37] That's every three years or as caused.

[2:46:40] So if the department says, "Hey, board, we think we

[2:46:44] need to evaluate this sponsor prior two to three years," or the board comes back

[2:46:48] and says, "We want to evaluate this sponsor based on

[2:46:52] whatever."

[2:46:53] Yeah, so I just wanted to clarify that.

[2:46:54] So I think it's appropriate that we included this modification

[2:46:58] that the sponsor come back to us about this particular school, and then we

[2:47:02] can take that into account when we are

[2:47:06] evaluating the renewal of the sponsor. Does that make sense?

[2:47:09] Yes.

[2:47:10] Okay. Mrs. Westbrook.

[2:47:12] And this isn't an amendment to the motion, it's just discussion

[2:47:16] about

[2:47:17] what would be helpful when you come back.

[2:47:20] It would be great if you were to, based on your growth

[2:47:24] projections model, when you expect

[2:47:27] them to get to that status point that we like

[2:47:31] to see. Is it going to take 10 years, three years?

[2:47:35] That's helpful context, and it also holds

[2:47:39] you guys accountable for meeting those projections

[2:47:43] and those growth targets,

[2:47:45] because growth is great, but it needs to get you somewhere.

[2:47:49] Well, the only way to get somewhere is to grow.

[2:47:52] It is. And so, I think that's

[2:47:55] a happy balancing act, right?

[2:47:59] To

[2:48:00] push for growth,

[2:48:02] and to project those targets, and then help us

[2:48:06] understand those

[2:48:08] status levels that you're attempting to achieve.

[2:48:11] Yeah. I'm very excited to do that. That's part of the work that's going

[2:48:15] on with the GAINS cohort right now, where we have a tool that we're working with

[2:48:19] to model just that. So it would be my pleasure.

[2:48:23] Okay.

[2:48:24] I think something else, just

[2:48:26] to remind the sponsors and the board and our schools, that with the

[2:48:30] grade cards that the governor, the executive order, has called for us to do, we'll

[2:48:34] have an additional,

[2:48:36] fairly clear moniker on each of our

[2:48:40] public schools, including public charter schools and districts

[2:48:44] moving forward.

[2:48:45] So we do have the amendment, and it's been moved, and it's been

[2:48:49] seconded. So can we move for a vote on the

[2:48:52] amendment to the motion?

[2:48:56] So is there any more questions about the amendment?

[2:49:00] Hearing none, all those in favor of the amendment as presented, which is to have

[2:49:04] them come back annually and present.

[2:49:07] Okay.

[2:49:09] All those in favor say aye.

[2:49:10] Aye.

[2:49:11] Aye.

[2:49:11] Any opposition?

[2:49:13] Hearing none, that passes. Now we'll go to the motion.

[2:49:17] And so,

[2:49:20] is there any questions about the motion with the amendment?

[2:49:23] Well, any additions to it?

[2:49:25] I think we just approved the motion as amended, so we're good on that.

[2:49:29] No, we didn't vote on the motion.

[2:49:31] Which was to-

[2:49:32] Did we?

[2:49:33] No.

[2:49:33] I don't-

[2:49:34] I think we stopped.

[2:49:35] You vote to amend that, then you vote the motion.

[2:49:38] So you're saying we included the motion in the

[2:49:42] amendment when we voted on the amendment?

[2:49:44] I think for

[2:49:45] clarification, to restate,

[2:49:48] and for

[2:49:51] clarity, and that we will revote, but the motion

[2:49:55] on the floor is to approve the renewal

[2:50:00] of Hope Leadership Academy for five years

[2:50:03] and require the sponsor to present to the

[2:50:07] board,

[2:50:08] each year, annually during that renewal period, the

[2:50:12] progress made toward the specific goals

[2:50:15] set within their

[2:50:18] contract with the school. And

[2:50:22] that

[2:50:23] include a long-range projection.

[2:50:26] And that is the motion on the floor.

[2:50:28] And it's been seconded by Mr. Otto.

[2:50:33] And the vote-

[2:50:34] Mm-hmm

[2:50:35] ... is according to that motion. Yeah.

[2:50:39] So we've all voted on that motion.

[2:50:41] Yes.

[2:50:42] And that was the motion.

[2:50:43] Okay.

[2:50:44] Thank you for your service. I appreciate you.

[2:50:46] Thank you.

[2:50:47] Thank you.

[2:50:48] Thank you.

[2:50:50] Thank

[2:50:54] you.

[2:50:58] So are you--

[2:51:00] I don't believe that's correct. I think you have to vote on the

[2:51:04] renewed motion.

[2:51:08] Yeah, we put it on the-

[2:51:09] Mm-hmm.

[2:51:11] And that goes down to the motion.

[2:51:14] Yeah.

[2:51:14] And to correct them-

[2:51:15] Yes

[2:51:16] ... change motion on the floor, then you vote on it.

[2:51:18] Correct.

[2:51:19] You're correct.

[2:51:19] Okay.

[2:51:20] Yeah.

[2:51:25] Yeah.

[2:51:25] So,

[2:51:27] yeah, just call for a vote.

[2:51:28] Yeah.

[2:51:29] So, we're going to call for a vote-

[2:51:31] Sure

[2:51:32] ... with the amendment that we've already approved for

[2:51:36] the motion with the amendment-

[2:51:38] Yeah

[2:51:38] ... and current basis.

[2:51:40] Yeah.

[2:51:41] Yeah. Okay?

[2:51:42] And now let me just get a second to that, or a first, I

[2:51:46] guess, because it would be a different motion.

[2:51:49] Yeah.

[2:51:51] Yeah.

[2:51:51] To accept the original motion as amended.

[2:51:52] As amended. Yeah, that'd be correct.

[2:51:55] Move to accept the original motion as amended.

[2:51:57] Second.

[2:51:58] Okay. We have a motion and a second. All those in agreement say aye.

[2:52:02] Aye.

[2:52:03] Any opposed? Hearing none, that passes unanimously. Thank you.

[2:52:07] Thank you for that clarity, Kyle, or Dr. Kruse.

[2:52:16] Okay. Now,

[2:52:19] we will proceed to the second of the charter

[2:52:22] renewals that we have for your consideration

[2:52:27] today. This one is for

[2:52:30] Citizens of the World Kansas City Charter School.

[2:52:34] Its sponsor is Kansas City Public Schools, and with us

[2:52:38] today we have

[2:52:40] the Director of Education Collaboration, Allison Heil,

[2:52:44] and the Deputy Superintendent, Daryl Davis,

[2:52:48] from Kansas City Public Schools.

[2:52:51] I'm going to turn this over to Shaneka.

[2:52:54] We'll have a similar flow of the discussion.

[2:52:58] The concern on this particular

[2:53:01] renewal is not the

[2:53:06] really serious concern and

[2:53:09] what really stood out about our previous

[2:53:13] school, which was those low proficiency rates.

[2:53:17] This is more about

[2:53:21] Kansas City Public Schools taking over as sponsor of

[2:53:24] Citizens of the World, and just looking at the

[2:53:28] history of the previous sponsor's

[2:53:31] evaluation of Citizens of the World and how

[2:53:35] KCPS

[2:53:37] looked at those evaluations and made its renewal decision.

[2:53:42] Okay. Shaneka?

[2:53:43] All right. So again, we have Citizens of the

[2:53:47] World, and this is what you saw last time, so we're not

[2:53:51] going to go through it. We talked about the authority

[2:53:54] and the process which the department takes when looking

[2:53:58] at renewal applications. Now, Citizens

[2:54:02] of the World, again, as stated, was previously

[2:54:06] sponsored by Missouri Charter Public School Commission.

[2:54:09] Now, this renewal is

[2:54:12] a transfer of sponsor, as

[2:54:15] in May with Allen Village. So if you

[2:54:19] remember, there was an application for a renewal in May

[2:54:23] with Allen Village, who transferred sponsorship to the Missouri Charter

[2:54:27] Public School Commission. Citizens has made the decision to move

[2:54:31] forward with their next five years to

[2:54:34] Kansas City Public Schools as their sponsor.

[2:54:37] This renewal will highlight the data Citizens' last four

[2:54:41] years, as in the last renewal presentation.

[2:54:46] The biggest difference, again, is going to be the performance contract

[2:54:50] that will move into the next five years that is

[2:54:54] being established by the Kansas City Public

[2:54:57] Schools. What you will see in this renewal is the

[2:55:01] current performance contract, their performance goals, and where they

[2:55:05] stand or stood with Missouri Charter Public School

[2:55:08] Commission. Does that make sense?

[2:55:12] It is a lot going on, but understand that

[2:55:15] you're looking at the renewal with the commission

[2:55:19] and what the commission

[2:55:22] looked at when it was doing its annual review of this school.

[2:55:26] And then at the end, you will see the performance contract and goals

[2:55:31] that have been set forward for the next five years with Kansas City Public.

[2:55:34] Yes.

[2:55:35] Thank you for that clarification.

[2:55:36] At this point, could you explain why this transfer is taking place

[2:55:41] and why the sponsors are changing?

[2:55:42] And I will let

[2:55:44] Allison talk. She was going to talk a lot more about that

[2:55:48] at the end of the presentation, but can you speak a little bit about that now?

[2:55:52] Sure.

[2:55:54] Either one?

[2:55:54] Yes.

[2:55:55] Okay.

[2:55:56] So earlier in the year, the school decided

[2:56:00] to

[2:56:03] cut ties with their national charter organization and become a local

[2:56:07] independent

[2:56:09] public charter school. And so,

[2:56:13] after doing that, they decided that they were going to

[2:56:16] pursue

[2:56:18] emerging

[2:56:20] collaboration with another charter school that is in our system,

[2:56:24] that's part of our portfolio. And so aligning with a common

[2:56:28] sponsor

[2:56:30] seemed to make sense. It would allow them to create some

[2:56:33] operational efficiencies and to strengthen their academic

[2:56:38] initiatives together under a common sponsor.

[2:56:40] So that was

[2:56:42] a lot of the decision.

[2:56:43] And why are they leaving their national

[2:56:47] organization?

[2:56:48] Management.

[2:56:50] The management company.

[2:56:50] The national management organization.

[2:56:53] They had spent 10 years with that organization.

[2:56:56] They felt like they had grown. They were going

[2:57:00] to

[2:57:02] continue to grow, and I think economically or

[2:57:06] financially, it was a good move for them to do so.

[2:57:09] They were going to be able to keep 5% of their local aid,

[2:57:14] and bring it back into their organization. So it made sense for them.

[2:57:18] And we have history in Missouri of charter

[2:57:22] schools starting out with their management company, helping them with the back

[2:57:26] office things that they need as they open up and grow, and then

[2:57:29] moving from those management companies to just stand on their own.

[2:57:33] So this has happened in previous times as well.

[2:57:39] So again, just like in the last presentation, you will see this information

[2:57:43] is informational. It's not necessarily what the sponsor is looking at when it

[2:57:47] comes to a renewal decision. So, we have

[2:57:51] information here on their enrollment,

[2:57:56] their demographics, and you'll see it next to the

[2:58:00] local district as well as the state.

[2:58:04] Their 90/90, which we talked about with the last

[2:58:09] presentation. And

[2:58:12] we will have more conversation when the sponsor gives

[2:58:15] you

[2:58:17] their reasoning, their process, all those things that go into their

[2:58:21] goals.

[2:58:23] And also, you have here the assessment or performance

[2:58:27] information for ELA. You'll see

[2:58:31] Citizens compared to the local district, compared to the state.

[2:58:35] Again, that's more informational because in statute it doesn't say

[2:58:39] that the school will be compared to the state, but the school is compared to the

[2:58:42] local district.

[2:58:45] Then we have math.

[2:58:48] And then we move on to what the renewal requirements are,

[2:58:52] which we talk about fiscal, we talk about academic, and we talk about

[2:58:55] compliance. When looking at this renewal application, we really didn't see

[2:58:59] any issues with any of these

[2:59:04] considerations. The only thing is, is that they are moving to

[2:59:08] another sponsor, and what their

[2:59:11] current sponsor looked at and how that sponsor evaluated

[2:59:15] them.

[2:59:21] And here we have more information about finance.

[2:59:24] Now, prior to 2025, the school leased its

[2:59:28] facility through IFF. In the spring of 2025, the

[2:59:31] school purchased the building, so you'll see some significant jumps

[2:59:35] in

[2:59:38] their finances here.

[2:59:42] Again, we're looking at the fund balance, and the school has remained well above

[2:59:45] the 3% fund balance required by public schools.

[2:59:50] Now, this is what I was talking about at the beginning.

[2:59:53] This is the performance contract with the commission, the Missouri Charter Public

[2:59:56] School Commission, and this is their analysis of the

[3:00:00] performance goals

[3:00:02] with Citizens. So you'll see how they have

[3:00:06] partially mets and mets in a lot of these

[3:00:09] categories. Now, last time we talked about all

[3:00:14] sponsors

[3:00:15] have categories in academics, finance, learning,

[3:00:19] governance, and operations.

[3:00:22] Now, under that, they may have

[3:00:25] five or six different goals that the

[3:00:29] school needs to meet that will get you to that partial.

[3:00:33] So not necessarily just as simplified as I have it

[3:00:37] here, but more robust and a lot more things to

[3:00:41] tick off when it comes to whether they met it or not.

[3:00:44] And so we explain that here, those partially mets and what that

[3:00:48] looks like. And we talk to the new sponsor about

[3:00:52] what they're going to do to make sure that the school is meeting

[3:00:56] these goals, and especially when it comes to their financial

[3:01:00] goals and having that money on hand that they need.

[3:01:03] So we had a conversation with the new sponsor to talk about what is that going

[3:01:07] to look like moving forward, and what is that going to look like in your

[3:01:10] performance goals. So, KCPS will talk more

[3:01:14] about that once we finish our presentation.

[3:01:20] And here are some of those goals that KCPS is putting

[3:01:24] forth for Citizens. So you will see they have standards, and they

[3:01:28] have their measures/evidence. Now, this is not

[3:01:32] nearly all the things that KCPS is putting in their performance

[3:01:36] contract, but this is just a simplified example of some of

[3:01:40] the things that they're putting into their contract when it comes to Citizens and

[3:01:44] what they expect to see.

[3:01:48] So we're having the same recommendation here.

[3:01:51] And again, this is not necessarily for academics, but the fact that they are

[3:01:54] transferring to a new sponsor, so we can see what

[3:01:58] that's going to look like moving forward.

[3:02:01] So the recommendation is the same.

[3:02:03] The sponsor, KCPS, recommends a five-year renewal.

[3:02:07] This recommendation is based on the sponsor's analysis of the

[3:02:10] comprehensive body of objective evidence.

[3:02:13] The department presents KCPS's recommendation that

[3:02:17] the State Board of Education authorize Citizens of the World, Kansas

[3:02:21] City to continue operations pursuant to the charter renewal

[3:02:25] granted by KCPS effective July 1st,

[3:02:29] 2026. And at the end of that, we are asking them to come

[3:02:33] back with next year's data to give us a report on where they

[3:02:37] see the school and how they see the school

[3:02:40] performing moving forward.

[3:02:44] And now I would like to turn it over to KCPS to give

[3:02:48] you more information on their process as they looked

[3:02:52] at this school and made the decision to take on this

[3:02:56] new charter. So,

[3:02:58] we'll-

[3:02:58] Maybe before you start, I'll just,

[3:03:02] a little bit more context.

[3:03:04] Our level of concern around the

[3:03:08] partially mets and the performance data that we see for this

[3:03:12] particular renewal is not as high as it was for the last one

[3:03:16] that we discussed.

[3:03:18] So you have our read on this information.

[3:03:21] Of course, we'll

[3:03:23] ask you to make your own interpretation as you move forward.

[3:03:27] Allison.

[3:03:27] Okay, great.

[3:03:29] So the school approached us, um

[3:03:33] Probably January.

[3:03:35] Oh, sorry. Forgot. The school approached us in January

[3:03:39] about potential sponsorship, and so we began our process

[3:03:43] of due diligence.

[3:03:45] That included a meeting with the board chair, the

[3:03:49] school leader, executive director, Dr.

[3:03:52] Danielle Miles, doing a school visit,

[3:03:56] and then just document reviews

[3:03:59] of academic

[3:04:02] documents, financial documents, operational

[3:04:05] documents, reviewing their prior year

[3:04:09] documents from the commission. And of course, we had established a

[3:04:14] good working relationship with Citizens of the World, having

[3:04:18] worked with them to pass the general obligation bond

[3:04:22] in April of

[3:04:24] 2024, '5.

[3:04:29] It was quite a year. And then also, we have

[3:04:33] a collaboration council in Kansas City in which we meet with

[3:04:37] charter leaders and KCPS leadership, and so we had a good

[3:04:40] working relationship with them. So,

[3:04:43] we did a review of that work. That is where internally we pulled in

[3:04:49] internal folks from multiple departments to review this

[3:04:52] data,

[3:04:54] and looking at their academic performance, their finance performance,

[3:04:58] their operational documents, their board governance documents,

[3:05:02] really digging into that information

[3:05:05] and seeing from that

[3:05:09] perspective, really no concerns when it came to academics

[3:05:13] or finances. Good audits.

[3:05:16] Their

[3:05:18] board governance things are online, transparent, everything

[3:05:22] is shared.

[3:05:25] So we really felt like everything was,

[3:05:31] I think, very clear and,

[3:05:37] I don't want to say above board, but everything was very clear, and we felt

[3:05:41] good about it. So brought that to our

[3:05:47] board and got approval, and so that is part of the

[3:05:51] process that we followed in order to

[3:05:54] move forward with this. So, I think we feel like

[3:05:58] they're going to be good partners.

[3:06:00] We have

[3:06:02] very similar alignment when it comes to educating the

[3:06:06] whole child, rigorous curriculum.

[3:06:10] They have very strong beliefs when it comes to

[3:06:13] restorative justice,

[3:06:16] and really, I think,

[3:06:19] student ownership of their own learning.

[3:06:21] So,

[3:06:22] they're also in a community in Kansas City that does not have a neighborhood

[3:06:26] school, and we feel very strongly that that is a great addition to our portfolio,

[3:06:30] where they are located, and now being a local and an

[3:06:34] independent school in that space is really

[3:06:38] important for that community and covering that neighborhood.

[3:06:44] They offer supports. They have a large population

[3:06:48] of McKinney-Vento students. 10% of their students are

[3:06:51] McKinney-Vento and are serviced. Mm-hmm.

[3:06:55] Yes.

[3:06:56] What is that?

[3:06:57] Oh, McKinney-Vento, students that are unhoused.

[3:07:02] And they also have a large portion of their students that

[3:07:06] have IEPs.

[3:07:09] So they really service a

[3:07:13] portion of the community that is very similar to ours and work hard to make sure

[3:07:17] that they are servicing those students.

[3:07:19] So their beliefs and philosophy is very similar to

[3:07:23] KCPS as well. So we really feel,

[3:07:26] I think, a very strong partnership with them

[3:07:30] in that way as well. So.

[3:07:34] Any questions?

[3:07:37] Mrs. Casey.

[3:07:39] Thank you, President Miller. And thank you for that and for your

[3:07:45] straightforward input about why the sponsorship is changing, et

[3:07:49] cetera. And I do think there's a lot of value in that local community

[3:07:52] relationship, the collaboration, the partnership that you've had.

[3:07:56] If you could go back to slide 13, which is the new

[3:08:00] performance contract highlights, and if you could maybe first

[3:08:04] just clarify for me, are you saying that,

[3:08:08] or the way I am interpreting this, that your expectation is just they'll

[3:08:12] just

[3:08:14] continue to do what they're doing and fall into those categories

[3:08:17] and your goal is that they'll be as good as

[3:08:21] KCPS?

[3:08:23] We provide supports along the way, so it wouldn't

[3:08:27] be a hands-off relationship if that's-

[3:08:29] Mm-hmm

[3:08:30] ... No.

[3:08:32] Did you want to-

[3:08:32] Well, really what I'm getting at is what are your specific goals?

[3:08:36] What are your expectations for the students of Citizens of the

[3:08:40] World to achieve-

[3:08:42] Mm-hmm

[3:08:42] ... in their academic outcomes?

[3:08:44] So they have set forth goals, and they have school-specific goals as

[3:08:48] well. So they're looking at

[3:08:52] changing from advanced proficient to looking at MPI

[3:08:55] growth, which I appreciate. That means they're looking at students

[3:08:59] growing out of all categories and not just focusing on

[3:09:03] proficient, advanced, and those higher categories.

[3:09:06] They're continuing to look at students

[3:09:09] and

[3:09:11] the chronically absent, so lowering the percent of students that are chronically

[3:09:15] absent. They do tend to look more at

[3:09:19] the ADA attendance, so average daily attendance over

[3:09:23] proportional attendance, because budgets are based on that.

[3:09:28] So they do have an attendance goal.

[3:09:30] They do have an attendance or a-

[3:09:34] Sorry, an academic goal that's based on subgroup performance as well, which is very

[3:09:38] important. They focus very much on making sure that

[3:09:42] they're paying attention to the performance of historically marginalized

[3:09:46] student groups.

[3:09:48] So what we do then is, of course, we have

[3:09:53] monthly meetings with our sponsor charters.

[3:09:57] So we're collaborating monthly with our sponsor charters.

[3:10:02] We also are,

[3:10:04] of course, as a sponsor, available with our content area

[3:10:08] experts. We have monthly collaboration meetings where we're working with this

[3:10:12] and problems of practice, things like chronic

[3:10:16] absenteeism amongst our system. One thing I noticed as I was

[3:10:21] looking at that slide is only seven out of the 20

[3:10:26] systems in Kansas City, or LEAs in Kansas City, got two or more

[3:10:30] of the four points available on

[3:10:34] the APR. So two-thirds of the system

[3:10:38] is struggling with proportional attendance or the way

[3:10:42] we measure proportional attendance.

[3:10:44] So it is something that the system needs to figure

[3:10:48] out how we're going to work on that.

[3:10:50] So it's not a matter of, "Good luck to you.

[3:10:55] Here's your goals. Good luck to you." How are we going to work on

[3:10:59] this together?

[3:10:59] Yeah. And I appreciate that. And maybe it's just the format or the approach in

[3:11:03] the presentation, but do you, as a sponsor,

[3:11:07] have specific academic outcome goals by year,

[3:11:11] much back to Pam's point earlier.

[3:11:16] It's one thing to say

[3:11:18] that it looks like you've just restated what the categories are

[3:11:22] here, but what are the specific academic outcome goals in

[3:11:26] ELA, in math, in science, and in

[3:11:30] social studies as to

[3:11:33] achievement and when you will get there?

[3:11:36] In other words, specifics.

[3:11:38] Yeah.

[3:11:39] Pam, maybe you can add.

[3:11:40] Yeah. I'm just blown away at just how we zoom in on the

[3:11:44] same stuff.

[3:11:46] And I think what's troubling us is

[3:11:51] this looks like just a

[3:11:55] restatement of the left side, and

[3:11:58] there's no meat to how you're going

[3:12:02] to grow students, improve academic outcome, by

[3:12:06] what percentage, when, what are your projections, what are your goals?

[3:12:10] And we're looking at the

[3:12:13] academic performance, and we're troubled.

[3:12:16] And we're trying to figure out what are you going to do differently and it's just

[3:12:19] not here.

[3:12:20] So we need you to tell us what you're going to do.

[3:12:24] And I will add, the academic outcomes

[3:12:28] based on achievement, the MAP scores

[3:12:32] as presented for the 2025 data, they are better

[3:12:36] than

[3:12:38] Kansas City.

[3:12:40] But unless you have a specific goal, and we all want our children to

[3:12:44] achieve excellence, all children,

[3:12:47] so what are the goals to get to all children achieving excellence?

[3:12:53] And I just don't see that. And maybe it's just a factor they're there in the

[3:12:56] contract, but they're not being presented to us, and that's a

[3:13:00] factor of the presentation, that we need

[3:13:04] to see specifics. Were you going

[3:13:08] to s-

[3:13:09] Maybe let me reframe, if that helps.

[3:13:11] Mm-hmm.

[3:13:12] So do you have goals across the five-year renewal period for the

[3:13:16] percent of students scoring-

[3:13:19] The school does

[3:13:19] ... proficient or higher?

[3:13:20] The school does.

[3:13:21] The school has it.

[3:13:21] It's in the school's specific goals, yes.

[3:13:23] Right. And we're approving or being asked to approve,

[3:13:27] in this case, and because it came to us in this form

[3:13:31] of the agenda, that

[3:13:37] based on your recommendation, and your recommendation being based on

[3:13:41] the contract that you have in place, which includes the

[3:13:46] expectation in academic outcomes, and I'm asking

[3:13:50] what is that expectation? Unless someone knows where they're going, they're not

[3:13:54] going to get there. And we should

[3:13:59] have high expectations, very high,

[3:14:02] so that we can achieve the best, and I just don't see what those

[3:14:06] expectations are.

[3:14:10] And

[3:14:12] I don't have that.

[3:14:16] I think it's in my folder that's sitting at my chair.

[3:14:18] So they have

[3:14:20] goals for ELA and math to move

[3:14:24] to

[3:14:25] on target by year five of their contract

[3:14:29] for ELA and math.

[3:14:34] Well, and I appreciate that, and it's

[3:14:38] more to the department that we need to be looking at it in

[3:14:42] that way in our future presentations.

[3:14:44] And I would just say to any sponsor that this is a really

[3:14:48] important job that you have and that you should,

[3:14:52] not calling yourself out here, and you're brand new to this school as

[3:14:56] well, and I appreciate it, but we should have an expectation of every

[3:15:00] sponsor to have a specific target,

[3:15:04] and academic outcomes is the most important thing that we can be focused

[3:15:08] on. Obviously, there's supporting factors that we have to look at.

[3:15:11] But there should be specific targets, and they should

[3:15:14] be,

[3:15:18] we refer to them as stretch targets or SMART goals, but they need to

[3:15:22] be significant targets that are set for

[3:15:26] our schools across the state to be

[3:15:30] achieving in academic outcomes.

[3:15:33] And as a sponsor of a school, you should know what they are for

[3:15:37] each of your schools.

[3:15:40] Yes. May I comment? I think you are absolutely right, and we had the start of this

[3:15:44] conversation this past week with

[3:15:47] Lisa and Shanika, and I think it goes back to if the authority of this

[3:15:51] board is to determine whether or not the

[3:15:55] sponsor

[3:15:57] met all of its responsibilities, if we don't know what the

[3:16:00] sponsor set for that school, then we don't know if they met it or

[3:16:04] not. If the sponsor says, "Yes, we told them they had to do this, and they

[3:16:08] did," if it's vague, we don't have a good measure for that.

[3:16:12] But yet if the sponsor says, "Our goal was to improve

[3:16:16] to X number of students being proficient.

[3:16:19] They did that, so we approved that," or, "They didn't do that, and here's

[3:16:23] what we did." You're looking for those kinds of specifics because

[3:16:27] that's what Shanika will be looking at when she's

[3:16:31] evaluating whether or not they did their due diligence is whether or not they had

[3:16:34] specific goals with specific targets, with specific dates,

[3:16:38] and did they meet them, and what happens either way?

[3:16:41] Is that-

[3:16:42] Exactly. And that is when it relates to a school.

[3:16:45] And then when we're evaluating a sponsor-

[3:16:47] Excellent

[3:16:47] ... are they being effective as a sponsor?

[3:16:49] To set a mediocre goal is not being effective, but to set a

[3:16:53] goal of excellence is. And then what have they done to support their school

[3:16:57] to achieve that?

[3:16:58] Exactly. And this is not their

[3:17:01] entire performance goal contract.

[3:17:05] As I stated, this is just some specifics that were pulled

[3:17:09] out. So the way that their performance goal, and this is their,

[3:17:13] meaning Kansas City Public's performance goals are set up, it is

[3:17:17] very much, "Here's academics, and then A,

[3:17:21] B, C, D, E, F, G needs to be met to even meet the goal

[3:17:25] of academics." So that's the way they set theirs up.

[3:17:28] It doesn't look like this here, so you're right.

[3:17:32] We're just showing you a highlighted version of that, of

[3:17:36] what we're seeing when we see their renewals.

[3:17:40] So, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to-

[3:17:40] Mr. Bradford. No problem.

[3:17:43] A few things.

[3:17:45] The information, and I don't know if this is a required template that's

[3:17:49] used here, but it seems like

[3:17:52] there are a few good things that are happening, but they're not highlighted.

[3:17:54] I had to dig to find those. So I want to know how that can be

[3:17:58] reframed and positioned so that we can be a little bit more efficient in looking at

[3:18:02] what we're looking at, and to make a decision.

[3:18:05] Secondly, I noticed it's

[3:18:09] partially met from an academic perspective for the last five years or

[3:18:13] so, and just echoing, what are we going to do to

[3:18:16] drill down

[3:18:19] how we get over the hump there?

[3:18:22] So I digress, but that's just something I had in my mind.

[3:18:27] What I would like to be explained to me, if you will,

[3:18:30] on the financial management piece, it started out partially met.

[3:18:34] It seemed like there was some improvement.

[3:18:36] '23 to '24 it was met, and then it was partially met

[3:18:40] '24, '25.

[3:18:42] Why is that, and could you explain what

[3:18:46] that means to the overall picture?

[3:18:48] And so this is one of those things that we talked about the sponsor with when it

[3:18:52] came to looking at their renewal application.

[3:18:55] So one area of concern was the school's failure to maintain 60

[3:18:59] days of cash on hand during the '21, '22

[3:19:03] fiscal year, as required by the performance contract, and this was the performance

[3:19:07] contract of their last sponsor. Since fiscal year '22,

[3:19:11] the school has consistently met and exceeded the 60-day cash on hand

[3:19:15] requirement, demonstrating strengthened

[3:19:19] financial management and fiscal stability.

[3:19:22] So they have improved. In response, the school

[3:19:26] has partnered closely with its financial services provider

[3:19:30] to better understand and monitor these long-term

[3:19:34] sustainability indicators.

[3:19:38] Enhancing financial planning, regular review of key fiscal

[3:19:42] matrix, and ongoing collaboration with the sponsor have been

[3:19:46] implemented to ensure the school maintains strong financial health and meets

[3:19:50] all accountability and expectations moving forward.

[3:19:54] So yes, we did see that. This is one of those things where I

[3:19:58] say, "Yes, I see this. Now, sponsor, tell me what's

[3:20:01] going on with this." So that is one of the things, and this was answered

[3:20:05] by KCPS because, again, they had to go in and do their due

[3:20:09] diligence when they're looking at, "Are we going to take this school on, and what

[3:20:13] does this look like?" And they looked at the sponsor, the commission who was the

[3:20:17] sponsor prior to, they looked at the information the commission had

[3:20:21] and said, "Okay,

[3:20:23] what's going on here?" And they talked to the school about it.

[3:20:26] So these are the responses coming from KCPS

[3:20:30] saying, "Yes, we did talk to them about that.

[3:20:32] Here's what's going on." So yes, this is one of those

[3:20:36] things that happens during the process of renewal when we're looking at

[3:20:40] this and then meeting with the sponsor to go over their

[3:20:43] recommendation.

[3:20:47] Thank you. I appreciate the response.

[3:20:49] Are there other questions?

[3:20:50] Transparency.

[3:20:52] Is there a motion that someone would like to make for this

[3:20:56] project?

[3:20:59] I move to

[3:21:01] accept the recommendation as made.

[3:21:05] Second.

[3:21:06] Okay. We have a motion and a second, and that does address

[3:21:10] your issue that they come back and

[3:21:14] re-present.

[3:21:15] Mm-hmm.

[3:21:15] Yes, it does.

[3:21:16] Okay.

[3:21:17] Is there any further discussion?

[3:21:21] Hearing none, all those in favor?

[3:21:23] Aye.

[3:21:24] Aye.

[3:21:24] Any opposition?

[3:21:26] Hearing none.

[3:21:29] Thank you very much for your presentation.

[3:21:30] Thank you.

[3:21:31] Happy-

[3:21:31] Thank you.

[3:21:32] Thank you.

[3:21:38] Who do we have-

[3:21:40] Perry's pretty quick, I think.

[3:21:43] The budget probably won't be.

[3:21:44] Yeah, no. I was thinking about right bef-- Well, so after we get Perry done.

[3:21:49] Okay.

[3:21:49] Yeah.

[3:21:49] It fits here.

[3:21:50] Hmm?

[3:21:51] It fits here.

[3:21:51] Okay.

[3:21:53] So there's only one thing between us and lunch, right?

[3:21:58] You.

[3:21:58] Yeah.

[3:22:02] Good morning, Perry Goerl here,

[3:22:05] program administrator of Career and Technical Education, and interim-

[3:22:09] ... chief of Governmental Relations.

[3:22:14] So, as you all know, the legislative session has concluded, and so I

[3:22:18] want to just give a very brief about legislation that passed that will

[3:22:22] impact the department, and things that will be coming across your plate.

[3:22:27] There were a total of one, two, three, four, five...

[3:22:30] It looks like about seven different bills have had educational

[3:22:34] things within it, but there are three bills that you will see

[3:22:38] here in the future as it goes through, possibly, rule-making authority, or

[3:22:42] a new decision item when it comes to the budget.

[3:22:45] That first bill is Senate Bill 863, and that's where it

[3:22:49] establishes the Interscholastic Activities Association Oversight

[3:22:53] Commission.

[3:22:55] We will be going through the rule-making authority, possibly,

[3:22:59] but we will be creating a system of appeals for,

[3:23:03] as commonly known, the Missouri State High School Activities

[3:23:07] Associations.

[3:23:09] We will create an appeals committee for

[3:23:12] eligibility and for other events that may

[3:23:15] arise during the course of the year.

[3:23:18] And so we'll be working through that.

[3:23:20] The other one is the agriculture education program in

[3:23:24] elementary schools, changing it from a pilot project to a statewide

[3:23:28] program.

[3:23:29] This will be a new decision item that you will see in the future.

[3:23:33] It's not a high

[3:23:35] new decision item. I think it'll have a new decision item

[3:23:39] maybe around $250,000 total in its beginning.

[3:23:43] But what it will do is bring in a collaborative effort of the different ag

[3:23:47] education programs in the elementary that are being provided in the

[3:23:51] elementary setting, and creating

[3:23:54] resources for them,

[3:23:58] but also an individual that will help work with these organizations to

[3:24:01] streamline it to our school districts across the state.

[3:24:06] And then the last bill that was passed is House Bill 2061,

[3:24:10] which

[3:24:11] provides protections against discrimination of anti-Semitic

[3:24:16] activities in schools. And so, there will be a reporting

[3:24:20] process for school districts back here to the Department of Elementary and

[3:24:24] Secondary Education, where we will have our Title VI

[3:24:28] compliance officer investigate those.

[3:24:30] And then if deemed the policies are being broken or have been broken with school

[3:24:34] districts, there is a reporting process through the Department of Justice from

[3:24:38] there. So, those are the

[3:24:41] highlights.

[3:24:42] I want to talk a little bit about what's ahead

[3:24:46] for you all to start thinking about.

[3:24:48] We all know that come August 4th there is a primary election,

[3:24:52] and so

[3:24:53] all the seats in the House side are up for re-election.

[3:24:57] And

[3:24:58] the reason why I want to share that also is that our committee

[3:25:01] chairmanships will be changing as well.

[3:25:05] The current Education Committee on the House side chairman is running for the

[3:25:09] Senate, so there will be a new House Education

[3:25:13] Committee chairman for the FY27

[3:25:17] legislative session, and who that will be is to be determined

[3:25:21] yet. We do not know who that is. There's not a rumor on the

[3:25:25] street of who that might be. And so, that will be

[3:25:29] a change, but there also may be a new Senate

[3:25:32] education chairman as the current education

[3:25:37] chairman of the Senate is also running for US Congress, so there is a possibility

[3:25:41] that there may be two new education chairmans within the House

[3:25:46] or the House and the Senate.

[3:25:48] The budget chair will also be new this year, and so

[3:25:52] that position has actually been named, but it is always

[3:25:56] contingent on being elected to the House seat.

[3:25:59] And so time will tell on that. And so, along with this

[3:26:03] election year, a lot of the focus is going to be in and around the August

[3:26:07] 4th, because ultimately then those conversations are going to

[3:26:11] revolve around, no matter what happens on August the

[3:26:15] 4th, election-wise, and the different amendments, is that

[3:26:19] the state of Missouri is approaching budget reductions.

[3:26:22] And so when we talk about future legislation and these

[3:26:26] chairmans and things moving out, many pieces of

[3:26:30] legislations will not be able to have a high fiscal note,

[3:26:34] because we're going to be talking about budget reductions in the

[3:26:38] years to come.

[3:26:40] If you were to ask me what's going to be things that are going to be talked about

[3:26:43] in the future and next legislative session, I will share with you, I

[3:26:47] believe open enrollment will come back to the forefront.

[3:26:51] The election will be done.

[3:26:53] The current main sponsor of the

[3:26:56] open enrollment over the past several years is running for a Senate seat.

[3:27:00] And so, because of that, the open enrollment just really

[3:27:04] didn't come to the forefront. But next year, we will see open enrollment

[3:27:08] to be a topic again.

[3:27:10] School accountability measures.

[3:27:13] We have the executive order that we intend to deliver

[3:27:17] on. Those school accountability,

[3:27:20] same school accountability measure was

[3:27:24] legislation this past year.

[3:27:26] The question is, will it become legislation in the future?

[3:27:29] And I will share with you, it really will depend

[3:27:32] upon the end product that we produce.

[3:27:36] But I will also say that

[3:27:38] people are all in a good spot of where we're headed with the current executive

[3:27:41] order. And so there is a

[3:27:44] chance that we will not see any future legislation for the school

[3:27:48] accountability measure that we are currently working on.

[3:27:53] But if there is school accountability, there will also be charter schools,

[3:27:57] and those two will be tied together.

[3:28:00] Probably the main reason that charter school expansion, let me correct, the main

[3:28:03] reason the school accountability bill did not move forward this year is that

[3:28:08] it got tied up in with charter school expansion, or I should

[3:28:12] say the charter school

[3:28:16] conversation and how it impacts the state of Missouri.

[3:28:20] So if those two move forward, they'll probably move forward in

[3:28:23] tandem to each other in the future, but again, there's no

[3:28:27] crystal ball. They could break them apart.

[3:28:31] At the end of this session,

[3:28:33] there was a huge, I won't say huge, omnibus bill, because huge to me is

[3:28:37] 31 subjects, and this one was only 12 subjects,

[3:28:41] so I would call it a minibus last year.

[3:28:44] But there was conversation

[3:28:47] in and around ESA oversight.

[3:28:50] At the end of the session, there was conversation of bringing the empowerment

[3:28:54] scholarship activity funds back to the department and for us to

[3:28:57] oversight.

[3:28:59] I look for that to be a conversation to happen again this coming

[3:29:03] legislative session. Not that the treasurer's

[3:29:06] department

[3:29:08] is not being able to fulfill that, just in the

[3:29:12] part of the accountability side. How are those students doing?

[3:29:16] Because we currently collect all that data and so on.

[3:29:19] So I really believe that you will see some conversations in and

[3:29:23] around that.

[3:29:25] I also believe you're going to see a lot of effort in and around and focused on

[3:29:28] supporting teachers. Many of the

[3:29:31] omnibus bills that we

[3:29:35] had this year had different provisions in there to support teachers in the

[3:29:38] classroom, whether it would be the beginning of the year

[3:29:41] school training that

[3:29:45] the teachers have to do each and every year, or whether it's

[3:29:50] providing some liability coverage for them for different events.

[3:29:53] I think we're going to see supportive teachers in legislation.

[3:29:58] In doing that, you're also going to see the virtual screen time bill, I believe,

[3:30:02] to show back up, or not show back up, to come back

[3:30:06] again. And how much is too much

[3:30:09] screen time for students? And so,

[3:30:13] last session, the legislation

[3:30:16] took, I won't say 180-degree turn, but it started at one

[3:30:20] spot, and it really started opening the door to great

[3:30:23] conversations around screen time and how important it is for

[3:30:27] students to be able to interact with each other without

[3:30:31] having too much screen time. And where that legislation

[3:30:35] ended at, at the end of the session, I believe, was at a very

[3:30:39] good starting point. It involved the department,

[3:30:43] the commissioner, to creating a work group to start investigating

[3:30:47] that.

[3:30:48] And so, I believe that legislation

[3:30:52] will come back in the near future.

[3:30:56] The other thing is legislator priorities.

[3:30:58] You all as a group have legislator priorities.

[3:31:02] There was a legislator priority last year that wasn't

[3:31:05] completed. It became a part of the omnibus bill, and then when

[3:31:09] that bill didn't occur, it didn't move forward.

[3:31:13] But we had a legislative initiative for

[3:31:17] our CT advisory group and our current technical education advisory

[3:31:21] group, just changing the terms on it,

[3:31:24] and who could be on that bill.

[3:31:26] We'll need to make sure that that legislation is filed again this coming year so we

[3:31:30] can move forward with that

[3:31:33] advisory group and make sure that it's meeting the needs and demands of

[3:31:37] current technical education. And then the other board priorities as you all, as a

[3:31:41] group, will talk about here in the future,

[3:31:44] and providing those as a platform as well.

[3:31:48] So,

[3:31:50] I'd entertain any questions about

[3:31:54] current legislation, things that

[3:31:56] are out there.

[3:31:59] One question I had is how many bills do you think were submitted in

[3:32:03] last session that had education in them?

[3:32:07] There were, I think it was 321 bills.

[3:32:12] That's just over 10% of the total bills filed,

[3:32:16] had education in them.

[3:32:19] Yeah. And I mean, I just want to bring the magnitude of this.

[3:32:22] Everybody's talking about education when-

[3:32:24] Right

[3:32:24] ... it gets passed forward and things, and so it's a major undertaking and

[3:32:28] very important things. It can hurt us and help us.

[3:32:31] It's a lot to read.

[3:32:36] Thanks, Perry. Just I

[3:32:38] guess a general comment for the board, right?

[3:32:40] I mean,

[3:32:41] legislators can

[3:32:43] introduce a bill on anything.

[3:32:47] I think in some cases, and a couple of us have had this

[3:32:49] conversation, part of the reason I think you're seeing a lot

[3:32:53] of bills introduced in the legislature is because this

[3:32:57] board and local school districts aren't addressing

[3:33:01] issues,

[3:33:02] I think, in some cases. The cellphone issue is something that

[3:33:06] comes to mind, right? It's been an issue forever.

[3:33:09] Very few local school districts did anything about it until it was required by

[3:33:13] state law. Right?

[3:33:15] Cellphones are an issue. Screen time, I think, is another one.

[3:33:19] And I know that's a discussion we've had as a board is what authority

[3:33:23] do we have, right? And I think generally, we have broad

[3:33:26] authority to do rulemaking on anything that is not

[3:33:31] sort of prohibited or otherwise addressed in statute.

[3:33:35] And so, again, just a comment. I think that the board can

[3:33:41] do more

[3:33:43] to address some of these issues, like screen time.

[3:33:45] I'm not saying screen time is the issue, but if this

[3:33:49] board thinks screen time

[3:33:51] needs to be addressed, I don't know that we have to wait for the legislature to act

[3:33:55] to do something.

[3:33:57] That would be the same with cell phones, and other issues that we see pop

[3:34:01] up. So,

[3:34:03] my perspective on this is

[3:34:07] sometimes you get some good things from the legislature and sometimes you don't.

[3:34:11] But part of what you see, I think, is a failure of this

[3:34:14] board to take action on things that are important and

[3:34:19] quite frankly, school districts.

[3:34:22] When a school district is afraid to address a cell phone

[3:34:26] policy or come up with something,

[3:34:28] what else are they not addressing?

[3:34:30] So, I think that's why you see a lot of these bills.

[3:34:33] Public education is obviously a big interest, and I know we'll get

[3:34:37] into this more in our session in July and

[3:34:41] beyond. But I just would again say that the board

[3:34:45] does have

[3:34:46] broad authority to tackle some of these things without

[3:34:50] waiting for the legislature to act.

[3:34:52] Thank you.

[3:34:55] And I think that goes to the discussion that,

[3:34:59] Brooks, you brought up, that importance in our retreat of really

[3:35:02] understanding

[3:35:04] the scope and authority of the board.

[3:35:08] Yeah. And I don't know how you follow 300 whatever bills, so

[3:35:12] thank you. That's what I meant to say at the beginning.

[3:35:16] And reading legislative text is not fun, and you

[3:35:20] have to cross-reference sections of statute to understand exactly what it's trying

[3:35:23] to do, and so thank you for doing all of that.

[3:35:26] I

[3:35:27] left that part out. So Perry, I do appreciate it.

[3:35:32] Any other questions?

[3:35:35] I just want to thank you as the board, as I step into my other role.

[3:35:40] You have to talk about your why,

[3:35:43] and career and technical education is my why.

[3:35:47] It's why I started, and it's where I hope to end.

[3:35:52] So as you all sit in the seat, understand your why, because it's very,

[3:35:56] very important.

[3:35:58] You can't do this job without team members back here,

[3:36:03] and Rebecca's team

[3:36:05] in budget and planning, and Shelly Woods, and the fiscal note

[3:36:09] side. It takes a team effort, and

[3:36:13] Pam Victor is retired now. The amount of work and time that her and I

[3:36:17] spent together

[3:36:18] was just incredible.

[3:36:21] And I know Rebecca and I went to the capital here the other day, and she thought I

[3:36:24] was leaving,

[3:36:25] and I gave her the news as I walked back.

[3:36:27] "No, I'm still here." So,

[3:36:30] it's

[3:36:32] the role of this position and the ability to touch,

[3:36:35] I just had no idea.

[3:36:38] I stepped into it to be the interim, to be the transition,

[3:36:41] and I got to have the opportunity for two and a half

[3:36:46] years and three legislative sessions.

[3:36:49] I wouldn't trade the

[3:36:52] opportunity for anything. It's been one of the greatest opportunities

[3:36:56] I've ever had

[3:36:58] in my 34 years in education. So, thank you.

[3:37:02] Thank you for your service on that, Eric. We appreciate it very much.

[3:37:05] You'll miss dealing with the lawmakers over there.

[3:37:09] Well,

[3:37:10] they have somehow found my private phone number.

[3:37:17] Okay, so-

[3:37:17] Brooks, you gave that to him, right?

[3:37:19] Wasn't that-

[3:37:19] Yeah, he sent it to me, and I put it on Facebook and said, "Here you go."

[3:37:24] Anybody who wants to talk to him.

[3:37:26] So now what we're going to do is,

[3:37:28] if it's all right, we'll break for lunch and come back

[3:37:32] at 12:35. Would that be okay?

[3:37:37] Kyle, I would imagine your report will be a while, so

[3:37:41] yeah.

[3:37:42] Okay, very good. So we'll adjourn for a lunch break.

[4:10:04] We'll call our meeting back to order at this time and move on

[4:10:08] to the budget report. Dr. Cruz.

[4:10:32] Good afternoon. Kyle Cruz, deputy commissioner for financial and

[4:10:35] administrative services. And first of all, I'd like to welcome

[4:10:39] our two new board members.

[4:10:41] Very nice to meet you, gentlemen. Glad you're on the board.

[4:10:45] As we go through today's presentation, as board member

[4:10:49] Carrie Casey said, we do have three parts today.

[4:10:52] We will look briefly at the current year budget,

[4:10:56] that is the 2025, 2026 budget, which

[4:11:00] we refer to as the FY fiscal year

[4:11:04] '26 budget. And I'm hoping to use that to provide,

[4:11:08] especially our new members, with some background and almost

[4:11:11] a landscape view of the budget process and how it

[4:11:15] works. So I'll begin by just giving you a bit about the

[4:11:18] timeline of how a budget process works.

[4:11:22] The budget for any given year starts generally in July,

[4:11:27] and the department has from July until the 1st of

[4:11:31] October to assemble the budget.

[4:11:34] The budget has to be turned in by October 1st.

[4:11:37] And so between July 1st and October 1st, we assemble the

[4:11:41] budget,

[4:11:42] we develop the core budget pieces,

[4:11:46] which are basically based on what was in the previous

[4:11:50] budget. They're the core parts of the funding.

[4:11:53] And then there are portions of funding we refer to as new decision items,

[4:11:58] and those are items where we're going to ask for additional

[4:12:01] funding for various programs that either are calculated to

[4:12:05] need more funding, or they could be new pieces

[4:12:09] the legislature passed that we are now required to implement.

[4:12:13] And we'll also work through

[4:12:16] a budget we call a supplemental budget, and

[4:12:20] that would be requests for additional funding for the

[4:12:24] budget that is actually in progress at that moment.

[4:12:28] So it's kind of a multilayered situation.

[4:12:30] But

[4:12:32] that is the process. We go through, get our budget done, turned in by

[4:12:36] October 1st. The board reviews the budget in August and September,

[4:12:40] gives final approval in September. Get to October 1st, we turn it in.

[4:12:45] Throughout the fall, we answer questions from legislators.

[4:12:48] And then when the legislative session starts in January,

[4:12:52] that is when the budget is up for consideration.

[4:12:56] And the legislature holds hearings in both the House and in the

[4:13:00] Senate about the budget requests.

[4:13:02] There is a governor's recommended version.

[4:13:06] There will be a House-recommended version.

[4:13:08] There will be a Senate-recommended version.

[4:13:11] Then there will be, finally, a truly agreed and finally passed

[4:13:15] version, essentially what the legislature votes

[4:13:18] out.

[4:13:20] And then the governor has usually between the middle of May

[4:13:24] and the 1st of July to take action on that budget,

[4:13:28] veto it, sign it, do some kind of action.

[4:13:31] And that's actually where we are right now.

[4:13:33] So that's kind of just a bit of background, and we'll

[4:13:36] reference that as we go through today.

[4:13:39] But

[4:13:40] we're going to start by looking at

[4:13:42] the DESE budget for fiscal year '26.

[4:13:46] And again, that is the 2025-2026

[4:13:50] year, which we are in right now.

[4:13:54] This is an executive summary,

[4:13:56] and it reflects the budget that was passed and went into

[4:14:00] effect July 1st, 2025. It'll be in

[4:14:03] effect until June 30th, here in a couple of weeks,

[4:14:07] and it does include the line item vetoes

[4:14:11] issued by Governor Kehoe, and we also give some explanation of

[4:14:15] personnel and operating expenses. Please note, this is an overview.

[4:14:20] The entire budget itself is a multiple-page

[4:14:24] spreadsheet with many, many line items, and we try to

[4:14:27] condense it for your

[4:14:30] summary purposes.

[4:14:35] This pie chart shows the entire budget for DESE, the summary

[4:14:39] of the total appropriations that came through from the

[4:14:42] legislature and then signed by the governor. This is the entire thing.

[4:14:46] The total authorized budget for DESE for the current year is about

[4:14:49] $8.5 billion.

[4:14:52] Of that,

[4:14:53] 4.67 billion is from general revenues.

[4:14:58] There's about 1.7 billion that comes from federal funds,

[4:15:02] and about 2.1 billion comes from other funds, which would include Prop

[4:15:06] C sales tax, lottery, gaming, a variety of other

[4:15:10] funding streams that feed into education budget.

[4:15:15] Please feel free to stop at any point.

[4:15:19] We can also look at the total appropriations by category, and you'll notice the

[4:15:23] orange

[4:15:25] pie

[4:15:26] slice is the biggest, and that is school funding.

[4:15:30] It's essentially a passthrough from DESE.

[4:15:33] We get the money in, we send it out according to the

[4:15:37] formulas that are in play.

[4:15:40] You'll notice that DESE operations, personnel, our expenses for the

[4:15:44] department itself is about 2% of the total budget.

[4:15:48] And then you can see the other areas of vocational special education, about

[4:15:52] 1.25 billion.

[4:15:54] Leadership and academic, about 342 million.

[4:15:57] Educator quality, 105 million. And then there's a childcare

[4:16:01] subsidy and childhood distributions of about 691 million.

[4:16:07] If you look at DESE specific and our operations, our personnel and

[4:16:11] operating expenses, we have

[4:16:13] 1,818.68 full-time

[4:16:17] positions,

[4:16:19] and this table kind of breaks out where they all are.

[4:16:22] I would draw attention to the fact that our largest

[4:16:25] concentrations of personnel are in the area of

[4:16:29] adult learning and rehabilitation, about

[4:16:32] 658 individual positions. And

[4:16:36] then in the board-operated schools area,

[4:16:40] 632 positions. And those are the schools, the Missouri

[4:16:44] School for the Severely Disabled, Missouri School for the Blind, Missouri School

[4:16:47] for the Deaf.

[4:16:49] My part of the DESE

[4:16:51] organization, Financial Administrator Services, 84

[4:16:55] FTE. Learning Services has 206.31

[4:17:00] FTE. And then there are several commissions, including Charter School

[4:17:03] Commission.

[4:17:05] There's a commission for

[4:17:08] the hard of hearing and for assistive technology,

[4:17:12] and there's 21.4 FTEs that are devoted to those commissions.

[4:17:17] All told,

[4:17:19] the DESE budget is about 1.92%, just under 2% of the

[4:17:23] entire budget.

[4:17:26] Here's another

[4:17:28] way to display the DESE operations, and you can see again, as I mentioned,

[4:17:32] the two largest pieces in terms of

[4:17:37] funding expended from DESE and board-operated schools and

[4:17:41] adult learning and rehab.

[4:17:45] When we talk about school funding, the biggest category out of the first slide,

[4:17:50] you'll see that we send funding to schools that

[4:17:53] totals just under $6 billion, and that's about

[4:17:57] 70% of the total appropriation for the DESE budget.

[4:18:01] The foundation formula is a state-written formula

[4:18:05] that is actually in statute, and it calculates how much

[4:18:09] money goes out to each school or local education

[4:18:13] agency, LEA.

[4:18:15] It's about $4.282 billion.

[4:18:19] School transportation,

[4:18:21] and that pays for kids getting to and from school.

[4:18:25] It doesn't pay for field trips or baseball games, things like that.

[4:18:28] We send out about 376 and a half million.

[4:18:32] There is a small schools program built into the school funding

[4:18:36] formula, where schools that are under 350 students

[4:18:40] get additional support funding-wise.

[4:18:43] And then there is $1.3 billion that comes

[4:18:47] from what's called the School District Trust Fund,

[4:18:51] and that's actually generated by a one-cent sales tax that was passed back

[4:18:54] in 1982,

[4:18:56] and the original purpose was to provide schools additional funding and

[4:19:00] also help offset some property taxes.

[4:19:03] And since that time, there are several districts that still use half that

[4:19:07] money to offset property taxes, but a majority of schools, in the

[4:19:11] time being,

[4:19:13] their communities have voted to waive that

[4:19:16] portion, and so the entire Prop C funding for that school district

[4:19:20] goes to the school. Again, that's about 1.3 billion.

[4:19:25] Yes, sir.

[4:19:26] Yeah, I got a question. It's down in the foundation formula.

[4:19:30] I see there's a sports wagering for education fund.

[4:19:34] It's only like a million dollars. Is that just because it's new?

[4:19:38] Or I figured-

[4:19:38] Yeah

[4:19:38] ... it would be higher.

[4:19:38] That's the sports betting line item that actually went into effect

[4:19:42] in, it was December or January. And so since it's current

[4:19:46] year budget, they put in a very low amount for sports

[4:19:50] wagering. I will note, though, that

[4:19:54] I'm not sure if there's any money in there yet, and part of that's because

[4:19:58] the companies that do the sports betting can recoup

[4:20:02] the money they've put out for the program first before any dollars

[4:20:06] come into the treasury. So

[4:20:09] I think in next year's budget, the amount is still under $7 million,

[4:20:14] so it's not considered a major component supporting the

[4:20:18] budget at this time.

[4:20:19] Okay. But is it, in theory, it could get up to where like the

[4:20:23] lottery funds are? Something I'm guessing. I don't know.

[4:20:26] In theory. I think the projections I saw were it might top out at

[4:20:30] 100 million. I don't know. That's a long time back.

[4:20:34] Got it. Yeah, no, it just seems like they, as part of the selling on it, it's like,

[4:20:38] "Oh, it helps schools," but-

[4:20:40] That was part of the promotion. You are correct.

[4:20:44] Yes.

[4:20:44] Wanted to ask about that.

[4:20:46] Yeah. I will note, since you brought up the line items

[4:20:50] here, if you look at the

[4:20:53] Outstanding Schools Trust Fund, the Lottery Proceeds Fund, and...

[4:20:57] Sorry, my mistake. The Lottery Proceeds Fund, the State School

[4:21:00] Moneys Fund, and Classroom Trust Fund.

[4:21:04] Lottery is self-explanatory. That's funds from lottery.

[4:21:07] State School Moneys Fund is money that comes from cigarette taxes

[4:21:11] and county foreign insurance tax.

[4:21:14] And Classroom Trust Fund is gaming money.

[4:21:17] And I think it's worthy of note that current year,

[4:21:21] we're going to come in about $138

[4:21:24] million under the appropriation.

[4:21:27] You see, when DESE gets an appropriation from the

[4:21:31] legislature in the budget,

[4:21:34] that gives us permission to spend up to that amount or distribute up

[4:21:38] to that amount, but then the cash actually has to materialize.

[4:21:42] And for current year, we're going to be about $138 million

[4:21:46] short among those three categories.

[4:21:49] And so school districts are actually going to receive less in

[4:21:53] foundation formula funding than the calculated

[4:21:57] amount, which is called the state adequacy target.

[4:22:01] So I'll probably talk more about that here in a little bit.

[4:22:04] Thank you.

[4:22:04] Thank you for the question.

[4:22:08] Okay. We're going to talk about our budget in terms of four broad categories:

[4:22:13] childcare, subsidy, and childhood distributions, educator quality, leadership,

[4:22:16] teacher development, expanding literacy and academic support, and vocational,

[4:22:20] special ed, health, nutrition, other services.

[4:22:23] Please understand these are artificial categories.

[4:22:26] We've grouped them for your convenience because they are similar in

[4:22:29] nature. And in the budget itself,

[4:22:32] these are each individual line items.

[4:22:34] The budget itself is a very long document, and there are very specific

[4:22:38] items in the budget, such as to Department of Elementary Secondary

[4:22:42] Education, Office of Educator Quality,

[4:22:47] $282,000 for the purposes

[4:22:50] of registered youth apprenticeships.

[4:22:53] That's an example of what the budget reads, and there are lines like that

[4:22:57] from beginning to end of the budget.

[4:22:59] We've grouped these for your convenience

[4:23:01] So under childcare subsidy and childhood distributions, we total up

[4:23:05] about $692 million, which is 8% of total

[4:23:09] appropriations.

[4:23:10] We do distribute childcare subsidy to help pay for

[4:23:14] childcare

[4:23:16] for low-income

[4:23:18] pre-K kids. We do subsidy for foster kids who are in

[4:23:22] custody of the state. There's also early childhood special education in

[4:23:26] this portion of the budget, and we also do put out about

[4:23:29] $88 million in First Steps. This is just

[4:23:33] one artificial division of the budget, childcare

[4:23:37] subsidy and childhood distributions.

[4:23:41] Then we can look at educator quality, leadership, and teacher

[4:23:45] development, and for these categories, it includes career ladder,

[4:23:49] which is a program that allows teachers with at least two years'

[4:23:53] experience to make additional dollars by doing additional work in their local

[4:23:57] district if their district chooses to add the career ladder program,

[4:24:01] and there is a district contribution for that.

[4:24:05] We have the teacher baseline salary grant, which is there to support school

[4:24:08] districts and local education agencies who

[4:24:13] are not yet able to pay at the

[4:24:17] statutorily prescribed salary of

[4:24:19] $40,000. So if a school's paying at

[4:24:22] $35,000 for their base pay, then for

[4:24:26] teachers who are on their salary schedule below 40,

[4:24:29] the teacher baseline salary grant is available for those schools to

[4:24:33] apply and receive funding to support those teachers' salaries to get to the

[4:24:37] minimum of $40,000. That's about at $33 million total.

[4:24:42] We have a Teacher of the Year program.

[4:24:43] We have the Missouri Leadership Development System,

[4:24:47] MLDS, and Missouri Teacher Development System, MTDS,

[4:24:52] which Dr. Katnik referenced earlier today when they were talking about

[4:24:55] programs to prepare teachers and building leaders.

[4:24:59] And altogether, this artificial

[4:25:03] division of the budget works out to about $105 million, about

[4:25:07] 1% of the total appropriation.

[4:25:11] C is expanding literacy and academic support, and this

[4:25:14] includes all the federal title funds.

[4:25:17] You may have heard of Title I, Title II, Title III.

[4:25:23] Title I

[4:25:26] is

[4:25:28] largely for students who are considered low-income or

[4:25:31] disadvantaged, and there's an allocation from the federal

[4:25:35] government to each of our school districts, and it's calculated based

[4:25:39] on the demographics of that area. And so,

[4:25:43] areas with higher

[4:25:46] percentage of students who would qualify for low income would generally

[4:25:50] receive a larger allocation in Title I,

[4:25:54] and those funds are used for reading and math instructional materials,

[4:25:58] academic coaches. There's some funding for parental engagement,

[4:26:03] other things to support those students.

[4:26:05] Title II

[4:26:07] is actually for effective instruction.

[4:26:09] It can include things like professional development.

[4:26:12] It could include

[4:26:13] using the dollars to fund class size reduction, that is,

[4:26:17] hire another teacher to reduce sizes in classes.

[4:26:21] And then Title III is for English language learners, immigrant students,

[4:26:25] and usually provides supplemental materials for English

[4:26:29] learning and translators, translations, materials that have been translated.

[4:26:33] And Title IV is student support and enrichment,

[4:26:37] and usually those dollars are spent on things like technology,

[4:26:41] perhaps some science, technology, engineering, and mathematics

[4:26:45] programs, or even training for teachers in those areas.

[4:26:48] So those are all federal allocations, and DESE serves as a pass-through

[4:26:52] for those, and each district will

[4:26:55] submit a budget to us of how they plan to spend those dollars,

[4:26:59] and then the dollars can be accessed by the districts.

[4:27:02] Also in this grouping, we included the Imagination Library, and

[4:27:06] that is the Dolly Parton Imagination Library, the program that

[4:27:10] sends free books to students from birth to age

[4:27:14] five.

[4:27:16] It received $6 million this year. You may have heard

[4:27:20] that the Imagination Library had funding cut

[4:27:24] for next year, and so this $6 million appropriation that we

[4:27:28] have this year has been reduced to $2 million for next year.

[4:27:32] And unfortunately, that means that we're not going to be able to accept any new

[4:27:36] enrollments, and we'll be able to send books until

[4:27:40] the appropriation runs out, which it will be sometime probably in the first

[4:27:44] half of next year. And then the program, the contract expires

[4:27:48] at the end of December. So we'll have to

[4:27:52] perhaps hope that

[4:27:54] some local agencies can pick up the Imagination Library,

[4:27:58] where it has been a statewide effort.

[4:28:01] Also in this group, professional development for our evidence-based literacy

[4:28:05] program. There is the K through three reading assessment and

[4:28:09] dyslexia screening and our work on evidence-based literacy

[4:28:13] program, which is the letters training and getting all

[4:28:17] districts to use the science of reading as their instructional

[4:28:20] methodology for reading.

[4:28:22] Any questions so far?

[4:28:26] Then let's look at...

[4:28:28] Okay, here's another way to look at the expanding literacy and academic support.

[4:28:32] Again, title programs are a big portion

[4:28:36] of this dollar total.

[4:28:42] D, our vocational special education, health, nutrition.

[4:28:46] We have career and tech education at about $82.7

[4:28:49] million. Voc rehab,

[4:28:53] $70 million and change. Special education, about $235 million.

[4:28:58] And you can see how it breaks out in pie chart form.

[4:29:01] You'll see special education, $235.5 million is a

[4:29:05] pretty big chunk of this- ... division of the budget.

[4:29:09] You can see school nutrition services, about 331 million.

[4:29:13] We also include in this grouping sheltered workshops.

[4:29:17] There's a category for special education excess costs,

[4:29:22] and that is if you have a special education student in your district, your school,

[4:29:26] that

[4:29:28] requires

[4:29:30] services that exceed three times what your

[4:29:34] district has usually spent on a student, then the district

[4:29:38] can apply for reimbursement for the amounts above that three

[4:29:42] times amount. And then there's a variety of other smaller programs

[4:29:46] and services that we just lumped into a category we called multiple programs

[4:29:50] and services of 442 million and change.

[4:29:54] And that's a brief look at the fiscal year '26 budget.

[4:29:58] And again, that is the budget that's in play at this moment,

[4:30:02] and

[4:30:03] we're headed towards the end of this budget.

[4:30:05] But I'd be glad to answer any questions if there are any.

[4:30:11] Okay.

[4:30:12] Joshua, could you put up... Go ahead.

[4:30:17] Just, I guess, a general comment on

[4:30:21] the budget.

[4:30:24] I know a lot of it is mandated by law,

[4:30:29] and I think the discretionary part of the budget is relatively small.

[4:30:33] Yes.

[4:30:36] But this fiscal year, for example,

[4:30:40] I think the

[4:30:45] budget that we submitted

[4:30:48] never really had a chance to be... There wasn't enough money there,

[4:30:52] and I think we knew that when we submitted the recommendation.

[4:30:55] Mm-hmm.

[4:30:57] And

[4:30:59] so my

[4:31:00] comment or feedback is,

[4:31:02] it would be nice to-- And you do a fantastic job

[4:31:07] presenting this information in a way that we can, I don't want to say

[4:31:10] easily understand, but it's

[4:31:13] more understandable, I think, than it used to be,

[4:31:16] which is great. But it would be nice to,

[4:31:20] as we have these budget discussions,

[4:31:24] if tough choices have to be made, right?

[4:31:27] Yeah.

[4:31:27] And if our state adequacy target is 130 million

[4:31:31] or whatever it was less than we thought,

[4:31:34] and we know that we're not going to get any additional money

[4:31:39] in the next fiscal year,

[4:31:41] what do we do? Do we just leave that 130 million unfunded, or do

[4:31:45] we find places, right, where we can,

[4:31:49] I don't want to say move money around, but request less in

[4:31:53] some... Right? Even though everything is there for a reason, I get that,

[4:31:57] but if we have to make those decisions, it would be

[4:32:00] having the discussion about what changes we would make I think would be

[4:32:04] helpful.

[4:32:05] Sure. Let me speak to that for a moment.

[4:32:08] First off, about the 138 million that we're short in lottery and gaming and

[4:32:12] cigarette tax. When this budget was passed and went into

[4:32:16] effect in the past, last year, July 1st, at that

[4:32:20] point, we were not aware that was going to be a likely shortfall.

[4:32:24] And

[4:32:26] the inner workings of DESE, we pay money

[4:32:30] to schools on a monthly basis for the foundation formula,

[4:32:35] and we're trying to pay at the state adequacy

[4:32:38] target, which this year is 7,145 per

[4:32:42] ADA, okay?

[4:32:45] But in years past, there's been situations where there ended up

[4:32:49] being a shortfall in cash that came in, so where we wouldn't be able to

[4:32:53] pay the total appropriation.

[4:32:55] So the practice has been that we start paying at a lower level

[4:32:59] and then build throughout the year.

[4:33:02] So you get to June and you still have a relatively even payment.

[4:33:06] Because there was a year back at the beginning of my career where there essentially

[4:33:10] wasn't a June payment, and that's a tough spot to be in if you're a school

[4:33:13] district.

[4:33:15] So we actually started paying this year at $6,900

[4:33:19] at that rate,

[4:33:21] in July of '25.

[4:33:23] And throughout the fall I was consulting with OA Budget and said, "Hey,

[4:33:28] we need to move the state adequacy target payment up."

[4:33:32] And I kept getting the response, "Well, there's not cash in those funds yet

[4:33:36] available." And so in about January, February,

[4:33:40] we did a deeper dive into, okay, well there's not cash there. What's going on?

[4:33:44] And we actually worked with OA Budget to go back and look at the

[4:33:48] last five years of the level of

[4:33:51] appropriation versus what actually came in, and it was really

[4:33:55] interesting. At the beginning of the five years,

[4:33:58] the appropriation was below what was being received per

[4:34:02] year, and it actually built a balance in the fund.

[4:34:06] And so after a couple of years, the legislature raised the

[4:34:10] appropriation actually above the amount that came

[4:34:13] in on a yearly basis, and that, over a period of about three years,

[4:34:17] used up the balance that had grown in that fund.

[4:34:21] But then the appropriation was not right-sized to match the

[4:34:25] amount that was actually coming in on a yearly basis.

[4:34:28] And this year the shortfall ended up being 138 million among those three funds.

[4:34:33] So

[4:34:34] the good news of that story is that

[4:34:38] we're actually going to end this year paying a little bit above

[4:34:41] 6,900, higher than what we started.

[4:34:44] I think it's 6,958 and change is where we ended up.

[4:34:47] We were looking to pay 7,145, so there is a shortfall.

[4:34:52] But for fiscal year '27 budget,

[4:34:55] since this issue had come to light, the legislators

[4:34:59] actually made efforts to

[4:35:02] reduce the appropriation appropriately in lottery and

[4:35:06] cigarette and gaming tax, and then that left

[4:35:10] a gap. And at least in the budget as submitted

[4:35:13] to the governor, they filled that gap

[4:35:18] Mostly, maybe entirely, with some one-time dollars.

[4:35:22] So, that was a good thing that came out of this investigation.

[4:35:25] But now to go to your question about we know it's going to be a tight budget

[4:35:29] year, so what do we do? And there's a couple of

[4:35:33] schools of thought on that.

[4:35:35] And one school of thought is that

[4:35:40] almost everything we send over as part of the budget is

[4:35:43] either a calculated amount, for example, the foundation formula.

[4:35:47] Those are very specific calculations. Here's what the formula requires.

[4:35:53] And if you don't send that full number over,

[4:35:57] then as a department,

[4:36:00] have we done the appropriate work to request

[4:36:04] support for all Missouri schools?

[4:36:06] That's the question to think about and ponder.

[4:36:09] And then there's the

[4:36:11] other aspect of, okay, it's a tight budget year,

[4:36:15] where should we offer up reductions?

[4:36:19] And

[4:36:20] there's also a school of thought that if you go into a year and

[4:36:24] you offer up a, "We're going to request 10

[4:36:28] million less in this area,"

[4:36:31] then

[4:36:33] is that taken as a

[4:36:36] goodwill

[4:36:37] gesture on the department in trying to do the right thing?

[4:36:41] Or would that perhaps be seen as, okay, so there's 10 million that was

[4:36:45] extra over there,

[4:36:47] and they keep the $10 million we offered and also cut the budget

[4:36:50] again. So it's a discussion that's probably worth having

[4:36:54] at the

[4:36:56] executive and board level about how we want to proceed on the budget when we

[4:37:00] get into the fiscal year '28 budget. Did that make sense?

[4:37:03] Yes, absolutely. Thank you.

[4:37:07] Okay. Okay.

[4:37:09] What's on the screen now, and I think you have copies at your desk, is

[4:37:13] a brief executive summary

[4:37:15] of the fiscal year '27 budget.

[4:37:18] And this is the budget that we

[4:37:21] developed

[4:37:23] last year in July, August, September, that the board approved

[4:37:27] in September. We turned it in in October,

[4:37:30] and then it went to the legislature this past January, February, March, April,

[4:37:34] May, and it has just emerged at the middle of May.

[4:37:38] And this would be the budget that goes into effect for the coming school year,

[4:37:43] the '26-27 school year, which we refer to as the fiscal year

[4:37:46] '27.

[4:37:48] It's still waiting on action from the governor, and that's why we haven't

[4:37:52] developed the full presentation for you yet, is because there are a

[4:37:56] lot of things the governor could strike in that budget,

[4:38:00] and we don't want to put out information that's not entirely correct.

[4:38:04] So at the recommendation of Ms. Casey and Mr.

[4:38:08] Otto during our last finance committee meeting, we agreed to

[4:38:12] simply bring back what we presented at the May meeting

[4:38:16] when the budget had just been passed.

[4:38:19] And this is a high-level look at what we consider the noteworthy

[4:38:23] items that are in the budget that I think you need

[4:38:27] to know about. So

[4:38:29] the first item is the foundation formula.

[4:38:31] Again, that is the funding we send to school districts across the

[4:38:35] state, and it's based on the state

[4:38:39] statute formula.

[4:38:41] The amount of core funding, that is the amount of the base level,

[4:38:45] the amount that was in last year,

[4:38:48] is going to stay the same as in the current school year, fiscal year

[4:38:51] '26.

[4:38:53] This budget includes core funding of

[4:38:55] $4.28273600 billion.

[4:39:00] And I noted this earlier, the legislature did reduce the reliance

[4:39:04] on lottery and schools money fund, and

[4:39:08] classroom trust fund. That's the lottery and cigarette and gaming tax.

[4:39:12] And that should alleviate the shortfall in those areas to a certain

[4:39:15] extent. We're projecting a shortfall of $118

[4:39:19] million in those three areas, but the

[4:39:23] legislature did plug that gap, at least partly,

[4:39:27] with

[4:39:28] some one-time dollars.

[4:39:30] That's still subject to governor action.

[4:39:32] So the legislature did make an effort, and we'll see what

[4:39:36] happens with the governor's work.

[4:39:39] I mentioned earlier a new decision item.

[4:39:42] The formula for '26-27 actually

[4:39:46] required an extra $190.6 million in order

[4:39:50] to be fully funded.

[4:39:52] And since the legislature did not appropriate an

[4:39:56] additional $190.6 million,

[4:39:59] the state adequacy target of

[4:40:03] 7,145 is not going to be achievable.

[4:40:07] So even though the formula calls for schools to get paid at a rate of

[4:40:10] 7,145, it's not going to happen.

[4:40:13] At this time, our best estimate is that

[4:40:17] given

[4:40:18] the revenues we can expect and assuming that some

[4:40:22] dollars stay in the budget and the governor doesn't strike them, we

[4:40:26] believe we'll be able to pay at a rate between 6,800

[4:40:30] and 6,900, which is pretty similar to what we have

[4:40:34] achieved this year.

[4:40:36] So it's not a terrible outcome. Again, we are paying

[4:40:39] 6,958 this year. If I had to hazard a guess,

[4:40:43] I'm thinking we may come in just at or just under

[4:40:46] 6,900

[4:40:48] for fiscal year '27, the '26-27 school year.

[4:40:51] So we're in the ballpark.

[4:40:55] Yes?

[4:40:56] I got a quick question. Going back to your first bullet here-

[4:40:59] Yes

[4:40:59] ... where you said there was a shortfall, but the

[4:41:03] legislature kind of filled that gap.

[4:41:07] Is somebody from DESE advocating or helping the

[4:41:10] legislature to-

[4:41:12] Yeah, what happened there was

[4:41:14] in doing our due diligence, watching the budget throughout,

[4:41:19] we're seeing what the legislature's appropriating

[4:41:22] And then when we dug into the lottery and cigarette

[4:41:26] and gaming tax dollars, we saw the shortfall that had

[4:41:30] occurred in fiscal year '26, and we looked into what was likely to

[4:41:34] happen in '27.

[4:41:36] And every spring, we actually go out to

[4:41:40] the conferences that are sponsored by the School

[4:41:43] Administrators' Associations, and we give budget updates, and we try to

[4:41:47] give them our best projections of what to expect for next year,

[4:41:51] because school districts between March and

[4:41:55] the end of June are building their budgets.

[4:41:58] And so I actually went to a couple conferences

[4:42:02] and laid out

[4:42:04] the way things look in terms of

[4:42:07] dollars this year, $138 million short,

[4:42:10] and dollars for next year. And at that time, we were projecting a

[4:42:14] $118 million shortfall, and I explained how that would be

[4:42:18] likely to affect school finances.

[4:42:21] And, when you put something like that out to 500 superintendents, which we had

[4:42:25] to do. We can't let them build budgets on false information.

[4:42:30] We can't let them think everything's A-okay, put the full number in there.

[4:42:35] Word got back to the legislature, and then we

[4:42:38] were in consultation then with a couple legislators who wanted to change

[4:42:41] that. And

[4:42:44] Senator Black was one. He's head of Appropriations in the Senate.

[4:42:48] He was heavily involved in working out a way to help plug that gap, and I believe

[4:42:52] they've used some dollars from,

[4:42:55] this sounds odd, the Blind Pension Fund.

[4:42:58] There's a Blind Pension Fund, and the only two uses for it are to support

[4:43:03] Missourians who are blind and to support education.

[4:43:07] So using some money in there was okay.

[4:43:09] And they've also tapped

[4:43:12] the Capital Commission Fund, the Building Commission Fund,

[4:43:16] and that's basically general revenue money, so it was accessible.

[4:43:20] And those are the two main sources they've used to help plug the gap.

[4:43:23] So did we go advocate to fill the gap?

[4:43:27] Not really, but we did explain what's going on.

[4:43:31] And the legislature,

[4:43:34] they listened and made some changes.

[4:43:36] Yeah, no, I think that's good that they did it on their own, to be

[4:43:40] honest. But I think that's one thing that we need to make sure

[4:43:45] with the transition and everything going forward, that we maintain that level of

[4:43:49] information and detail so that

[4:43:51] people in the State House, their

[4:43:55] constituents will know, "Hey, this is something that's really important.

[4:44:00] Can't just cut this."

[4:44:01] Well, and I agree, and that's a goal of mine is to make sure that you have all the

[4:44:04] information you need to,

[4:44:07] if the board chooses to actually advocate for funding for schools.

[4:44:11] So we appreciate that.

[4:44:14] Anyway, going to transportation.

[4:44:17] In the current year budget,

[4:44:19] there's about $377, $78 million

[4:44:23] for transportation that's appropriated,

[4:44:26] and it's going to be almost enough.

[4:44:28] We're going to be able to pay out at about 94% of what we

[4:44:32] should pay total for transportation.

[4:44:35] But part of the current year funding

[4:44:37] was one-time money. Actually, $15 million was marked one

[4:44:41] time. So when we look at the fiscal year

[4:44:45] '27 budget, you have the core,

[4:44:48] which is money that's not marked one time, of $361

[4:44:52] million.

[4:44:54] But then we had to ask for an additional 15.2

[4:44:58] million to get back to the same level that we have for current

[4:45:02] year.

[4:45:03] And so we did actually ask for that, and we also asked for

[4:45:07] an additional 15 million beyond that because expenses are going up.

[4:45:11] If you bought diesel fuel recently, you know what I'm talking about.

[4:45:15] The legislature did not approve the additional money,

[4:45:19] but they did put us back to, for fiscal year

[4:45:22] '27, the same amount that we have been appropriated

[4:45:26] for fiscal year '26.

[4:45:29] So

[4:45:30] next year, due to increased costs, we think we should be able to reimburse

[4:45:34] at about 90% of what the formula calls for

[4:45:38] schools to be reimbursed.

[4:45:41] Childcare subsidy.

[4:45:43] It's been a tough one.

[4:45:46] There has been a lot of federal money that has been used in not only

[4:45:50] current year, but past years to support childcare subsidy, and that has essentially

[4:45:54] run out. So we did have to request

[4:45:58] $139 million extra out of general revenue

[4:46:02] for fiscal year '27 to make the childcare subsidy thing work.

[4:46:06] There was a question about,

[4:46:10] do we move to paying on enrollment

[4:46:14] or, sorry, pay on authorization, or do we continue paying

[4:46:18] only for students who are in attendance?

[4:46:20] And things have kind of worked out now so that it looks like we're going to be

[4:46:23] paying on attendance. There's a question about how many absent days

[4:46:27] we can reimburse, and can we increase that from what's currently allowed?

[4:46:31] Five days of absence can be reimbursed anyway.

[4:46:34] Can we increase that?

[4:46:38] The long story short is that the whole budget ends up being $343

[4:46:42] million again for fiscal year '27, just as it was in

[4:46:46] fiscal year '26. But

[4:46:49] the usage of this program has gone up.

[4:46:52] So we're going to have to watch carefully how the money's going out,

[4:46:56] and we may have to take some steps to

[4:47:00] modify the rates that are being paid to all the providers.

[4:47:05] And the budget language also contains a clause that says

[4:47:08] DESE is to conduct a stakeholder group to determine

[4:47:12] how enhancements and other reimbursements can be determined in the future.

[4:47:16] So essentially, childcare subsidy stays similar to

[4:47:20] what it is currently, but we'll have to watch the budget because we could pretty

[4:47:23] easily run our budget in this area.

[4:47:27] Missouri Quality Pre-K, there's two lanes here.

[4:47:30] You have one version of this, one lane goes to

[4:47:34] childcare providers that are not schools, and

[4:47:38] that grant program was reduced by $11 million, which is

[4:47:42] essentially the amount of money that wasn't being used.

[4:47:46] There was an appropriation higher than usage, so that was reduced by

[4:47:50] $11 million. The other side, the pre-K

[4:47:53] program administered by schools, local education

[4:47:57] agencies, it was reduced by $20 million.

[4:48:00] And there really wasn't any lapse in this area.

[4:48:02] So, a $20 million reduction means that

[4:48:06] schools will need to find different ways to fund

[4:48:10] their programs in this area, or perhaps

[4:48:14] serve fewer children, or

[4:48:18] work up some kind of a situation where they can actually require parents

[4:48:22] to pay, perhaps on a sliding scale, to keep their kids

[4:48:26] in the school-sponsored pre-K.

[4:48:28] So, that grant program did change.

[4:48:32] Career Ladder, again, the program that supports teacher salaries,

[4:48:36] for extra dollars for teachers. Funding's set at $52.5 million.

[4:48:40] That should allow us to fund at the same level that we did last year.

[4:48:45] Teacher recruitment and retention.

[4:48:47] There's actually statute that says there should be so much

[4:48:51] money available every year, and it gives a specific amount per

[4:48:55] year that's supposed to be made available for teacher scholarships to get new

[4:48:58] teachers,

[4:48:59] and that had been underfunded. The funding actually was increased from

[4:49:03] $800,000 to $1.6 million, which is a step in the right

[4:49:07] direction for sure, although I think we're still behind what statute

[4:49:10] specifies. But we will be providing more scholarships to students pursuing

[4:49:14] degrees in education.

[4:49:18] Dr. Katnik's programs, Missouri Leadership Development, Missouri Teacher

[4:49:22] Development,

[4:49:24] are still whole.

[4:49:29] Their core funding was restored. It was out for a minute,

[4:49:33] I think in the House version maybe, but it did come back.

[4:49:37] There is

[4:49:38] still funding for letters and literacy coaches.

[4:49:42] I've already mentioned the

[4:49:45] Imagination Library.

[4:49:47] Okay.

[4:49:48] Yep. Mm-hmm.

[4:49:50] Sure, go ahead.

[4:49:51] On the Success Ready Student Assessment-

[4:49:53] Yes

[4:49:54] ... so I know the funding was removed for that.

[4:49:58] The small scale pilot

[4:50:00] took place earlier this calendar year-

[4:50:03] Right

[4:50:03] ... with plans to build that out or

[4:50:07] expand the pilot. So what happens

[4:50:10] to

[4:50:13] that now? Does it just go away?

[4:50:15] My understanding is that that program would be,

[4:50:19] pick your term,

[4:50:21] put on hold, paused,

[4:50:24] stopped, either temporarily or perhaps permanently.

[4:50:28] So the timeline that we saw

[4:50:31] presented where it talked about, I think it was a few months ago, where it talked

[4:50:34] about the,

[4:50:36] I can't remember how many students it was, but a small sample, and then it was

[4:50:39] going to expand over the-

[4:50:40] Expand this year. Right

[4:50:42] ... couple of years. So it's basically just on hold.

[4:50:46] That-

[4:50:46] I'd want to confirm that, but my understanding is that, yes, that program is

[4:50:50] essentially on hold, and we're not planning to

[4:50:53] proceed with a bigger pilot during current year.

[4:50:57] Thank you.

[4:50:57] Commissioner.

[4:50:59] Okay.

[4:51:01] Voc Rehab, their core funding was approved, and their request for $15 million

[4:51:05] was also approved. Those are largely federal funds.

[4:51:08] And all told,

[4:51:10] DESE staffing had a net reduction of just

[4:51:14] over 12 FTE. A lot of those had been vacant, or

[4:51:18] there's one or two that we hadn't filled because the money, the program had not

[4:51:21] taken off, hadn't been put into place.

[4:51:24] There was a plus two

[4:51:27] FTE for the Missouri Charter School Commission to

[4:51:31] help expand charter schools.

[4:51:33] And again, my last note is that

[4:51:36] this information is prior to signature by the governor,

[4:51:40] so it's still subject to change. He has latitude to do some vetoes, including line

[4:51:44] item vetoes. We would expect the governor to sign the budget bill

[4:51:48] sometime before the end of this month.

[4:51:50] And

[4:51:52] as far as the exact funding projections, I mentioned paying

[4:51:56] schools at, we hope, $6,900 next

[4:52:00] year. That could fluctuate depending on what we get in updated

[4:52:03] information on student enrollment and other factors that play in.

[4:52:07] Are there more free or reduced lunch students?

[4:52:09] Because that is a weight on the formula. Are there more special ed students?

[4:52:13] That's an extra weight in the formula.

[4:52:15] But that's where we're at today. And that leads me into the third part of our

[4:52:19] talk, and it's very short, and that is each

[4:52:23] year,

[4:52:24] the budget the governor signs

[4:52:27] to go into effect on July 1st becomes the starting point

[4:52:31] for

[4:52:32] building the fiscal year '28 budget.

[4:52:35] So '27, which the legislature just passed, and is awaiting the signature

[4:52:39] by the governor, will be the core funding, the

[4:52:43] baseline that we start with for fiscal year '28.

[4:52:48] So during July,

[4:52:50] Rebecca Jackson here, our chief budget officer, is going to be extremely busy, and

[4:52:54] I'll be working with her, and she already has meetings set up with,

[4:52:58] I believe, all the offices.

[4:53:00] Right.

[4:53:00] And you'll be reviewing their current budget and their budget requests for

[4:53:05] the next year and assembling those.

[4:53:07] Do you want to talk about that process for a moment?

[4:53:10] Especially since I'm brand new to DESE,

[4:53:14] and my team is... I have one person that moved

[4:53:18] from areas. She moved from procurement into budget, so she knows DESE,

[4:53:22] but she doesn't know budget. So we're all new.

[4:53:25] We're going to meet with all the programs and all the executive leadership,

[4:53:29] find out about their programs, find out what their needs are, what they think that

[4:53:32] they need as far as new decision items,

[4:53:35] if they think that they'll need a supplemental for '27.

[4:53:38] And then those are the items that we'll bring forward to you all after discussion

[4:53:42] with the commissioner and Kyle. They'll prioritize,

[4:53:46] bring those items to you, and then you guys will decide what we want to bring

[4:53:49] forward with the budget.

[4:53:51] And, uh, Carrie Casey and John Otto as Finance Committee,

[4:53:55] uh, again, are planning to be heavily involved

[4:53:59] in the budget process for fiscal year '28

[4:54:02] and talk about, okay, do we actually include

[4:54:06] all the things that are in the '27 budget as we

[4:54:10] roll into '28? Or what's the appropriate, um, move

[4:54:14] to modify or continue? And,

[4:54:18] again, the budget itself,

[4:54:21] when you read House Bill 2,

[4:54:24] it's very prescriptive about what each line item does

[4:54:28] and how much money, and the amounts of dollars

[4:54:32] are almost exclusively from a calculated amount or from a

[4:54:36] fiscal note, and that is when the legislature was passing a

[4:54:40] bill, they would ask us,

[4:54:42] "How much is this going to cost?"

[4:54:44] And we would have to perform calculations about, this many

[4:54:48] FTE and this expense, and the fiscal note

[4:54:52] ends up being the dollar amount that's in the budget, is how it usually works.

[4:54:55] But we will need to talk about how the board wants to proceed and the questions

[4:54:59] that Mr. Matusik brought up in terms of, we know it's a tight budget year,

[4:55:03] so what do we do?

[4:55:04] Uh, we'll need to talk about the fact that

[4:55:09] assuming the governor signs the bill, the current bill as is,

[4:55:13] there's one-time money in there supporting the formula.

[4:55:16] I mentioned from the Blind Pension Fund and the Capital Commission Fund, that's one

[4:55:20] time. So- There's a- I'm sorry?

[4:55:24] There's a bump of $190 million. Yeah.

[4:55:25] There's also the $190 million that was not

[4:55:29] appropriated that won't go away. It'll still be a shortfall of the

[4:55:33] formula for next year. So between the $190 million the formula called

[4:55:37] for for next year that we are not going to receive, and then the

[4:55:41] $118 million that has been at least partially filled by one-time

[4:55:45] money, there could be a substantial shortfall

[4:55:48] between what the formula calculates and what the

[4:55:52] core budget amount is in the

[4:55:56] fiscal year '28, which means we would need a fairly

[4:56:00] sizable new decision item, a request for additional

[4:56:03] money to move towards full funding of the formula.

[4:56:07] So those will be big decisions the board has on the horizon, and we'll certainly

[4:56:11] try to provide you all the information you need going forward to go make good

[4:56:14] decisions and, uh, guide the department.

[4:56:17] But I'd be glad to answer any questions this time.

[4:56:21] Mr. Matusik.

[4:56:22] Uh, thank you, Kyle. Uh,

[4:56:26] when the state adequacy

[4:56:30] target isn't met, right, so if it's $6,900, just simple

[4:56:34] math, $200 less.

[4:56:38] You know, if you take a small rural district-

[4:56:41] Right

[4:56:42] ... with 100 students, you know, that's $20,000.

[4:56:45] You take

[4:56:46] a suburban district with, say, 4,000

[4:56:50] students, you know, that's what 800,000 or...

[4:56:53] I think like Park Hill in the Kansas City area has over 10,000 students, so

[4:56:57] that's a couple million dollars. Um, I'm less familiar with

[4:57:01] Kansas City, how many students they have and, but

[4:57:06] are there districts that

[4:57:09] can weather that better than others?

[4:57:11] Does it hurt rural districts more?

[4:57:13] Does it hurt-

[4:57:15] Yeah

[4:57:15] ... or do they all feel the similar pain?

[4:57:17] Do you care if I go off in the weeds here a little bit to explain that question

[4:57:20] properly?

[4:57:21] Yeah.

[4:57:21] Okay.

[4:57:22] First off, um, the ability to weather these

[4:57:26] situations,

[4:57:28] it's going to vary dramatically district to district,

[4:57:32] and

[4:57:33] there's two parts to that. Number one,

[4:57:36] how heavily does that district depend on local funding, property

[4:57:40] tax funding, versus how heavily does that district depend

[4:57:44] on formula funding? We have schools we refer to

[4:57:47] as formula-dependent schools because they get a

[4:57:51] majority of their dollars through the state formula, and those

[4:57:54] districts will generally take a bigger hit if the

[4:57:58] formula's underfunded. The way the formula's set up,

[4:58:02] it's not that we send $6,900 to every district for every

[4:58:06] kid.

[4:58:07] It's set up that that's the target that we're supposed to have behind each

[4:58:11] kid through a combination of state dollars stacked on top

[4:58:15] of local dollars. The formula essentially calculates how

[4:58:19] many local dollars a community should be able to

[4:58:23] supply per kid,

[4:58:25] and then the state makes up the difference.

[4:58:27] So if you're from Koshkonong, you know, if you've been there,

[4:58:31] it's Oregon, Howell R-3 down south central Missouri, there's essentially

[4:58:35] no industry. And it's a very nice community, but it's all

[4:58:39] agricultural land and property tax, um, revenue

[4:58:43] is at a very much lesser

[4:58:46] level than, say, in Ladue. And so

[4:58:50] Oregon, Howell R-3 would be considered probably a formula-dependent

[4:58:54] school, and it's more difficult for them because the state

[4:58:58] money gets hit, then they take the hit.

[4:59:02] A district like Ladue, um, they don't receive very much state

[4:59:06] money actually per student, and that's because their local property,

[4:59:10] um,

[4:59:11] revenue is significantly higher.

[4:59:15] So their reduction in state dollars may not be

[4:59:19] as significant as it is for other districts throughout the state.

[4:59:22] And then there are some districts

[4:59:24] that we refer to as hold harmless districts.

[4:59:29] When this formula was passed back in '04 or '05,

[4:59:33] um,

[4:59:34] you know, no legislator wants to see their school district get less,

[4:59:38] and the formula currently in place would've given less

[4:59:42] to some districts than the previous formula.

[4:59:46] So the compromise was that those districts would continue

[4:59:50] receiving what they had been receiving. They were considered hold harmless.

[4:59:54] And when we have a shortfall in the formula

[4:59:59] What we have to do is dial down the state adequacy target,

[5:00:03] 7,145, to the number that fits the budget, in

[5:00:07] this case, around 6,900. And that becomes the amount

[5:00:11] that's the target for each kid to have behind them.

[5:00:15] And then we start sending state formula money out.

[5:00:18] We're required to pay the hold harmless schools their full amount first

[5:00:23] because they've not been receiving additional from this formula.

[5:00:26] And then the shortfall

[5:00:28] ends up falling upon the formula-dependent schools more

[5:00:32] heavily.

[5:00:33] I don't know if that answered your question or not, but the schools I was at, one

[5:00:37] district received about $3,300 per student from the formula.

[5:00:41] One district, a poorer district, received about $4,400 per

[5:00:45] kid. There's one district in the St.

[5:00:47] Louis area that receives $584 per kid, and it's all

[5:00:50] about the combination of what their community can

[5:00:54] provide in local property tax revenue because the

[5:00:58] values of their property is in their tax rate, and what it takes to get

[5:01:02] to the SAT.

[5:01:04] Thank you.

[5:01:07] Any other questions?

[5:01:09] Okay. We'll be working on the formula on the budget, and we will try to

[5:01:13] keep you as well informed as we can. But I thank you for your time and attention.

[5:01:17] Thank you.

[5:01:23] Very well. So at this time, we have the commissioner search

[5:01:27] update with Ms. Casey.

[5:01:31] Thank you, President Miller. I have a brief update

[5:01:35] today to share with the board,

[5:01:38] that with the completion of the interim commissioner being

[5:01:42] now on board, the state board is focused on conducting a national

[5:01:46] search for a commissioner. And we are working with internal teams

[5:01:50] between HR, procurement, and OA to sort through what is the

[5:01:53] process that we're required to follow.

[5:01:56] We're identifying potential search firms, and we'll be

[5:02:00] doing an evaluation of those firms to determine the best.

[5:02:05] This search process will involve ultimately working with a national

[5:02:09] search firm, and

[5:02:11] we're

[5:02:15] working on this regularly, and we'll continue to provide updates in future board

[5:02:18] meetings.

[5:02:20] Okay.

[5:02:21] That's it. Thank you.

[5:02:21] Any questions for Ms. Casey?

[5:02:25] Hearing none.

[5:02:27] Mr. Otto had a request.

[5:02:30] Yeah, I just had one comment before we go into closed session.

[5:02:33] I know that Commissioner

[5:02:36] Westbrooks-Hodge's term ends

[5:02:39] June 30th, and so I don't know if this is your last meeting or not, but I

[5:02:43] wanted to recognize and thank you for your service while you're

[5:02:46] here, just in case you weren't here at a future meeting. Thank you. Thank you.

[5:02:50] Thanks.

[5:02:52] Kind of a relatively awkward situation, and so please-

[5:02:57] But I wanted to make sure that you-

[5:02:58] We're not trying to push you out the door

[5:03:02] by any means. Yeah. But hopefully, we'll get that resolved

[5:03:06] relatively soon.

[5:03:08] But you are very much appreciated.

[5:03:10] Thank you.

[5:03:11] Certainly.

[5:03:12] Thank you both.

[5:03:13] At this time, we need to move into closed session.

[5:03:17] All right. I move that the State Board of Education go into closed session

[5:03:21] as posted by the executive assistant to consider the following:

[5:03:25] legal actions, causes of action, litigation, or legal work product relating

[5:03:29] to the State Board of Education and the Department of Elementary and Secondary

[5:03:32] Education, as well as any confidential or privileged communications

[5:03:36] between those entities and legal counsel.

[5:03:39] Two, individually identifiable personnel records,

[5:03:43] performance ratings, or records pertaining to employees or applicants for

[5:03:46] employment. And three, criminal records imposed by law.

[5:03:51] Second.

[5:03:53] All those in favor of closed session?

[5:03:54] We have to do a roll call of this.

[5:03:55] Okay.

[5:03:57] Mr. Bradberry?

[5:03:59] Yes.

[5:04:00] Ms. Casey?

[5:04:01] Yes.

[5:04:01] Mr. Matusik?

[5:04:03] Yes.

[5:04:03] Mr. Myers?

[5:04:04] Yes.

[5:04:05] Mr. Otto?

[5:04:06] Yes.

[5:04:06] Dr. Scholl?

[5:04:07] Yes.

[5:04:07] Ms. Westbrooks-Hodge?

[5:04:08] Yes.

[5:04:09] President Miller?

[5:04:10] Yes.

[5:04:12] I

[5:04:14] want a quick little point of order.

[5:04:20] So I was kind of waiting for the

[5:04:24] opportunity to

[5:04:27] bring this up, but in our bylaws,

[5:04:30] and it's sort of half joking, but half serious, too.

[5:04:35] It says, "Voting. Votes by the board are taken by voice

[5:04:39] unless a roll call vote is required by law.

[5:04:42] When the vote is not unanimous, a roll call vote is taken in alphabetical order.

[5:04:46] All action items before the board must be approved." So

[5:04:49] it's the alphabetical thing.

[5:04:51] I think, Brooks,

[5:04:53] you go after me, not last.

[5:04:56] I'm just like, "You're such a geek."

[5:05:01] But for the new board members, I will say,

[5:05:05] when we developed these bylaws,

[5:05:09] because we didn't have any before, I think they were-

2026 06 23 Missouri State Board of Education Meeting

Transcript