[0:00] It's always a pleasure to welcome people to our group, and

[0:04] work together for the betterment of the kids of our state.

[0:07] So thank you for being here.

[0:13] So everybody, have they had a chance to look at the agenda?

[0:18] Any corrections, additions to make?

[0:21] Hearing none, I move for a passage of the-

[0:24] Call to order

[0:25] ... Call to the ord-

[0:26] Call the meeting to order first, and then

[0:27] Oh, I thought I already had. I'm sorry. I apologize.

[0:30] I call the meeting to order. How about that?

[0:32] There you go.

[0:33] Is there a time that we need to have?

[0:34] Like 8:59, so we're right on schedule.

[0:38] Move to approve the agenda.

[0:39] Okay. We have a-

[0:41] Second

[0:41] ... motion and a second to approve the agenda.

[0:43] All those in favor say aye.

[0:45] Aye.

[0:46] Okay.

[0:48] Move to approve the minutes.

[0:50] Move to approve the minutes by Michael Matusow.

[0:55] Second.

[0:55] Second by Gretchen Shull.

[0:57] All those in favor?

[0:59] Aye.

[1:00] Okay.

[1:04] We're down to agenda item four,

[1:07] and that has been approved. Any...

[1:10] No additions to

[1:12] the agenda. The minutes of the June 23rd meeting,

[1:18] have you had an opportunity to review those?

[1:21] Yeah, we just approved them.

[1:22] I'm sorry. I'm having a confusing time here just a little bit.

[1:26] So I'm going to turn it over to commissioners for reports.

[1:30] Sure. Thank you.

[1:32] I just have a few things to note this morning.

[1:35] First is Luke Reid is joining us for the first time.

[1:38] Luke is our chief of governmental relations. Can you stand in...

[1:43] So you'll be hearing from him a little bit later on.

[1:48] And this is not Lisa Serino's first meeting, but it is her first meeting as the

[1:51] deputy commissioner for the Division of Learning Services.

[1:58] And then I would just like to say thank you to Brooks, Kerry, and Robbie for

[2:02] joining us for part of the administrators' conference, the cooperative conference

[2:06] on school administrators. It was a great conference and I

[2:10] know that people I've heard from, so many people who really appreciated seeing you

[2:13] there. So thank you for doing that, and for showing them your support.

[2:17] Yesterday we had new board member orientation with

[2:21] Robbie, Jordan, Vince, Mike, and Brooks joined us, and we talked

[2:26] in detail about literacy, the Department's literacy initiatives, and then the

[2:30] budget process. So they are primed and ready to go for the budget

[2:33] discussion today.

[2:35] And then finally, next week is back to school week for I think almost

[2:39] all of our schools are starting on Monday or Tuesday of next week.

[2:42] And so I have started already

[2:46] making a schedule of some places to visit in the fall, and other people have been

[2:49] reaching out to us about coming to

[2:52] visit or to meet with them. So, really looking forward to that, to getting

[2:56] out in the schools once the kids are there and settled in.

[3:00] And then lastly, on Thursday, some of us will be heading

[3:04] to the state fair to attend the governor's ham breakfast.

[3:07] So I will be there along with Kyle and Luke.

[3:11] Yes. So that is

[3:14] pretty much all I have. Thank you.

[3:16] Okay. Thank you for your report.

[3:20] Moving right along here,

[3:22] president's report,

[3:24] committee report from Mr. Matusow.

[3:28] Thank you.

[3:30] Just a quick update on the strategic planning committee.

[3:33] We've met a couple of times,

[3:36] just to kind of... And others on the committee, please chime in if

[3:40] you want at any point. But

[3:42] met a couple of times to kind of figure out

[3:45] what the process looks like for

[3:50] coming up with a strategic plan.

[3:54] I think we've identified Bellwether as a consultant that's going to help

[3:58] us with this. I think the

[4:01] difference, this will be board driven, a very board-driven

[4:05] process.

[4:07] Our plan is to include other board members in the meetings

[4:11] as we go. We'll have to figure out how to

[4:15] do that to avoid a quorum.

[4:20] Each board member will have an opportunity to meet one-on-one with our consultants

[4:24] to give them whatever your perspective is on what a strategic plan should

[4:28] look like and what it should include.

[4:31] And I think all of the work

[4:34] that had been done before this is going to be used, and we'll

[4:39] use it as much as we can. So we have

[4:43] stakeholder input from over 100 people I think.

[4:46] And so we'll go through all that. And timing-wise, our plan

[4:50] is to have something that we can bring to the board for a vote

[4:55] into the calendar year early next year.

[4:57] So

[4:58] probably four, five, six months from now, that's the timing.

[5:02] So,

[5:03] with that, I'll pause and see if any of the other committee members want to add

[5:06] anything, or if anyone has questions.

[5:10] No additions. Well said, Mike.

[5:12] Thank you.

[5:14] Yeah.

[5:14] Vincent, did you have a question?

[5:16] No.

[5:17] Okay. Thank you for that report.

[5:18] Thank you.

[5:21] Legislative committee, Robbie, if you-

[5:23] Yeah. Obviously we're in the infancy of that.

[5:26] Got appointed that at the retreat, and I thought maybe more than one board meeting

[5:30] before I help pick legislative priorities, but we will be

[5:34] getting some things done this fall to present as the legislative session

[5:37] begins.

[5:39] Good.

[5:43] Thank you-

[5:44] Commissioner Casey

[5:45] ... Mr. President. As part of the legislative committee, I am not

[5:49] a member of the legislative committee, excuse me, but as part of the work of the

[5:53] legislative committee, I got to thinking about all of the statutes.

[5:57] John does an excellent job of reminding us when we're in a discussion what the

[6:00] actual statute is, and we have access to that online.

[6:04] But when I was a new board member and came to my orientation, I said, "So

[6:07] what laws do I need to know about?"

[6:11] And I was given this book. And this is

[6:15] from 2020. It's a couple of inches thick.

[6:18] It probably has a few more updates to it since that time.

[6:22] But it

[6:24] reminded me just recently as I was looking through it, just how

[6:28] much

[6:31] regulation is really out there. And we went through a great exercise

[6:35] in reducing regulations in the early childhood program, and I

[6:39] wonder that perhaps the committee could somehow think about

[6:43] how do we start to look at all the legislation that's there for

[6:47] public schools in the state of Missouri, and in what way can we

[6:51] begin to refine it or reduce it,

[6:55] eliminate it

[6:56] where appropriate. Just do a good review and thorough review of it.

[7:00] So as the new committee chair, I'm going to leave this on your desk.

[7:04] Thank you. An excellent suggestion.

[7:07] Congratulations.

[7:07] Thank you.

[7:10] Okay.

[7:12] Moving along, we have John Otto.

[7:15] All right. Yeah, thank you.

[7:17] John Otto, chair of the governance committee. I'll give you a brief update.

[7:21] The governance committee met last week,

[7:23] and we discussed briefly the meeting agenda

[7:27] structure. So I don't know if you've noticed, the board members who are

[7:31] not as new,

[7:33] we added

[7:35] a timeframe allotment to

[7:38] each agenda to kind of help us gauge or manage how

[7:41] long

[7:42] each topic should be. And so,

[7:46] we're open to feedback, if there's any other suggestions

[7:49] on what we can do to make these meetings efficient and

[7:53] also

[7:55] substantive at the same time. And so, we want to make sure that

[7:59] we're

[8:00] making the best use of everybody's time.

[8:03] And so, we've talked about things like maybe moving the consent items

[8:07] to the end,

[8:09] things like that. And so if there's anything that you wake up in the middle of

[8:13] the night and think like, "I think we can do this," just shoot me an email and

[8:18] we'll talk about it at the governor's committee and then come make a recommendation

[8:21] to the board if we need to make any changes.

[8:25] We also

[8:27] discussed maybe with there's so much

[8:30] new

[8:32] topics that we need to cover in these meetings, we talked about potentially

[8:36] having

[8:37] more frequent meetings, meaning

[8:41] twice a month, and once virtually, one in person.

[8:45] But I think given the amount of work that

[8:49] staff needs to do to set these meetings up, I don't think

[8:53] that is necessarily the best course of action at this time.

[8:56] But

[8:59] currently, we're not scheduled to have a November meeting, and so maybe we

[9:03] could talk about having a board meeting in

[9:06] November to kind of spread these things out because

[9:10] obviously December with the holidays and things like that, it gets kind

[9:13] of difficult with travel and everything, and we don't want

[9:17] to have a 12-hour meeting or something like that.

[9:20] So I'll shoot an email out,

[9:24] unless there's dates right now in early November

[9:27] that you cannot do, but

[9:30] I'll shoot out some proposed dates, and we could possibly have a November

[9:34] meeting.

[9:37] Let's see.

[9:40] What else did we talk about? We talked about

[9:44] standing agenda items.

[9:47] There is currently a calendar in our

[9:50] bylaws that are online, I think it's Appendix A,

[9:54] that the staff is going to go through and make sure

[9:58] if we can take anything off or move anything, or

[10:02] if things need to be added. And so if you want to take a look at that, you

[10:06] can,

[10:07] and we can get that incorporated

[10:11] into this and then into our board meetings going forward.

[10:14] And kind of speaking of

[10:19] the

[10:20] board meetings going forward, we will need to set the board

[10:24] meeting calendars for 2027. And so typically, at

[10:28] least since I've been here

[10:30] since last year, it's been the second Tuesday of each month,

[10:35] subject to deviations based on holidays or conflicts

[10:39] or things like that.

[10:42] For example, in October, we have the teachers' banquet.

[10:45] And this year, our board meeting does not align with that, and so we'll

[10:49] need to make sure that maybe next year we align.

[10:52] So,

[10:54] I think we're going to put together a tentative

[10:58] calendar. Like I said, it's just going to be starting with the second Tuesday of

[11:01] each month.

[11:02] And I'll send that out, and if there are any dates that

[11:06] are a conflict, like I personally have a conflict in the December meetings,

[11:11] and so,

[11:13] we can work that out kind of online or offline and then get

[11:17] ready to

[11:19] have a board meeting scheduled that we can approve at

[11:23] either our September or October meeting.

[11:27] I think that's it.

[11:32] Now, one other thing that we did discuss, and we can talk about it here,

[11:36] is that

[11:38] I do have a conflict with this December's board meeting, and so I

[11:41] didn't know if

[11:44] everybody was comfortable moving that meeting back.

[11:46] It's currently scheduled for

[11:49] December 8th. So I didn't know if people were comfortable moving that

[11:53] back to December 15th.

[11:56] Again, if not, that's fine. I'll just miss the meeting.

[11:58] But that's just selfishly I was thinking, seeing if we could move that

[12:04] back a week.

[12:05] I would support that.

[12:07] Okay. Anybody-

[12:08] Same.

[12:08] Yeah.

[12:09] Same.

[12:09] Okay. All right

[12:12] Stacy, if you can make note of that, and we'll get

[12:14] the schedule updated so that our December

[12:18] board meeting is pushed back one week.

[12:20] And then obviously,

[12:23] we talked about the November meeting.

[12:25] I think there's the Tuesday, November 10th or

[12:29] Tuesday, November 17th.

[12:32] Unless somebody's opposed to a November meeting,

[12:36] I think that would go

[12:38] a long way. Like I said, we can kind of stretch out some of the items that are on

[12:42] the October and December agenda.

[12:47] But if either of those dates do not work, then let me

[12:50] know.

[12:52] And did you recommend what dates?

[12:54] November

[12:56] 10th or November 17th.

[12:58] I would not be available November 10th, but I am on November 17th.

[13:02] Anyone else?

[13:06] So it sounds like the 17th probably works

[13:08] for most.

[13:09] Yep.

[13:10] Okay. All right. Yeah, let's make a note then to add the November

[13:14] 17th

[13:17] meeting to the board calendar.

[13:20] And I think that's it. The only other thing I had was that, now

[13:24] we have two new board members

[13:27] as of this meeting, and we have five committees.

[13:30] And so that's something... Oh, good.

[13:33] As you can see on the

[13:35] screen there, there's a committee membership

[13:38] matrix. And so,

[13:41] we need to add the

[13:43] two new board members to that. And so if there's any particular

[13:48] committee that either of you gentlemen would

[13:51] like to join or would not want to be on, then just let us know and we

[13:55] can get you added. Or if somebody wants

[13:59] to put you on,

[14:01] volunteer you onto a committee based on your background and your

[14:05] skillset, speak up now.

[14:09] Kerry?

[14:10] Thank you,

[14:12] Vice Chair.

[14:14] As Kerry Casey, I would like to recommend the inclusion

[14:18] of board member Vince Schamel to the student success-- or

[14:22] excuse me, to the finance committee, and board member

[14:26] Mike McDonald to the student success committee.

[14:30] Are you guys fine with that?

[14:33] Okay.

[14:33] Yeah.

[14:33] All right.

[14:35] All right, so we got two new

[14:38] board members added to the two committees.

[14:39] Now, speaking of the student success committee, that committee does not yet have

[14:43] its charter finalized, and so we're working on that, and we'll have that

[14:46] to present to this board for approval

[14:50] at

[14:52] October's meeting, hopefully.

[14:53] Correct. At September's meeting.

[14:55] September, I'm sorry. I keep thinking it's October.

[14:57] And I'd also like to-- I know this was just an initial draft, so there's a few

[15:01] other edits to make to it, but in our previous retreat,

[15:05] we did make a change where Dr. Schull

[15:09] is no longer on legislative, but is now on student

[15:12] success with me. And

[15:16] Robby Myers, I think,

[15:19] we need to talk about the number and if Robby will stay on student

[15:23] success,

[15:25] or where appropriate. And I think that works, so Robby being on student

[15:29] success, along with Gretchen and myself, and then Mike,

[15:33] who's a non-voting board member.

[15:36] Mr. Chairman?

[15:37] We have a

[15:39] search committee underway, is that correct?

[15:43] I would like to offer myself as a member of that committee, if

[15:46] that's possible. I think I-

[15:48] That would be great. It's an ad hoc committee, so not listed here, and I'll just

[15:52] follow up with you on that.

[15:53] Okay. Very good. Thank you.

[15:56] Yep. All right, well, we'll get this updated, and sent out around

[16:00] to the board and to staff. And if we need to post this online, that's fine,

[16:04] too. But yeah, I think that concludes my

[16:08] governance committee report.

[16:10] Any questions? Mr. Otto?

[16:13] Hearing none, we'll move to our next item, which is the finance committee.

[16:16] Great. Thank you very much, President Brooks.

[16:19] So, a few things that I'd like to lay out, because we do have new board

[16:23] members here,

[16:26] though you did get a great introduction to the budget process and an overview of

[16:29] the finance process yesterday and the budget

[16:33] itself. Just a little bit of a backdrop.

[16:37] We formed this committee, as all of our others, many of our others,

[16:41] over just the recent months. Both John and I have been

[16:44] members of that committee, and now we'll have

[16:48] Vince as a member with us, and we've worked closely with Dr.

[16:52] Cruz.

[16:53] As a new committee,

[16:56] we first established, John and I discussed this,

[16:59] and along with Dr. Cruz, and we first established that our first

[17:03] objective was to just lay some groundwork, get

[17:06] our better understanding of the budget

[17:10] process, the budget timing, the components of

[17:14] the budget, and work to bring a

[17:17] better insight of the budget to the board as a whole.

[17:22] And I think we've generally accomplished that.

[17:25] That's never completed, of course, but we have, if you look back

[17:28] over minutes of previous meetings or

[17:32] agendas of previous meetings, you will see the great work that Dr.

[17:36] Cruz and his team have done to better define the budget in

[17:40] terms of whether it's the programs that we're providing,

[17:44] the revenue streams, or the expense

[17:48] allocations to give us a better and deeper understanding of

[17:53] what the budget is made up of and

[17:57] beyond that, a deeper understanding of the actual budget process.

[18:03] What we have identified, very importantly, is that the

[18:07] budget process is very

[18:10] condensed for the creation of a new budget.

[18:13] Two months, basically, to maybe eight to 10 weeks.

[18:17] Before, from start of creating the budget to a board approval of

[18:21] a budget. And you're going to experience that right now.

[18:24] We're in that budget creation timeline for FY28.

[18:28] We're going to see some information today that we'll be asked to

[18:31] approve in September.

[18:35] Separately, you then have a very long

[18:38] timeline,

[18:40] which is required, and understandably so, from the

[18:43] approval of our budget in September all the way

[18:47] through the

[18:49] fiscal year up until June, when the governor actually signs

[18:53] it. And that whole time is used working with

[18:57] legislature to

[19:00] further define, further support, answer questions, clarify,

[19:04] make adjustments, et cetera, based on all the back and forth that occurs

[19:08] between the legislature, and probably sometimes even the governor's

[19:11] office, maybe with input, and the department.

[19:16] The time in creating the budget is far too short.

[19:20] That is the most important time of all, for us to have,

[19:24] one, good input, to have thought, to have justification, to

[19:28] understand what's working, what's not working, how can we better fund,

[19:32] not formula fund, but better fund education from the

[19:36] programs that we're

[19:38] supporting. So now that we've laid

[19:42] our groundwork, John and I have discussed as the committee, and now Vince, you

[19:46] will be a part of that, is that we're ready for that next phase,

[19:50] and how we will be taking the creation of the budget

[19:54] to a much broader window. Now, we can't do that for

[19:57] FY28 because it's due to be approved and submitted by

[20:01] a deadline required by legislature.

[20:05] But through this coming year, we will be delving very

[20:09] deeply into FY28 and looking at it,

[20:13] relative to what the outcomes are, relative to the

[20:16] programs that we're supporting,

[20:19] just better understanding it to bring that information to you as a

[20:22] board. We'll call in experts where appropriate on a particular topic

[20:27] if needed, to help us better think

[20:30] about ways in which to fund in that area,

[20:34] or ways in which to structure the budget to achieve the goals that we have.

[20:38] Of course, it's needing to be aligned to the strategic plan.

[20:42] So as that strategic plan further takes shape, et

[20:46] cetera, that will also begin to inform the budget.

[20:50] So I just wanted everybody to appreciate the work that's been done

[20:54] and the road that we have ahead of us in terms of the plans that the

[20:58] finance committee has.

[21:01] So today, what you're going to hear a little bit about, or a lot about,

[21:05] is FY28. But let remind you that

[21:09] the FY27 budget was just approved

[21:13] by the governor at the end of June, and there is still work being

[21:17] done. Where any work is being done, any asks of the department being

[21:21] made for any clarifications, the committee does work alongside Dr.

[21:24] Cruz and his team to ensure that we're

[21:28] providing that feedback. But FY28 is what we've been

[21:32] really focused on, and what you're going to see today is

[21:37] the presentation of new decision items and supplemental requests.

[21:42] As you learned yesterday in your orientation, and as the rest of the board knows,

[21:46] the current budget process, creation process, is you start with your baseline,

[21:50] which is your previous year, and you make changes.

[21:53] You build upon it. And that's what you're seeing today. What are those changes?

[21:57] What are the new adds that we're asking for today?

[22:02] Within that, you will see that there is a significant

[22:05] increase

[22:07] being requested to the tune of $400 million for the funding,

[22:11] based on the funding formula. That formula is cast in statute.

[22:15] It's not newly created by the department.

[22:18] It is not changed at all by the department.

[22:21] In fact, you'll hear later about a task force that is addressing the

[22:25] funding formula.

[22:26] But that $400 million is to fully fund the formula.

[22:30] Kyle will give us far more details.

[22:33] But it's important to appreciate that it has always been the

[22:36] responsibility of the board, demonstrated through our past legislative

[22:40] priorities, that we ask the legislature to fully fund the

[22:43] formula. That is what has been defined as needed for

[22:47] education in Missouri.

[22:49] Now, we also understand that revenue in the state is not

[22:55] sufficient at this time to cover the fully funding of the formula.

[22:59] In fact, the formula has not been funded fully over the last

[23:03] few years, if not longer.

[23:05] So part of that $400 million, as Kyle will explain, is associated with the

[23:09] gap that has already been existing.

[23:11] And then new items that have been either added by legislature

[23:16] in this recent year or recent years, which require

[23:20] additional funding, whether it be for virtual schools, charter schools,

[23:24] different programs that are mandated by legislature, that will make up

[23:28] the difference to the $400 million.

[23:31] So I just want to assure the board that we

[23:35] understand the significance of that request as a finance committee,

[23:39] but that we also understand that this is just part of the iterative process.

[23:43] This is where we start, and then we work with the

[23:46] legislature in making appropriate changes

[23:49] as revenue is better defined for the

[23:53] FY28 year. And obviously, we do our part in

[23:56] bringing the budget into balance.

[24:00] So that's what you're going to see today.

[24:02] You're also going to see new decision-

[24:03] So I have a question.

[24:04] Okay, sure.

[24:05] So

[24:06] on the money,

[24:08] and this is kind of complicated for me right now, but

[24:12] my understanding is we asked for $400 million

[24:16] more.

[24:16] Mm-hmm.

[24:17] And the governor asked us to address our budget, or

[24:21] consider addressing our budget 10%.

[24:24] Now, so for FY28, we're not to that point

[24:28] yet.

[24:30] When the legislature goes through their process

[24:33] of

[24:36] reviewing the budget and making recommendations and changes, there will be

[24:40] asks that will come back to us to reduce our budget

[24:44] or-

[24:44] Yeah

[24:45] ... increase our budget if we should be so lucky that more revenue was identified.

[24:49] So those adjustments will be made through the course of the year.

[24:53] Now, what we have discussed in the past is in current

[24:56] years where revenue shortfalls are

[25:00] identified, the department, as other departments are, are

[25:04] asked to identify areas where changes can be made,

[25:08] reductions can be made. That's a separate exercise from FY28.

[25:12] So it's a load everything you can in there and see what we get.

[25:16] See-

[25:16] No. I wouldn't say load everything you can.

[25:19] It's be good stewards of your money and identify what the needs are.

[25:23] And the needs are, in terms of the

[25:28] funding the schools-

[25:29] Yeah

[25:30] ... are based on the formula that's in statute.

[25:32] So that 400 million isn't over and above what the formula

[25:36] requires. It is to get us to what the formula that

[25:40] has been set in statute requires.

[25:43] Okay.

[25:43] And then other items, to your point-

[25:46] Mm-hmm

[25:46] ... we are asking for things that you'll see,

[25:49] just call them discretionary items,

[25:53] that we, as a board, need to think about and talk about if we want to start

[25:57] to...

[25:58] And not start. There have always been innovation in education, new

[26:02] programs identified, et cetera. Not to suggest that there hasn't been at

[26:06] all, but there always will be. So you will see some new

[26:10] items in the report today that we,

[26:14] as a board, need to talk about. Are we supportive of this particular

[26:18] item?

[26:19] So it isn't so much ask for everything you get, but it is asking

[26:23] for something that we think, as a board, if we decide we want

[26:27] to keep it in the budget request, that we think is important for the

[26:30] future. And it may not be

[26:34] approved,

[26:36] and we, as a finance committee, then collectively back to the board,

[26:40] will guide that process when we are asked to reduce things, what's

[26:44] our priority? Where should we reduce? Where can we reduce?

[26:47] It'll be done in a prioritization way.

[26:50] But we've already

[26:51] said

[26:52] we already have a 10% reduction.

[26:55] You've already worked up a 10%, right, Kyle?

[26:57] We'll be looking at that 10% as it relates to

[27:01] FY28 as we go through the budget.

[27:04] Okay.

[27:04] Yeah.

[27:05] I thought it was 27.

[27:07] That's a separate initiative that has occurred, yeah.

[27:12] Okay.

[27:12] Makes sense.

[27:12] We'll talk about that more when that agenda item comes up-

[27:15] Yeah

[27:16] ... later in the details, because then Kyle will be here to explain.

[27:19] Right.

[27:20] Okay.

[27:22] That concludes my report

[27:26] on the finance committee.

[27:28] Well, you have-

[27:30] And now moving forward to the-

[27:31] Now moving-

[27:31] ... student success committee

[27:32] ... thank you for the hard stop there.

[27:35] Thank you. For the student success committee, I'm excited to have

[27:39] Mike McDonald now a part of that committee, joining Gretchen Shull and

[27:43] Robbie Myers,

[27:45] just recently added to the committee.

[27:46] So this committee was literally just formed

[27:50] anew with the board retreat. So as

[27:56] Board Member Otto noted, the charter is in formation, and

[28:00] it will be presented after the committee finalizes it.

[28:03] It'll be presented for approval in the September board meeting.

[28:08] The focus of the student success committee is that, success of our

[28:11] students. We'll be looking at it at relative to student academic

[28:15] outcomes, but also life success. How are they prepared?

[28:19] Whether it be for career and college readiness, what we're doing in

[28:23] all of those areas. But as I like to say, I don't think

[28:27] our approach should be to boil the ocean.

[28:30] We need to take first things first.

[28:32] And to us, the first thing that's coming up will be after the first of the year

[28:36] that's important to student success is the accountability that we

[28:40] have in our model. And that is all around accreditation, among

[28:44] a few other things. So,

[28:47] from a student success committee standpoint, as the chair of that committee, I have

[28:51] met with Commissioner

[28:53] Priest and Deputy Commissioner Sereno, along with

[28:57] President Miller,

[28:58] and had other conversations such to outline the approach that we

[29:02] would like to take with our first area of focus being

[29:06] getting ready for the accreditation process that

[29:10] will take place in our January board meeting

[29:13] and being prepared for any outcomes of that

[29:16] accreditation review that will occur.

[29:20] There had been work being done already in the previous strategic plan work

[29:23] around

[29:25] a plan for working with schools that were struggling, and we'll

[29:30] review, as a committee, that plan, edit, change, build

[29:33] on that. We will bring in experts as needed to assist us

[29:37] such that our goal would be that in the

[29:41] December meeting, in advance of the January

[29:45] accreditation process, we will be discussing

[29:49] plans for accreditation and plans for dealing

[29:53] or

[29:54] further supporting any schools that are struggling as identified in the

[29:58] accreditation

[30:01] review, and we'll have that plan ready for the December board meeting.

[30:06] And that concludes my report on student success.

[30:10] Thank you, Carrie. Appreciate it.

[30:12] Now we go to commissioner search committee.

[30:15] Moving right along. On the commissioner search committee,

[30:18] thank you,

[30:20] Vince, for joining us in that committee, and I'll bring you up to date a little bit

[30:23] further beyond the discussions we've already had.

[30:26] What I want to do today in terms of committee update is just share with you the

[30:29] timeline, ensure that everybody is fully aware of the timeline.

[30:33] While we have discussed this timeline in the past

[30:37] It is important that everybody be reminded of it.

[30:40] First of all, our overall arching objective is that we will be

[30:44] hiring a new commissioner, making that commitment to a new

[30:47] commissioner by the end of this

[30:51] calendar year, by the end of 2026.

[30:54] We are excited and thrilled that we have Commissioner

[30:58] Priest in her role, and she will continue in her role, even though we

[31:03] would be hiring somebody by the end of this year.

[31:06] Commissioner Priest will be staying in her role through the calendar school

[31:10] year, I should say,

[31:12] such that we have continuity, that we have consistency, that

[31:16] we're not disruptive in any way in terms of all of the activities that are

[31:20] needed to support our schools during the school year.

[31:24] A new commissioner would begin their role, as is

[31:28] typical in the education

[31:32] hiring timeline, would be to begin their

[31:36] role at the end of the school year, whether it be in June, July,

[31:39] but during that transition period from one school year to the next.

[31:44] But now is the time in which we need to be working across the education

[31:48] community to identify an excellent candidate

[31:52] for the Commissioner of Missouri Education.

[31:55] To do that, we are hiring and conducting a national search.

[31:59] We are hiring a national search firm,

[32:02] and we are right on target with that.

[32:04] We are working through our standard, following all statutes

[32:08] and regulations to ensure that we are

[32:13] committing to a

[32:17] search firm of quality and of excellence that will do the work on our

[32:21] behalf of identifying a candidate

[32:25] that we, the board, will work closely with.

[32:28] The search firms, we have identified six different

[32:32] firms. RFPs have been submitted on schedule.

[32:36] Those RFPs are due back by the end of this week,

[32:40] and the committee will meet and interview the top

[32:44] search firms and make a selection by August 31st.

[32:49] That's a week from Monday, and we are on track to meet that deadline.

[32:52] We've got our schedule in place.

[32:54] Then, during the month of September, that search firm will

[32:58] work with the board, the committee, the board, and

[33:02] others in the education community to

[33:06] prepare and complete a job description

[33:10] and a job posting.

[33:13] That posting will be

[33:15] posted no later than the end of September, if not sooner.

[33:20] And then applications will begin.

[33:23] The application and interviewing process will begin

[33:27] during October. The application window will close

[33:30] October 31st, with all interviews then continuing

[33:34] through November, final interviews completed in early

[33:38] December, which then even better aligns with the change we've

[33:42] made in our board meeting timelines, so that now when we're meeting in

[33:46] December 15th,

[33:49] our goal would be that we would be presenting to the board a

[33:52] final candidate for approval.

[33:58] So, that is our timeline.

[34:01] We're sticking to it, and we're on track.

[34:03] Are there any questions with regards to the search process?

[34:07] I don't have any questions. I was actually going to see if I could add a couple

[34:10] more things about strategic planning, but I'll wait and see.

[34:14] So, that concludes my report.

[34:15] Okay, thank you for that.

[34:16] You're welcome.

[34:18] Mike, do you have a question that you want to interject?

[34:21] Yeah, no questions. I actually just wanted to...

[34:24] Carrie and John provided a lot of information on their committees, so I feel like I

[34:27] should provide more. And I'll be quick, but

[34:32] it did make me think, for the board,

[34:35] our next steps on strategic planning are identifying, I can't remember who

[34:39] said it, but what is our North Star, right?

[34:41] What is it that we want to accomplish?

[34:44] And then once we figure that out,

[34:47] what are the sort of key pillars that go underneath it to get us

[34:52] moving in that direction? And I know

[34:56] through the process, that's a question that everyone on the board will get

[35:00] asked. And I think our next meeting, we'll have some

[35:06] information about what other states have done for their strategic plans.

[35:10] What was their North Star? How did they

[35:14] get to that?

[35:17] So that's something that I hope everyone will be thinking about.

[35:20] And again, it will be a

[35:23] very board-driven process. Everyone should have a chance

[35:28] to weigh in. And Carrie mentioned earlier about alignment.

[35:32] I think that was a great point.

[35:34] I do think the strategic plan is,

[35:38] once we have that, our legislative priorities can align with that.

[35:41] And

[35:44] part of my goal of the strategic plan is to making sure there's alignment with the

[35:48] legislature, making sure there's alignment with the governor's office, or just

[35:51] making sure that we don't include anything in there that's so far out in left field

[35:56] that it looks bad or hurts the overall plan.

[36:00] So,

[36:01] would certainly, for anyone on the board, if you have ideas,

[36:07] concerns, whatever, would welcome all of that.

[36:11] And

[36:13] so yeah, just wanted to highlight a couple other things.

[36:17] And for all of you, just be thinking about that, right? What is that North Star?

[36:21] I think it was... I can't remember which state said, "We want to go from worst to

[36:25] first in NAEP scores," or something like that.

[36:27] That's kind of what we're talking about, right?

[36:29] What

[36:31] makes sense for Missouri?

[36:33] We can look at other strategic plans to see what they look like, what kind of

[36:36] issues they focused on, but

[36:38] we need to focus on what works for Missouri and where our challenges are.

[36:41] So

[36:43] Thank you. Just wanted to add that.

[36:46] Thank you, Mr. Matuszek.

[36:49] Now, once again, Kara Casey, right?

[36:51] Or are we-

[36:53] Thank you, President Brooks.

[36:55] All right.

[36:55] Before I begin the update and provide a NASBE

[36:59] report, the National Association of State Boards,

[37:02] I would like to take a moment to step back, if possible, and speak about

[37:07] a past colleague of this state board, Don Claycomb.

[37:13] It's with great respect and sadness that I would like to remember Don

[37:16] Claycomb today.

[37:19] He was a former board member of the State Board of Education who recently passed

[37:22] away. Don served on our board from 2018 to

[37:26] 2024, so many of you around this table may not know Don.

[37:32] But I was fortunate enough to serve alongside him during the final two

[37:36] and a half years of his service to all the children, families, and

[37:39] educators of Missouri.

[37:42] First and foremost, Don was a good man.

[37:45] He was a devoted husband and father who cherished his beautiful family.

[37:49] He often shared stories about his parents, including his mother, who was an

[37:53] educator,

[37:55] and how he grew up in the same home

[37:58] that he then ultimately lived throughout his life.

[38:02] Those stories offered a glimpse into the values, the roots,

[38:07] and the sense of place that shaped the man that he became.

[38:11] Don served on this board with honor,

[38:14] bringing his years of experience as an educator and then leader in Missouri

[38:18] education to every discussion.

[38:21] As the former president of State Technical College of Missouri in Linn,

[38:25] Missouri,

[38:26] Don left an extraordinary legacy.

[38:29] He was known there as a legend, and is to this day.

[38:33] His vision, leadership, and hard work helped shape

[38:37] the State Technical College into the institution that it is today.

[38:42] As the college's current leadership has said, "Dr.

[38:45] Claycomb's legacy lives across our campus, in its

[38:49] buildings, its traditions, and the lives of every student who has

[38:52] walked through our doors."

[38:56] Don's knowledge of and commitment to career and technical education and

[39:00] workforce development were especially valuable as we focused on

[39:04] these critical priorities for Missouri's K12 education system.

[39:08] He was always caring and respectful, but yet never afraid to

[39:12] challenge our thinking. More often than not, he would bring

[39:16] discussions to a close through a thoughtful and very on-target

[39:20] pithy statement,

[39:22] bringing clarity,

[39:23] laughter, and when needed, simplicity to our debates.

[39:28] Most importantly, he always kept our priorities and our

[39:31] responsibility to Missouri's children at the center of the conversation.

[39:38] So it was an honor to know Don, to serve alongside him, and to now

[39:41] remember him. I extend my heartfelt sympathy to his children

[39:45] and grandchildren, as well as to his many friends and colleagues

[39:49] throughout the Missouri education community, some of which are sitting here with us

[39:53] today.

[39:55] Don will be deeply missed. His wisdom, his service, and his

[39:59] unwavering commitment to Missouri's children, families,

[40:02] educators, and workforce will be remembered with deep gratitude.

[40:07] So thank you.

[40:08] Certainly. Thank you. And that concludes your report?

[40:12] You have more?

[40:13] Now I will be moving on to the report from the

[40:15] National Association of State School Boards.

[40:20] For those new members to the board, this is an association comprised

[40:24] of, as you would imagine, our colleagues from other states.

[40:28] The majority of states are members.

[40:30] It is a great organization that seeks to bring

[40:35] people together

[40:37] of similar responsibility across the nation

[40:41] to learn from each other, but also to delve into

[40:44] significant issues of priority across our country to improve

[40:48] education. They don't tell us what to do.

[40:51] They just bring us together for us to help understand and get

[40:55] new ideas from each other.

[40:57] So I've been serving as the liaison to NASBE,

[41:01] actually replacing Don Claycomb,

[41:05] after a short tenure on

[41:09] the board.

[41:10] So during that time, I've been able to attend conferences, I attend all their

[41:14] conference calls, et cetera. They do many webinars.

[41:18] They have great meetings on particular topics.

[41:20] They'll maybe put a task, not a task force together, but a group of people

[41:24] together to particularly focus on an area.

[41:27] But they also just have a monthly webinar where anybody from the

[41:31] state boards can join and hear what's happening from the other

[41:35] states.

[41:37] And that's what I'll give you an update on today.

[41:39] I would like you to know that you've all been included, including Mike,

[41:43] the other Mike, has been included on the NASBE

[41:47] distribution list. So you should start receiving emails from them, and

[41:51] if you've read them, you'll hear a little bit of what I'm going to say today.

[41:56] So as you get those, I encourage you not only to read them, but I

[42:00] encourage you to join as much as you

[42:04] can,

[42:06] in terms of the opportunities they offer to learn

[42:09] from state board members around the

[42:12] nation. What

[42:15] I would also encourage, in October, will be their annual

[42:19] conference, and it's October 26th through 28th in

[42:22] Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland. I've attended a couple of

[42:26] times, and it is a great conference. You get to meet people.

[42:30] There'll be deep dives and discussions, and the presentations are provided not

[42:34] by NASBE, but by other state board members, so you really get good

[42:37] insights.

[42:39] So updates from this last exchange, as it's called, the monthly

[42:42] exchange

[42:44] There were

[42:46] 14 states that were there that gave updates, and I want to share with

[42:49] a few of the highlights. First of all, there was discussion and

[42:54] updates were given in general about bullying and what's

[42:58] happening. Are any states addressing bullying?

[43:01] What are the best practices, and how are they addressing it?

[43:05] So the

[43:07] Washington, DC Board of Education

[43:11] is looking to reestablish their youth bullying

[43:14] task force. That happened in the past.

[43:18] It was dissolved in 2013, but it had resulted in quite a bit of

[43:21] legislation at the time. They're looking to renew that task force.

[43:25] Virginia

[43:28] has a new House Bill 957, which encourages

[43:32] public and elementary secondary education to promote and

[43:36] utilize the 988 suicide platform.

[43:39] New Jersey

[43:41] has introduced a bill that would establish an anti-bullying youth

[43:45] council, which I thought was a great idea across bringing the

[43:49] youth into the discussion.

[43:52] And then, two years ago, Wisconsin

[43:56] developed a bullying prevention toolkit.

[44:00] So, information that's available to us that I encourage the

[44:03] department to take a look at how is that an area of concern.

[44:08] I know we partner closely with our mental health

[44:11] services division, and I would encourage the

[44:15] department to see what can we do in those areas to always

[44:19] continue to look out for the safety of our children.

[44:24] Self-assessments, it was brought up that Hawaii State Board

[44:28] is going to be doing a self-assessment of the board, and I

[44:32] think now, as John has driven us in the past through

[44:35] development of our bylaws, development of a commissioner evaluation

[44:39] tool, I think that it also included,

[44:42] if not an evaluation that we all do as a self-board,

[44:46] and that would be in our future.

[44:48] Other state updates have included that Connecticut State Board of Education is

[44:52] encouraging

[44:56] schools to implement bell-to-bell restrictions on

[45:00] student personal technology use.

[45:02] Now, Missouri already has a

[45:07] requirement that you cannot have cell phones.

[45:09] I don't want to say the wrong words, but it's prohibited in the

[45:13] classrooms.

[45:15] But there is other work to be done in that area, and I'm hearing a lot of

[45:18] conversation not only in other states, but from parents and

[45:22] school districts on looking into what are we doing with all this

[45:26] technology and how do we reduce screen time.

[45:29] And I think that will be something that we as a board need to be looking at as

[45:32] well, either through a committee or through the advice of the department.

[45:37] We should be ahead of that.

[45:39] California is looking at doing some restructuring around their education

[45:43] governance as it relates to responsibilities between the board and the

[45:48] department, et cetera. The District of Columbia has

[45:51] developed new 2026 physical education standards.

[45:56] An interesting point, I'm not familiar with what our physical education standards

[46:00] are and would be valuable for us to be aware of them.

[46:03] The Texas State Board of Education voted to adopt new social

[46:07] study standards,

[46:09] structured around a chronological framework, which include a new Texas history

[46:13] capstone course in the eighth grade.

[46:16] Texas has also adopted a new personal

[46:19] financial literacy half-credit course.

[46:23] Now, Missouri already has a financial literacy

[46:27] half-credit, I think.

[46:29] Again, through committee work, it might be worthy looking at what are the

[46:33] standards, is it structured in the right way?

[46:37] Something also that Texas has done, they've recently implemented

[46:41] through board policy, but also in statute, a required

[46:45] K12 reading list to address

[46:48] improving reading and literacy in education and

[46:52] for their students. And I love that idea.

[46:56] I don't believe we have a required reading list or

[47:00] anything of that nature towards requirement of books to be read,

[47:04] regardless of what book. So, I think it's something that the Student Success

[47:07] Committee will be looking at.

[47:10] And,

[47:11] as I mentioned, I just want to remind you

[47:14] again about the conference in

[47:18] October.

[47:18] Then

[47:22] that's it. There will be a NASBE exchange, and you'll be seeing that in email for

[47:26] an invitation if you would like to join.

[47:29] And that concludes my NASBE report.

[47:33] Any questions?

[47:35] Okay.

[47:37] It's Kerri Casey's turn.

[47:38] Thank you. And this will be my last.

[47:41] So, I would like to provide an update as a member of the Missouri

[47:45] School Funding Modernization Task Force.

[47:49] I have been a member in the past, along with

[47:53] Pamela Westbrook Hodge, who we all know,

[47:56] and we were fortunate to be able to celebrate her last night for her years of

[48:00] service on the board.

[48:02] So,

[48:03] as that co-member of the task force, I would like to give you an update.

[48:08] Since our last regular board meeting where we updated,

[48:12] the task force has met twice. We met in July 13th, and we met

[48:16] as recently as last week.

[48:19] The task force, if you're not familiar with it, those of you that are new to the

[48:22] board, it was as a result of an executive order last year in

[48:26] 2025 by Governor Kehoe to

[48:30] modernize the formula and to submit to Governor Kehoe

[48:35] up to three proposals

[48:38] of recommendation on how to modernize our

[48:41] current funding formula. As you know, that current funding

[48:45] formula was implemented in statute in 2005, so it's

[48:49] due for a refresh. It's important to know that in

[48:52] 2005, I think we were the leaders in the nation in that funding

[48:56] formula in making it student based.

[48:59] There are states now, just today Beginning to

[49:03] change their formula and take into consideration the dynamics,

[49:07] the demographics, and the needs of students, where it has been driven

[49:11] through other methods in the past.

[49:12] So we have been ahead of the game, but we now need to be

[49:17] more modern with our formula. And so that is this task force.

[49:19] It's comprised of

[49:22] up to 30 people, board, legislature, members of the

[49:26] community,

[49:28] past people involved in that past formula, educators.

[49:32] It's a great task force led by our previous

[49:35] deputy commissioner, Dr. Monsis.

[49:38] So back to the update. This task force continues to explore two different

[49:42] funding models, one that modernizes the current formula in several ways,

[49:47] and a second one that relies on a new approach, which is a

[49:51] combined wealth index approach to determine the state and

[49:54] local shares for funding.

[49:57] The combined wealth index approach includes household income

[50:01] in addition to local property wealth to determine the expected

[50:05] state and local shares of funding.

[50:07] The current formula only relied on local property health.

[50:12] Wealth.

[50:13] The task force is considering options to address the challenge of uneven

[50:17] property valuations across the state within the mechanism of the formula

[50:21] to help ensure property values are considered equitably.

[50:26] The current formula includes additional pupil weightings for

[50:30] students from poverty, those with disabilities, and also English

[50:33] learners. The task force is considering adding weights for gifted

[50:38] and homeless students as well. The task force is now

[50:41] considering a variety of recommendations related to the operation of the

[50:45] formula, including funding for charter schools and virtual

[50:49] schools,

[50:51] and other adjustments for small and/or sparsely populated

[50:54] districts.

[50:56] Proration options to address any shortfalls in funding,

[51:00] addressing potential hold harmless provisions for any districts that might

[51:04] otherwise receive less under the new formula, and potential

[51:08] phase-in approaches for transitioning from the current formula to the

[51:11] next formula over a period of time.

[51:15] So as you can see, it's a very complex approach, and I'm grateful

[51:19] to all of the fellow task force members and

[51:23] the great wisdom that they're bringing to this and the

[51:27] discussions that we're having. The next task force meeting is

[51:31] scheduled for September 14th. We do have a webpage linked

[51:35] on our DESE site where a lot of information is housed, including

[51:39] all of our past presentations. You can also go back and listen to past

[51:43] meetings.

[51:44] I would like to say, at this time, here we are in August, we will quickly

[51:48] move, and it will be through the year, and it will all of a sudden be the end

[51:52] of the year. We need to approve,

[51:57] or be aware of, I think we will be approving the proposals

[52:01] that will go into the governor's office. Do we approve them?

[52:05] Dr. Cruz, do you know?

[52:07] I think we need to refer to the executive director.

[52:10] Okay. If we don't approve them, we certainly want to be aware of

[52:13] them, and knowledgeable of them, and support them.

[52:17] So,

[52:20] it's very complicated, and I would like to work with President

[52:23] Miller, Commissioner Priest, and just talk about how we as

[52:27] a board can spend time on this without it being in the depth of

[52:32] taking up agenda time in our monthly meetings.

[52:35] But in what way can we better inform board members

[52:39] about the details within these

[52:42] two proposals that would be put forward?

[52:44] I'd like to volunteer to be part of that working group if I could.

[52:47] I don't know if it's a committee or what.

[52:49] Yeah, it's already established, but I certainly think that would be great.

[52:52] I know Pamela will continue to be, but as a replacement, as

[52:56] another board member, I think we can talk to Dr.

[52:59] Monsis about that and how you can become a part of it.

[53:03] I-

[53:04] Or maybe not the task force, but work with me just on the education of the

[53:08] board.

[53:08] Chairman on, on-

[53:09] I love it. And honestly, the finance committee as a whole should

[53:13] be doing that. So I think that will be an undertaking of the finance

[53:16] committee of which you're a part.

[53:19] Thank you, Vince.

[53:20] That concludes my report.

[53:22] Thank you very much. It now moves down to

[53:26] the consent agenda.

[53:28] Move to approve consent agenda.

[53:29] We have a motion.

[53:31] Second.

[53:31] Okay. We do have a second, and we have discussion.

[53:35] Yes. Thank you. I actually, it's not so much discussion, just a request or

[53:39] a recommendation.

[53:41] I like how we're formatting the new rules

[53:44] process that was presented to us,

[53:47] and as part of the consent agenda is a rule change.

[53:51] It's item H on the agenda.

[53:54] Within that item H, it will give us an update, and it basically

[53:58] says that no changes have been made in the text and therefore it's

[54:02] not reprinted here. Great. But could we also include a

[54:05] link to what it was so that we just, as a point of reference when we're

[54:09] reviewing, that we're knowing what we're with? That's all.

[54:13] My recommendation. Thank you.

[54:18] Okay. Any other items on the consent agenda you would wish to bring

[54:22] forward?

[54:24] Hearing none, I will call for a motion to approve the consent agenda.

[54:30] Oh.

[54:30] Has it?

[54:30] Call a vote.

[54:31] Yeah.

[54:31] It's already moved, yeah.

[54:31] Oh.

[54:32] Okay. So call for the vote. All those in favor, say aye.

[54:35] Aye.

[54:36] Aye.

[54:36] All those opposed.

[54:38] Passes.

[54:41] Okay, now we have action items.

[54:45] Dr. Wheatley,

[54:47] I think you have a couple items, or just one here.

[54:54] Good morning, everyone.

[54:56] Morning.

[54:58] Mark Wheatley, the assistant commissioner in the Office of Special Education that

[55:02] provides a lot of extra feedback apparently here.

[55:04] So I'm going to try to be here

[55:09] Maybe we'll shut these. They're all on. It'll be okay.

[55:12] I think that was better.

[55:14] Everything got moved around a little bit, so that should work.

[55:17] I'm here today in the first process to bring to

[55:21] you

[55:23] a proposed amendment to some of the five of the

[55:27] extended employment sheltered workshop rules.

[55:30] And so before we dive in deeply to the content of the

[55:33] information, just wanted to make sure you understood and know where we are in

[55:37] that process. So, this is the first phase as it

[55:41] relates to the rulemaking process that comes before you, the board,

[55:45] today. So, these are the proposed amendments that you'll see today,

[55:49] and then following that cycle in the rulemaking

[55:52] process, we'll move into those next steps of

[55:56] actually publishing this information

[55:59] with the Missouri Register, and then we'll seek public comment

[56:03] before that rule then comes back to you for the proposed order of

[56:07] rulemaking. And at that time, you'll vote again to

[56:11] determine the next step for that. So, just kind of wanted to level

[56:14] set, make sure you understood that process.

[56:17] And again, I'm here today to speak with you about five extended employment

[56:21] sheltered workshop rules that we are

[56:24] recommending for proposals to amend.

[56:29] Those are located in the five rules that

[56:33] you see before you, 5 CSR

[56:35] 2300.160, 170,

[56:39] 180, 190, and 200, and those will be

[56:43] defined more specifically here as we move through.

[56:46] But for a little bit of context, Missouri operates...

[56:50] Actually, sheltered workshops operate independently,

[56:54] 87 different workshops in 94 locations across the

[56:58] state of Missouri.

[57:00] And so those are the workshops that we're speaking of today.

[57:06] And so when we start with 5 CSR

[57:08] 2300.160, essentially, a couple

[57:12] changes that are made here. One reduces wait

[57:16] time for those folks who can remain

[57:20] eligible and unassigned before a sheltered workshop is required to

[57:24] provide training and support.

[57:26] Just a quick question before you-

[57:28] Sure

[57:28] ... get down into the weeds. Can you briefly describe what a sheltered workshop

[57:31] is?

[57:32] Yeah. So sheltered workshops... And Dan, I might have you come

[57:36] forward here and hang out with me. See how excited he is to share.

[57:40] Actually, Dan Guyer is our director for sheltered

[57:43] workshops. And so, he works very closely with each of the

[57:47] managers in each of those workshops across the state.

[57:50] He has two assistant directors that support that work.

[57:53] Our primary

[57:55] responsibility is to make sure, number one, that we certify

[57:59] the individuals who are disabled within those workshops, as well as

[58:03] certifying the workshops themselves, but there's a lot more that goes

[58:06] into that. And so, first of all, yes, just to speak

[58:10] about the economic impact of sheltered workshops across Missouri, it's

[58:14] extraordinary if you're not familiar with that.

[58:16] And we have workshops doing all sorts of work

[58:20] across the state. Some are very small workshops that you would find in

[58:24] rural or smaller communities. Others are

[58:27] multimillion-dollar facilities that do an extensive

[58:31] amount of work to support the economy throughout Missouri.

[58:35] Dan, I'll let you introduce yourself again here, and if there's

[58:39] anything you want to add just in general summary about the workshops and the work

[58:42] you do, that would be helpful.

[58:44] Good morning to the honored board of the state of Missouri.

[58:47] Basically, to answer your question,

[58:50] Mr. Otto, is it is an environment that

[58:54] typically, according to state statute, and I don't like the word, but is an

[58:58] environment where the unemployable have an ability to become

[59:02] employed.

[59:04] There is a certification process where that individual must have an

[59:07] educational experience, aka an IEP, a

[59:11] transition program furnished-

[59:13] About is the choice

[59:15] that's before the families and before that individual to make that determination.

[59:19] And you'll hear through some of the other proposals here that we're

[59:23] actually, by suggesting amendments to some of these

[59:27] rules, open up the opportunity for those folks in those sheltered workshops

[59:31] to consider

[59:33] employment beyond the sheltered workshops with

[59:37] less regulation for them to be able to come back if they find that that

[59:41] is not the best-suited environment for them based on their needs and

[59:45] their interests. So, again, going back to this first

[59:49] summary of change, talking about just reducing those hours from 12 to

[59:53] 10, and essentially what that does is it reduces the amount of time

[59:57] down to approximately two days based on the work hours that they

[1:00:00] have, where they would go potentially unassigned

[1:00:04] and still be able to provide that training within that period of time.

[1:00:09] And then changing the language from the subminimum wage to a

[1:00:12] commensurate wage, which matches what you see in the

[1:00:16] US Department of Labor.

[1:00:21] We go to the next, 170.

[1:00:24] This basically increases the minimum hourly wage for those eligible

[1:00:28] employees to 30%,

[1:00:31] and that's based on the US

[1:00:35] Department of Labor minimum wage.

[1:00:38] In addition to that, it increases the maximum percentage, again, of

[1:00:42] vocational related time for training from 10 to

[1:00:46] 30%, and then talking about a statutory citation

[1:00:49] because this reference statute has been rescinded

[1:00:53] since this rule had been updated. So, it just improves accuracy and

[1:00:57] clarity on that piece.

[1:01:01] The next talks about allowing for the extended

[1:01:05] amount of time for those annual reports from four to seven months, and that's based

[1:01:08] on the stakeholder engagement needs.

[1:01:11] As they've noted through their processes, sometimes it takes that

[1:01:15] long for auditors to become available for them to complete their

[1:01:19] necessary work. That gives them the extra time to do so and allows us

[1:01:23] to get more thorough and complete applications at that time.

[1:01:29] Again, we see the change in language from subminimum wage to

[1:01:33] commensurate wage. And then this is a piece where I spoke of

[1:01:37] just a moment ago,

[1:01:38] that eligible employees can reapply for certification one year after

[1:01:42] leaving the sheltered workshop.

[1:01:46] And this

[1:01:47] addresses that perceived barrier that some might not

[1:01:51] pursue employment outside if there's a concern or a

[1:01:54] difficulty returning to the workshop, if they have that opportunity and decide

[1:01:58] that's the choice that they end up making.

[1:02:02] And then lastly,

[1:02:05] the disbursement of funds, and this just updates statutory citation

[1:02:08] again, and it just references the statute that has been

[1:02:12] rescinded and adjusts that as such.

[1:02:15] So at this time, the department recommends the State Board of Education

[1:02:19] authorize publication to the Missouri Register of a

[1:02:23] notice of proposed rulemaking to amend those rules as we just

[1:02:27] shared just a few moments ago, and for the

[1:02:30] extended employment sheltered workshops.

[1:02:33] So moved.

[1:02:34] Second.

[1:02:35] We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say,

[1:02:39] "Aye."

[1:02:40] Aye.

[1:02:41] Any opposed? Hearing none, that passes forward.

[1:02:45] Thank you all.

[1:02:46] You're welcome.

[1:02:47] I have a quick question unrelated to that rule, but our

[1:02:51] new rule process, I thought they were not going to come before

[1:02:55] us until they had been out for public comment,

[1:02:59] and then they would come before us.

[1:03:00] Maybe when we get a legislative update, it would be valuable for

[1:03:04] Megan to remind us of the rule process,

[1:03:09] and save it for then.

[1:03:12] Okay. At this time, we have budget discussions

[1:03:17] with Dr. Cruz.

[1:03:33] Good morning. Kyle Cruz, Deputy Commissioner for Financial and Administrative

[1:03:36] Services, and I'm joined by Rebecca Jackson, Chief Budget

[1:03:40] Officer.

[1:03:49] To begin, I'd like to say I very much appreciate Board Member

[1:03:53] Casey's explanation of the budget process and how the board can shape the

[1:03:56] budget.

[1:03:58] I will note that with their help already, we have accelerated the existing

[1:04:01] process.

[1:04:04] Typically in August, in years past, the board has received a high-level

[1:04:07] overview of the budget. But we have actually

[1:04:11] accelerated the process so that we're bringing you today a

[1:04:15] draft version of the numbers and the supplemental requests,

[1:04:19] and the new decision item requests.

[1:04:21] And that is a direct result of the action of the Finance Committee.

[1:04:24] I appreciate their

[1:04:27] participation in the process and look forward to continuing to work with

[1:04:31] Board Member Casey and Board Member Otto to continue

[1:04:35] to engage the board.

[1:04:37] Opening slide. First, I'll note that all information in this

[1:04:41] presentation is in early draft form.

[1:04:45] We are continuing to work to refine the supplemental and new decision items.

[1:04:49] We've also not yet screened the request, as per the budget

[1:04:53] instructions that recently came from the Office of Administration,

[1:04:57] and we will be discussing that momentarily.

[1:05:00] Some of these requests may not end up in the final budget

[1:05:04] proposal due to the instructions, but we want to make sure the board has

[1:05:08] full knowledge of all budget requests that are being considered.

[1:05:12] So what you see today, as far as the supplementals and new decision items,

[1:05:17] they won't all end up in the final budget proposal that goes

[1:05:20] in for legislative consideration.

[1:05:24] A few notes, and our new board members heard much of this yesterday, but

[1:05:28] just a reminder, that the budget begins with what we

[1:05:32] refer to as the core of the budget. And that

[1:05:36] is the prior year's budget minus

[1:05:39] one-time funds. The legislature will mark some

[1:05:42] funds in the budget as one-time, meaning that they

[1:05:46] cannot be just simply brought forward.

[1:05:49] And actually, there is some money like that in the current

[1:05:53] fiscal year '27 foundation formula, and that'll be a point

[1:05:57] we'll discuss here in a moment.

[1:06:01] Each year we do get budget instructions, and

[1:06:05] the instructions we have, in brief, are as follows.

[1:06:09] For supplemental requests, and that is for the current year,

[1:06:13] fiscal year '27, the year we're already in,

[1:06:16] departments may request mandatory supplemental decision

[1:06:20] items and limit those requests to essential items that cannot

[1:06:24] wait until the next fiscal year.

[1:06:26] For new decision items, and that is for the next year's budget, that is

[1:06:30] the '27, '28 fiscal year and school year budget,

[1:06:35] departments may request general revenue for mandatory

[1:06:38] items only.

[1:06:40] We can request other new decision items funded via

[1:06:44] federal or other funds. So really, the restriction

[1:06:47] is tied largely to the State of Missouri general

[1:06:51] revenue. As you know, we are in a bit of a budget crunch right now, and

[1:06:55] general revenue is at a premium.

[1:06:57] Mandatory items are typically those that are in statute, or

[1:07:02] they're formula obligated, if there are federal mandates, if there's some

[1:07:05] kind of a maintenance of effort requirement, or even cost

[1:07:09] increases that are simply across state governments, such as insurance, retirement,

[1:07:13] or items that are legally or judicially

[1:07:17] mandated. So that'll all come through here in a few moments.

[1:07:22] Once again, we're going to look today at supplementals

[1:07:26] for fiscal year '27, current year,

[1:07:29] and new decision items for fiscal year '28.

[1:07:34] The first item I'll bring to your attention is the foundation formula

[1:07:38] increase, and board member Casey brought this up during

[1:07:42] her finance committee report.

[1:07:44] Essentially,

[1:07:47] the formula is calculated in statute,

[1:07:50] and we are simply carrying out the calculations involved.

[1:07:55] The request of $400 million at this point is an

[1:07:59] estimate. Those numbers have not yet been completed.

[1:08:02] We're still waiting on some data, and the data's being calculated.

[1:08:06] But to put it in brief,

[1:08:09] the reason we have a $400 million request for additional

[1:08:13] money for the formula is due to a few factors.

[1:08:16] First, there was a request of 190 million

[1:08:20] in fiscal year '27 that was not approved, so that

[1:08:24] formula call remains. There is also a little

[1:08:28] over $100 million in one-time money

[1:08:32] that was put in for formula funding in fiscal year '27.

[1:08:35] So since that's one-time money, in order for it to be here again, we have to

[1:08:39] request it again. So right there, you're at about $290

[1:08:42] million in new requests.

[1:08:45] Then there are a couple other items in the formula.

[1:08:48] One pertains to an incentive that was provided for

[1:08:53] school districts to have a calendar of at least 169 days,

[1:08:57] and that was first a 1%

[1:09:01] of state funding incentive. However, after the first two years, it goes

[1:09:05] to 2%. So right now, that number could look like about $66

[1:09:09] million.

[1:09:11] In addition, there's also a five-year phase-in of

[1:09:15] a change in how we count students for the formula.

[1:09:18] We've always counted students under a term called weighted

[1:09:22] average daily attendance. Essentially, if one

[1:09:26] student comes to school every day, all day, every

[1:09:30] hour, throughout the year, that's one ADA.

[1:09:34] And then the weighting refers to the extra dollars schools get

[1:09:38] if they have more than the average number of free reduced

[1:09:42] lunch students or special ed students or limited English

[1:09:45] students. So we've always counted students based on

[1:09:49] weighted ADA. However, a few years ago, it was

[1:09:53] recognized that some districts have struggle with

[1:09:57] attendance, but they still have to staff for the full number of

[1:10:00] students. And there's an argument that weighted average

[1:10:04] membership, how many kids are enrolled essentially, should also

[1:10:08] be considered.

[1:10:09] So we're in the process of a five-year phase-in of

[1:10:13] counting students

[1:10:16] 50% by weighted average daily attendance and

[1:10:19] 50% by weighted average membership.

[1:10:22] And each year as we phase in, the cost is about $40

[1:10:25] million. So you can see between the $190 million

[1:10:29] request, plus the one-time money that has to be

[1:10:33] replaced, plus the calendar incentive,

[1:10:37] plus the

[1:10:39] WADA/WAM, weighted average

[1:10:43] daily attendance, weighted average membership calculation, we're approaching

[1:10:47] $390 million, $400 million. Again, this is an

[1:10:50] estimate.

[1:10:52] I will note that we do realize this is a very large request,

[1:10:56] especially in this budget year, and we

[1:11:00] understand there will be questions about

[1:11:03] the likelihood of whether that all comes to pass.

[1:11:07] But there's also the viewpoint that the legislature has

[1:11:11] spoken in terms of how they choose to fund schools,

[1:11:15] and it's in statute, and so we're carrying out the calculations

[1:11:18] provided and following the directions provided in statute.

[1:11:23] So that's essentially the basis of the

[1:11:26] foundation formula, $400 million estimated

[1:11:31] request. I will remind you again, though, those calculations have not been

[1:11:34] completed,

[1:11:35] so there's still some things to go through before we actually get to the final

[1:11:39] number. I thought it might be helpful, though, to spend a little

[1:11:42] time and talk with the board about what

[1:11:46] goes into the foundation formula and how it's calculated.

[1:11:51] And I usually talk about the formula in three parts.

[1:11:55] It's not actually broken in three parts, but it's actually helpful, I think, to

[1:11:59] think of it that way. You have the original formula,

[1:12:03] which generates what's called a state adequacy target,

[1:12:07] and that's the amount of money that theoretically should be available to

[1:12:11] educate each student,

[1:12:13] and the key is through a combination of local

[1:12:17] effort money, local tax rate,

[1:12:20] and state money. And then there's a calculation in the formula

[1:12:24] that

[1:12:26] calculates what the local effort could, should be.

[1:12:30] And then we simply take the state adequacy target,

[1:12:34] which this year is $7,145.

[1:12:38] For each district, we subtract off the amount that

[1:12:42] the formula says they should be providing locally,

[1:12:45] and then the remainder is the amount that should be provided in state money,

[1:12:49] and it differs by district. There are some districts in the state that are

[1:12:53] receiving less than $600 per student because of their local effort,

[1:12:57] and there's some districts that are receiving $5,000 per student or more

[1:13:01] because their local effort is not there to support those students.

[1:13:06] But when we calculate the formula, we have to update the average

[1:13:10] daily attendance numbers from across the state.

[1:13:13] The dollar value modifier, DVM,

[1:13:16] is a factor that's intended to compensate for the fact that in

[1:13:20] some parts of the state, things simply cost more. The labor in St.

[1:13:24] Louis costs more than it does in a rural part of Missouri.

[1:13:28] If there's a change to the state adequacy target, we do put that in.

[1:13:32] There's been no change.

[1:13:34] If there's a change in which schools are held harmless,

[1:13:38] and that is they're still receiving money at the rate they would have under the old

[1:13:42] formula Because the new formula did not treat them as well.

[1:13:45] There's sometimes minor changes there.

[1:13:48] There's a change in case,

[1:13:51] and this is a little unusual, if there's some change to local effort,

[1:13:55] say, a district has their assessed valuation drop below a certain level,

[1:13:59] so their local effort changes, that's calc'd in.

[1:14:03] Every other year, we recalculate the thresholds for at what point you get

[1:14:07] additional money for pre-reduced lunch students,

[1:14:11] special ed students, limited English proficient students.

[1:14:15] And if those thresholds have changed and the numbers in a school has changed,

[1:14:19] there's an additional or subtraction amount of the cost.

[1:14:23] There's the WADA/WAM phase-in

[1:14:27] I discussed, about $40 million per year.

[1:14:30] And there's also a piece of the formula that's been built in

[1:14:34] as the modifications to the original machinery that

[1:14:37] actually helps fund charter school local

[1:14:41] effort. When a student goes from a public school and

[1:14:46] goes to a charter school, the state aid for that student gets

[1:14:50] diverted from the public school payment and sent to the charter school.

[1:14:54] But there should also be a local effort amount because charter schools don't

[1:14:58] generate local property tax. So, an

[1:15:01] amount that is intended to

[1:15:06] signify the local effort is also taken out of the public school

[1:15:10] state aid and sent to the charter school.

[1:15:13] When you have so many students that move from public to charter schools, you hit a

[1:15:17] point where there's no state aid left to take from

[1:15:21] to accommodate the local effort for the charter school.

[1:15:25] And so by statute, DESE is required to make up that difference.

[1:15:29] And in this example, by the way, these numbers are from last year.

[1:15:32] This is not current year.

[1:15:34] These are last year's, just for example, because we have not gotten the new numbers

[1:15:37] yet. But last year, the change to charter school local effort was about

[1:15:41] $51 million.

[1:15:44] Any questions at this moment?

[1:15:48] Okay, moving forward.

[1:15:50] In addition to

[1:15:52] the original machinery of the formula

[1:15:55] and then the modifications to the formula, the charter school local effort,

[1:15:59] and the WAM/WADA, there are also a number of

[1:16:03] special payments that are essentially stacked on top of the

[1:16:06] formula.

[1:16:08] And I mentioned the 169-day counter incentive a

[1:16:11] moment ago.

[1:16:13] There is still a kindergarten payment that dates back '70s, from when

[1:16:17] kindergarten wasn't mandatory. I think there are four districts still receive a

[1:16:20] small amount of money to have kindergarten.

[1:16:23] There was change in the formula about schools and how they

[1:16:27] receive fine money, about how they received financial institution

[1:16:31] tax money.

[1:16:33] Virtual host school

[1:16:35] has become a larger number.

[1:16:37] In last year's budget,

[1:16:40] it was about $135 million we projected to spend on

[1:16:44] virtual host schools.

[1:16:46] It's a program where about

[1:16:50] 12 or 13 local Missouri districts so far have

[1:16:54] chosen to be a virtual host school.

[1:16:57] And what that means is that in addition to having, for say,

[1:17:01] an elementary school for students that reside in the district,

[1:17:05] and a middle school for students that reside in the district, and a high

[1:17:08] school for students that reside in the district, they also have a

[1:17:12] building

[1:17:13] for virtual students, and they can accept students from throughout the

[1:17:17] state as virtual students. And generally,

[1:17:21] those school districts contract with a provider, a vendor,

[1:17:25] to provide the virtual education.

[1:17:27] And for doing so, they receive for each of the virtual students

[1:17:32] the amount of the state adequacy target at the

[1:17:36] level it's being paid. I mentioned earlier the state adequacy

[1:17:40] target is calculated at $7,145.

[1:17:45] Well, when the budget does not accommodate the full amount, it gets dialed

[1:17:49] down. And so,

[1:17:51] the virtual host schools will receive the dialed down

[1:17:55] amount of the state adequacy target for each of their virtual

[1:17:58] students. And that number's been increasing.

[1:18:01] I think a few years ago, the budget was $12 million, then 25, then

[1:18:04] 67, then 135 last year, and I expect that

[1:18:08] number will increase again this year.

[1:18:12] There is a payment which is being phased out, a MO Scholars payment.

[1:18:16] That number is sun setting and will no longer be included.

[1:18:20] That's simply a payment to keep school districts whole for any

[1:18:24] student that leaves their district by taking advantage of a MO Scholars

[1:18:29] tax voucher credit.

[1:18:31] There's a minor residential care facility adjustment, and then there's also a

[1:18:35] provision for Show-Me diplomas. But at this time, no one is offering Show-Me

[1:18:39] diplomas. So again, you have the original formula

[1:18:42] machinery,

[1:18:44] you have the modifications, the charter school, local effort, and the

[1:18:49] WAM/WADA, and then you have all the special

[1:18:52] payments stacked on top that create the full funding

[1:18:56] formula draw.

[1:18:58] Any questions about that? I think I've reviewed this a few times over the

[1:19:02] past few months. But yes.

[1:19:04] Just to be clear, that this

[1:19:07] estimate of $200 million, the

[1:19:10] $67 million, and then there's another

[1:19:14] $100 million, that's what all comprise this $400 million

[1:19:17] estimated request?

[1:19:18] No. Let me clarify that again.

[1:19:22] The $400 million

[1:19:24] is

[1:19:25] essentially the basic formula stuff

[1:19:30] from last year, plus the $190 million request

[1:19:34] that we didn't get,

[1:19:36] plus the one-time money that's in the fiscal year '27

[1:19:40] budget that'll have to be replaced, plus the next year phase

[1:19:44] in for the weighted average daily attendance/weighted

[1:19:48] average membership, plus the increase

[1:19:51] for the

[1:19:53] 169-day calendar incentive.

[1:19:56] These numbers here,

[1:19:57] the ones we just looked at, those are from last year, and I provided

[1:20:01] them just for explanation purposes.

[1:20:04] There will be a similar set of numbers calculated for the fiscal year '28

[1:20:08] budget, but we don't have them yet.

[1:20:10] So these numbers in black are from last year, but I think

[1:20:14] they help explain all the pieces that go into the formula.

[1:20:18] Did that answer your question?

[1:20:20] I think so. It really was just to make sure everybody else could understand-

[1:20:24] Thank you

[1:20:24] ... that 400, that's for-

[1:20:26] New members, it's a lot

[1:20:27] ... yeah, go into that $400 million ask.

[1:20:29] I have a question. So when you talk about things like incentives, so the

[1:20:33] 169-day incentive,

[1:20:35] is there any data to show that those schools who

[1:20:39] collect that actually have improved outcomes?

[1:20:43] And is there a way to evaluate how we continue that funding?

[1:20:47] That's a great question. And this is a statutory

[1:20:50] change.

[1:20:51] Okay.

[1:20:51] It did not originate with DESE.

[1:20:52] Got it.

[1:20:53] I think there were some legislators who were looking at the growing

[1:20:57] popularity of the four-day week,

[1:20:59] and they believe that

[1:21:01] a five-day week may serve students better, and they added the

[1:21:04] incentive to

[1:21:07] give districts a little more incentive to keep

[1:21:11] a five-day week. As far as the four-day week and the

[1:21:14] outcomes,

[1:21:17] all I can say so far is generally the reviews

[1:21:21] are mixed, but without spending some more time and

[1:21:25] going more in depth, I would hesitate to make any kind of a statement about one is

[1:21:29] superior to the other or one is providing less results than the other.

[1:21:33] At this point, I'm not sure they've seen a consistent

[1:21:37] change between the two.

[1:21:39] And from a committee standpoint, that's the example of what will

[1:21:43] be being reviewed by the committee.

[1:21:44] Now, we don't have the power to say remove it from the budget, but it would

[1:21:48] align over to legislative priorities because currently it's

[1:21:51] required by the legislature. But that said,

[1:21:55] looking at it as well through the lens of the modernization of the

[1:21:59] formula,

[1:22:01] it could be a factor there as well. So, but those are the things that we're going

[1:22:05] to be looking at.

[1:22:06] Yeah. Thank you, Board Member Casey.

[1:22:08] That actually brings up the last point I wanted to give you about the formula.

[1:22:12] And that is

[1:22:14] when you look at our request of $400 million,

[1:22:17] that's a big number.

[1:22:19] And last year, the legislature was not able to appropriate the

[1:22:22] $190 million that was asked. So we understand that this was a

[1:22:26] big ask and there will be a lot of ground between here and there for the

[1:22:30] legislature to consider. For the board's information, I

[1:22:34] wanted to make sure we have an understanding of what happens when the formula

[1:22:38] is not fully funded.

[1:22:41] And there's really only one dial

[1:22:45] mechanism to account for the formula not being fully funded,

[1:22:49] and that is we have to adjust the state adequacy target,

[1:22:53] and it's calculated right now at

[1:22:56] $7,145.

[1:22:58] There was a shortfall in '25/26,

[1:23:03] and so we had to dial down the SAT,

[1:23:07] and we ended up paying schools at a rate of $6,958.

[1:23:12] For

[1:23:14] current year, '26/27, based on what is in the

[1:23:17] budget and what we project will happen, we are

[1:23:21] hoping to be able to pay the SAT at

[1:23:25] about $6,900.

[1:23:30] One thing DESE does is we always start the year paying at a lower

[1:23:33] amount

[1:23:35] because we want to be able to build up towards the full amount by

[1:23:39] the end of the year because the money's not simply all sitting

[1:23:43] there at the start of the year. We have to have the money rolling into the

[1:23:46] funds in order to pay it out. So at the moment, we're actually paying

[1:23:50] at a rate of $6,750

[1:23:54] and hope to move towards that $6,900 figure by the end of the

[1:23:57] year. The last detail is that when you dial

[1:24:01] down the SAT,

[1:24:03] the schools that are held harmless,

[1:24:07] the ones that are still receiving the amount generated by the old formula,

[1:24:11] they receive their payment in full.

[1:24:13] Districts that are formula-dependent take the lower SAT.

[1:24:18] And this list of

[1:24:23] special payments are largely

[1:24:26] exempt from any effect of the state adequacy target.

[1:24:31] The state adequacy target being dialed down to $6,900

[1:24:35] does not affect

[1:24:37] anything on this list except for the virtual host school payment.

[1:24:41] Those districts are receiving an SAT amount per student,

[1:24:45] so they would receive the lower SAT amount per student, but the rest of

[1:24:50] these would still be paid in full. So it's a very disparate

[1:24:53] effect in how a funding shortfall hits

[1:24:57] different schools.

[1:24:59] Any questions I can answer about this so far?

[1:25:01] Yeah, the question I'd have, you touched

[1:25:05] on it briefly, but on the virtual host schools, how many do we have?

[1:25:10] The numbers changes. I think we had 12. We may have 13 or 14 this next year.

[1:25:14] Okay. And so-

[1:25:14] Some are in process of becoming virtual host schools.

[1:25:17] Yeah. So at 135 million, by far the largest

[1:25:22] line item.

[1:25:23] It's in the special payment list. Yes, that's correct.

[1:25:26] Yeah. And so how do you protect

[1:25:29] efficiencies?

[1:25:31] You understand what I'm questioning?

[1:25:34] I do understand what you're questioning, and I think that's actually a topic that's

[1:25:37] coming up in the formula task force, and Board Member Casey may have

[1:25:41] a comment to make there.

[1:25:43] Yes, I can add to that. Thank you. Absolutely a big part of the discussion

[1:25:47] in the modernization of the formula, the way

[1:25:51] Dr. Cruz described it,

[1:25:53] basically these are students. There's not a separate building

[1:25:56] for them, but they are students that elect to go to a virtual school,

[1:26:00] and they can choose the virtual school that they go to, and we will fund

[1:26:03] them. Those virtual schools, those providers

[1:26:08] The 11 or so that we have then contract

[1:26:12] with a public school, let's say Jefferson City Public

[1:26:15] Schools, to be their kind of administrator, if you will,

[1:26:20] even though they would be students from elsewhere.

[1:26:22] So you'll see different amounts, different numbers of children go to

[1:26:26] different virtual schools, so one school might have a larger

[1:26:30] population of virtual students versus another school.

[1:26:34] But that said, the funding that flows to them today through

[1:26:38] the

[1:26:39] host school. So if there are 10 children going to

[1:26:43] virtual school X, and that they're contracted with Jefferson

[1:26:48] City, then the funding for those 10 students

[1:26:52] is given to Jefferson City who then gives it to the virtual school.

[1:26:58] In the future, it is recommended, number one,

[1:27:03] well, most importantly, that

[1:27:05] funding for the virtual school should not be at

[1:27:08] 100% for that child because their

[1:27:12] virtual school is not having to provide brick and mortar.

[1:27:15] They don't have to provide transportation services and the other

[1:27:18] services that are provided. So there's a recommendation to fund

[1:27:22] virtual school students at a lesser amount that still

[1:27:26] covers what is required for their education.

[1:27:31] Thank you for that clarification. I would add that I think I spoke...

[1:27:35] I assumed some knowledge. I mentioned that a school

[1:27:39] district becomes a host district, and I mentioned they had an

[1:27:43] elementary building, a middle school building, a high school building.

[1:27:46] On our books, the virtual students that

[1:27:50] go to that district,

[1:27:52] they're across the state, but they are in a building as

[1:27:56] designated by DESE. It's not an actual building, building, but it's on the books as

[1:28:00] a building as a way to keep those students

[1:28:03] in one place in terms of tracking performance and payment

[1:28:07] and such.

[1:28:12] How long have virtual schools been around?

[1:28:17] I would have to go and look that up. I want to say we had virtual

[1:28:21] schools starting somewhere in the '08, '09, '10

[1:28:25] range.

[1:28:27] I think it really, call it exploded or became more prominent

[1:28:30] during the pandemic, and I believe we

[1:28:35] normally will get a virtual school update and review in September.

[1:28:39] In the fall-

[1:28:41] We do

[1:28:41] ... we will receive one.

[1:28:42] You'll receive a virtual update later on in the fall.

[1:28:45] How do we evaluate their outputs?

[1:28:49] Great question.

[1:28:52] For each district and each building, we generate an annual

[1:28:56] performance report,

[1:28:58] and that's kind of the

[1:29:00] way districts are accredited currently, and there are scores assigned to each

[1:29:04] building and each district. And so the virtual buildings do

[1:29:08] get an annual performance report score, just like every elementary

[1:29:11] school and just like districts do as an aggregate.

[1:29:14] So those numbers are out there and available as far as

[1:29:18] how the virtual buildings are performing

[1:29:21] as measured by the annual performance report, and that's part of the

[1:29:25] report you'll receive later on this fall.

[1:29:28] How are they doing?

[1:29:30] It varies.

[1:29:32] I bet it does.

[1:29:36] I think that's probably where I'll leave that one for the moment.

[1:29:40] Oops.

[1:29:41] Mr. Matousek.

[1:29:41] Yeah, thank you. Kyle, thank you for all the information.

[1:29:44] I

[1:29:45] think I've said this before,

[1:29:48] but

[1:29:50] maybe not in these words.

[1:29:52] This is my opinion. I think this board and the department have a credibility issue

[1:29:56] with Jefferson, with the Capitol, right?

[1:29:59] With state lawmakers.

[1:30:04] On the budget stuff, in my opinion,

[1:30:08] it's hard for me to support

[1:30:11] a $400 million increase that not a single person in this room

[1:30:14] thinks we're going to get. Right? We're

[1:30:18] going to ask for $190 million again that we didn't get,

[1:30:23] and then we're going to add a bunch of new money to that.

[1:30:27] I

[1:30:31] think we lose even more credibility if that's what we submit

[1:30:35] to the governor's office and the legislature, a request we know can't be funded.

[1:30:40] We know it can't be funded.

[1:30:43] And if the board doesn't have any discretion

[1:30:47] in the request that we

[1:30:49] submit to the governor, then I don't even know why we're talking about it.

[1:30:54] If

[1:30:55] something dictates that we've got to request $400 million more than we have,

[1:31:00] why are we wasting time on it? I think we do have the discretion.

[1:31:05] I do. I think our budget request could look a lot

[1:31:08] different and actually

[1:31:10] could

[1:31:14] be a better reflection of where our priorities are.

[1:31:17] The example I'll use is the 169-day incentive.

[1:31:21] No position on four or five-day

[1:31:23] school weeks, but

[1:31:26] that program, for example,

[1:31:29] the legislature has already carved it out, right?

[1:31:31] They provided an exception for inclement weather days, and the only requirement to

[1:31:35] get that money is to have 169 days on your calendar to start the

[1:31:39] school year.

[1:31:40] Doesn't actually mean you have to go 169 days,

[1:31:44] as we've seen in the last year or two.

[1:31:45] So,

[1:31:47] to me, I'm not saying this is... But that's probably $33

[1:31:51] million. We could go to the legislature and say, "Hey,

[1:31:54] we could use this for something else." Right?

[1:31:57] "This could be used for whatever." Right?

[1:32:01] I

[1:32:02] don't love the idea of submitting a budget to the

[1:32:06] legislature that is $400 million more than

[1:32:10] we know we're going to get. It's $190 million that we asked for last year

[1:32:14] and we didn't get. I mean-

[1:32:16] I don't think that makes us look good to people in the

[1:32:20] legislature that deal with the budget.

[1:32:23] I just don't.

[1:32:25] And again, I realize this is just data, right?

[1:32:28] It's numbers-

[1:32:29] Sure

[1:32:29] ... and it's not a shot at anyone. It's just my...

[1:32:35] I would agree with you, Mike. The board member who said the board has

[1:32:39] significant discretion in the budget request.

[1:32:42] And actually, there's

[1:32:45] some more to this budget presentation, and I think you'll

[1:32:49] see both where we have numbers that are calculated as per formula,

[1:32:53] and we also have requests from various offices, and we also

[1:32:57] have a number of requests that have been generated at the state board

[1:33:01] level. So, I think you're on target, and the board will have to

[1:33:05] exercise some discretion. And

[1:33:09] if it's okay,

[1:33:11] just kind of hold that thought, and I'll go to the next piece of this, and

[1:33:15] then it's largely a board discussion about how you'd like to

[1:33:18] proceed. And today, again, these are early draft numbers.

[1:33:23] Let's talk about the

[1:33:25] mandatory

[1:33:27] instructions right now.

[1:33:31] The budget instructions we got were that we can request

[1:33:34] mandatory items, and those are items that are calculated

[1:33:38] by formula or in statute. We can also request items that are

[1:33:42] with federal funds and funds that are not general revenue.

[1:33:46] So,

[1:33:47] does the board have to follow those instructions exactly?

[1:33:51] I think there's probably some interpretation involved

[1:33:54] regarding board priorities.

[1:33:57] So, the next item on the list is

[1:34:02] a request for transportation dollars,

[1:34:06] and this is actually a calculated number as well.

[1:34:09] And

[1:34:11] what we're asked to do is reimburse schools at a

[1:34:15] rate of 75% of allowable costs,

[1:34:19] which are specified in RSMO 163.161.

[1:34:23] And that's essentially paying

[1:34:27] 75% of the allowable costs for running the

[1:34:30] miles to get kids back and forth to school.

[1:34:33] It doesn't account for any miles for ball games or field trips,

[1:34:37] nothing like that. It's simply the cost of getting kids back and forth to

[1:34:40] school. In order to fully fund that,

[1:34:44] we would need a new decision item of about 26.5

[1:34:47] million,

[1:34:49] and that includes covering

[1:34:52] $15.2 million that was marked one time

[1:34:56] in the fiscal year '27 budget. So there's actually $15 million

[1:35:00] worth of one-time money in the current year budget, and we would be asking for

[1:35:04] that back, plus a calculation of 3% to cover

[1:35:08] increasing costs. And again, transportation

[1:35:12] is a formula-driven number.

[1:35:17] The formula, is the formula the 75% in the

[1:35:20] statute?

[1:35:22] The formula, I don't believe is actually in the statute.

[1:35:24] Okay. But the allowable cost-

[1:35:26] It's in federal, yeah

[1:35:26] ... is in the statute.

[1:35:27] That's in statute.

[1:35:30] Okay.

[1:35:30] We have a request for the A through F school grade card, which you'll hear a

[1:35:34] bunch about later on in this meeting.

[1:35:36] And that stems from the governor's executive order to publish an A

[1:35:40] through F school report card with clear academic performance and

[1:35:44] growth comparisons. The fiscal year '27

[1:35:48] current year request would cover the

[1:35:52] IT build and changes to MOSIS and Core Data.

[1:35:56] Those are programs we use here at the department to collect information.

[1:36:00] The fiscal year '28 new decision item would

[1:36:04] cover the annual work maintaining the system,

[1:36:08] reporting, and also support to identify and

[1:36:11] remediate ineffective school practices.

[1:36:14] Again, you'll hear more about that later on.

[1:36:17] Then we have a number of requests that have a

[1:36:21] state board origin, and

[1:36:24] I understand exactly where the state board's going with these.

[1:36:27] There's a request of $10 million

[1:36:31] for a Struggling Schools grant. We're asked to identify

[1:36:35] struggling schools by January 27, and then implement a

[1:36:38] grant award program to improve student academic outcomes.

[1:36:43] And at any point, I'd ask Board Member Carrie Casey to jump in and

[1:36:47] expand, or any board member who has questions to ask them about these items.

[1:36:51] We'll answer best we can.

[1:36:52] Yeah. I'll-

[1:36:54] Sure

[1:36:54] ... so,

[1:36:56] we don't talk

[1:37:00] about struggling schools. Do we have any?

[1:37:03] We do.

[1:37:04] Okay. And so we really kind of need to start putting that to the forefront of

[1:37:08] conversation-

[1:37:08] Yeah. And that-

[1:37:09] ... especially if we're going to fund it-

[1:37:11] Right

[1:37:11] ... $10 million, and we don't know what we're funding.

[1:37:13] Absolutely. And that is what we were referring to

[1:37:17] earlier in the Student Success Committee.

[1:37:19] But it's an annual conversation and needs to

[1:37:23] be a frequent conversation. As an annual conversation, it is

[1:37:27] part of the accreditation step that occurs in January

[1:37:31] where,

[1:37:32] and again, that's been through iterations strictly because of the

[1:37:36] pandemic and changes, et cetera.

[1:37:40] But where schools are identified

[1:37:42] and accredited accordingly into an appropriate status.

[1:37:46] As a part of our past discussions here as a board, it was

[1:37:50] requested that a struggling school program be addressed,

[1:37:54] and that's what had been happening.

[1:37:57] We haven't had an update on it, and I think Commissioner Priest is now involved

[1:38:00] with the work that had been done and is going to come forward with it, and that'll

[1:38:04] be the first thing that the Student Success Committee will be looking at and

[1:38:08] coming back to the board on. And included in that, Brooks,

[1:38:12] is a really good point, will be the plan of then how frequently do we talk

[1:38:16] about them?

[1:38:17] Mm-hmm.

[1:38:17] Not just, "Here they are, and here's what-

[1:38:21] What wraparound, if you will, or program would be in place from a

[1:38:25] department perspective, but how does the board continue to

[1:38:29] stay informed, have plans? It was requested earlier in the year that

[1:38:33] a plan be put together for what was identified in January, some

[1:38:37] struggling schools.

[1:38:38] Mm-hmm.

[1:38:38] And that was a plan that we, in all the transition change, did not receive.

[1:38:43] So we've been asking, and that's what's going to be focused on.

[1:38:48] Do you have anything to add, I...

[1:38:50] No, nothing too much to add, just that so when we talk about supporting

[1:38:54] struggling schools, yes, we will be going through the accreditation classification

[1:38:58] process later this fall, and that identifies at

[1:39:01] the LEA level, so the school district or charter school LEA

[1:39:06] level. But we also, as we're going to be producing these grade

[1:39:10] cards, we want to use that as an opportunity to identify

[1:39:14] or to work with the schools that end up with lower grades than they would like, so

[1:39:18] the D and F schools. So it can support that as well, not-

[1:39:21] Mm-hmm

[1:39:21] ... just the schools that are identified through the classification process.

[1:39:24] Okay.

[1:39:26] Okay.

[1:39:27] There's a item of state board origin to create an

[1:39:31] excellence in education awards program to recognize exceptional

[1:39:35] Missouri educators, school leaders, and high-performing schools, and this, I

[1:39:39] assume, would go hand-in-hand with the Teacher of the Year program.

[1:39:43] And

[1:39:44] Missouri has had a Gold Star School program

[1:39:48] for a while, which always led into the National Blue Ribbon Schools program, but

[1:39:52] the National Blue Ribbon program has been discontinued.

[1:39:55] So I assume this would be part of replacement there.

[1:39:58] And I will just add on this one, it was something that, as Robbie and

[1:40:02] I sat at the breakfast

[1:40:04] the

[1:40:05] closing morning of the conference, that there was so much enthusiasm

[1:40:09] and

[1:40:11] for the direction of the new school year, that it would be a

[1:40:15] wonderful way for the board to recognize certain things within

[1:40:19] education in Missouri. $50,000 is a very small amount.

[1:40:23] It's not intended to move a dial anywhere.

[1:40:25] It is intended to continue to celebrate different successes.

[1:40:29] It is not intended to create any one particular program.

[1:40:33] We would define it. We'd have

[1:40:37] to work out what the criteria for it would be and how it would come together, but

[1:40:41] it's to give the board an opportunity,

[1:40:44] when we are

[1:40:46] there publicly with

[1:40:49] the entire Missouri education community, to recognize various

[1:40:53] forms of success and celebrate it.

[1:40:56] Okay.

[1:40:58] Another item of state board origin is

[1:41:01] professional development for teachers for classroom management.

[1:41:06] I think it's aimed specifically at managing especially difficult behaviors in a

[1:41:10] classroom. And we all know that there are some times it's

[1:41:14] tough in the classroom.

[1:41:15] This kind of goes back to even what other states are addressing, maybe in a

[1:41:18] different form around their work around bullying, et cetera.

[1:41:22] There have been programs in the past piloted and already

[1:41:26] implemented in various districts that demonstrate the success

[1:41:30] of better classroom management resulting in better student

[1:41:34] outcomes, better teacher retention.

[1:41:38] So this is intended to say there's more we can do in this

[1:41:42] area, and it's likely to create a

[1:41:45] playbook for schools and districts to use on best

[1:41:49] practices, whether from the nation or from the state as well as maybe

[1:41:53] across the nation, to provide

[1:41:56] classroom management skills develop, or it could be

[1:42:00] viewed as working with a particular district as a pilot

[1:42:04] and doing further professional development to improve

[1:42:08] that area. And this is another area where our now teacher

[1:42:12] representative at the board,

[1:42:15] Mr. McDonald, would be very helpful in helping us shape that.

[1:42:19] So did this number come from any particular evaluation

[1:42:23] or is this kind of a random number?

[1:42:24] No, it's just a starting point.

[1:42:26] Okay.

[1:42:27] We know that from past experience and in research I did, if you

[1:42:31] really want to roll out a statewide program

[1:42:34] of something that hasn't been developed, it's millions of

[1:42:38] dollars.

[1:42:39] Mm-hmm.

[1:42:39] But to look at what we can do and start

[1:42:42] further addressing keeping our eye on this issue of

[1:42:46] classroom behavior, because it really is at the root of struggling

[1:42:50] students and increased attrition

[1:42:54] of our teachers. And it has come up over and

[1:42:58] over again in teacher surveys. That's their number one point.

[1:43:01] So we've got to continue to address it, and this is a seed money to look at what

[1:43:05] we can do further.

[1:43:07] Mr. Otto.

[1:43:09] Yeah, just a quick question. I see the last few slides and some of the ones coming

[1:43:12] up have the State Board of Education priority in the

[1:43:16] parenthetical there. Is that something that-

[1:43:19] That's what we discussed in that committee.

[1:43:21] This was just something that we input from a committee

[1:43:24] perspective is or from a board. It's not that it's a priority

[1:43:28] within the

[1:43:33] strategic plan. It was just something that the board has recommended

[1:43:38] is all.

[1:43:38] This

[1:43:39] board or...

[1:43:41] Yeah. We talked about it. I'll chat with you.

[1:43:43] Okay. Yeah.

[1:43:44] Yeah.

[1:43:45] Like I said, I wasn't

[1:43:48] participating as much in the finance committee meetings.

[1:43:50] But I will say that if we're going to present that

[1:43:56] in the future, I guess, present that at this level,

[1:44:00] we should probably have this new student success committee

[1:44:04] vote and talk about those-

[1:44:06] Yeah

[1:44:06] ... and then we kind of-

[1:44:07] Yeah, I think it's-

[1:44:08] ... agree that these are our priorities

[1:44:09] ... as we're still in the forming stage-

[1:44:11] Right

[1:44:11] ... some of these things happen in that manner, but that's also why we're bringing

[1:44:14] it forward today for full board discussion.

[1:44:18] But we're just not at the point with the other structures in place to-

[1:44:21] Yeah, no, I just-

[1:44:22] ... do it differently

[1:44:23] ... and I just got the question from another board member, too, and I was like,

[1:44:25] "Yeah, that's a good question. I don't recall all of these in spec-

[1:44:28] Yeah

[1:44:28] ... specifically." But

[1:44:31] We'll talk.

[1:44:32] All right.

[1:44:34] Mr. Matusik?

[1:44:35] Yeah. Thank you. I was kind of wondering the same thing when I saw the SBOE

[1:44:39] priority up there. I

[1:44:42] just don't remember

[1:44:43] $10 million-

[1:44:44] Sure

[1:44:44] ... for struggling schools. I don't remember talking about that really.

[1:44:47] And that was something not so much any one board member

[1:44:51] submitted, it was a recommendation, I think, that went in separately.

[1:44:55] Or I might have echoed it, but others have recommended it.

[1:45:02] Let's go back in time to some of our past discussions as a board, and new

[1:45:05] board members in particular, where you're like, "Why don't we have more input into

[1:45:09] the budget?"

[1:45:10] And so along the way, and even in the retreat, we said, "Let us know

[1:45:14] what you think you'd like to be included in the budget."

[1:45:18] And these are just some ideas that have come forward.

[1:45:20] So this is just an effort to get us going in this

[1:45:24] direction, to give us a voice. It's not to say it's been done

[1:45:28] perfectly, it's not to say that all the right research has been done, but

[1:45:32] it's to bring us together now as this way.

[1:45:36] Will we continue to evolve how we develop these items?

[1:45:39] Absolutely. They'll come from the legislative committee, they'll come from the

[1:45:43] strategic plan, they'll come from the student success committee.

[1:45:47] But this was just giving board a voice and getting us

[1:45:51] started. And that's why it wasn't discussed in the past, but that's what you're

[1:45:54] talking about right now. We want to hear feedback and thoughts.

[1:45:59] So, like the $10 million

[1:46:01] struggling school grant, is that

[1:46:04] in the draft budget right now?

[1:46:08] So this is the draft budget that we're-

[1:46:10] You-

[1:46:10] ... that's preparing. But I want to ask the commissioner, because we had spoken

[1:46:13] about this as well.

[1:46:15] And I believe,

[1:46:17] isn't there a grant, a program that was suggested as part

[1:46:21] of,

[1:46:22] submitted to the legislature, not necessarily by our board?

[1:46:26] That maybe-

[1:46:27] I think I can speak to that. First, I'll answer two questions, Board

[1:46:31] Member Matusik.

[1:46:33] The question is this part of the draft budget?

[1:46:36] Not part of the draft budget. What we're bringing today is the

[1:46:39] summation of all the potential requests for you to look at and

[1:46:43] to consider. Now, going back to the budget

[1:46:47] instructions, mandatory items is what I refer to as a very-

[1:46:51] ... a narrow gate,

[1:46:53] and there will be a number of these

[1:46:56] requests that won't get through that gate in terms of

[1:47:00] actually making it into the budget.

[1:47:02] These are put out here for your consideration and for you to

[1:47:06] provide feedback either today or in the next few weeks and help

[1:47:10] shape the work that I and the commissioner and the finance

[1:47:14] committee will be doing in terms of determining what actually gets through the

[1:47:17] gate. So these are simply the full

[1:47:22] spectrum of the requests that

[1:47:25] are generated based on the program that DESE needs to do or would like to

[1:47:29] do, and the formulas that are calculated. I hope that answered your question.

[1:47:34] Yeah, it does. Any new decision item should

[1:47:38] be

[1:47:39] scrutinized, right? For heavily and-

[1:47:40] And that's what we're doing here today.

[1:47:42] Yeah. Well, I don't know that you can

[1:47:45] talk about a $10 million grant program that we've never heard about-

[1:47:48] But it's-

[1:47:48] ... in a 30-minute session. So,

[1:47:52] we just talked about we're $400 million short, and we're asking for

[1:47:56] another $10 million for a struggling schools grant program.

[1:47:59] I'm not saying it's bad, I just-

[1:48:01] Right

[1:48:01] ... you know.

[1:48:02] It's an opportunity to get us started, to take advantage of

[1:48:06] an opportunity as we're sitting here today to get us started

[1:48:10] on these discussions.

[1:48:13] Structures in the future will take it through things of these other

[1:48:17] committees and will come forward in a different way.

[1:48:20] And to answer the other question, I think what you may be referring to, Board

[1:48:24] Member Casey, is

[1:48:25] in the fiscal year '27 budget, there

[1:48:29] is budget guidance

[1:48:32] to use $10 million from Title I

[1:48:36] allocations, and instead distribute that $10 million

[1:48:39] through a competitive grant process.

[1:48:42] I think-

[1:48:42] And this is-

[1:48:42] ... that might be what you're talking about

[1:48:43] ... building on that idea for FY28, knowing that

[1:48:47] struggling schools will continue to need our support.

[1:48:52] So if I can.

[1:48:53] Go ahead.

[1:48:53] This is

[1:48:55] more of a

[1:48:57] state board initiative rather than

[1:49:01] priority, right? Is that a fair-

[1:49:05] That could be a fair term.

[1:49:07] Yeah. I

[1:49:08] don't think this has been approved yet, is that-

[1:49:11] No.

[1:49:12] No.

[1:49:14] So maybe the word should be

[1:49:17] initiative as opposed to priority.

[1:49:20] Becomes a priority if, in fact, it gets adopted by-

[1:49:22] Good recommendation.

[1:49:24] Yeah.

[1:49:24] Okay.

[1:49:26] There are a few more.

[1:49:28] A request for dollars to address chronic absenteeism,

[1:49:32] targeted funding for attendance intervention toolkits, family engagement

[1:49:36] frameworks, and technical assistance for schools with high chronic

[1:49:40] absenteeism.

[1:49:43] High dosage tutoring

[1:49:47] recommendation or initiative,

[1:49:49] and that program would provide grant funding for local districts to

[1:49:53] implement

[1:49:54] some measure of evidence-based high dosage tutoring

[1:49:58] programs in reading and mathematics.

[1:50:04] An initiative for supporting high quality instructional materials,

[1:50:09] and that would be matching grants and technical guidance to help schools

[1:50:13] adopt state aligned high quality instructional materials.

[1:50:17] And there is some of this already existing in literacy in Missouri,

[1:50:22] but I think the thinking may be to expand it and also

[1:50:25] assist districts in selecting quality mathematics instruction

[1:50:29] materials. Having high quality materials is

[1:50:34] foundational to effective practice

[1:50:39] And then there was a thought about having a type of

[1:50:42] civic patriotic education program, and there has been one of

[1:50:46] these in the past.

[1:50:48] It was not funded beginning a year or two ago.

[1:50:52] I think this may be a little different

[1:50:55] take on civic and patriotic education.

[1:50:58] There is a current DESE

[1:51:01] framework available online from the past program,

[1:51:05] but this may be a little different take about

[1:51:08] engaging students in terms of constitutional literacy,

[1:51:13] patriotic heritage, and even economic systems.

[1:51:18] Okay. Now, other requests that I wanted to highlight for the board.

[1:51:22] There is a request for funding for early childhood

[1:51:26] special education.

[1:51:29] State is

[1:51:33] required to reimburse school districts for costs for early childhood special

[1:51:37] education, and that is services for eligible three and

[1:51:41] four-year-olds, and there actually was a lawsuit about this back in

[1:51:45] the '90s,

[1:51:46] and these state costs must be provided via a specific separate

[1:51:50] appropriation.

[1:51:52] In the '26, fiscal year '26 budget,

[1:51:56] there was not enough money to cover all the requests for funding,

[1:52:01] all the bills, and so the supplemental requested

[1:52:04] for current year, fiscal year '27, of

[1:52:07] 56.76 million would cover those

[1:52:11] shortfalls, and the fiscal year '28 new decision item

[1:52:15] would be to provide funding for the increased costs that we are projecting.

[1:52:20] Okay.

[1:52:21] I think we are going to take a break here.

[1:52:23] Okay.

[1:52:24] Is that okay? Yeah. We're about halfway through this,

[1:52:28] right?

[1:52:29] Actually, we're close to the end.

[1:52:31] Oh, okay. If we're close to the end-

[1:52:32] Close to the end

[1:52:33] ... more towards the end.

[1:52:34] I need special education fund, very similar statutory

[1:52:37] mandate, and there was a court ruling in '04, and it requires

[1:52:41] reimbursement of school districts for special ed costs that

[1:52:45] exceed three times the current expenditure per

[1:52:49] average daily attendance. So if a school's spending $11,000 per student

[1:52:53] and a special education student exceeds $33,000,

[1:52:58] then the state's required to pick up the amount beyond $33,000.

[1:53:02] Similar situation, we had a shortfall to pay all the bills from last year,

[1:53:06] so there's a supplemental to cover that.

[1:53:08] And then the '28 NDI addresses projected

[1:53:12] cost increases.

[1:53:14] And then there is a request to fund

[1:53:17] a required grade level equivalence data.

[1:53:22] Basically, right now our student test scores, MAP scores,

[1:53:27] students get a rating of below basic, basic,

[1:53:30] proficient, or advanced, and we're required to implement

[1:53:34] a band of grade level equivalence, a

[1:53:38] fifth level. And so that does require some changes in programming

[1:53:42] and scoring in order to make that happen.

[1:53:46] And that actually is where I'd planned to conclude the presentation.

[1:53:51] On this sheet, you'll see the total of

[1:53:55] supplemental requests if you go through the entire list, not just the

[1:53:59] ones I described already, but the ones that are below this slide in your slide

[1:54:03] deck. Many of those are federal fund

[1:54:06] requests or appropriation authority requests, and I'd be glad to

[1:54:10] answer any questions you have offline about those.

[1:54:13] But supplemental requests, if

[1:54:16] every request

[1:54:18] got through the gate, and that won't happen, we know that, but if every

[1:54:22] one of these got through the gate, it would be 222 million

[1:54:26] in supplemental requests and 689 in new decision

[1:54:30] items. And again, we realize many of these will not get

[1:54:34] through the gate, but we want to present them all for your consideration and

[1:54:38] feedback, and I'll be working with the finance committee and

[1:54:41] commissioner to help discern which

[1:54:45] ones will fit the state board's priorities and the ones that you want

[1:54:49] to advance, and in what measure for the final budget request.

[1:54:54] So, that concludes my part at this time, unless you have

[1:54:58] additional questions or would like to explore additional items.

[1:55:00] We have one. Mr.

[1:55:01] Just, I'll catch him later.

[1:55:04] I'm good.

[1:55:05] Okay. Mr. Matusik.

[1:55:06] Yeah. Thank you. So just to clarify,

[1:55:10] the

[1:55:13] $689 million,

[1:55:16] so that's $689 million more

[1:55:20] than we asked for last year or received last year, in the

[1:55:24] last fiscal year?

[1:55:25] That is correct, although I don't believe that full amount is all GR.

[1:55:28] Received or asked for?

[1:55:30] Sorry.

[1:55:32] So the-

[1:55:32] 642 in GR is more than we received last year,

[1:55:36] correct.

[1:55:37] Okay. So

[1:55:38] it's baseline from what we received, not from what we requested.

[1:55:41] Correct.

[1:55:43] And again, that's if every single item got through the gate, and we

[1:55:47] are quite clear that's probably not going to happen.

[1:55:51] Mr. President, if I could. Thank you,

[1:55:54] Kyle.

[1:55:56] I know we're the cart before the horse here because we're still

[1:56:00] forming a lot and getting our sequencing down.

[1:56:03] Things are happening, new board members coming in, et cetera, forming a committee

[1:56:06] so that we can do this heavier lifting, and that's just

[1:56:10] the state of the reality of where we're at today.

[1:56:13] So the question I have to the team is,

[1:56:17] your feedback's really important.

[1:56:20] We have raised it in different meetings how we want to have a voice in the budget.

[1:56:24] We want to be able to put in our new ideas.

[1:56:26] We know we want to scrutinize the money that's already

[1:56:29] in the core budget for this program or that program.

[1:56:33] What are the results of the program? Does it make sense?

[1:56:36] All of that is good work yet to come

[1:56:40] That we've been talking about somewhat at a committee and beginning to look

[1:56:43] at.

[1:56:45] But we are faced with the reality that we do submit a budget in

[1:56:48] September,

[1:56:50] or October 1st, I guess, based on our approval in September.

[1:56:56] And we know that this can't happen in the future.

[1:56:58] We need a longer time to work with it, but our reality is we've had a

[1:57:02] shorter time to work with it this year.

[1:57:05] And so you're seeing this in pieces for

[1:57:08] its first time, but we do need to talk about it.

[1:57:11] We can spend time here today,

[1:57:14] agenda aside. So I need to ask the

[1:57:19] vice chair where we are on our timing on the agenda,

[1:57:22] and should we open this up for bigger discussion today, or how we take

[1:57:26] it forward to have discussion with each board member

[1:57:30] collectively in a separate call to talk about, give you time to think about it,

[1:57:35] and then we can have a good discussion about what either changes

[1:57:39] we would want to make

[1:57:42] now. You might even have a different idea, a new item that we would want to

[1:57:45] include in there. So get the ideas in, make sure we

[1:57:49] have everybody's thoughts, have a good discussion, and

[1:57:53] so then we can come back in September with an

[1:57:57] updated version based on those discussions to have our

[1:58:00] approval. We don't want to wait until September, I don't think, to discuss it.

[1:58:05] Yeah.

[1:58:07] I guess since you specifically asked me,

[1:58:10] I think we don't have time, in the interest of time, to try to discuss all that

[1:58:14] right here. But I would recommend that

[1:58:18] we take the feedback that we received, the we being the finance

[1:58:22] committee-

[1:58:22] Mm-hmm

[1:58:23] ... take the feedback we received,

[1:58:25] have a really short turnaround meeting

[1:58:29] in the next week.

[1:58:30] Mm-hmm.

[1:58:30] And then really do a better job of

[1:58:34] communicating with the rest of the board and say, "Hey, look

[1:58:38] at this presentation. This is what we need to approve."

[1:58:42] And then we can have a virtual meeting in the interim that's just talking about

[1:58:46] this. It could be public, open to whatever, but

[1:58:49] that way it gives you time to go, you being the board,

[1:58:53] time to do some homework and look through these.

[1:58:57] And if you have questions, you can either answer them on your own or follow up with

[1:59:00] staff. And then

[1:59:02] when we come back and we have an hour or two virtual meeting

[1:59:06] to just talk about what we want our budget to look like and what we want

[1:59:10] to be in position to approve on that

[1:59:14] October 1st deadline. That's what I would recommend.

[1:59:17] Right. No, I think that's the right approach.

[1:59:18] And we did try to do that to a degree.

[1:59:21] We sent out an email prior to this meeting asking you specifically to take a look

[1:59:25] at this, et cetera, in preparation for today's meeting.

[1:59:28] Again, we're forming or what do they say, changing the engine as the

[1:59:32] airplane is flying. So,

[1:59:35] I think that's what we'll do.

[1:59:37] I support that recommendation.

[1:59:39] So

[1:59:40] we don't have any motion on the floor at this-

[1:59:42] No, this was all just discussion. Yeah

[1:59:44] ... discussion. Okay, so I'm going to do this.

[1:59:47] I think it's time for a break, and let's go to break, and if we have

[1:59:51] further discussion afterwards,

[1:59:53] we can take it up then. But we'll leave it as an open item right now.

[1:59:57] Go with the-

[1:59:58] Yeah

[1:59:58] ... those are our next steps-

[2:00:00] Okay

[2:00:00] ... as we leave it here.

[2:00:02] Okay.

[2:07:54] Okay. In conclusion, I would simply like to thank the state board,

[2:07:58] especially the finance committee, for their

[2:08:02] feedback and for being a part of the budget process.

[2:08:05] I know this is a lot, and I know the board has some

[2:08:09] major decisions to make, but I appreciate the way this

[2:08:12] board is participating in the budget process and thinking

[2:08:16] carefully of how the decisions here affect students.

[2:08:20] And I'll be glad to answer any other questions you might have.

[2:08:24] Mr. Otto?

[2:08:25] Yeah, just to, I guess, reiterate or

[2:08:29] make sure everybody's in agreement that we're going

[2:08:32] to

[2:08:36] have a little homework for ourselves and review this presentation and these

[2:08:40] budget line items particular-- or these

[2:08:43] asks, I guess. And then I think at the end of this presentation,

[2:08:47] there's some core budget information line by line if

[2:08:52] that's helpful to look at it that way, but

[2:08:55] Definitely take a look. If you have questions, I think we can

[2:08:58] address those offline. And then I think we'll look at your calendars.

[2:09:02] We'll circle up via email,

[2:09:05] and set a virtual date sometime between now

[2:09:09] and,

[2:09:12] October 1st. So might be before, might be after our

[2:09:15] September meeting, I don't know.

[2:09:17] Ideally, it will be before our September meeting-

[2:09:20] Okay

[2:09:20] ... because we will then plan to be ready with a final product

[2:09:24] to vote on in the-

[2:09:25] Oh, we can then-

[2:09:26] ... September meeting.

[2:09:26] Okay, so we need to vote it.

[2:09:27] Yeah.

[2:09:28] The October 1st date is... Okay, that makes sense.

[2:09:30] Yeah.

[2:09:31] Yeah. So,

[2:09:33] that's going to be coming up pretty quick here in the next couple of weeks, and we

[2:09:36] have the Labor Day holiday as well.

[2:09:37] So just look at your calendar, let us know some dates, or

[2:09:41] shoot some dates that you can't do it, I guess, and we'll get something

[2:09:46] scheduled

[2:09:48] just for a couple of hours virtually, and we can

[2:09:51] go through this budget in greater detail.

[2:09:55] Yeah. I think we should try to establish that date before we leave here today, just

[2:09:59] if we could.

[2:10:00] That's fine, too. Yeah.

[2:10:01] I'll work with Brett, and we can figure out a way to get it around to everybody.

[2:10:05] Well, and if I can suggest,

[2:10:08] just in the conversations that I've had in the last

[2:10:11] 15 hours or whatever-

[2:10:12] Mm-hmm

[2:10:13] ...

[2:10:15] the agenda

[2:10:17] that I've heard people express in private conversation and publicly,

[2:10:21] we're not going to get this done having this board meeting once a

[2:10:25] month. And rather

[2:10:29] than trying to coordinate schedules every

[2:10:33] so often, can I suggest we think about setting

[2:10:37] a time for a two or three-hour

[2:10:41] block of time? And if we don't need it,

[2:10:43] then we don't have a board meeting.

[2:10:45] But if we do need it, we've got the time reserved, and

[2:10:49] we're not trying to work it out on people's schedule every time

[2:10:53] there is a

[2:10:54] sense that we've got... We just have an enormous amount of work to do

[2:10:58] here, and I wish I'd known this before I said yes.

[2:11:03] And

[2:11:04] I would add to that, because in my observations, there are many states

[2:11:08] that have two-day, there's even one state that has a

[2:11:11] three-day board meeting,

[2:11:14] not necessarily eight hours-

[2:11:15] Yeah

[2:11:15] ... but over the course of three days.

[2:11:18] As well, they will have a separate working session in

[2:11:22] the course of the month leading up to the board meeting.

[2:11:25] So I think, again, as we're forming, we may look at that

[2:11:29] and my recommendation is just see what works

[2:11:33] and change it as we need to.

[2:11:35] Yeah, I think the analogy of

[2:11:38] building the plane while we're flying it, we're all new, relatively

[2:11:42] speaking, and so there's not been this level of governance

[2:11:46] at this state board

[2:11:48] before, at least that I'm aware of.

[2:11:51] And so with committees and things like that, I mean.

[2:11:54] And so,

[2:11:55] yeah, no. That's why we talked about in the governance committee is maybe

[2:11:59] having multiple meetings a month.

[2:12:01] Mm-hmm.

[2:12:01] I just don't know if that's logistically feasible, but at least in the short

[2:12:05] term with things like this and getting everybody up to speed, maybe having a

[2:12:09] one-off meeting with just one agenda item particularly, that's a

[2:12:13] couple of hours,

[2:12:15] is prudent. And so,

[2:12:18] that said,

[2:12:19] our next board meeting is September 15th,

[2:12:22] which is a Tuesday. So I don't know if you guys want to meet that week

[2:12:26] before,

[2:12:28] like a Thursday or... I'm looking at my calendar now.

[2:12:31] Monday the 7th is-

[2:12:32] Board member Otto?

[2:12:33] Sure.

[2:12:34] We would need this meeting to be pretty much as soon as we can.

[2:12:37] We have meetings coming up with

[2:12:40] different entities near the end of this month.

[2:12:43] So I don't know if there's a way to work that in sooner or not.

[2:12:46] Okay.

[2:12:46] Could I recommend we just allow ourselves to go offline a little bit on this topic-

[2:12:50] That's fine too, yeah

[2:12:50] ... and before the meeting ends, we'll wrap around.

[2:12:54] Get with Kyle and-

[2:12:55] Yeah, because maybe during lunch we could-

[2:12:56] Brett

[2:12:56] ... meet offline and look at some-

[2:12:57] And we'll bring it back.

[2:12:58] Yeah, that's probably a better use of the time.

[2:12:59] Yeah.

[2:12:59] So yep.

[2:13:00] Can I have one other question related to the budget, if I could?

[2:13:09] The idea that we've got continuing

[2:13:12] programs

[2:13:14] and that we sort of take that as the base, and that

[2:13:18] we add on from there.

[2:13:21] Mike's not here, but that's what I sensed from his

[2:13:24] comments, that we've got to go back

[2:13:28] to

[2:13:30] 1,000 years ago when I was in the mayor's office, they called it zero-based

[2:13:33] budgeting. And you just start off assuming nothing

[2:13:37] goes from this year to the next year.

[2:13:40] Everything has to be justified. There's a lot of process associated with

[2:13:44] that. I think we've

[2:13:47] got to make an effort to try

[2:13:51] to implement that thinking. Yet this year, I

[2:13:55] doubt we can get all the processes in place, unless they're already

[2:13:59] there, and I just don't know what's internal in your

[2:14:04] functionality at this point in time.

[2:14:07] So,

[2:14:09] I

[2:14:11] mentioned during the break, I'm going to have to get educated on this.

[2:14:14] But I

[2:14:16] also have heard from a number of people about this subject,

[2:14:20] about the budget just

[2:14:23] sort of rolling on one year to the next,

[2:14:26] and I think we've got to develop some processes to get upstream.

[2:14:32] And by the way, the

[2:14:35] chart that they showed yesterday,

[2:14:37] provided yesterday, it's excellent layout of the

[2:14:41] data and the sequence of events. It was very useful.

[2:14:44] Thank you.

[2:14:45] That's what I was trying to say in my finance committee remarks,

[2:14:49] that it's lopsided. We have a very short window to

[2:14:53] create,

[2:14:54] and then there's this very long window to justify over to the legislature.

[2:14:58] We can't change that long window, but we have to have a much longer window

[2:15:02] for creation of the budget. And in this short ...

[2:15:06] window that we've all come together on.

[2:15:09] It was just impossible to create a longer window than is on the calendar.

[2:15:13] So, for the '28 budget, that's why we're trying to...

[2:15:18] We've been digging. We're trying to parse it, but at the same time,

[2:15:22] we're going to be doing it differently.

[2:15:23] Even with the '28, while the budget will be submitted, we'll be using the '28

[2:15:27] budget to really pull it apart and work on it so that we're

[2:15:31] prepared, and we develop that process in the course of these

[2:15:35] next several months.

[2:15:38] I'm brand new here, still learning, and

[2:15:45] probably already talking too much.

[2:15:48] No, I appreciate the question. It's a great question.

[2:15:51] Just to give you guys a little bit of background that you might not be aware of,

[2:15:56] the department does a lot of work behind the scenes.

[2:15:59] So when the budget process does start, all these program managers that

[2:16:03] you see over here that are running these programs, they do take a hard

[2:16:07] look at what they're spending their money on, how things are being processed.

[2:16:11] There are core reductions that we do ask for in the budget process.

[2:16:15] A lot of times those are tied to federal dollars.

[2:16:18] When we have a federal grant that might be expiring, we look at that, and we ask

[2:16:22] for a reduction in that federal appropriation, that spending authority, if we

[2:16:26] no longer have the dollars to back it up.

[2:16:28] But there is a process behind the scenes, but I do love that the

[2:16:32] board is interested in taking a look at that.

[2:16:37] Other questions or comments?

[2:16:40] I have

[2:16:41] just a couple.

[2:16:44] First of all, I think you guys, the information is much

[2:16:48] better and easier to understand, and the discussion, than it was, I think, a year

[2:16:51] ago or whenever it was. Absolutely.

[2:16:55] It's still hard to... We're talking about

[2:16:59] billions of dollars, right? And it would take me

[2:17:03] probably a couple of years to go through each of the

[2:17:06] programs that we're funding and figure out what they are, and

[2:17:11] I don't know that I could do it, right?

[2:17:13] It would be tough, I think, for anybody, really, any of us, to go through the

[2:17:17] budget and be able to explain exactly what's in there.

[2:17:22] Part of me just thinks a pause, I don't know if that's the right word,

[2:17:26] is maybe appropriate, right? We're redoing our strategic plan, looking at

[2:17:30] our legislative priorities, doing some updates like that.

[2:17:35] Or maybe,

[2:17:36] I don't know, is there outside people that can help us look at this

[2:17:40] stuff or-

[2:17:41] And-

[2:17:42] I don't know what the answer is, but-

[2:17:44] And that's what we're recommending, Mike, that as we are going to be digging

[2:17:48] into the budget, we'll bring in the experts as needed

[2:17:51] to address... We're going to work with the department.

[2:17:55] We've already asked for all the program- Not all, but that we'll do

[2:17:59] the work. But

[2:18:01] we've already started to get the education on where is this data existing,

[2:18:05] the access to the links of information around justification

[2:18:09] for different projects, different programs. What are the results?

[2:18:13] And that's exactly what the committee's going to be doing and

[2:18:17] looking at where do we want to bring in an expert.

[2:18:19] I'm going to use just an example, literacy.

[2:18:22] Now, looking at the results we're getting, how we're spending the money, using an

[2:18:26] expert in literacy, is this the right way? Are we doing the right thing?

[2:18:30] And we'll look at that across all the budgets.

[2:18:33] On that note, I would-

[2:18:33] That's what the committee,

[2:18:36] we spoke about in the very beginning of our charter, let's get our feet

[2:18:40] grounded and understand and start to get the information better

[2:18:44] organized, better presented, so that the board can better

[2:18:47] understand what it is we have today, and then we'll start to

[2:18:51] tear it apart, and that's what the committee is doing.

[2:18:54] I would weigh in that I think a significant amount of the information you'd like to

[2:18:57] see is actually in the yearly budget books.

[2:19:01] For each of the items in the budget, there is information about what that budget

[2:19:05] line item does and how much money was spent, how much was

[2:19:09] lapsed. So that's in the budget request each year.

[2:19:12] There's also a program descriptions book that we provide each year and update

[2:19:16] each year, and that has more in-depth information about most of the

[2:19:19] programming. So we-

[2:19:21] And that's what the committee-

[2:19:22] And, uh-

[2:19:22] ... has started to take a look at as well.

[2:19:23] Yeah. So I think that'll provide a solid basis for the board to

[2:19:27] really dig in and gain a full understanding of what's in the

[2:19:31] budget and what you believe should stay and what you believe should perhaps go.

[2:19:35] Is that something we could send out before this next ad hoc meeting that we have?

[2:19:39] Yeah. We've provided the links before, but I'll send them again.

[2:19:42] Yeah. Okay. Yeah.

[2:19:42] Sure. Happy to do it. We have the fiscal year '27, the past

[2:19:46] year,

[2:19:48] the one we're in currently. That budget book from last fall is

[2:19:51] available, and the program description book from last fall is available,

[2:19:55] and the new ones are being developed at this moment, and they go in October 1st,

[2:20:00] but I'd be happy to send those links back out.

[2:20:01] Yeah, no, and we get tons of links and there's tons of-

[2:20:04] Exactly

[2:20:05] ... information overload, so yeah, just-

[2:20:07] Will do

[2:20:07] ... the specific request. We'll

[2:20:10] meet as a finance committee and formulate a communication email that'll go

[2:20:14] out prior to this next

[2:20:17] special meeting.

[2:20:21] Any other questions?

[2:20:23] No, we're going to work out a date.

[2:20:25] We'll have that date-

[2:20:26] We're working

[2:20:26] ... settled before the end of the day, end of this meeting. Yeah.

[2:20:30] May I make a suggestion?

[2:20:31] Sure.

[2:20:32] Something that you might do. The timeline on the budget is

[2:20:35] so awkward because we're waiting right up until it's signed before

[2:20:39] truly digging into thinking about the next one, but

[2:20:43] it wouldn't hurt for the board to have some preliminary

[2:20:46] conversations in the late spring, early summer,

[2:20:50] especially because the strategic plan will be new and thinking about what your

[2:20:54] priorities are. And maybe this is the discussion and you

[2:20:58] You can give your feedback to your two finance committee members so that

[2:21:02] then as they are refining those details, just to give you a little bit

[2:21:05] earlier start on thinking about some of these things.

[2:21:08] Because I think now we're just trying to turn them around so fast-

[2:21:12] Exactly

[2:21:12] ... because the folks across the street are going to be asking us for our budget

[2:21:15] really soon. But we could start having some

[2:21:18] conversations about what are the

[2:21:21] priority discretionary items that you are

[2:21:24] interested in should we be able to ask for that.

[2:21:27] And we can give you a heads-up about

[2:21:31] these are some things that we're going to request based on what the

[2:21:34] statute calls for. Either the

[2:21:38] board can make a recommendation on how much to scale that back, like the funding

[2:21:42] formula recommendation, or we let the legislature do that.

[2:21:46] We have just not as a department wanted to say, "Well, we're

[2:21:50] going to decide that we should only ask for half of that." Because that would just

[2:21:54] seem arbitrary, and that's really your decision.

[2:21:56] So it seems like a huge number,

[2:21:58] but it's to put in front of you just so that you can decide

[2:22:02] what you think of that we should actually ask for,

[2:22:07] if that makes sense. But I think what I'm trying to say, some of the conversations

[2:22:10] about what are the priorities, what are the new priorities, we could have those

[2:22:13] conversations just earlier, just as a discussion, just

[2:22:17] a point of discussion.

[2:22:18] And I would add onto that, they should be a part of every meeting.

[2:22:20] It's a part of all the agenda items we talk about.

[2:22:23] But it was clearly an agenda item in our retreat as well

[2:22:27] to look at our priorities, how did that feed into the budget, how did it feed into

[2:22:31] legislative priorities. So I think, again, we're trying to get there,

[2:22:35] and that's what we've been starting to build towards.

[2:22:38] It's just as we're forming and continue to receive new board members, that

[2:22:42] we kind of take one step forward, a step back, and go forward again.

[2:22:46] So I think that's right on target,

[2:22:49] Stacy, to suggest because...

[2:22:52] Any other questions?

[2:22:56] Hearing none. Thank you very much for your time.

[2:22:59] Thank you.

[2:23:05] Mr. Reed.

[2:23:10] Mr. Reed has been with us a very short time, right?

[2:23:14] He has

[2:23:17] just short of a month.

[2:23:18] Why don't you introduce him, if you wouldn't mind?

[2:23:24] So, for the board members, again, this is Luke Reed.

[2:23:27] He is our chief

[2:23:32] governmental relations officer. We've had some conversations about that.

[2:23:36] Anyway, he has worked with a couple of other state agencies

[2:23:40] and is very familiar with the legislative process, so we're very excited to have

[2:23:44] him be able to hit the ground running knowing those things.

[2:23:47] And he's been doing a great job getting up to speed on the education

[2:23:50] issues and really put in a lot of time on getting to know what these

[2:23:54] programs are all about. But I'll just let him tell you a little bit about what his

[2:23:57] plan is going forward.

[2:24:00] Yes. Once again, I'm Luke Reed. It's great to be on board.

[2:24:03] I'm excited to work with each of you, and I've had conversations with

[2:24:07] many of you. I look forward to continuing that in the immediate future.

[2:24:12] I'm developing a work plan. So right now,

[2:24:16] my focus is on getting up to speed on what this department

[2:24:19] does in a static sense, and then

[2:24:23] looking forward to the legislative agenda.

[2:24:25] I've had conversations with our chair of the legislative group, Mr.

[2:24:28] Myers, and I look forward to speaking with Mr.

[2:24:31] Matusik and Dr. Scholl,

[2:24:34] and we'll be forming the legislative agenda.

[2:24:36] And on this list, we have some priorities, and I want to make sure that these

[2:24:40] fit with what this board wants to prioritize,

[2:24:44] so...

[2:24:48] Are those the carryover?

[2:24:50] The carryover, I also have the '26 legislative agenda, which would be a

[2:24:54] good place to start, and there are six priorities on this,

[2:24:58] including early learning, literacy, mathematics, success for

[2:25:02] today's students and workforce development, educator attention and

[2:25:06] recruitment, and providing access to quality schools.

[2:25:09] But perhaps this board may want to look at being

[2:25:13] more focused and more

[2:25:16] action-oriented. I'm not sure, but those are conversations I look forward to having

[2:25:20] with you all.

[2:25:21] So the '26 were just broad concepts of, "Hey, we would like

[2:25:26] you all to focus on workforce development," or whatever.

[2:25:28] Yeah, and-

[2:25:29] Nothing, no specific legislation or particular aim?

[2:25:34] That's what 2026 was.

[2:25:35] Okay.

[2:25:35] Yes.

[2:25:38] So could you remind us, maybe a good place to start is the end.

[2:25:42] When do we want to have our legislative priorities submitted into

[2:25:46] what do you need from us so that then the board can build backwards the committee

[2:25:50] and make sure that we have those proper discussions and bring

[2:25:54] forward legislative priorities?

[2:25:56] And I appreciate that question. And August the

[2:25:59] 28th is the deadline for the governor's office submittals,

[2:26:03] but-

[2:26:05] August the 28th of this month, the deadline to

[2:26:09] submit our legislative priorities for the next legislative

[2:26:12] session? In the past, it had been that we

[2:26:16] wanted to submit them in December because legislate-

[2:26:19] I think that step is fairly new in the process.

[2:26:23] We have not always done that. And when we're talking about legislative priorities,

[2:26:27] they want to know if there are bills that we intend to file-

[2:26:30] Yeah

[2:26:30] ... things that we intend to pursue.

[2:26:33] Advocating for money that's in the budget, that kind of thing,

[2:26:36] or

[2:26:38] responding to proposals that are out there, things like that,

[2:26:42] those we have time to think about. But just if we have bills

[2:26:46] that you intend to file, which

[2:26:48] nothing came to mind when we were talking about that.

[2:26:51] Really you have pretty broad statutory...

[2:26:53] Any of the things that we've been talking about do not require new legislation for

[2:26:57] you to implement, so-

[2:26:58] Yes

[2:27:00] Anyway, sorry, Luke

[2:27:01] Oh, no, I appreciate that. And yes, Mr.

[2:27:03] Myers and I had the conversation. The threshold would be,

[2:27:07] is there anything this department cannot do without a change in

[2:27:11] statute?

[2:27:13] And

[2:27:14] aside from that, I believe we would have till really December to

[2:27:18] finalize

[2:27:20] the 2027 version of the legislative

[2:27:23] priorities. And that would be

[2:27:28] a separate process,

[2:27:30] and

[2:27:32] this board has a separate authority from

[2:27:35] other departments, so that August 28th is a bit different.

[2:27:38] Okay, good.

[2:27:40] But said similarly to the finance discussion,

[2:27:44] we are still building that. We're flying already,

[2:27:48] but changing the engines at the same time.

[2:27:51] So as the different

[2:27:55] committees continue to do their work, there could be a

[2:27:58] bill that we would want to propose, and we just deal with that at the timing

[2:28:02] and whether it's possible or not.

[2:28:07] But the goal would be anything legislative priority-wise that we do

[2:28:11] want to communicate would want to be done by,

[2:28:14] and approved by, the board to be submitted in December.

[2:28:19] If it's specific legislation.

[2:28:21] Yeah.

[2:28:21] If it's just

[2:28:23] what you want to make sure that your focus is on.

[2:28:26] And things will come up during the session, too, that maybe we are not

[2:28:29] anticipating, and you want to have a chance to be able to say whether or not the

[2:28:33] board is going to take a position on specific things that come up.

[2:28:37] But as

[2:28:39] Luke was saying, they've set the threshold of,

[2:28:43] is what you want to do, does it require legislation?

[2:28:47] And if it does not, there's every reason not

[2:28:50] to go that route. It's not an easy hill to climb, and so if there are things

[2:28:54] that you can do without doing that, that's always the first option.

[2:28:57] And we first have to define what we want to do.

[2:28:59] Exactly, yeah.

[2:29:00] Which will come through a lot of the committee work, like the strategic plan, et

[2:29:03] cetera.

[2:29:04] I just had a question. I know we had talked,

[2:29:08] maybe not directly, but in meetings and definitely offline, about certain

[2:29:12] administrative things that are in the statute that-

[2:29:15] Oh, yeah

[2:29:16] ... may or may not. If we change it, it may allow us to do things.

[2:29:19] They're just either silent in the statute or it's worded a different

[2:29:23] way. So

[2:29:25] I consider that low-hanging fruit, non-controversial type stuff.

[2:29:28] So is that

[2:29:30] August 28th deadline, or if-

[2:29:33] No, I'm of the opinion we probably won't have

[2:29:36] anything for that August 28th deadline.

[2:29:39] Okay.

[2:29:39] But there is a sort of middle ground that you and I had briefly touched

[2:29:43] on, that I inherited from my predecessor, Perry.

[2:29:47] It's a list of around 8 to 10, and it's a living document, I

[2:29:51] continue to add them, but fixes that we would benefit from as a

[2:29:54] department.

[2:29:56] Got it. Okay.

[2:29:56] Whereas-

[2:29:57] I want to make sure we had time to nail that down so that we don't have to wait

[2:30:01] another year to get that in there.

[2:30:03] And we're talking just fairly simple-

[2:30:05] Yeah, in my opinion, but yeah

[2:30:06] ... uncontroversial.

[2:30:07] You open up a can of worms, I don't know.

[2:30:09] Yeah.

[2:30:09] Everything is non-controversial.

[2:30:11] Yeah, and to speak to the commissioner's point about

[2:30:15] filing a bill,

[2:30:17] we would be at the mercy of the general assembly.

[2:30:20] Right.

[2:30:20] And in these cases, these fixes would be much more

[2:30:24] targeted and limited, and we wouldn't be leading the

[2:30:28] charge necessarily, but rather if a legislator had a bill that opened

[2:30:32] up this specific chapter,

[2:30:34] or this specific section really,

[2:30:36] that we would work with the bill sponsor to include this fix.

[2:30:40] Okay.

[2:30:41] So like a-

[2:30:41] I want to make sure we had time, that's all.

[2:30:43] Yes, and-

[2:30:44] We have a couple of months at least.

[2:30:46] You are correct.

[2:30:46] Yeah.

[2:30:48] So biggest part of your job will be watching the bills as they

[2:30:52] are filed to see if it's something we need to weigh in on either side,

[2:30:56] and if there's some window to put some of these other changes on.

[2:31:00] That's a big

[2:31:02] part of what your role is, right? Come from

[2:31:07] starting in December?

[2:31:08] Yeah.

[2:31:08] Watching the bills.

[2:31:09] Yeah. December the 1st is the first day that legislators can pre-file legislation.

[2:31:14] And it is a strange thing, but new legislators who aren't

[2:31:18] sworn in can pre-file legislation.

[2:31:20] Which that was a question, I don't recall who asked me.

[2:31:24] Yeah.

[2:31:26] So December the 1st is when the

[2:31:29] department will receive new bills to start, and then

[2:31:33] legislators have till the end of March, I believe, to file new legislation.

[2:31:37] But they can, of course, amend things in committee or on the floor after

[2:31:40] that.

[2:31:42] But yeah, my job will be to be on top of all the bills that are

[2:31:45] filed and work with our budget team

[2:31:49] to make sure we understand them and understand how each bill will affect this

[2:31:53] department.

[2:31:54] Got you. Thank you.

[2:31:56] Mr. Matusic?

[2:31:57] Yeah. Thank you.

[2:31:59] Just a couple of thoughts for the board.

[2:32:03] Those who've been on over the last year have probably heard me say this,

[2:32:07] but the legislative

[2:32:11] priorities

[2:32:13] document that we have now, I do think it's just a lot of

[2:32:16] broad

[2:32:18] position statements.

[2:32:20] When I think of legislative priorities,

[2:32:24] I think of it in a few ways. One, when we have a strategic plan,

[2:32:29] what sort of legislative action might we need to

[2:32:33] implement that plan? Right?

[2:32:35] Whether that's changes to statute, whatever it might be.

[2:32:40] And then, I think most of our legislative priorities should

[2:32:44] reflect our strategic plan.

[2:32:47] Not all, right? For example, one of the issues we discussed,

[2:32:51] I think at our work session or whenever it was,

[2:32:54] we've talked about

[2:32:56] hiring a commissioner, and does the commissioner have

[2:32:59] a multi-year contract, and does the board have authority to do that?

[2:33:03] You can read the statute. You could probably interpret it a couple different ways,

[2:33:07] but that may be an example of a legislative priority if we think

[2:33:12] for the long-term of the department, not just the next couple of years, but 20

[2:33:16] years from now.

[2:33:19] As commissioners come and go, and if we think

[2:33:23] that

[2:33:24] finding the best candidate and retaining the best candidate means we need to have a

[2:33:28] multi-year contract that lays out X, Y, and Z, then maybe that's something

[2:33:32] we add to the legislative priorities document,

[2:33:35] make our case to the legislature for a clarification statute.

[2:33:39] But

[2:33:41] I voted against this in December of last year.

[2:33:43] I think I was the only one, which is fine.

[2:33:45] If we're all agreeing on everything on every time, then something's probably gone

[2:33:48] wrong. But

[2:33:50] when I develop a legislative priorities document, it takes years to build

[2:33:53] that. It's not just something that we throw on a piece of paper.

[2:33:56] And so to me, to wrap it up, I think the

[2:34:01] strategic plan should come first,

[2:34:03] and then the legislative priorities document comes after.

[2:34:07] That's just my opinion.

[2:34:12] Do we have... Okay. I just want to say I agree.

[2:34:15] I don't know, given the flow of events and the

[2:34:20] schedules and whatnot that are set in law already, I'm not sure we can

[2:34:24] get that done right away. But conceptually, you're exactly correct.

[2:34:29] And I think we're faced with the same issues with the

[2:34:34] budget and

[2:34:36] we've got a lot of catching up to do.

[2:34:39] So the question is, do we submit legislative priorities now?

[2:34:43] Not now, but maybe a thought of consideration to Mike's point is, we

[2:34:47] don't.

[2:34:49] Since we're not specifically asking for any one thing, we're just letting them know

[2:34:53] what we think is important in education,

[2:34:56] do we take a hiatus on legislative priorities for this year to

[2:35:00] build the specific details of

[2:35:03] legislation that we want? And I'm not saying we

[2:35:07] answer that here. Or do we want to continue to just

[2:35:10] certainly emphasize to the legislature those

[2:35:14] specific areas of focus that we have that are

[2:35:17] broad? They're more direct than they used to be, but they're still

[2:35:21] broad. And what approach should we take?

[2:35:25] And I guess that's the guidance we should look for from the legislative committee.

[2:35:29] Yeah. Oh, sorry. Go ahead, Brooks.

[2:35:31] No, I'll call on Dr. Pruitt.

[2:35:32] Oh, sorry.

[2:35:33] You want to-

[2:35:33] You want to follow up on her-

[2:35:34] Oh, yeah. I give you my answer now. I think we should wait.

[2:35:38] I don't think we need to submit a legislative priorities document

[2:35:42] to the legislature for this next legislative session.

[2:35:45] That's my opinion.

[2:35:46] I think that's something to take under consideration in the committee.

[2:35:49] Absolutely. My two cents.

[2:35:51] So my comment was going to be, something that you might think about is

[2:35:56] retitling what that's called, and maybe that's policy priorities.

[2:36:00] And so that if something does rise to the level of you need legislation to be able

[2:36:04] to carry it out, great. Maybe it's a change to an administrative rule that makes

[2:36:08] something more specific. Maybe it's an internal policy, but it's just

[2:36:13] based on your strategic plan, saying what you're prioritizing and what do

[2:36:17] you need to do to accomplish it. I think legislative priorities leans us to

[2:36:21] think we need to come up with legislation, and we don't necessarily

[2:36:25] always need to do that. There may be other types of policy

[2:36:28] initiatives that could accomplish that. So just a thought.

[2:36:32] Yeah. No, I think the legislative priorities list, as you build that over

[2:36:36] time, I don't think it's going to be a big list.

[2:36:40] I think you focus on a few things, see what you can get done, and then continue

[2:36:44] to add to it and build that agenda based on the strategic plan,

[2:36:48] based on the budget.

[2:36:51] What those realities look like. I just think this is kind of like a cart before

[2:36:55] the horse type of thing.

[2:36:59] So thank you.

[2:37:01] And you're referring to the budget on that?

[2:37:03] No, the legislative priorities.

[2:37:05] Oh, okay.

[2:37:06] Yeah, I don't really see a need to have one this next year.

[2:37:10] I think Luke would stay busy just reading and interpreting-

[2:37:13] Language

[2:37:13] ... the hundreds of bills that the legislature introduces.

[2:37:18] But as far as us sending over priorities to the legislature, I

[2:37:21] don't see that as a necessity this year.

[2:37:25] And I will, from city and county governments,

[2:37:29] most of the time when our legislative was trying to kill legislation-

[2:37:32] Yeah

[2:37:32] ... that was going to hurt us-

[2:37:33] It was

[2:37:34] ... as presenting something new, is there'll be stuff over there

[2:37:38] that we will see that's not good.

[2:37:40] Yeah, playing defense.

[2:37:41] And playing defense.

[2:37:42] That's exactly what was going through my head.

[2:37:44] Mm-hmm.

[2:37:45] Yeah. Okay.

[2:37:47] So where are we at on this very lively

[2:37:51] discussion?

[2:37:52] Important discussion.

[2:37:53] I think the ball's in my court.

[2:37:54] I think it does.

[2:37:55] And so

[2:37:56] thank you. And we will take all that-

[2:37:59] I'll pass the buck

[2:37:59] ... into consideration.

[2:38:00] Yeah. Okay. That would be great. And we didn't do much last year.

[2:38:04] And of course, I was chairman last year, so it's all my

[2:38:07] fault. But it sure is nice kind of getting our arms around it.

[2:38:12] And one of the things

[2:38:14] I was a little frustrated with last year

[2:38:17] was we really didn't have a priority.

[2:38:20] And I don't know if Kyle's still in here, but we didn't

[2:38:24] know going through the year what was important to us

[2:38:28] because we didn't have priorities

[2:38:32] within our group here to say this is what we want to

[2:38:35] support. But for me, I think

[2:38:39] you always keep it in front of people.

[2:38:41] And you need, I think, asking for resources

[2:38:45] for a project is critically important to show that we

[2:38:49] are moving forward.

[2:38:51] That's my two cents, and I-

[2:38:53] Mm-hmm

[2:38:53] ... think that's a little bit different than what you've done in the past.

[2:38:57] We've always kind of waited for everybody to turn something in,

[2:39:01] and maybe we need to just identify what we need to do

[2:39:05] in our priorities.

[2:39:06] Mm-hmm. And I would stress the importance of not siloing legislative

[2:39:10] budget and all that. I think they all have to talk in unison-

[2:39:14] Yeah

[2:39:14] ... to inform our strategy in the capital.

[2:39:17] Mm-hmm.

[2:39:17] I think that's absolutely

[2:39:19] What I'm hearing.

[2:39:20] Yeah, I think so.

[2:39:22] I

[2:39:23] saw some of those requests were $100,000, and

[2:39:27] my question was,

[2:39:29] how do they really impact? What kind of impact

[2:39:33] can you expect for 100,000? And so

[2:39:36] legislatively, do we have to change how we're set up to address

[2:39:40] that or anything that he may

[2:39:43] attune to?

[2:39:47] There's a blank, so I'm-

[2:39:50] I think we're kind of settled in-

[2:39:52] Okay

[2:39:52] ... our next steps.

[2:39:52] I think so. I, again, just would emphasize to think

[2:39:56] about legislative priorities broadly, and Luke stated that very well, that

[2:40:01] a lot of the priorities that you want to execute depend on whether or not they can

[2:40:05] be funded. And so some of our advocacy may not be for new

[2:40:09] legislation or even against legislation.

[2:40:12] It may be about making sure that those priorities that you

[2:40:15] have

[2:40:17] get the resources they need. It's all part of the same strategy.

[2:40:21] Okay.

[2:40:22] And to the local government folks' point, that's more defense.

[2:40:26] Budget is defense to an extent.

[2:40:29] Yeah.

[2:40:30] And things like we was talking about earlier,

[2:40:32] trying to fix the four-day school problem,

[2:40:37] putting something in legislation with an ongoing fiscal dollar

[2:40:41] amount in it,

[2:40:42] puts us

[2:40:45] behind the eight ball because it's there, we can't change that.

[2:40:49] And so some of the times when they have something they want changed and they

[2:40:53] put ongoing money on the budget on it,

[2:40:56] that really hampers us.

[2:41:01] Michael?

[2:41:02] I was going to say, you talk about the four-day week problem.

[2:41:05] If they're getting good results, is that a problem?

[2:41:08] I'm just saying the legislature,

[2:41:11] by their action, determined they wanted to have less four-day

[2:41:14] schools and encourage

[2:41:17] that. So on the evaluation of that, I'm

[2:41:21] going by their actions.

[2:41:22] Sure.

[2:41:23] Yeah.

[2:41:25] Any other comments?

[2:41:27] Okay, hearing none. Thanks for your time.

[2:41:30] Thank you.

[2:41:30] And welcome to the school board.

[2:41:33] I appreciate it.

[2:41:34] You bet.

[2:41:39] Okay.

[2:41:44] Yeah, why don't we stop right here?

[2:41:47] We have food is available.

[2:41:49] Food is available, but we can also-

[2:41:54] It'll probably be a longer conversation with you, won't it, Lisa?

[2:41:58] We're talking two or three hours, but I'm

[2:42:02] going to call a break here and for us to take advantage

[2:42:06] of the meal that's prepared for us.

[2:42:08] What time should we come back?

[2:42:09] What do you think? Can we eat 12?

[2:42:13] Or how about 12:15?

[2:42:15] Let's go do 12:15. Yeah, 12:15. So we'll

[2:42:19] return back into session at 12:15.

[2:42:21] Okay.

[2:42:21] Thank you.

[3:17:08] Okay, so it is

[3:17:10] just a couple of minutes past our allotted time here, so as much as we

[3:17:14] want to stay on schedule,

[3:17:16] we'll go ahead and get started here, please.

[3:17:18] All right.

[3:17:20] Thank you, sir.

[3:17:22] This is Lisa Serino. I am Deputy Commissioner of Learning

[3:17:25] Services. I am here today with Shawn Bates.

[3:17:29] He is the Standards Curriculum and Assessment

[3:17:33] Coordinator in the Office of Quality Schools.

[3:17:37] Office of Quality Schools does not presently have an assistant commissioner, so

[3:17:41] I'm going to be filling in to support Shawn, if

[3:17:45] needed in this presentation.

[3:17:47] He's going to talk to you about our

[3:17:51] preliminary statewide assessment results, and I'll turn it

[3:17:55] over to Shawn.

[3:17:56] Oh, good afternoon, and thank you for your time today.

[3:18:00] We will be looking at our preliminary results of the statewide assessment that

[3:18:03] occurred between the fall of 2025 and the spring of

[3:18:07] 2026, because the EOC does our end-of-course assessments, sorry,

[3:18:12] do have three administrations.

[3:18:15] These results, as Lisa said, do go to the Office of Quality

[3:18:19] Schools. A lot of these results become products of the

[3:18:23] reviews that we do as a state.

[3:18:26] So this is where a lot of questions come about the data being so

[3:18:30] late at times. Our data needs a lot of cleaning.

[3:18:33] Our schools are still making appeals on their data, especially the students who

[3:18:37] have transferred may have had incomplete assessments before they

[3:18:41] moved. So there's a lot of cleaning processes that do

[3:18:44] occur. On that note, our data was

[3:18:48] delivered to the schools on June 26th.

[3:18:50] So the schools have had their data.

[3:18:52] It's very raw, but they can work with it. They have all the results.

[3:18:56] Also, they have their parent results that is available for the parents to

[3:19:00] come and get. Most of them have made notice to the parents of when they

[3:19:04] will have them available, either through school orientation,

[3:19:09] some go all the way to October into their

[3:19:12] parent-teacher meetings. But that data

[3:19:16] is available, and they can definitely work with that, and we encourage

[3:19:20] them to be working with their data right now.

[3:19:22] On the other side, where it's more of the accountability process, it does

[3:19:26] take a little bit longer. There are multiple entities also that support the

[3:19:30] Office of Quality Schools, and especially our accountability team, to

[3:19:33] process this data and get it out and make sure that we're accurate with that

[3:19:38] data.

[3:19:39] So we'll move through there, and please

[3:19:43] bear patience with me. Hopefully, I don't skip slides.

[3:19:45] I'm a little clicker happy at times.

[3:19:48] But why do we administer the statewide assessments? It's always the big question.

[3:19:52] A lot of our teachers are always like, "Why do we have to do the state test?"

[3:19:56] The top one, as you can see, for accountability purposes, it meets a lot of

[3:20:00] requirements with our Every Student Succeeds Act, which is our

[3:20:03] federal education act, all the way to our statutory requirements

[3:20:07] within the Missouri Constitution and legislation.

[3:20:11] The other big piece is really about the reporting.

[3:20:14] It's all that we need to be making sure that we're reporting to our constituents,

[3:20:18] our parents, our legislators, our school boards.

[3:20:22] And one of the big pieces now that we'll be talking about in the next session is

[3:20:26] our A-through-F report cards, our grade cards.

[3:20:29] Those will be coming out, and this data feeds into that.

[3:20:32] There are multiple things that go through how we use the data, but the last

[3:20:36] one is the big piece is about the application.

[3:20:39] And that's where we talk about the schools and having their data.

[3:20:43] Teachers having their data, starting looking through that, looking at their item

[3:20:46] analysis reports, looking at students' performance, to

[3:20:49] reporting domains and categories about what supports do we need,

[3:20:54] or the bigger piece that I try to remind them about their data, it's a validation

[3:20:57] tool. It should really be validating everything that you've done this year,

[3:21:02] and put the kudos on your back that you've done a really good job.

[3:21:05] These are the things that we did see.

[3:21:07] These are things that we need to continue to work on.

[3:21:13] So just a quick reminder, and it was brought up in Dr. Cruz's presentation.

[3:21:16] Currently, we have four performance levels.

[3:21:19] Our biggest

[3:21:21] reporting is always the top two, which are kind of a little bit different here, how

[3:21:25] we have them presented. The advanced and proficient, that's what we also have

[3:21:29] to report at a federal level. So we report our top two

[3:21:32] levels. We do have two other performance levels, our basic and below

[3:21:36] basic. One of the big things that we try to always continue

[3:21:40] to remind our educators,

[3:21:42] and just remind the public in person, basic students, below

[3:21:46] basic students, have a lot of skills.

[3:21:49] They're just not performing at full proficiency, which we would think almost

[3:21:52] independent learners, where they can take a lot of the instruction and move

[3:21:56] forward. These kiddos, when we look at basic and below basic,

[3:22:00] the kids have skills. Our performance level descriptors identify a lot of

[3:22:03] those skills. They just need supports and hopefully, where they can start

[3:22:07] looking through that data and identify this is a path that we need to help and

[3:22:11] support the student as they grow and throughout their

[3:22:15] career before they graduate, we can get them back on track.

[3:22:21] So initial observations. Everybody's kind of like, "How does the data look?"

[3:22:24] Well, one of the big pieces is we're very proud that our schools are

[3:22:28] participating, our students are participating.

[3:22:30] We're roughly about 99%.

[3:22:33] We must keep 95%, so we have done a very good job of making

[3:22:37] sure our students are participating and giving us good data points.

[3:22:41] Overall increases, we saw overall increases in all four

[3:22:45] content areas. Now, social studies is only assessed at high school,

[3:22:50] but all four content areas did see improvement.

[3:22:54] Nothing huge gains, but we do see gains, and any gain from

[3:22:58] when I was back as a principal, way back,

[3:23:01] any gain means our staff did something good, and we need to cherish

[3:23:05] that.

[3:23:07] For ELA specifically, all the grades really showed

[3:23:11] improvement except for five and six.

[3:23:14] And that is always an interesting piece.

[3:23:17] Grade six is that transition in our academic standards, our Missouri

[3:23:21] Learning Standards. And I hopefully don't use an acronym, but you may hear

[3:23:25] MLS. Missouri Learning Standards, that is when a

[3:23:28] transition really occurs in English Language Arts, and

[3:23:32] that is when we start looking more at informational text, and those kiddos are

[3:23:36] needing to comprehend some pretty complex text at times. And that's a jump.

[3:23:40] That is a big jump for some of those kiddos.

[3:23:42] So they kind of that first year

[3:23:45] may have a little bit of stumbling, but that's where the teachers are working at

[3:23:47] it. And if you look at the data when I present it in a few minutes, you'll see

[3:23:51] where seventh and eighth grade start picking it back up, where the kiddos are

[3:23:54] performing.

[3:23:55] For mathematics, again, another great year for our students in math.

[3:23:59] We are showing improvement. It was our first assessment or our

[3:24:03] first content area when we came out of COVID that was actually

[3:24:07] showing improvement. And give that all to our

[3:24:10] teachers and all the opportunities, making sure that our students are

[3:24:14] doing math. I think it's very interesting when we saw a little

[3:24:18] bit of a dip in there,

[3:24:20] and I can just attest, I'm not a very good online learner.

[3:24:24] I think when the kiddos are in the classroom with the teacher, and they're working

[3:24:27] through those problems, and talking about the problems, and the steps, and the

[3:24:31] methodologies, that the kiddos are getting that.

[3:24:34] And we have to put a lot of emphasis on our teachers and the work that they've

[3:24:38] done.

[3:24:39] Our last two, biology and American government, showed improvement.

[3:24:42] That's been our two kind of EOC, our end-of-course assessments in high

[3:24:46] school that have struggled.

[3:24:49] But they are now finally getting into that uptick of where the kiddos are starting

[3:24:52] to apply the science and social studies concepts.

[3:24:55] And again, a lot of that our curriculum team has done a lot of

[3:24:59] work in the last year, year and a half, of really looking at

[3:25:04] those two content areas are not alone.

[3:25:06] We support a lot of English Language Arts.

[3:25:08] We support a lot of mathematics. How do those two support each other?

[3:25:12] Especially being Missouri is very

[3:25:16] proud for almost 30 years of we always have constructed response

[3:25:20] items where we critically look at students' responses and get

[3:25:24] into their thinking. Tell us how you think, and those kiddos really did

[3:25:27] some really good job this year on those type of item types and making improvements.

[3:25:34] So, any questions before we jump into our data

[3:25:37] set?

[3:25:40] Mr. Mattison.

[3:25:41] Thank you.

[3:25:43] Could you just go just spend a minute,

[3:25:46] when the students do the MAP testing,

[3:25:50] I know districts can appeal some of the data if there's

[3:25:54] transferring students-

[3:25:55] Yeah

[3:25:55] ... in or out of the district. And I recall that being an issue when I was on the

[3:25:59] local school board. But

[3:26:01] why the lag? If they

[3:26:04] do the MAP testing, what, end of April, early May, something like that,

[3:26:09] and then what

[3:26:13] happens with that data next? I know you mentioned it, but

[3:26:16] why does it take months basically to

[3:26:20] get all of this data pumped out so we can see--

[3:26:24] I guess parents, right, don't see MAP scores until

[3:26:28] the end of September usually, even though their child took the

[3:26:32] test three or four months ago.

[3:26:35] So again, the districts receive the parents reports.

[3:26:39] This year, they actually got them on June 26th.

[3:26:41] We've been able to shorten up our timeline and bring some of that data back into

[3:26:45] the house.

[3:26:46] We're trying to definitely get it before new contracts or that

[3:26:50] little summer break that a lot of the administrative offices would have at the

[3:26:53] local school. So that data is available, and

[3:26:57] it's up to the school at that point. We have never set a rule.

[3:27:01] I ask the schools within 15 days of receipt

[3:27:06] to tell the, or promote how they will provide those

[3:27:10] reports to the schools.

[3:27:12] So the data is actually coming into the department sometime in June.

[3:27:16] So we've pushed our vendors, our partners pretty hard

[3:27:20] so they are able to turn that data in less than 30 days.

[3:27:24] But there is a little bit of difference between what you would have

[3:27:27] in products that schools would buy because this data is used on

[3:27:31] multiple variances of accountability, and

[3:27:35] we're accrediting schools, and we're really deep diving into the data

[3:27:39] to interpret if there's good things or bad things.

[3:27:42] So we want to make sure that data is absolutely accurate, and our partners want to

[3:27:46] make sure of that is also because having to redo the data

[3:27:50] pushes everything continuously back.

[3:27:53] Where it really becomes maybe why we're not getting it out is we also

[3:27:57] are dependent upon a lot of other partners

[3:28:00] when it comes into house, and then getting all the data set into

[3:28:03] tables, and get it into the

[3:28:06] servers.

[3:28:06] Takes time to do all that, okay.

[3:28:08] It does do that, and then the cleaning process.

[3:28:10] Once then the schools can have that opportunity to make the appeals.

[3:28:14] Every time, and I will say Lisa has pushed me,

[3:28:17] when it's time for our contract renewals,

[3:28:21] what can we shave? What can we push our partners?

[3:28:24] And we keep continuing to do that.

[3:28:27] There are some things that we could consider in the future once more safeguards,

[3:28:31] i.e., if you were looking at AI scoring.

[3:28:35] We could move into that. I'm still very confident with our human readers

[3:28:39] of keeping a very high rate of reliability

[3:28:43] when they're scoring the constructed response items.

[3:28:46] But again, we always continue to look at that.

[3:28:50] Thank you.

[3:28:52] Anything?

[3:28:54] I have a follow-up on the same subject.

[3:28:59] I

[3:29:00] can't understand what anybody does with data for 30 days.

[3:29:06] I just don't understand, and I'm not being critical

[3:29:10] of it, I just can't get my head around.

[3:29:13] Kid takes a test, it's in an electronic format,

[3:29:17] goes to somebody else's computer,

[3:29:20] and it sits there for 30, 60, 90 days.

[3:29:24] I just

[3:29:26] can't understand that.

[3:29:28] Anything you can do to help me understand that would be appreciated.

[3:29:32] And I would ask a clarifying question, which process?

[3:29:35] What we do for schools, or what do we do as far as the

[3:29:39] department in reporting-

[3:29:40] Schools. The feedback, the delivery back to the school.

[3:29:44] Right.

[3:29:45] I'm sorry. That's been my experience.

[3:29:47] Absolutely. Very good question. For high school,

[3:29:51] and there's some psychometrics, and it's how you calculate and you're looking at

[3:29:55] data and creating the scale scores for our students.

[3:29:59] So for high school, we use a very simple method.

[3:30:02] It's a one-parameter method, a raw score to scale.

[3:30:06] So districts do, in five business days, when they close their district

[3:30:10] window, they'll get an aggregate report or a student-level report.

[3:30:14] It's very raw scores. There are no scales to

[3:30:17] that. Because what we do want to do at the conclusion

[3:30:21] of the state window,

[3:30:23] our partners will take all of the data and evaluate, did

[3:30:27] the items perform as predicted and expected?

[3:30:31] Because every item has had previous data to make sure that

[3:30:34] this is what we expect this item to do.

[3:30:37] And you don't want to really say this, but it has to discriminate between a

[3:30:40] proficient and advanced student, and this item does this.

[3:30:44] I might interrupt you for-

[3:30:45] Absolutely

[3:30:45] ... just a second. Item means test question.

[3:30:49] Okay.

[3:30:49] So when we talk about test items, that's the questions that are on the

[3:30:53] test. And I might jump in and kind of

[3:30:56] amplify what Shawn's saying, is a couple of things just to keep in mind

[3:31:00] that

[3:31:01] what we do with our current MAP testing, it's an

[3:31:05] end-of-year summative test, so it's meant to be administered at the end of

[3:31:09] instruction. And because of our test security and concerns

[3:31:12] about not letting those questions get out to students who

[3:31:16] haven't tested yet, we're not providing results back until

[3:31:20] the end of the statewide test window for

[3:31:25] the grade-level assessment.

[3:31:27] As Shawn was saying, when districts are done

[3:31:31] administering their EOC, their high school assessments, they get some

[3:31:35] raw data back that they can use within five business days.

[3:31:38] But it's still, because of those kind of test security concerns,

[3:31:42] they still don't get it until the end of their test window.

[3:31:46] And that's a feature of this end-of-year summative test

[3:31:50] design. Very different from some of those

[3:31:54] commercial products or our foundational reading assessments,

[3:31:59] where the results are instantaneous. They get the results right away.

[3:32:04] Yeah. I've got some studying to do.

[3:32:07] I don't understand this yet, but thank you.

[3:32:09] No, they're really good questions, and these are questions that educators ask

[3:32:13] us all the time.

[3:32:15] And one of the biggest pieces that we keep trying to remind them is when we give

[3:32:19] you this data, we want you to feel confident with that data.

[3:32:23] And so, we clean, we scrub, we make sure that that report is

[3:32:27] as accurate as possible, and

[3:32:30] we always hold our partners accountable for that.

[3:32:33] And so, yes, they do have that, but also our partners do

[3:32:36] present a lot of reports for our schools.

[3:32:39] It eliminated a lot of work that would take months here at the

[3:32:43] department, and resources that our partners can do.

[3:32:47] So the districts are getting pivot tables where they can play with the

[3:32:50] data and make a quick presentation to their boards.

[3:32:54] But all those data tables, but then we also create PDFs.

[3:32:58] All of their individual student reports, all of those are

[3:33:02] electronically available, so that means there's a lot of spot checks making

[3:33:06] sure everything is accurate, right name, birth date,

[3:33:10] and the data is actually correct on those students.

[3:33:14] So there is a lot of the Q&A-

[3:33:16] Is that-

[3:33:16] ... of quality checks. I'm sorry.

[3:33:18] Is that a human being that's sitting there checking that data, or that

[3:33:22] is another data...

[3:33:26] There are quite a few adults or humans that are still

[3:33:30] touching all of this and making sure that it's accurate.

[3:33:32] Okay.

[3:33:34] Yeah.

[3:33:35] Thank you, President Brooks. To build on what Board Member Shamel is

[3:33:39] saying or asking, have we done any comparison of

[3:33:44] Missouri's process to other states

[3:33:48] and their process and timelines and vendors used

[3:33:52] and ways to just advance ours to be more

[3:33:56] efficient and effective?

[3:33:59] Most of my counterparts, we're probably about on the same page.

[3:34:02] There are a few who actually

[3:34:05] have within their contract do most of all of the data production,

[3:34:09] where we still do quite a bit of the data production within the department.

[3:34:14] The

[3:34:15] long pole in the tent, as I would say, in our whole process is what?

[3:34:20] Which step is the longest in our process?

[3:34:24] Again, I would need a clarifying question. Which dataset?

[3:34:27] For schools or for the department's production of the data?

[3:34:32] Both

[3:34:33] Both.

[3:34:35] For schools,

[3:34:37] what we could probably pull on there is,

[3:34:40] Lisa indicated, is that summative and how

[3:34:44] much data can we actually give out while others are still testing?

[3:34:48] So you always have a little bit of the test security on that.

[3:34:51] So if the state window, if we could get it down to about 10 days,

[3:34:56] maybe somewhere along that line, we could actually shave it, I think would be

[3:35:00] very successful.

[3:35:01] So I think it's really the department, because the perception or the

[3:35:05] concern always raised in the community is: Why does it take until

[3:35:09] November to get our MAP results, or the fall?

[3:35:12] And schools, even though they know they've gotten earlier data, it's still

[3:35:16] waiting for that fall

[3:35:19] data. And so I think it's the department data that's most important

[3:35:23] out there. That is of the biggest concern, not the most important, but is the

[3:35:27] biggest

[3:35:28] concern from a timeline.

[3:35:31] So what can we do to improve that?

[3:35:33] Right.

[3:35:35] We're going to talk about this a little bit in the next presentation,

[3:35:39] about shaving timelines on data processing.

[3:35:42] So if you would

[3:35:45] allow me to put that particular question in the

[3:35:49] parking lot.

[3:35:51] Yeah.

[3:35:52] Yes, Commissioner.

[3:35:54] Just before I turn it back to Lisa and Sean, one other

[3:35:58] thing to remember historically, why maybe you had heard

[3:36:01] people talking about how long it takes to turn data around, I'm

[3:36:05] thinking back to my last time with this department, and there was a

[3:36:09] series of years where, for various reasons, there was a new test every

[3:36:13] year. And every time there's a new test, there's a whole lot of

[3:36:17] quality assurance checking and things that has to happen that doesn't happen

[3:36:21] once you've established yourself.

[3:36:22] So when you're hearing people say, "Oh, we don't see it till September,

[3:36:26] we don't see it till October," that used to be true.

[3:36:30] It's not now. As Sean was saying, you see it at the end of June.

[3:36:33] It may be that APR production piece, then that happens later

[3:36:37] in the fall.

[3:36:39] And I think it's a really important point.

[3:36:41] As a board, what we have to be able to do is separate.

[3:36:44] There is data that schools get. Now, is it fast

[3:36:47] enough?

[3:36:49] Not casting a point on that, but schools get their data

[3:36:53] before we see it rolled up at state levels.

[3:36:57] Mm-hmm.

[3:36:58] So when you're talking with

[3:37:01] groups or people, that we have to understand what they're speaking about,

[3:37:05] and also the purpose of the data. But that'll come later in

[3:37:09] a later discussion, I'm sure.

[3:37:11] Yeah, and I'll just reiterate one more time.

[3:37:15] Schools have had the parents' reports since June 26th.

[3:37:20] They're electronic now. If they order paper, they just came in a couple of weeks

[3:37:22] ago.

[3:37:25] There are some large districts who have that printed for them.

[3:37:28] But it is available electronically, so they could always

[3:37:32] be able to give that to the parents, especially if they were going to move, or they

[3:37:35] just really want to know how their child to do.

[3:37:37] And that's why we recommend, once you have the data, set up a

[3:37:41] procedure of how you're going to tell the parents when it's going to be available,

[3:37:45] and if you want it sooner, how

[3:37:48] could I get that data sooner?

[3:37:50] And it's not the

[3:37:51] individual student data that gets quality checked-

[3:37:54] Oh

[3:37:54] ... or ends up changing. It's all of the evaluation of the

[3:37:58] data that goes through all the quality checks. Is that correct?

[3:38:02] Well, everything is quality checked,

[3:38:05] both sides. What we give to the schools-

[3:38:07] Meaning once the schools have it June 26th-

[3:38:10] Mm-hmm

[3:38:11] ... they can trust that it's accurate data.

[3:38:14] It is. Then it's on the backside where it is for the

[3:38:18] APR production and our accountability production is all the cleaning

[3:38:22] processes and the

[3:38:24] appeals.

[3:38:24] So the question becomes, since they get their data June 26th, why does it take

[3:38:28] us July, August, September, October-ish,

[3:38:33] four months plus, to get our data at the state level, and then be

[3:38:36] able to break it down by school, and that's what you'll speak to, so.

[3:38:39] So, it might be helpful to just

[3:38:42] level set here that when we're talking about preliminary data, that

[3:38:46] means they're validated data.

[3:38:51] They are final scores for individual students.

[3:38:54] It's a record for every student that was tested.

[3:38:58] And that's what we're looking at now.

[3:39:00] There's a difference between that and the accountability data, which

[3:39:04] is sorted and sifted according to lots of

[3:39:08] procedures, and among them are some statutory requirements for what should

[3:39:12] be in those accountability measures.

[3:39:14] So that's one of the differences between what Sean's presenting

[3:39:18] today and what we will see-

[3:39:22] Yeah

[3:39:22] ... in the annual performance report and some other accountability

[3:39:26] reports in the future.

[3:39:31] Any other questions at this time?

[3:39:34] Okay. We will move forward and start looking at our content areas.

[3:39:38] So English Language Arts 25-26, you'll see on the screen here,

[3:39:42] we have our performance levels for each of the four performance

[3:39:46] levels all the way from grade three through English 2.

[3:39:51] Just a real quick note on English 1, that is a

[3:39:54] voluntary assessment, so not a lot of schools participate, but those

[3:39:58] who do find the value in it being a predictor for English

[3:40:01] 2.

[3:40:03] Usually, conversations with the previous boards, it's always been third grade.

[3:40:07] So let's just talk about that one real quick.

[3:40:10] That number you see at the bottom, that 30% at

[3:40:14] below basic, is a usual trend number that we

[3:40:17] see. What we always want to look at is that

[3:40:20] following year, look at how much about half of the students move out

[3:40:24] of that category.

[3:40:27] And we attribute a lot of that to this is the

[3:40:31] first assessment that they're going to have to the Missouri Learning Standards

[3:40:36] Which is a lot different than some of our literacy assessments, which really

[3:40:40] focus on the first four pillars. That comprehension

[3:40:43] pillar is what all of our standards are really based on.

[3:40:47] That's a lot for a kid to move towards.

[3:40:51] And that I believe a lot when you see at the end of third grade, there's a

[3:40:55] maturation point, that maybe these kids just don't have all of it

[3:40:59] yet to put together for the reading comprehension, and when they get into

[3:41:02] fourth grade, it really starts to click.

[3:41:05] Because you also want to, as I talk to our schools, look at your data

[3:41:09] and not hyper-focus so much, but look at where you start these kiddos in grade

[3:41:13] three, where do you end up in grade 10, or

[3:41:17] English two.

[3:41:18] We have moved a lot of kids out of those two bottom levels and

[3:41:22] up into the upper echelon of advanced and proficient.

[3:41:25] So we are moving kids. Our kiddos are able to read.

[3:41:29] They're just needing a lot of support when they are struggling earlier grades.

[3:41:34] That wouldn't... May I speak?

[3:41:37] Thank you.

[3:41:38] That would not be reflected here when you look at it.

[3:41:43] If you have 30%

[3:41:48] in grade three below basic

[3:41:51] and only com-- we'll just use eighth grade.

[3:41:53] Mm-hmm.

[3:41:54] Eighth grade, it's 16%. That reflects, hey,

[3:41:58] kids have progressed, even though it's not the same cohort.

[3:42:01] However, when you look at

[3:42:04] basic, it wouldn't do that. It is

[3:42:08] not at all that same trend. So that tells

[3:42:11] me that

[3:42:14] some kids are moving, but just as many are going back in and

[3:42:18] dropping down then. We've got, what,

[3:42:21] 58% and 59 eighth grade?

[3:42:25] Yeah.

[3:42:27] 45%, 55%. So we're basically making

[3:42:31] no difference,

[3:42:33] is the way the data's presented here.

[3:42:36] If we could see it by cohort, which I know you'll get to in a little bit of it, but

[3:42:39] we're not seeing it by cohort over the years.

[3:42:42] Mm.

[3:42:43] And so this does not show us that we're

[3:42:46] making any progress.

[3:42:49] I hear what you're saying. You're telling us, "Oh, don't worry." That's not

[3:42:53] how you're saying it, don't worry.

[3:42:54] But, even though it looks bad in third grade, it gets much

[3:42:58] better. But it doesn't get much better when you look at that.

[3:43:03] It's a very good point, where we're trying to follow the kiddos.

[3:43:07] But again,

[3:43:09] teachers are making a good difference.

[3:43:11] Where I would say is we see a lot of progress

[3:43:14] or a little bit of progress

[3:43:16] in four and five, and then grade six, again, that's where we have that little

[3:43:21] change in the standards, a little bit more of a rigor of the text

[3:43:24] complexity, and then we start that move again.

[3:43:29] I would also add to the observation that so this is just

[3:43:33] one year of data, right? We're going to see a little bit.

[3:43:36] We're going to see some trend data here in just a moment.

[3:43:41] This pattern, what we see in grade three, the distribution

[3:43:45] is not unusual to see that high a

[3:43:48] number in ELA at below basic.

[3:43:52] And that's one of the things that we're always concerned about, is

[3:43:56] how many students we see in that below basic

[3:44:00] range.

[3:44:01] It's great to see changes, improvements in the percent

[3:44:05] proficient or better, but we can't lose sight of what's happening

[3:44:09] at that below basic range, too. So I think the point

[3:44:13] is that if we looked at these slides over the years, you would

[3:44:16] see that similar large number in below basic

[3:44:20] in grade three.

[3:44:21] But that's unacceptable. It may be

[3:44:25] normal to see it, but it's not normal to

[3:44:29] allow it.

[3:44:30] Which is-

[3:44:30] It's unacceptable

[3:44:31] ... Right, which is why the literacy initiatives

[3:44:36] are so important, the things that we've been implementing.

[3:44:39] And we're starting to see movement in some areas.

[3:44:44] It's the top-line measure here that's the stickiest

[3:44:48] one, but this is what we have to look at.

[3:44:50] We don't start testing with our statewide assessment

[3:44:54] program until grade three.

[3:44:58] Just taking the same data set,

[3:45:00] what would this look like if we took the top 10%

[3:45:04] performing

[3:45:07] districts,

[3:45:09] took them out of this data,

[3:45:13] and just looked at the 90% below?

[3:45:17] What would that look like? Do we know?

[3:45:21] I have not done that analysis yet.

[3:45:23] Good question.

[3:45:25] A very good question.

[3:45:26] My concern is that we've got some districts across the state that are performing

[3:45:29] very high.

[3:45:31] Mm-hmm.

[3:45:31] And

[3:45:35] ...

[3:45:36] Oh, I'm sorry.

[3:45:39] We've got some districts across the

[3:45:43] state that are very high-performing, and then we've got some districts that

[3:45:47] are very low,

[3:45:49] and we're looking at an aggregate number

[3:45:53] or number set here, and I'd like to see this kind

[3:45:57] of data sort of like, okay,

[3:46:00] if we took the top 5%, top 10%,

[3:46:03] take them out, how bad does it

[3:46:07] get? If we're looking at this from the standpoint of where do we have to do

[3:46:10] improvement?

[3:46:12] There are some districts that are doing all the work and really producing good

[3:46:15] results.

[3:46:17] I think we've got to start looking at how bad is it, and sort of

[3:46:21] then put our strategies together around that.

[3:46:24] There isn't a lot here that we can do to help the Leduc School District.

[3:46:27] They're doing pretty well. And

[3:46:31] so I think the question is:

[3:46:34] Can we get data that really kind of zeros in on where the-

[3:46:38] And we do,

[3:46:40] as a next tranche of data, have that ability where we start seeing it at

[3:46:44] district levels, but that's going to be one of the great

[3:46:47] benefits of the A to F ... grading card where we'll

[3:46:51] begin to see just a focus on academic

[3:46:55] outcomes and the other-

[3:46:56] Mm-hmm

[3:46:57] ... the criteria that's built into A to F, but we'll see it at

[3:47:01] a building level.

[3:47:03] And so you might be, I'm not-

[3:47:05] Yeah

[3:47:05] ... picking on Ladue, I don't know, but you might be surprised.

[3:47:08] Ladue could be an overall great district, but have some issues within it, and

[3:47:12] that's what the A to F will identify.

[3:47:14] Sure.

[3:47:17] All right.

[3:47:17] Yeah.

[3:47:17] We'll move to mathematics. Or I'm sorry, English and language arts.

[3:47:21] What Lisa alluded to is kind of looking at the data, we

[3:47:25] always look at performance

[3:47:27] indicators, or advanced and proficient.

[3:47:31] Another way that we look at our data is we actually look at the mean score or the

[3:47:34] average score of where the students are performing, and that's where we can look at

[3:47:38] a whole cohort,

[3:47:41] and we can start looking at are they making movement as a whole?

[3:47:45] The status numbers of proficient, advanced may not move as much.

[3:47:50] But are we actually moving the mean?

[3:47:52] And that's when I think that we feel confident that there is some really good

[3:47:56] things happening, and is indicated there's some things that we still need to

[3:48:00] focus on.

[3:48:07] And this is looking at our student groups.

[3:48:10] I know that's always the big topic is how are our student groups

[3:48:15] doing? And that first set of column there, their student groups, that's where

[3:48:19] we include our Blacks, our English language learners, our free

[3:48:23] reduced price lunch students,

[3:48:25] our Hispanics, and our IEP students.

[3:48:28] We put them all into one big bucket,

[3:48:31] and this is how we evaluate how their performance is versus

[3:48:35] the non-students of the white population, and

[3:48:39] then how are all the students put back together.

[3:48:42] Sean, why

[3:48:44] those groups of students?

[3:48:47] Those are the ones that historically underperform

[3:48:51] the population as a whole, correct?

[3:48:53] Most of those students would be somewhere identified as at risk at times,

[3:48:57] especially with our IEP, our individual education plan students, or students with

[3:49:01] IEPs.

[3:49:03] Um, and free and reduced price lunches.

[3:49:06] A lot of those indicators, the socioeconomic status sometimes of those kiddos are

[3:49:10] at risk.

[3:49:19] All right, we'll move on. Oh, I'm sorry.

[3:49:21] Just a clarifying question.

[3:49:23] All students take the same assessments?

[3:49:26] English language learners, IEP students, they all are taking-

[3:49:28] Absolutely

[3:49:29] ... the same assessments.

[3:49:29] In this data set, and I did not allude earlier, and I do apologize,

[3:49:34] we do have an alternate assessment.

[3:49:36] It is a Missouri Assessment Program Alternate.

[3:49:39] That is for our 1% population. They do take a different

[3:49:43] assessment. Their standards are at an

[3:49:46] equivalent for that set of population of students.

[3:49:50] Generally, they're identified as severely cognitively challenged.

[3:49:53] They are included in this data set.

[3:49:56] It's a very small number.

[3:49:58] Less than 1%.

[3:50:00] So far, we've been under the radar of the federal government.

[3:50:04] We're keeping right with the law, keeping it at 1% population.

[3:50:11] Oh,

[3:50:12] I'm sorry. I told you. You let me drive.

[3:50:16] Oh,

[3:50:17] for mathematics, again, we see our

[3:50:20] performance here on mathematics.

[3:50:22] I do want to indicate

[3:50:24] two things here. For seventh grade

[3:50:28] and eighth grade, we did wrap the data back in together.

[3:50:32] We had students who are advanced mathematics,

[3:50:35] so roughly seventh grade, we had about

[3:50:37] 667 students who took Algebra 1,

[3:50:41] so we put their results into that cohort to represent the whole cohort.

[3:50:46] And then grade 8, we had roughly over 10,000 students who took

[3:50:50] Algebra 1.

[3:50:51] So

[3:50:53] when other data sets come out, it may look a little bit differently as we look at a

[3:50:57] whole, but we wanted to put all of the students together and not just isolate that

[3:51:00] grade 8 didn't look very good when you've got all these students in Algebra 1,

[3:51:04] because these students perform very well when they take the Algebra 1

[3:51:08] assessment.

[3:51:10] But as you can see, the trend is continually across there, but

[3:51:14] as we're looking from cohort to cohort each year, we are seeing

[3:51:17] improvement,

[3:51:19] and we can see that on the next slide

[3:51:22] where we start looking at the mean.

[3:51:24] And presented last year,

[3:51:26] Lisa did present that

[3:51:28] almost all of them, if not all of our means, are

[3:51:32] above pre-COVID. So we are at least

[3:51:35] starting to get there that we're

[3:51:38] above where we even started with this new assessment system.

[3:51:42] As you can see for eighth grade, at 441 is when we

[3:51:46] set the cut is the mean. They're now at 443.

[3:51:51] It's a small gain, but it is a gain for each of those cohorts.

[3:51:55] I got a question.

[3:51:59] So

[3:52:03] just for example, if you're looking at, I'm just picking one out of the blue, so

[3:52:07] 2002

[3:52:08] or '22,

[3:52:10] the green line, which is grade five,

[3:52:14] those kids then for '23 would be moved up to grade six.

[3:52:17] Is that right? It's not the-

[3:52:18] That is correct

[3:52:19] ... same kid. Okay.

[3:52:19] Yep.

[3:52:21] So it's just the grade then, and not necessarily that particular student group.

[3:52:25] Right.

[3:52:26] So you would have to kind of start articulating up where you were asking how do we

[3:52:30] look at this, not at a district level, but at the state level.

[3:52:34] You would look at exactly as you said, 2022, they were fifth

[3:52:38] graders. In 2023, they were sixth graders.

[3:52:41] That cohort made a two-point mean gain

[3:52:46] from the previous cohort.

[3:52:49] Got it

[3:52:53] And so again, looking at our student groups and non-student groups and our

[3:52:58] all students in mathematics,

[3:53:00] we do see a bigger discrepancy between that and the ELA

[3:53:04] of students needing a lot more supports in mathematics.

[3:53:18] Science.

[3:53:21] Science, we finally did get to see some movement again.

[3:53:25] Our grade eights made an increase, but also our

[3:53:28] biology. As you see, physical science is a very, very small

[3:53:32] population that did participate in the assessment, but we are very

[3:53:36] proud of our grade eight in biology, and again, I put a

[3:53:40] lot of emphasis on our curriculum staff, all of them, all the

[3:53:44] way from ELA, mathematics, science, and social studies, of having this unified

[3:53:48] conversation about students being able to write and being able to converse

[3:53:52] and put their thoughts down. I think this is really where we're seeing that with

[3:53:55] also with government,

[3:53:57] of students being able to feel confident and to apply their knowledge.

[3:54:05] And we don't do a mean for that because they are assessed only

[3:54:09] one time in elementary, middle school, and high school.

[3:54:12] So we opt out not to do the mean scale, but if you ever

[3:54:16] want it, we could produce that for you.

[3:54:18] Again, we look at it. Again, we still see a huge discrepancy

[3:54:21] between the student groups and the non-student groups in

[3:54:25] the bottom two tiers. That's where we still need a lot of supports for those

[3:54:29] kiddos. And when you start thinking about for science,

[3:54:33] some of that may be opportunities where we have a lot of places where they just

[3:54:37] don't have the opportunities to visit museums or science centers

[3:54:41] or having a lot of industry that can bring in some of those

[3:54:44] opportunities, which I know our CCR, our College and Career

[3:54:48] Readiness group, where we're looking at trying to get more apprentice programs out

[3:54:52] there and trying to make those connections to really help these kiddos

[3:54:56] get an opportunity.

[3:55:00] For social studies, American government

[3:55:04] did make a gain this year. It's one that when it first came out, or

[3:55:08] we finally were able to set standards in 2022, have

[3:55:11] been kind of just status right at the mark, not really losing

[3:55:15] students but not gaining any. This year, we were able to gain 2%

[3:55:20] of our students moving into proficient and advanced.

[3:55:24] And that's a lot of work, I think, on our curriculum team, again, is really getting

[3:55:27] out there and helping support our teachers about

[3:55:31] the academic standards, which are not just memorization of

[3:55:34] facts. For many of us who went to school, you memorized

[3:55:39] how many amendments there are. It's really now they have to discuss and be

[3:55:43] able to have critiques or opinions about the

[3:55:46] Supreme Court laws and how the amendments are interplaying with that.

[3:55:50] So these kiddos are doing quite a bit.

[3:55:56] So we'll quickly jump into demographic analysis.

[3:55:59] I know that you've got a long agenda.

[3:56:04] There's a lot of data here so we truncated this down

[3:56:07] to the last four years. Our ethnicity.

[3:56:12] We always want to look at our groups.

[3:56:13] Our three biggest groups are the white group, our Black and

[3:56:17] non-Hispanic, and our Hispanic populations.

[3:56:20] Those are our three largest, and then right behind that is our multiracial.

[3:56:25] But this is their performance against where we look at

[3:56:29] that. Again, our Black population is one that

[3:56:33] we want to continuously look at and making sure that they're getting the right

[3:56:36] supports

[3:56:38] in that process to make sure that they're on track to graduate.

[3:56:44] And this data set is wrapped all of it.

[3:56:47] We put all of the scores together on that.

[3:56:49] So I want to apologize if it

[3:56:52] looks a little bit like that.

[3:56:56] So our free and reduced lunch, all the content areas, again.

[3:57:01] Free and reduced price lunch. We want to make sure that we're looking at

[3:57:04] that difference here. Again, free and reduced price

[3:57:08] lunch went up another point. We were at 49.5

[3:57:12] last year. We're now at 50.5, so we've crossed over the halfway

[3:57:16] threshold of our students receiving these services.

[3:57:23] I'm sorry, I wasn't looking over. There was a question?

[3:57:24] Oh, no, no. You're fine. You're fine. Continue. I just have a tech thing.

[3:57:32] And we look at our individual education plans, what we call our IEPs.

[3:57:36] Most of these students would be identified in our special education department.

[3:57:41] You can see where these students, they're roughly about 14% of the population,

[3:57:45] have an IEP.

[3:57:48] And this would include also our 1% population.

[3:57:51] So you would see a spike in there where those kiddos are

[3:57:55] performing. But again, there is a bigger discrepancy between them

[3:57:59] and the non-population.

[3:58:06] And our English language learners are our multilingual learners.

[3:58:10] These students,

[3:58:12] on top of taking their access assessment, which measures their English language

[3:58:16] acquisition, they also are required to participate in the statewide assessments.

[3:58:21] Their data isn't used at times until three years, but

[3:58:25] they do participate, so we can keep track of that to where how they are to their

[3:58:28] peers in acquiring the Missouri learning standards.

[3:58:33] As you can see, theirs is a little bit smaller,

[3:58:36] but they are still behind

[3:58:39] in the population. And there's always the barrier that we think that is

[3:58:43] the biggest case.

[3:58:48] So in closing, and thank you for your time,

[3:58:51] what do we take out of this? What is the department looking at?

[3:58:55] One of our biggest pieces is we always look at attendance.

[3:58:58] And my granddaughters, I keep telling them, "You got to be in school.

[3:59:01] You got to be in school."

[3:59:03] And that's one of the biggest pieces, I think, as a previous

[3:59:07] administrator, was always trying to make sure my kids were there, my

[3:59:11] kids are learning. And that's where we're trying to really, how can we help the

[3:59:15] schools keep that going and making sure that we make that as an

[3:59:19] emphasis of being in school is a good

[3:59:22] thing. Yes.

[3:59:24] Quick question. When in the timeline of things would we

[3:59:29] receive an understanding of what our

[3:59:33] attendance has been this last school year?

[3:59:35] We don't need to wait until January for that.

[3:59:38] That data should be in sooner. So when can we learn

[3:59:42] about our attendance results?

[3:59:44] We can bring that back to you this fall.

[3:59:46] That's part of the data set that we look at with the annual performance

[3:59:50] report and those analyses-

[3:59:52] Right

[3:59:52] ... and as we're adding new information.

[3:59:54] I think-

[3:59:56] But we don't need to wait to see it as part of the full report.

[3:59:59] We can look at it separately sooner.

[4:00:01] Yes.

[4:00:02] Mm-hmm.

[4:00:02] Yes.

[4:00:02] And I would like to ask that it's presented to the board as soon as possible.

[4:00:07] I have roughly some dirty data, or it's not fully cleaned yet,

[4:00:11] but roughly the state was at a little over 80%

[4:00:15] attendance rate. 80.3, I think, is the overall-

[4:00:18] Mm-hmm

[4:00:19] ... average for the state, and then some subgroups were much lower.

[4:00:23] We might just unpack that a little bit.

[4:00:26] So that 80 point what rate? 80-

[4:00:28] 80.3%, I believe.

[4:00:30] That means that 80.3% of our students

[4:00:34] statewide attended school 90%

[4:00:38] of the time or more. Okay? If you're absent

[4:00:41] 10% or more, you're considered chronically

[4:00:45] absent. So that's why we use that

[4:00:48] mark there.

[4:00:50] So it doesn't mean that 83% of our students were in school all the time.

[4:00:54] Mm-hmm.

[4:00:54] Just want to make sure that's clear.

[4:00:57] Or 80%.

[4:00:59] 80%.

[4:00:59] There we go.

[4:01:01] The other one that's been brought up quite a bit today is our Missouri Read

[4:01:05] Lead Exceed. It's always continued to push that initiative,

[4:01:09] support that initiative. This will be our foundation to

[4:01:14] not only, and I want to say this, not only for English language arts,

[4:01:18] but for all the content areas and all of our career areas.

[4:01:21] Students need to have that acquisition and be able to read, so we all

[4:01:25] know that. And so with that is one of our biggest pushes to make

[4:01:29] sure our students are career ready.

[4:01:32] Educator recruitment, retention, Paul is always working on that

[4:01:36] to make sure that our schools have the right teachers, certified

[4:01:40] teachers, teachers who are ready to walk in and start teaching.

[4:01:44] And that's been a couple conversations I could hear through here, professional

[4:01:47] development, making sure our teachers are equipped.

[4:01:52] As a previous educator, I know that I walked in,

[4:01:56] I really didn't know a lot of how to do certain things.

[4:01:59] I could teach it, but to really understand how to teach this when a student's

[4:02:03] struggling, those are some of those things that we really need to focus on in

[4:02:07] how we can help our educators. And the biggest one, which I

[4:02:11] think always attaches to the top, attendance, is making sure our schools

[4:02:15] are safe and healthy.

[4:02:16] Why do kids want to come? Because it's safe.

[4:02:19] They feel safe, there's healthy schools.

[4:02:21] They feel confident being at school, and that really does help

[4:02:25] raise your attendance rate.

[4:02:32] So I'll open up any further questions that you would like to ask.

[4:02:39] Mr. Matousek. Just one. So looking at the

[4:02:44] MAP results, how would

[4:02:48] you summarize those? The way I look at it, over the last eight years, for

[4:02:52] example, it just appears largely flat, right?

[4:02:54] It went down the COVID years, and it's kind of come back up.

[4:02:57] But

[4:02:59] most of it is within a few points one way or another, and I

[4:03:03] would sort of summarize it as flat over eight years, but...

[4:03:07] I would, too.

[4:03:09] I would say that an important thing to

[4:03:12] understand... Well, let me just say this first.

[4:03:15] When we looked at those disaggregations

[4:03:19] by our student groups and the ones on the left-hand side of the

[4:03:23] slide, that group at the bottom, that percentage is

[4:03:27] so high, we should all be jumping up and down and saying, "What can we do to

[4:03:31] address this today, now?" Right? So

[4:03:34] knowing that that's where we are,

[4:03:38] right? Also step back a minute and look

[4:03:41] at large-scale assessments of this type, it's

[4:03:45] very unusual to see year-over-year

[4:03:49] changes that are significant in size.

[4:03:52] It's really unusual. So when we see things like a

[4:03:56] 3% change year-over-year, well, first of all, I want to see a

[4:04:00] trend, right? I'm

[4:04:03] initially skeptical no matter which direction it is.

[4:04:06] But when we're starting to see it's slow and steady

[4:04:09] gain,

[4:04:11] then we believe that it's real.

[4:04:14] Yes, Board Member Matousek, you're right that by and large it

[4:04:18] looks flat. We've had a little bit of this kind of thing.

[4:04:22] We think we are starting to see some impact of our Read Lead

[4:04:26] Exceed initiatives.

[4:04:29] We're not seeing it in the top line

[4:04:32] necessarily yet in our percent proficient and

[4:04:35] advanced, but we are starting to see that when we look

[4:04:39] at districts and buildings that have high levels

[4:04:43] of saturation of letters training, and participation in the

[4:04:47] other portions of Read Lead Exceed.

[4:04:50] We're starting to see movement in their foundational reading assessment

[4:04:54] scores.

[4:04:56] We're starting to see movement in those most vulnerable

[4:04:59] populations in the MAP scores.

[4:05:05] And when we look at Lexile scores across our foundational

[4:05:09] reading assessments

[4:05:12] At grades two and three, we think we're starting to see

[4:05:15] movement there that is a result of Read, Lead,

[4:05:18] Exceed.

[4:05:20] When can that data be presented to us?

[4:05:23] You'll see that later this fall.

[4:05:26] The Office of College and Career Readiness and Heather and Travis will be

[4:05:30] presenting the literacy data this fall.

[4:05:33] We'll also later be seeing the results

[4:05:36] of

[4:05:40] our letters training,

[4:05:43] and

[4:05:45] program evaluation

[4:05:47] that will follow on the literacy. So we'll be able to

[4:05:51] unpack some of those. So there are some, what

[4:05:55] I'm calling little glimmers of encouragement

[4:05:59] that

[4:06:00] we've looked at the evidence from around the country that has moved the

[4:06:04] needle in other states. We've been applying those things here, and where

[4:06:08] they've been applied with fidelity and consistency and in a

[4:06:12] systemic way, we think we're starting to see movement.

[4:06:16] When we look at the results

[4:06:19] across from year-over-year results, there are some places

[4:06:22] where

[4:06:24] it really is pretty flat. Even though the numbers might be green,

[4:06:28] they might show a little bit of improvement year-over-year.

[4:06:31] Until we hit that 3%

[4:06:34] difference between this year and last year, I'd

[4:06:38] say I'm not sure they're real changes,

[4:06:42] but

[4:06:43] when we see trends year-over-year.

[4:06:46] Not what we would like to see, which is

[4:06:50] significant improvements year-over-year for all of our

[4:06:53] students that we can sustain.

[4:06:57] So we have work to do, clearly. Just a

[4:07:00] reaction to your

[4:07:03] thought. I agree with you.

[4:07:04] Yeah. Well, and I ask that, I can't remember when it

[4:07:08] was, but DESE had put together a

[4:07:12] little flyer. I don't remember what it was.

[4:07:16] It was a scorecard or something, whatever it was, and

[4:07:20] I ask that question just because when I first saw that, it was, I

[4:07:23] think, late last year-ish.

[4:07:27] I can't remember. Do you guys remember what I'm talking about?

[4:07:30] Oh, the snapshot.

[4:07:31] Snapshot.

[4:07:31] The snapshot, yes.

[4:07:32] Yeah. When I read that or looked at it, it

[4:07:37] painted a picture,

[4:07:40] to me, that is a little different than what we've just

[4:07:43] seen. In terms of, I think it was like 90% of

[4:07:47] students or districts or whatever it was.

[4:07:49] I

[4:07:52] don't have the words for it.

[4:07:53] I think that was APR.

[4:07:55] I think there were some

[4:07:58] materials that talked about percentage of

[4:08:02] students in LEAs that were at that 70%

[4:08:06] or above mark on the APR. I think that's what you

[4:08:11] might be referring to. Which

[4:08:14] it's... Yeah.

[4:08:15] Separate, but when I look at that, what I generally see

[4:08:19] is more than half of students across the grades, across every

[4:08:23] subject area,

[4:08:25] are below proficient. Right? So more

[4:08:29] than half of students in every grade that's tested, in every subject that's tested,

[4:08:33] more than half of the students aren't where they should be. Right?

[4:08:37] And you have the other half that are above where they should be.

[4:08:40] And it's

[4:08:41] like

[4:08:45] you said, it's alarming, right? But I

[4:08:49] feel like that's not

[4:08:50] what we hear.

[4:08:54] If we can't acknowledge that we have challenges

[4:08:58] like this, I don't think we can fix them.

[4:09:01] And I don't think it's a bad thing to say or to

[4:09:05] acknowledge and just say, "Hey, half our students,

[4:09:08] we need to fix it."

[4:09:12] I don't know what the solution is, but

[4:09:15] when I was on the local school board for three years, I never had one parent come

[4:09:18] up to me and tell me that school was too tough.

[4:09:20] Not one. There's a

[4:09:24] gap

[4:09:27] between

[4:09:30] how some people would describe public education in the state of Missouri

[4:09:34] and maybe where it sort of actually is, right?

[4:09:37] And I think that gap needs to close

[4:09:40] if we're going to actually make some progress.

[4:09:44] And so...

[4:09:45] Member Casey.

[4:09:47] Thank you, and building on Mike's points there,

[4:09:52] I realize data has to come in

[4:09:56] when it's available, and a full story just can't

[4:09:59] instantly be

[4:10:01] presented to us. So we're getting our first glimpse, and there'll

[4:10:05] be more data to be shared from more

[4:10:10] aspects as well, A to F grading cards as well as

[4:10:14] MAP score data,

[4:10:16] reading assessment data possibly, et cetera.

[4:10:19] There are so many ways in which to look

[4:10:23] at this, and

[4:10:26] I feel like sometimes it's just a whole bunch of data is always given to us

[4:10:32] without

[4:10:36] department recommendations of, "And now here's what we're recommending

[4:10:40] you do." Now, I think the committees are

[4:10:44] picking up, and the Student Success Committee will be a part of that process to

[4:10:48] help form some of those recommendations as the data is looked at.

[4:10:53] And I feel like I'm just kind of thinking out loud here as I couldn't

[4:10:57] agree more.

[4:10:59] This view of the data is unacceptable.

[4:11:03] Other views of the data show improvement, and we'll be eager to see

[4:11:07] those. But the question is, is that improvement enough?

[4:11:10] Now, it's never enough, so not to assume it could be, but how does it compare

[4:11:14] to other states? What more could be done? What's working? What's not?

[4:11:18] We need more than just data

[4:11:20] We need insights.

[4:11:22] Mm-hmm.

[4:11:23] And I know that takes time and resource to work with, and

[4:11:26] hopefully the committee will help you with that.

[4:11:28] But that, I think, is what this board is missing.

[4:11:31] We struggle to draw conclusions from a bunch of data

[4:11:35] that's provided to us, other than to say it's good or it's bad, and it's

[4:11:39] certainly not good.

[4:11:41] And so we need more comparison, more insight, more direction, more

[4:11:44] recommendations,

[4:11:47] and

[4:11:51] proof. Just justification for what's working and

[4:11:55] what's not. Because then that begins to inform priorities

[4:11:59] and budget, and everything else.

[4:12:02] Amen. Well said, Carrie.

[4:12:07] Any other questions or comments?

[4:12:09] This is a little bit more in the weeds, but

[4:12:12] some

[4:12:13] additional resources that at the classroom level we'd love to have.

[4:12:19] Practice materials are always beneficial.

[4:12:22] I know like for the EOC Algebra 1 assessment, there

[4:12:26] is a practice test on the website,

[4:12:29] and that's great, but the more we can get, the better.

[4:12:32] I think last year some EOC testlets were

[4:12:35] distributed.

[4:12:35] We were able to release testlets.

[4:12:37] That was helpful.

[4:12:38] And we have Algebra 2 and Geometry coming right after Thanksgiving.

[4:12:41] I did want to let you know, that was great. Thank you for that.

[4:12:44] Anyways, yeah,

[4:12:45] the more stems, question stems, that can replicate the kind of things they're going

[4:12:49] to see on the actual assessment, the better.

[4:12:52] So I appreciate that, wanted to let you know.

[4:12:54] Thank you for that, and keep them coming, if you don't mind.

[4:12:58] Two, when we receive the data, if there's a way to

[4:13:02] understand, and it may vary from year to year, test to test, but the number

[4:13:06] of items per standard would be really helpful.

[4:13:10] And I don't believe we receive that level of data.

[4:13:13] We receive scores per standard.

[4:13:17] What percentage of students mastered or got correct each standard,

[4:13:21] but we don't see this particular standard had six questions.

[4:13:24] This one had one.

[4:13:27] I'm sure that data exists, I'm just saying on the district level, we don't receive

[4:13:30] that data, and it would be very helpful from a teaching perspective.

[4:13:32] Because not every standard is of equal importance.

[4:13:36] I hate to say it that way, but there are some very core standards, and there are

[4:13:40] some more ancillary standards, and it's helpful when we instruct and

[4:13:44] test prep, to be able to have that granular level of data if it's

[4:13:48] available.

[4:13:49] We never really get down to the granular level. We do have at the domain level.

[4:13:53] Mm-hmm.

[4:13:54] So how many items would be on there, like six to eight items within the

[4:13:57] domain, which then you would be able to know these four or

[4:14:01] five standards may be assessed.

[4:14:05] I think there is a way, though, in your data set.

[4:14:08] You're kind of data rich in a lot of things.

[4:14:10] Mm-hmm.

[4:14:10] It's just what gets distributed out to the teachers a lot of times is

[4:14:14] sometimes

[4:14:16] a barrier, or other people are looking at your data, and you can

[4:14:20] always ask them to see just the whole data set.

[4:14:23] Okay. I'll follow up. We've spoke at our district-

[4:14:25] Yeah

[4:14:25] ... level data coordinator and according to him, he didn't feel like he had

[4:14:29] that level of data. Having said that-

[4:14:32] Well, we can definitely look at that

[4:14:33] ... guess I'll go back.

[4:14:33] And that's when, please call our office-

[4:14:36] Yeah

[4:14:36] ... the assessment office or our curriculum team.

[4:14:39] They have access and be able to help you with that.

[4:14:41] Thank you. I appreciate it.

[4:14:42] Thank you.

[4:14:44] Any other questions?

[4:14:48] I apologize, I got L and M backwards there.

[4:14:50] So now we're ready to

[4:14:54] move to A through F.

[4:14:56] All right.

[4:14:56] Thank you for your time.

[4:14:57] Thank you guys.

[4:14:57] Thank you. Appreciate it.

[4:15:20] Okay. Are we ready?

[4:15:24] For those of you who may be listening to the live stream, this is still Lisa

[4:15:28] Sarino, deputy commissioner for learning services.

[4:15:32] I'm here to share with the board,

[4:15:36] an update on what we have been calling the grade cards.

[4:15:40] The A through F school and district grade cards,

[4:15:45] resulting from a resolution out

[4:15:49] of the state board of education in December of last

[4:15:52] year, asking

[4:15:55] the department to put these grade cards together,

[4:15:58] and an executive order issued by Governor Kehoe in

[4:16:02] January of this year. In fact, it was the first executive

[4:16:05] order of 2026,

[4:16:08] EO 26-01.

[4:16:11] And what I'm here today to

[4:16:14] tell you about is

[4:16:17] how we're thinking

[4:16:21] about using the grade cards to

[4:16:25] help us think a little differently about school improvement, and

[4:16:29] addressing some of the very issues that you all have been bringing

[4:16:33] up

[4:16:34] in our presentations and our discussions so far.

[4:16:39] From the beginning, we wanted to create a

[4:16:42] strong model for the framework for the grade

[4:16:46] card that would meet the criteria in the EO,

[4:16:50] in the executive order, and also set it

[4:16:53] apart from the existing

[4:16:56] accountability structures that we have in place.

[4:17:00] For example,

[4:17:02] what we're calling our annual performance report, here comes the

[4:17:06] acronym soup, the APR, the annual performance report,

[4:17:10] under our Missouri School Improvement program.

[4:17:13] And the APR is what we use to

[4:17:16] accredit school districts. Its focus is

[4:17:20] primarily at that district or local education

[4:17:24] agency level. So for school districts

[4:17:28] That's where we're

[4:17:30] focusing.

[4:17:32] The grade cards will be different from the annual performance

[4:17:36] report, and you'll see as we go through the presentation.

[4:17:40] I'm going to tell you a little bit about

[4:17:42] that.

[4:17:45] But let's start

[4:17:48] back at the beginning with the requirements

[4:17:52] in Governor Kehoe's executive order, which was

[4:17:56] issued, and it asked the department, with the State Board of

[4:17:59] Education's approval and authorization,

[4:18:03] to create a grade card for every public school

[4:18:07] district, every public school, and every public charter school

[4:18:11] that assigned...

[4:18:13] Oh, okay. Sorry, I thought I saw a question.

[4:18:15] That assigns a grade

[4:18:18] of A through F, and the executive

[4:18:22] order actually provides definitions of what each of those grades

[4:18:26] mean,

[4:18:27] with C being satisfactory results, and F, of course, failing.

[4:18:33] Features of the grade cards or the executive order

[4:18:37] called for that at least a 95% participation

[4:18:41] rate in the required statewide test.

[4:18:44] So those are the Missouri Assessment Program tests that you just heard about, the

[4:18:48] grade level in grades three through eight, and then the end-of-course tests

[4:18:52] that we administer to high school students.

[4:18:55] And if

[4:18:57] that test participation rate wasn't met, the executive

[4:19:01] order said that grade

[4:19:04] would then be lowered by a letter. Right?

[4:19:06] So,

[4:19:08] we don't really have a concern about this at the district or

[4:19:11] the LEA level in Missouri. We've always had high

[4:19:15] test participation in the state of Missouri.

[4:19:18] The executive order also calls for us to allow

[4:19:23] an opt-in for any private school. So, if

[4:19:26] a non-public school

[4:19:29] calls us and says, "Hey, we want to participate in that grade

[4:19:33] structure," then

[4:19:35] we would have an ability for them to submit the data that

[4:19:39] they could do so. There's already a mechanism for

[4:19:43] private schools who might wish to administer the Missouri Assessment Program

[4:19:47] test to do so.

[4:19:49] And we would use the same criteria to grade any private schools that would

[4:19:53] ask us to opt in.

[4:19:56] The executive order calls for a continuous

[4:20:00] improvement component, which means that if we get to a

[4:20:03] point where

[4:20:06] almost two-thirds or 65% of our, more of our

[4:20:10] schools are getting an A or a B,

[4:20:14] then we move the bar up. Right? We raise

[4:20:18] that

[4:20:19] for the next year, each of those cut scores by

[4:20:22] 5%.

[4:20:26] In the executive order, it gives us some criteria for

[4:20:30] reporting. The department is required to provide,

[4:20:34] once we get started,

[4:20:36] schools and districts with an embargoed look at their

[4:20:40] grades two weeks before they're released

[4:20:44] publicly. So, the executive order says that

[4:20:47] September 15th is when that happens.

[4:20:50] And then at the end of September, September 30th,

[4:20:55] districts and schools will publish their grades,

[4:20:59] and we have a mechanism for supporting districts and schools in

[4:21:03] doing that. And then the department will publish a statewide

[4:21:07] grade card that includes summary information and what those

[4:21:10] distributions of grades look like.

[4:21:13] So, for some of you, you've heard me say this a few times.

[4:21:16] So, for those of you who haven't heard me say this, I hope I've given you enough

[4:21:20] background about what's in the executive order.

[4:21:27] So,

[4:21:29] how did we go about

[4:21:32] creating the grade card framework?

[4:21:35] I think it's important to understand

[4:21:38] what are some of the key assumptions.

[4:21:42] The executive order itself says

[4:21:46] these grade cards should be clear, they should be simple, they should be

[4:21:50] easy to understand.

[4:21:53] They should be able to be used by all of our stakeholders.

[4:21:57] And we have taken that parent as the primary

[4:22:01] audience for the final product of these grade cards.

[4:22:05] We

[4:22:06] have a lot of data available at the

[4:22:10] DESE website. And as Board Member Casey mentioned,

[4:22:14] Board Member Moduzyk, we present you all with a lot of data.

[4:22:18] Sometimes you have to dig for it and dig for the meaning.

[4:22:21] So, we want to make these grade cards simple and

[4:22:26] clear for parents. As I mentioned,

[4:22:30] although we will be producing district-level grades for each

[4:22:34] district,

[4:22:36] the emphasis we want to place is at the building

[4:22:40] level so that we can use these grade cards to

[4:22:43] help support our school improvement work.

[4:22:47] So, focus on those schools that are

[4:22:52] scoring Ds, those schools that are failing, and

[4:22:56] also for those schools that are in the C range that need to

[4:22:59] improve and want to improve. We want to use this

[4:23:03] information, again, to help highlight

[4:23:07] where there are issues, perhaps across what

[4:23:11] subject, and then focus resources.

[4:23:14] Also help identify

[4:23:16] where great things are happening so that we can learn from them and replicate

[4:23:20] those things throughout the state.

[4:23:23] I mentioned that we wanted to meet the criteria in the executive order,

[4:23:27] and so what we're doing is trying to keep it simple in

[4:23:31] the idea of clear and easy to understand, and

[4:23:35] sticking as close as possible to the language in the executive

[4:23:39] order and trying to interpret that

[4:23:42] as simply as possible.

[4:23:46] For most people who might read that

[4:23:49] language.

[4:23:51] So that's what we're trying to do. Although the executive order

[4:23:55] does ask us to do some new things with our data,

[4:23:59] it doesn't require any new testing.

[4:24:02] So we will use information that comes from the Missouri Assessment Program

[4:24:06] tests, and we will use information that comes from the

[4:24:09] foundational reading assessments.

[4:24:12] We'll use other data that we're already capturing.

[4:24:17] The high school grade cards will include what's called a Success

[4:24:21] Ready Graduates Measure, and will include

[4:24:24] ACT data and

[4:24:27] data like that. We're already capturing this

[4:24:31] information.

[4:24:34] So we won't have to capture new data, but we

[4:24:37] will have to make some adjustments to our

[4:24:41] structures and systems, the expectations that we have for

[4:24:45] ourselves at the department, and also expectations

[4:24:49] for schools and districts in the way and the timing

[4:24:53] in which they report data to us.

[4:24:56] Administrative rulemaking is something that the executive order said,

[4:25:00] "Hey, Dessie, if as you are

[4:25:03] planning to prepare these grade cards, please include in

[4:25:07] your plan any rulemaking that might be necessary to

[4:25:11] implement them." And there really isn't any administrative rulemaking

[4:25:15] that's needed.

[4:25:19] So, okay. Just in time and space, what

[4:25:23] have we done so far? There's obviously a lot of background

[4:25:26] behind how we got from mid-January to where we

[4:25:30] are today. I'm happy to provide any

[4:25:33] detail. You can see our response to the

[4:25:37] governor's executive order that lays out some of that background

[4:25:40] information,

[4:25:42] but any time in the future I can give detail on that.

[4:25:46] We did respond to the governor's

[4:25:50] office on time, on June 30th, with a plan that

[4:25:53] outlined what the framework for the grade cards would look

[4:25:57] like. And the executive order calls for bringing

[4:26:01] them to you for your review and approval before we

[4:26:05] implement. So we're doing this in two stages.

[4:26:09] We have today to have this discussion, to

[4:26:12] get your questions, to ask you a few questions on some

[4:26:16] decision points.

[4:26:18] We'll come back to you in September and ask you

[4:26:22] to approve the framework so that we can implement.

[4:26:27] In this process, I wanted to mention the stakeholder engagement.

[4:26:31] So we have opportunities coming up for

[4:26:35] our stakeholders,

[4:26:38] to our educational stakeholders,

[4:26:41] to help them understand what the plan is, where the framework

[4:26:45] is at this point in time, provide comment and feedback.

[4:26:50] We're scheduling a couple of virtual sessions.

[4:26:52] The first one of those will be next week, and then a small

[4:26:56] number of in-person sessions to capture feedback from

[4:27:00] stakeholders.

[4:27:01] This is just at this phase. We've done

[4:27:05] additional stakeholder engagement since we

[4:27:09] began this process. So our groups

[4:27:13] of

[4:27:14] advisors that have come together in various ways

[4:27:18] have provided us with feedback at multiple points along the way.

[4:27:23] So we will

[4:27:26] be able to summarize that feedback for

[4:27:29] you when we bring the final recommendation to you next month.

[4:27:34] And then at that point, we can begin working with our partners on the

[4:27:37] final production and implementation of the grade cards.

[4:27:41] I'm going to talk to you a little bit about timing later on.

[4:27:46] Was there a question?

[4:27:48] Well, it is relative to timing, and bearing in mind you don't have to

[4:27:52] answer it now, but if you'd answer it when you get there, the executive order calls

[4:27:56] for this to be our first card.

[4:27:58] Obviously, there's a lot of work and you've done a lot of

[4:28:02] work, and I want to recognize that.

[4:28:03] This sounds simple, but it's a heavy lift.

[4:28:09] The executive order requires that we produce our first,

[4:28:15] call it a rate card, but grade card, excuse me, by the end of September,

[4:28:19] and it doesn't sound like that's what we'll be doing based on some of

[4:28:23] this update. So I think that's a point of concern that we need when you're

[4:28:27] talking about timing.

[4:28:28] Sure. I'll go through

[4:28:32] a little bit more background and framework-

[4:28:33] Okay

[4:28:33] ... and then we do have a slide where we talk about timeline.

[4:28:35] So, we can do that. I want to

[4:28:39] say that in putting the plan together for

[4:28:43] using data and framework, that

[4:28:46] we started not only from a position of keep

[4:28:50] it simple in terms of interpreting the executive order, but

[4:28:54] also

[4:28:55] try to minimize confusion and additional

[4:28:59] expense by using the data processes that

[4:29:03] were already in place,

[4:29:05] and to the extent that it was possible, carry forward those data.

[4:29:10] So, those are the assessment data and the other

[4:29:14] pieces of information that come in that we use for other purposes,

[4:29:18] like the annual performance report or our federal

[4:29:21] identification of schools. So,

[4:29:25] we have used that as a starting point.

[4:29:29] Just want to mention that

[4:29:33] Okay. There are two pieces, two

[4:29:36] requirements in the executive order for the grade card

[4:29:40] that really haven't shown up in our work in

[4:29:44] quite this way in the past. And the first one is a

[4:29:48] literacy measure that is required to show up

[4:29:52] in our K through eight, or elementary

[4:29:56] and middle school grade cards.

[4:29:59] And then the second is a calculation of growth, growth

[4:30:03] to proficiency. That also shows up in the

[4:30:07] elementary and middle school grade cards.

[4:30:09] So I want to just talk briefly about each of those.

[4:30:14] And here, this is the language lifted directly from the executive

[4:30:17] order,

[4:30:19] that you've got literacy bolded there, and you see literacy shows

[4:30:23] up alongside English language arts,

[4:30:26] math, and science.

[4:30:29] So we're going to see that.

[4:30:32] Again, this is for only those schools that

[4:30:36] have grades within the kindergarten to eighth grade range.

[4:30:40] We're going to use the Lexile measures that are already

[4:30:44] captured in both our English language arts

[4:30:48] assessments, in our MAP program, in the grade level

[4:30:52] program, and also in the foundational reading assessments,

[4:30:56] for grades one and two.

[4:30:58] Lexiles are widely used in schools.

[4:31:02] They're often included in information that's shared with

[4:31:06] parents.

[4:31:07] They help parents, families identify reading level for

[4:31:11] students. And so they're giving us an indication of are students

[4:31:16] reading on grade level.

[4:31:21] The second new element is this growth to proficiency calculation,

[4:31:25] and again, here, this is the language lifted

[4:31:29] directly from the executive order,

[4:31:34] also for just those elementary and middle

[4:31:37] schools.

[4:31:40] If you think about what that means,

[4:31:43] we want

[4:31:45] a measure for every student that we have to have at least two

[4:31:49] years of test scores for the student, and we want to evaluate if

[4:31:52] they're on track to reach that grade level proficiency in

[4:31:56] three years. So if you imagine for a moment

[4:32:00] what that looks like,

[4:32:03] and tried to visualize it in a very simple graphic,

[4:32:07] I hope that this gets close to what you might be thinking.

[4:32:12] On the left-hand side, we would start with a

[4:32:15] non-proficient score.

[4:32:18] So for any students in the system that haven't hit

[4:32:22] that proficiency yet, we're looking at on their

[4:32:26] scale score, on their MAP test,

[4:32:29] will they be able to hit the goal of

[4:32:32] proficient three years from now? So in order to do that,

[4:32:36] we have to know are they on track. So we'd be looking

[4:32:40] at last year's data compared to this year's data to kind

[4:32:44] of set a trajectory to see

[4:32:49] in year one, do we think that if they grow the same

[4:32:53] amount

[4:32:54] next year that they did this past year,

[4:32:58] are they going to be on track?

[4:33:01] So the growth to proficiency measure does that.

[4:33:06] I think it's important to point out that the way we interpreted the

[4:33:10] executive order was really that this was to focus on

[4:33:14] moving those students who are not yet proficient, to

[4:33:17] focus attention and effort and a measure

[4:33:21] on that kind of movement. So our

[4:33:25] current assumptions would only look at, are

[4:33:29] those non-proficient students on track to reach proficient?

[4:33:33] Right now, there isn't a calculation for a

[4:33:38] student that's already proficient.

[4:33:41] And then this measure would reset each year.

[4:33:44] So we would look at where is each student, each year,

[4:33:48] and do we think they're on track based on the information that we have about their

[4:33:52] performance.

[4:33:54] Question.

[4:33:55] Question.

[4:33:57] It strikes me that

[4:33:59] there's going to be a lot of concern about when the data is available

[4:34:04] to the schools to be able to arrange for interventions.

[4:34:08] I'm assuming that what we want to do here is rally all the

[4:34:12] districts to start investing in the

[4:34:15] proficiency growth.

[4:34:17] That's going to require them to assemble intervention strategies, fund them,

[4:34:21] et cetera.

[4:34:23] They've got to get that data early enough at the student

[4:34:27] by student level to be able to know-

[4:34:32] Sure.

[4:34:32] Good. You're nodding your head. I'm-

[4:34:34] ... glad you're on.

[4:34:35] That is-

[4:34:36] Thank you

[4:34:36] ... that is tracking.

[4:34:37] Getting

[4:34:43] data back

[4:34:45] as soon as possible has been a priority for the

[4:34:48] department, and we have shifted that work.

[4:34:52] We're still bound by the end of the statewide test

[4:34:56] window and some

[4:34:59] within a three-week window for the vendor to be able

[4:35:03] to turn that data around,

[4:35:06] at a statewide level. So we're still working within some of those

[4:35:10] constraints.

[4:35:12] If I could add on that or

[4:35:16] another perspective though.

[4:35:20] Because this is using MAP data, summative data at the end of the

[4:35:24] year, yes, available within weeks

[4:35:28] to the individual school, but the kids are out of school at that point.

[4:35:31] Sure. Right.

[4:35:34] Isn't it the assessments that are

[4:35:37] being administered during the year

[4:35:41] that are forming the interventions that are needed?

[4:35:44] Because as part of the assessment process, there's

[4:35:48] also,

[4:35:50] and I'm probably getting it wrong because maybe it's associated with MAP

[4:35:54] results, where individual success reading

[4:35:58] plans, is that what-

[4:36:00] Reading success plans. Yes, ma'am

[4:36:01] ... reading success plans are also required to be developed.

[4:36:04] There's so many angles and pieces on these things, and to

[4:36:08] me, this is used for the school

[4:36:12] just like a MAP,

[4:36:14] an APR rating is that comes out later in the year, and the MAP results that

[4:36:18] come out in the fall that make up part of the APR rating, is to say it's

[4:36:22] that dipstick. Where are we as a school? Where are we as a state?

[4:36:27] But the building of the data needs to be based on individual results, and we're

[4:36:31] trying to drive the right behavior, but this tool

[4:36:35] will be a reflection at that point in time of how they're doing,

[4:36:39] but the purpose of it is just that, to give

[4:36:44] a parent, the parent is the audience, that view

[4:36:48] of

[4:36:50] how the school is performing,

[4:36:53] not how the student is performing and what interventions are

[4:36:56] needed. That comes through the assessment process in the course of

[4:37:00] the school year. Is that correct?

[4:37:02] Yes. So, the statewide assessment is a

[4:37:05] snapshot at one point in time, and we use it for

[4:37:08] these high level view, the bird's eye

[4:37:12] view. To really get into the

[4:37:15] instructional space,

[4:37:18] we have to...

[4:37:21] Districts have to, not we. We're not in the school

[4:37:25] buildings. But districts,

[4:37:28] instructional leaders at the building and other levels,

[4:37:33] coaches, teachers, need to be using their local data,

[4:37:37] and they are doing that. And

[4:37:40] we encourage them to use that as part of a coherent system,

[4:37:45] which includes the large scale, the big picture,

[4:37:49] and their local data along the way.

[4:37:52] But I would add,

[4:37:55] for the team to understand,

[4:37:57] the department has established four or five

[4:38:01] assessment tools that align to our

[4:38:04] standards that therefore have alignment to the ultimate MAP test-

[4:38:08] Mm-hmm

[4:38:08] ... that we recommend or require all to

[4:38:12] use. But not all schools have invested in that yet,

[4:38:16] but they have a deadline of doing it.

[4:38:19] Just correct me on all this, but this is where the board/the

[4:38:22] department could do things better.

[4:38:25] Why did it take five years to get some schools there?

[4:38:28] Why weren't we getting more insight into how many schools are at what

[4:38:32] level and getting these better tools

[4:38:36] implemented more timely to get to results quicker, to get to the

[4:38:39] interventions? And we stay at the high level, but we need to

[4:38:43] understand-

[4:38:44] All of the-

[4:38:45] ... the progress along the way. And I'll turn it over to Stacy because she can

[4:38:48] speak to it better.

[4:38:50] I'll start and then let Lisa jump in.

[4:38:54] I think the thing that you were referring to in that one is the foundational

[4:38:57] reading assessments, which we give kindergarten through third grade, in some

[4:39:01] circumstances fourth and fifth grade, but that's the beginning of the year

[4:39:04] assessment, the end of year assessment.

[4:39:06] That's where we had

[4:39:08] vendors

[4:39:10] submit their tests to be considered whether or not they were aligned to the

[4:39:13] standards. We selected-

[4:39:14] No, but there are also reading assessments required through Senate Bill

[4:39:19] 681 or 727.

[4:39:19] Yes, that's what I'm talking about.

[4:39:21] Foundational reading assessment.

[4:39:22] But also third grade and beyond, where assessments are

[4:39:26] required, not just the first initial grades,

[4:39:30] right?

[4:39:31] They're required for all students in grades K through

[4:39:35] three, and for students who are newcomers

[4:39:39] or at risk, if they have reading success plans, if they're determined to be at

[4:39:42] risk

[4:39:44] for not being able to read-

[4:39:47] Mm

[4:39:47] ... then we're going up through fifth grade.

[4:39:51] Yeah.

[4:39:54] But again, these are tests that are administered

[4:39:57] locally by the schools themselves.

[4:40:00] Correct.

[4:40:00] We require those under state law?

[4:40:03] They are required under state law.

[4:40:06] But they're not reported to-

[4:40:08] They are reported to the department.

[4:40:10] We call them the foundational reading assessments-

[4:40:13] Mm-hmm

[4:40:13] ... part of the literacy initiative.

[4:40:16] We have four vendors that are on the qualified vendor list

[4:40:20] currently, and districts may select

[4:40:24] the vendor from that qualified vendor list.

[4:40:27] The results are reported directly to the department, so we

[4:40:31] capture those data and we're able to evaluate those,

[4:40:35] and we're going to use those for our literacy measure

[4:40:39] in the grade cards.

[4:40:42] I always thought that we required...

[4:40:45] I

[4:40:47] didn't think that it stopped at third grade,

[4:40:50] and that assessments were required up through

[4:40:54] eighth grade.

[4:40:55] And so not to further discuss it here, but I would say that is a number

[4:40:59] one priority of the department. Because

[4:41:03] that's where you get immediate feedback.

[4:41:05] That's where you can do interventions and where you can get assessments student by

[4:41:09] student.

[4:41:10] And what can be done by the department to

[4:41:14] establish policy in that direction versus what is

[4:41:18] required from a legislative standpoint to

[4:41:22] ensure that it happens?

[4:41:25] That's a light bulb for me. I

[4:41:29] just really thought that we were doing assessments beyond third grade.

[4:41:33] And if they're only waiting for MAP scores to come in, granted I know they do their

[4:41:36] own testing, but-

[4:41:37] They do

[4:41:38] ... if it's not consistent, if it's not aligned, if it's not a-

[4:41:42] There's just opportunity here for improvement.

[4:41:44] So, I think I can confidently speak for most

[4:41:48] LEAs, that if they have selected a particular

[4:41:52] foundational reading assessment to use to meet that

[4:41:55] requirement at K through 3, they're using that or

[4:41:59] something that connects to that all the way up through,

[4:42:04] so that they have coherent systems in place.

[4:42:07] Most LEAs or districts will be doing that.

[4:42:11] We're just not capturing that data.

[4:42:13] Right. So, I think about it, and I have been talking about this since

[4:42:17] I was here last time, but those summative assessments, that MAP score,

[4:42:21] that is for us and for you and for LEAs, like Lisa said, at the big

[4:42:25] 30,000-foot level.

[4:42:28] Local schools don't just use that to guide instruction.

[4:42:32] They are using these interim assessments and more informal

[4:42:36] local assessments to guide instruction throughout the year.

[4:42:39] If someone's waiting for the MAP test to tell them how to teach,

[4:42:43] then

[4:42:44] that's not what that's intended for.

[4:42:46] And so Lisa's saying with the foundational reading assessments,

[4:42:50] we're able to use that as a metric for first and second

[4:42:54] grade, because right now we don't have anything, because the MAP tests don't start

[4:42:57] till third grade. And those foundational reading assessments that are

[4:43:01] required have a pre-test and post-test requirement.

[4:43:04] So, for that particular one, we're doing it twice a year, once at the beginning,

[4:43:07] once at the end. But again, at the local level,

[4:43:11] we're strongly encouraging, and they are implementing best practices of testing

[4:43:14] throughout the year. It just isn't something that's collected at the state level.

[4:43:20] I just think-

[4:43:21] This is great-

[4:43:21] ... we have a lot of opportunity here.

[4:43:23] Great to dive right in. Let's go swim in a different part of the pool.

[4:43:28] So,

[4:43:30] as I mentioned to you, we're going to come back to you next month and ask

[4:43:34] you to vote to approve our proposed framework for the grade

[4:43:38] cards. And I just want to say, the next few slides, I'm going to give

[4:43:42] you a look at the framework and what we're calling the framework.

[4:43:45] And it's made up of the scoring structures

[4:43:49] for, and the

[4:43:52] relative emphasis at the

[4:43:55] elementary/middle school level, so that's the K through 8, and at the high school

[4:43:59] level, or 9 through 12, and then at the district level.

[4:44:03] And then that, combined with the grading scale, makes

[4:44:07] up the framework.

[4:44:09] So, let's take a look here for a minute.

[4:44:12] So, this says K through 8, so kindergarten through eighth grade

[4:44:16] scoring structure. What does that mean?

[4:44:20] That means that this is the basis,

[4:44:24] this is what's called for in the executive order.

[4:44:27] It calls for an academic achievement level, which

[4:44:31] we tend to call status. So,

[4:44:34] that's based on those performance

[4:44:37] levels that we just looked at in the MAP results.

[4:44:42] It also wants a value-added growth measure, which

[4:44:46] is what we're already using. We call it the Missouri Growth Model.

[4:44:50] It's been operational in Missouri for more than 10

[4:44:54] years. It's well-researched,

[4:44:58] and it is peer-reviewed.

[4:45:03] We feel like it's a

[4:45:06] very valid measure. It's called out in the executive order.

[4:45:09] We need to continue using that value-added growth measure.

[4:45:13] And what's in green, those are new.

[4:45:16] So, remember I told you that growth to proficiency is a new

[4:45:19] calculation? We just looked at what that would be.

[4:45:24] So, that's new. So, why are these things on

[4:45:28] the K through 8 structure? It's because the executive order says,

[4:45:33] "Include those three things," and at the

[4:45:37] subject areas that were called out.

[4:45:39] You'll notice also that literacy is green, because that's something that's a

[4:45:43] new element. So, English language arts and

[4:45:47] math show up there in three places,

[4:45:51] and their emphasis is the same. So,

[4:45:55] ELA is emphasized the same in each place where it shows up

[4:45:59] on this grid. Same thing with math, and same thing with science.

[4:46:03] And that's why the overall percent or emphasis

[4:46:07] is

[4:46:08] different, because we have

[4:46:10] four things we're looking at in academic achievement, three in

[4:46:14] value-added growth, and

[4:46:17] two in growth to proficiency.

[4:46:20] Right. Now, why aren't we doing science in growth to proficiency?

[4:46:24] Because growth to proficiency, in order to do that, we have to have at least two

[4:46:27] consecutive years of

[4:46:31] scores,

[4:46:33] and we need to see year-to-year change.

[4:46:37] In science, we don't test every year.

[4:46:39] We test at grades five and grade eight, and then again at

[4:46:43] high school. So, we can't really calculate that growth

[4:46:47] to proficiency very well

[4:46:50] with just a grade five and a grade eight science score.

[4:46:54] Question.

[4:46:55] Yes, sir.

[4:46:57] So, the percentages on the right-hand side

[4:47:02] is 38% for academic achievement level.

[4:47:05] Why not 33% for each of the

[4:47:08] categories? Is it that's the

[4:47:11] most important indicator or data of this group?

[4:47:16] Well,

[4:47:18] no,

[4:47:19] not because it's most important. We didn't make that kind of value judgment.

[4:47:23] But what we did was said, "Okay, let's pull over how we look

[4:47:27] at data in other structures." We weight

[4:47:31] equally English language arts and math wherever they appear.

[4:47:35] So, that gave us a basis. Then we moved over-- We

[4:47:39] have more tests in English language arts and math than we do in

[4:47:42] science, so the weighting for science is less than it would be for

[4:47:46] math or for English language arts.

[4:47:49] And so, as we started building that emphasis out,

[4:47:54] it's just because there's four things in academic achievement

[4:47:58] level, and there's only three in value-added growth, and two

[4:48:02] in growth to proficiency.

[4:48:04] Thank you.

[4:48:05] That makes sense, but

[4:48:11] to me, I think growth to proficiency should be greater weighted.

[4:48:15] But I'm not saying that what you've done is wrong.

[4:48:17] It just strikes me as

[4:48:20] what we're trying to drive here, in terms of behavior,

[4:48:24] back to Vince's question, get interventions in there quickly.

[4:48:27] How do we drive growth, is what tells us, at the

[4:48:32] individual student level.

[4:48:34] Sure.

[4:48:34] The more emphasis you put on that, the more action,

[4:48:38] and therefore results you'll get.

[4:48:41] Sure. So this is a starting point, and let me offer a couple

[4:48:45] of things there. So the students that are already proficient

[4:48:49] and advanced are showing up in status. Right?

[4:48:52] They are showing up in

[4:48:56] status. In order to get

[4:48:59] the full measure of evaluation and status, we are

[4:49:03] looking for

[4:49:05] what would equate to be an average proficient or

[4:49:09] higher score. So we're emphasizing

[4:49:13] them in status. Value-added growth levels the

[4:49:17] playing field, meaning that whether students'

[4:49:21] scores

[4:49:25] from either end, all along the

[4:49:28] scale, we're looking at how much are they

[4:49:32] meeting their expected growth or their predicted

[4:49:36] growth. So we could get high growth from

[4:49:40] advanced students, from basic students,

[4:49:43] proficient students, or below basic students.

[4:49:46] And then growth to proficiency is really reserved for

[4:49:49] measuring those students moving to

[4:49:53] proficient.

[4:49:54] Okay, so you are able to pull in data from those

[4:49:58] who, say, are in basic but have potential to go to advanced.

[4:50:02] Because if you don't move the needle on those children,

[4:50:06] you're really not doing them a service. Then you're failing that child.

[4:50:10] So we do have an ability to track that-

[4:50:14] To measure the-

[4:50:15] Their growth.

[4:50:16] Yes. Yeah.

[4:50:18] From proficient or basic to advanced.

[4:50:20] Yes. So that's going to show up in two places.

[4:50:23] It will show up in the value-added growth, right?

[4:50:27] And

[4:50:28] any student in any level will show up in that value-added growth,

[4:50:33] and any student's score at any level will show up in the

[4:50:36] academic achievement level, or the status measure.

[4:50:42] That was-

[4:50:42] And-- Oh, I'm sorry. Dr.

[4:50:47] Scholl, if the example was

[4:50:50] will we see credit for that student who was at below basic and got to

[4:50:54] proficient or advanced in one year? The answer is definitely yes.

[4:50:57] They would show up in that bottom.

[4:50:59] If they don't move, we would see it in this data.

[4:51:02] That's right.

[4:51:03] Okay.

[4:51:03] Yes.

[4:51:06] Carrie, did you have another question?

[4:51:07] Similar to Gretchen's concern.

[4:51:14] I feel like our model, I feel like it might be there, but

[4:51:18] it's not obvious, and it's not recognized in a

[4:51:22] way that

[4:51:24] gives us a focus on have we

[4:51:27] aided those students, even though they're already

[4:51:31] proficient,

[4:51:32] and therefore not failing, which is great, but have we done the

[4:51:36] best service for them as well and moved them as-

[4:51:40] Yeah

[4:51:40] ... and seen their growth. And I feel like that this

[4:51:43] obfuscates it. I can't say the word.

[4:51:47] Forget the word.

[4:51:47] If you would allow me to

[4:51:50] parking lot that one until we get to the questions at the end, because I

[4:51:54] think that's one of the things we want to ask you for your

[4:51:58] input on, is just that.

[4:52:04] Okay. Just for your reference, when we talk about how many

[4:52:08] schools, and this is, again, at the building level, there are

[4:52:12] about 2,200 schools

[4:52:15] in Missouri.

[4:52:17] And the number and the distribution kind of changes a little bit from year to

[4:52:22] year because things happen in school districts, construction projects and that kind

[4:52:26] of thing. There are about 1,600 of them that would

[4:52:29] be in some kind of configuration that's going to fall under this

[4:52:33] framework. Now, the

[4:52:38] way that this emphasis falls out

[4:52:42] is going to change depending on what grades are in that school.

[4:52:46] So if, for example, we had a school that is

[4:52:50] kindergarten through fourth grade,

[4:52:53] we're not going to see science. We don't test science until

[4:52:57] fifth grade for those students.

[4:53:01] And so, the relative emphasis, instead of

[4:53:05] 38%, is going to be 36%

[4:53:09] academic achievement,

[4:53:11] 32% value-added growth, and

[4:53:14] 32% growth to proficiency for a

[4:53:18] school that's

[4:53:20] kindergarten through fourth grade. Just as an example.

[4:53:23] There will be some flex in that. We have

[4:53:27] lots of different grade configurations for schools in Missouri.

[4:53:31] Mr. Otto.

[4:53:32] I just have one question. Can you clarify, I know it's in the materials, but can

[4:53:36] you just give a high-level summary

[4:53:40] of the difference between English language arts and literacy?

[4:53:44] Yes. So English language arts is based on

[4:53:47] the MAP test, on our scale score, and

[4:53:51] those performance levels. So below basic, basic, proficient, and

[4:53:55] advanced. The literacy measure is the

[4:53:59] Lexile,

[4:54:01] and that comes from our English language arts MAP test

[4:54:05] at grades three through eight, and it comes from the foundational

[4:54:09] reading assessment at grades one and two.

[4:54:12] And the Lexile score is a measure of our students

[4:54:16] reading on grade level. So that's the literacy measure.

[4:54:22] Commissioner.

[4:54:22] I think maybe-

[4:54:23] Oh, did I misunderstand your question?

[4:54:26] ELA is a broader category.

[4:54:27] Yeah.

[4:54:28] So literacy is very specifically reading. ELA captures other things.

[4:54:32] Is it a subset?

[4:54:33] Literacy a subset of ELA?

[4:54:37] Reading is.

[4:54:40] And the Lexile score that she's talking about is

[4:54:43] embedded in both of those. It's a very-

[4:54:46] Both

[4:54:46] ... test.

[4:54:47] Yes. Both tests.

[4:54:48] So we have that in the MAP test for grades three through eight,

[4:54:52] so that Lexile will be what's measuring the literacy, but that

[4:54:56] overall ELA score will be what's in the ELA

[4:54:59] portion of it.

[4:55:00] They're in the-

[4:55:02] So-

[4:55:02] Yeah. They're in the same row on the chart, just to show

[4:55:06] that they are the relationship. That they're-

[4:55:09] Is it a double count, though?

[4:55:11] Yes.

[4:55:12] Yeah. So-

[4:55:13] Yes

[4:55:13] ... if I'm good in literacy, I get

[4:55:18] more benefit because I'm also good in ELA, even though ELA is broader.

[4:55:22] But you're double-counting literacy-

[4:55:23] Yes

[4:55:24] ... results.

[4:55:24] Yes.

[4:55:26] Is that what you want?

[4:55:28] It's in the EO.

[4:55:30] Okay.

[4:55:31] EO literacy

[4:55:32] If we go back-

[4:55:33] Mr. McDonald

[4:55:34] ...

[4:55:35] to-

[4:55:35] That literacy also includes not just data from the MAP, it's also

[4:55:39] from the other testing as well.

[4:55:40] Foundational reading assessment. Yes.

[4:55:42] Because ELA is solely from the MAP, correct?

[4:55:44] Correct.

[4:55:44] Okay.

[4:55:45] Yes.

[4:55:45] So they're-

[4:55:46] It's pulling from multiple sources-

[4:55:47] Yeah

[4:55:48] ... to establish that literacy score.

[4:55:50] Yeah.

[4:55:50] You just pull some of the same source data.

[4:55:52] Some are duplicated from the MAP-

[4:55:54] But-

[4:55:54] ... but then also, like your i-Ready score-

[4:55:55] They become two different things

[4:55:56] ... some of those other assessments that students take.

[4:55:59] Exactly.

[4:56:00] I don't think... So-

[4:56:02] Wouldn't... Is

[4:56:04] ELA's-

[4:56:05] Hold it, Jordan. Let's go to-

[4:56:06] Oh, go ahead

[4:56:06] ... John first and then we'll get you, okay?

[4:56:08] Oh.

[4:56:08] I didn't see your arm.

[4:56:10] What is the

[4:56:12] Lexile then, since we're talking about it?

[4:56:14] Is that a separate assessment or you said it's part of-

[4:56:17] No. It's embedded in many tests. So

[4:56:21] many

[4:56:22] reading tests, lots of like

[4:56:25] Renaissance, the STAR, the i-Ready, a number of tests that

[4:56:29] are administered at the local level include,

[4:56:33] in addition to what's my overall score on the

[4:56:37] test, they also provide this additional measure

[4:56:41] that's called a Lexile. And the company that

[4:56:44] produces that Lexile has worked with the

[4:56:48] test developer to

[4:56:51] create those data pieces so that when the student takes the

[4:56:55] test, and if they get a

[4:56:59] 57, whatever that means, on the overall test,

[4:57:02] that there's some kind of corresponding Lexile score.

[4:57:06] And Lexiles then can be used, there's a

[4:57:10] set of charts that you can look up your child's Lexile score

[4:57:14] and determine are they reading on grade level.

[4:57:17] Oftentimes, Lexiles are used to

[4:57:21] help...

[4:57:22] A book will have a Lexile score on it, and then you can look up the Lexile

[4:57:26] score and, "Oh, well, that book is at this

[4:57:30] reading level for this particular grade." And it helps

[4:57:34] parents and teachers and families pick books for children.

[4:57:39] Okay.

[4:57:41] Wait. Go ahead.

[4:57:42] No, Jordan, go ahead.

[4:57:43] I got the answer now. I've-

[4:57:46] Okay

[4:57:46] ... heard it.

[4:57:47] Okay.

[4:57:48] I think maybe just to say one more point on that, so the executive order

[4:57:52] included both literacy and ELA. So we're

[4:57:56] trying to find a way to distinguish between those two things.

[4:58:00] The Lexile represents literacy pretty well, because that's just

[4:58:04] reading, and then ELA is a broader,

[4:58:07] captures vocabulary and writing and those kinds of things.

[4:58:11] Okay. Yeah, that's what I was...

[4:58:13] Yeah.

[4:58:13] Okay.

[4:58:13] That's what I was-

[4:58:14] I'm sorry, John. I might have made it more complicated than I needed to.

[4:58:17] Excuse me, Vice President Otto.

[4:58:20] Oh, that's all right. That's all right.

[4:58:21] So-

[4:58:22] Thank you

[4:58:22] ... so the ELA is reading, writing,

[4:58:25] speaking-

[4:58:26] And listening

[4:58:27] ... and listening. And the literacy is just strictly reading.

[4:58:31] Correct.

[4:58:33] And in our MAP tests, our English language

[4:58:37] arts tests, you're correct that the standards include

[4:58:41] reading, writing, speaking, and listening.

[4:58:43] We don't assess listening

[4:58:45] in...

[4:58:47] I'm sorry. We assess listening, we don't assess speaking in our MAP test.

[4:58:56] Okay. Moving on.

[4:59:00] Okay. Now,

[4:59:02] here's what that structure would look like for our high schools,

[4:59:05] and here we're talking about

[4:59:11] 300,

[4:59:13] 350-ish

[4:59:16] high schools, depending on the year to year

[4:59:20] statewide. When

[4:59:24] we look at the categories on the left are different.

[4:59:28] Again, these are specified by the executive order.

[4:59:31] This is what it called for, and there's nothing else included.

[4:59:36] So academic achievement status

[4:59:40] for those three subjects, value-added growth for those three

[4:59:44] subjects

[4:59:45] Then they included what's called a Success Ready Graduate Measure,

[4:59:49] and we look at that in other places

[4:59:53] in our annual performance report, and we report that in other

[4:59:58] ways in the other data. But that includes

[5:00:03] quantitative measures of readiness for what comes

[5:00:06] next. So ACT score,

[5:00:10] and when we evaluate those, we look at did the student's

[5:00:14] score meet that college-ready benchmark

[5:00:18] that's established by ACT?

[5:00:21] The work keys for students that may

[5:00:25] be seeking

[5:00:27] to go directly into career. And again,

[5:00:31] the test publisher has designed

[5:00:34] multiple thresholds in work keys that

[5:00:37] say students are ready if they

[5:00:41] achieve this score. So we're not just looking at did they

[5:00:45] take the test, but do they have

[5:00:50] a qualifying score?

[5:00:53] Advanced placement test scores would be included in

[5:00:56] that category.

[5:01:01] It's not new, graduation rate, we look at that in the annual

[5:01:05] performance report. We look at that in some federal evaluation.

[5:01:10] The difference here is the executive order specifies that four-year

[5:01:14] graduation rate. In some of the other metrics, we look at a longer

[5:01:18] period of time for students to graduate.

[5:01:21] So this is a

[5:01:22] more stringent measure here.

[5:01:32] Now let's carry that out to the district level. Right?

[5:01:36] So what goes into the district grade card, and it's all five

[5:01:40] of those things, depending on what grades we

[5:01:44] see in the district. So this would be a district that had

[5:01:50] at least grades one through 12. It might be K through

[5:01:53] 12 or pre-K through 12, but that's what it looks like.

[5:01:57] Again, you see the new

[5:02:01] elements in green,

[5:02:04] and we see them carry forward. And you see what happens to the relative

[5:02:08] emphasis, those percents on the side, as we start

[5:02:11] adding measures.

[5:02:15] And we have about 550 some

[5:02:19] districts and charter LEAs in the state,

[5:02:24] and each of those would receive a grade

[5:02:28] card.

[5:02:32] I would

[5:02:34] like to see the literacy component

[5:02:38] amplified.

[5:02:39] Sure.

[5:02:40] I know it's already been double-counted

[5:02:44] from earlier comments, but

[5:02:47] to me, if we want to move schools out of those bottom tiers,

[5:02:53] it's

[5:02:55] literacy and-

[5:02:56] Mm-hmm

[5:02:57] ...

[5:02:58] so anyways, a comment.

[5:03:02] Yeah. Okay. So how do we assign a grade to these

[5:03:06] things, right? Once we have the measures together and we

[5:03:10] have a score,

[5:03:13] here is the proposed grading scale.

[5:03:16] Now, why it looks a little odd. Right?

[5:03:19] Not what you might expect. Why does it look the way it look?

[5:03:23] Well, in order to maintain

[5:03:26] consistency with what we have in

[5:03:29] our classification of school districts,

[5:03:33] that threshold for unaccredited status is

[5:03:37] below 50%. So that's where that

[5:03:41] failing cut is. At below 50% is

[5:03:44] failing. And then it's really just a simple

[5:03:48] distribution of the remaining points.

[5:03:50] So we have each category is a little bit

[5:03:53] bigger than the 10% range that you would

[5:03:57] normally typically see.

[5:04:00] This

[5:04:02] allows us

[5:04:04] to use this universally across those three

[5:04:07] structures for each building, each

[5:04:12] LEA that we would assign a grade to.

[5:04:14] It also would allow us to adjust the thresholds if we

[5:04:18] hit that 65% or more

[5:04:22] district score A's or B's. Then each of these

[5:04:26] thresholds could be adjusted upwards as the executive

[5:04:30] order calls for.

[5:04:33] All right. So

[5:04:35] framework.

[5:04:37] Remember, when we come back, this is what we're going to ask you

[5:04:41] to approve next month, the

[5:04:44] framework for K-8s, which would be elementaries and middle schools,

[5:04:48] the framework for

[5:04:51] the scoring for high schools, for districts and charter LEAs,

[5:04:55] and then the grading scale. So taken all together is the framework.

[5:05:02] Question?

[5:05:04] Thank you, Lisa.

[5:05:06] Have you done any modeling

[5:05:09] using data that's available today?

[5:05:12] I don't have any that's available today.

[5:05:15] So I think before we can approve anything, I think we have

[5:05:19] to understand what the expected outcome could look

[5:05:23] like.

[5:05:24] Mm-hmm.

[5:05:24] Especially

[5:05:26] if you start at the end and you look at the A through F

[5:05:29] distribution.

[5:05:32] I would love to think that all our schools would be A's, but we know they won't be,

[5:05:36] but we don't want them all to be Fs. And I just think

[5:05:40] for us to really grasp is this

[5:05:44] framework correct, is to look at some

[5:05:47] expected results.

[5:05:52] And I know that might play into the timing, because we've had some conversation

[5:05:56] about how we could begin to look at this.

[5:05:58] So maybe I'll just leave that thought.

[5:06:02] And if we could move on and talk about timing before we talk about

[5:06:06] approving-

[5:06:08] Very cool

[5:06:08] ... what we have to approve.

[5:06:10] On the K through eight.

[5:06:11] Yes.

[5:06:12] So a school district, will they get one report card

[5:06:16] for K through eight, or if they have four different campuses, do they get four

[5:06:19] different report cards?

[5:06:21] So there would be one grade card for each building, for each

[5:06:25] individual building. Right? So if there were, yeah, four

[5:06:28] different schools, then each of those four schools would get a grade card.

[5:06:35] Question. Is there a plan in place for

[5:06:38] the schools that do reach an A?

[5:06:42] Is there a continual aim for them to

[5:06:46] get even better?

[5:06:47] Or is it just, hey, they've reached, this is kind of where we want to keep

[5:06:51] them consistent, like momentum there?

[5:06:56] And for schools that receive an F,

[5:07:01] I guess I want to know

[5:07:05] how long or short is their runway to

[5:07:08] essentially

[5:07:14] become much better than what they've scored-

[5:07:16] Sure

[5:07:16] ... before their...

[5:07:19] I guess I'm trying to find out what the recourse is for someone who

[5:07:23] continually receives an F.

[5:07:25] Right.

[5:07:26] So that's the kind of so what question, right?

[5:07:29] We can do all this and have a lot of reports, and we're just kind of

[5:07:33] admiring the problem or the situation if we don't have

[5:07:37] plans for support.

[5:07:40] I think we'll have another conversation where

[5:07:44] we will detail this,

[5:07:47] which is how are we going to support the struggling

[5:07:51] buildings?

[5:07:52] We have a framework for

[5:07:55] a protocol in place. If

[5:08:00] they're struggling, if they knew exactly what to do,

[5:08:04] right, and had the resources to fix it, then it

[5:08:08] wouldn't be a problem. Right? So as the department, we've been

[5:08:12] looking at what levers can we pull, what is our role,

[5:08:15] and what is within our authority and your authority

[5:08:20] to help these districts. The

[5:08:24] grade cards, as I mentioned, we're going to be focusing on improvement

[5:08:28] efforts and identifying what you need to

[5:08:31] do to get from where you are to a better place.

[5:08:36] The consequence regarding classification or

[5:08:40] accreditation is at the district level, and that's a different

[5:08:44] process. You'll see they'll line

[5:08:48] up, and that's why we set the grading scale where we

[5:08:51] did. But that consequence for lowering a

[5:08:56] district's classification, that happens in a different

[5:08:59] process than this. That happens with the annual performance report.

[5:09:04] And just your initial question is, I'll

[5:09:08] rephrase it, or I'll answer

[5:09:11] a rephrased question, which is, yes, we expect

[5:09:15] that all schools and all students, no matter where they are, should

[5:09:19] be striving to improve.

[5:09:22] We want to have that problem where we have all A's and B's

[5:09:26] on a criterion-reference

[5:09:29] grading scale.

[5:09:31] Okay. It's time to go to the next presentation.

[5:09:35] Right? So I get the last word, isn't it 2:00?

[5:09:39] Yeah, but we're going over a little bit.

[5:09:42] Yeah.

[5:09:42] Because we still-

[5:09:43] So do you want to-

[5:09:43] We got decision points at the end.

[5:09:45] Okay. So my question is, do we need to keep going then? Okay.

[5:09:49] Good enough.

[5:09:52] Yeah, let's keep going.

[5:09:52] Okay. So I want to show you just really quickly, we

[5:09:56] have some design concepts. This is just an early

[5:10:00] concept of what the ultimate grade card would look like.

[5:10:03] Now, this is not the this fall look.

[5:10:07] This is the next fall look or concept.

[5:10:10] So I want to level set the expectations.

[5:10:15] And this is just to give you a flavor of working

[5:10:19] with a

[5:10:20] vendor who's given us some high-level

[5:10:25] concept designs.

[5:10:27] What you see here is what you might see on a computer screen in

[5:10:31] that gray scale. So,

[5:10:33] here is a sample of a grade card, and

[5:10:37] you see this one would be for

[5:10:40] an elementary school, because it has

[5:10:44] achievement, growth, the value-added growth, and then growth to proficiency.

[5:10:48] It's got an overall score on it and a grade, and then

[5:10:52] some indicator of how that school did on each

[5:10:56] one of the component measures.

[5:10:59] There's a way to compare.

[5:11:02] So this particular design would allow you to kind of toggle

[5:11:07] between. If you wanted to see between and among these three, you could

[5:11:11] select schools to compare

[5:11:14] and toggle the one to the front.

[5:11:17] I just have storyboards here, so my

[5:11:21] display here is not super impressive.

[5:11:24] But you get the idea of the look and the functionality.

[5:11:27] And then you could dig into just a little bit more detail about, "Hmm,

[5:11:31] how do I compare

[5:11:34] to other districts, other buildings in my

[5:11:37] region?"

[5:11:39] And here's just that next level of data.

[5:11:42] Again, we're trying to keep this

[5:11:45] simple

[5:11:46] and easy to use.

[5:11:49] Before we get to a final version on this, of course, we'd like your input.

[5:11:52] We also will be conducting focus groups with parents.

[5:11:56] And we've said parents we want as our primary audience, so we want to

[5:12:00] get their input on, is this really useful to you?

[5:12:03] Does this communicate what would be helpful?

[5:12:07] And then

[5:12:08] it's responsive design, so it would be

[5:12:13] easy to use and read across tablets, laptop,

[5:12:17] telephone.

[5:12:19] Okay.

[5:12:21] Next steps. So I promised you we would talk about timing.

[5:12:26] Once we get started, right, we're going to be on for

[5:12:29] operational

[5:12:31] rollout of these reports, we'll be on that September

[5:12:35] 15, September 30 timeline.

[5:12:39] We were really struggling because we can't do this by ourselves.

[5:12:42] We have to work with the Office of Administration, which is another state

[5:12:46] agency, and their IT department. We don't have

[5:12:50] that IT capability inside our

[5:12:53] agency, and they have limited resources just like everyone

[5:12:57] else. So they have a role to play in helping us

[5:13:02] actually create, produce the coding, and

[5:13:06] ultimately roll out the reports.

[5:13:09] So rather than go through that process, which

[5:13:13] connects all of our data to the

[5:13:17] secure reports that DESE already

[5:13:21] provides to schools and districts so they

[5:13:24] can go in and evaluate their student-level data, that's a

[5:13:28] huge infrastructure backbone. That's why we need to work with

[5:13:33] the Office of Administration and their IT department.

[5:13:36] So rather than do that, which takes a lot of time,

[5:13:40] we decided that we would look back at the frozen

[5:13:44] data from last year, from, well, year

[5:13:48] before last, '24, '25,

[5:13:51] and create a draft grade card to give our

[5:13:55] schools and districts a look and all of us a look

[5:13:58] publicly. Let's see how do these grades fall out?

[5:14:02] Now, that first look would exclude the literacy

[5:14:05] data.

[5:14:09] What we're not so sure about, we're still working with our colleagues over in

[5:14:13] OA IT, is to get the timing

[5:14:16] for the '25, '26 draft. Again,

[5:14:20] it will exclude literacy, and so we've been in

[5:14:24] conversation with them about when that would be.

[5:14:28] It will not be before the first of the year.

[5:14:31] We know that, certainly. And then once we get to kind of

[5:14:35] the first operational, which is on

[5:14:39] this school year's data, the '26, '27 data, that will

[5:14:43] go out September of 2027, and that will

[5:14:46] have all of the elements, including literacy.

[5:14:51] Mr. Matusik.

[5:14:52] So just to reconfirm, so between now and

[5:14:56] the fall of next year,

[5:14:58] we'll have three

[5:15:02] report cards, if you will, for...

[5:15:05] And so the one in the fall of '26, using the '24,

[5:15:09] '25 data,

[5:15:11] I know the

[5:15:13] sort of timeline or required timeline is the end of September.

[5:15:17] Mid-September, and then end of September.

[5:15:19] So is that

[5:15:21] even-

[5:15:23] We're going to get as close as we can.

[5:15:25] Now, you're not approving the framework until mid-September,

[5:15:29] so I don't think we're going to hit September 15th and

[5:15:32] September 30th. We don't know at this moment exactly what that

[5:15:37] timing looks like, but we are shooting for as close as

[5:15:40] possible to those dates.

[5:15:44] Just to let you know, we've stayed in regular communication with the governor's

[5:15:48] office about how we're doing with this timeline, and actually, it was one of our

[5:15:52] stakeholders, when we were realizing we weren't going to get anything by September

[5:15:56] of this year, just given all the things that have to go into production,

[5:15:59] said, "Why don't you take your '24, '25 and just do a test run and see what it

[5:16:03] looks like?" And so that's what we have decided to do.

[5:16:06] That should be able to be produced on time, and we've

[5:16:10] had this conversation with them, and they seem to be

[5:16:13] comfortable with that at this point.

[5:16:15] But like I said, they know we're doing everything we can do within our

[5:16:20] power to do.

[5:16:21] But the data from 2024 or 2025,

[5:16:25] you think that'll

[5:16:27] be before the end of September?

[5:16:28] Mm-hmm.

[5:16:29] Okay.

[5:16:30] I-

[5:16:31] No.

[5:16:32] Optimistically.

[5:16:33] We're going to do every... I don't want to promise that because of something-

[5:16:38] You may ask. We don't want to overpromise

[5:16:39] ... you may want us to make some changes that we don't anticipate between now

[5:16:43] and when we come back to vote on the framework in September.

[5:16:48] If I could ask-

[5:16:50] We're going to do everything possible to hit that September 30

[5:16:53] deadline.

[5:16:55] So

[5:16:57] you're not going to wait until our approval to at least build it

[5:17:00] out with what you've got here using the-

[5:17:03] Correct

[5:17:03] ... '24, '25 data.

[5:17:04] Correct.

[5:17:05] All right. Number one. You said a stakeholder, so we will go

[5:17:08] outside. We won't look with... Well, a partner.

[5:17:12] Well-

[5:17:12] We won't use OA.

[5:17:13] Well, no. As Lisa had mentioned,

[5:17:17] we've been taking input from people since the beginning, and I say, well, they.

[5:17:20] I came in at the 11th hour, but yes, they have been taking

[5:17:24] input the whole time, and that was just one of the comments that came up from-

[5:17:28] Mm-hmm

[5:17:29] ... someone that we were talking with and said, "Why don't you think about doing

[5:17:32] this?" So-

[5:17:32] Right

[5:17:32] ... we're actually able to work with our colleagues who help produce the growth

[5:17:36] model, and they're working with us on drafts.

[5:17:38] So we have data in hand that we can do that with, but like Lisa said,

[5:17:42] it's not going to be that nice,

[5:17:45] slick-looking... It really is a draft.

[5:17:47] Just we want to see how this all works out.

[5:17:49] But it's first look.

[5:17:51] Yes.

[5:17:51] So-

[5:17:51] It's a first look

[5:17:52] ... it's expected that we may not have all of the finishing

[5:17:56] touches to a particular-

[5:17:59] Yes

[5:17:59] ... report card

[5:18:01] draft, et cetera, but the data will be there, and it'll be presented with results.

[5:18:06] Mm-hmm.

[5:18:06] The polishing of the look of the report could come later.

[5:18:11] So-

[5:18:13] I think it's acceptable to put that

[5:18:17] target in there. Things happen, and you can come back to the

[5:18:21] board and explain what happened if we can't meet it.

[5:18:25] But if we don't put that target in there, we're not going to meet it.

[5:18:29] We've got to set a goal and do our best to meet that goal.

[5:18:34] That would be my first

[5:18:37] suggestion.

[5:18:39] And then with that data,

[5:18:43] ideally, you would even have that data for us to look

[5:18:46] at with more time in the September

[5:18:50] meeting to see it modeled out along with our approval

[5:18:54] process.

[5:18:55] Yeah.

[5:18:56] And then we'd be meeting the governor's deadline of September 30th.

[5:19:00] So I can't approve something without seeing what the data will

[5:19:04] look like,

[5:19:05] and so we've got to get it anyway.

[5:19:08] Do we have any schedule to get together as a committee

[5:19:12] or to kind of

[5:19:14] look at this before the September meeting?

[5:19:16] Well,

[5:19:18] yeah. And if we could, that would, I think, be through the Student Success

[5:19:21] Committee. That would be the logical committee to, I believe, look at it together.

[5:19:25] Well, wasn't there webinars or something like that?

[5:19:29] Or is that something different?

[5:19:31] So that's for another stakeholder

[5:19:34] engagement, so what I mentioned earlier.

[5:19:38] The webinars would be for-

[5:19:40] Oh, not the-

[5:19:41] Yeah. Not-

[5:19:42] But yeah. So I guess if you guys need to meet.

[5:19:45] Mm-hmm. I mean, we'll be having committee meetings, so we absolutely can

[5:19:49] run it through that committee.

[5:19:52] And then

[5:19:54] what is the

[5:19:56] consumer purpose of this? I mean, I'm assuming it's so

[5:20:00] that parents can have this information so they can decide

[5:20:04] where they want to send their children.

[5:20:06] And I assume it's for internal use at the schools to say,

[5:20:10] "Hey, we've got to get better here, here, here, and here."

[5:20:16] If I'm a parent and I don't get this data until the fall

[5:20:20] each year,

[5:20:21] and I find out that I just enrolled my kid in a failing

[5:20:25] school, I'm going to be kind of annoyed.

[5:20:27] Is there a way to get this out in a different

[5:20:31] timeline where

[5:20:35] parents and people making decisions about

[5:20:38] schools...

[5:20:40] I mean, is the fall the optimal time to put it out?

[5:20:42] It just strikes me as an odd time.

[5:20:47] If you're going to use end-of-year data.

[5:20:49] That's-

[5:20:49] If you're going to use current data.

[5:20:51] Right.

[5:20:52] It makes it difficult.

[5:20:54] Okay.

[5:20:54] Yeah.

[5:20:54] Mm-hmm.

[5:20:55] Or another reason to advance the data timeline.

[5:20:58] Yeah.

[5:20:58] And

[5:21:00] we'll talk offline, but-

[5:21:01] Mm-hmm

[5:21:02] ... I still don't understand it, but I'll figure it out.

[5:21:07] Let's take a minute, because we can't do this by

[5:21:10] ourselves, I mentioned. So let's take a minute

[5:21:14] to just let me run through

[5:21:17] the high points here. So I mentioned we need to collaborate

[5:21:21] with the Office of Administration so we can have that

[5:21:25] IT work and that support done

[5:21:28] to connect the infrastructure.

[5:21:31] We have to have input and data from our school

[5:21:34] districts and our charter schools.

[5:21:37] We capture the data in our Missouri Student Information

[5:21:41] System, what we call MOSIS, and core data several times a

[5:21:45] year, and we need that data from

[5:21:49] the districts in order to create the grade card.

[5:21:52] And

[5:21:54] so we need money and people, right?

[5:21:57] We always need resources

[5:21:59] to not only do this programming

[5:22:03] and publish the grade cards, so it's internal,

[5:22:07] and then it's contractor work. We need vendors to do the

[5:22:11] display. Those concept designs are not something that came

[5:22:15] to you or to me from internally. That's a vendor.

[5:22:19] And then most importantly is to support those school

[5:22:23] improvement efforts. So,

[5:22:25] that's what in the new decision item around the grade cards,

[5:22:29] it's not just the calculations, the staff,

[5:22:33] and the reports. It's some support

[5:22:37] for those struggling schools.

[5:22:41] And then finally, we have to make changes to our existing

[5:22:45] procedures, and that's us at the department.

[5:22:48] That requires our IT colleagues. It also

[5:22:51] requires...

[5:22:53] We're shifting expectations to our

[5:22:57] schools and districts. We're trying to get better. We've moved things.

[5:23:00] We're asking them to get better with data.

[5:23:03] We have moved timelines on data submissions

[5:23:07] and cleaning. We have shortened

[5:23:11] corrections and appeals windows,

[5:23:14] I think, to a pretty significant extent.

[5:23:18] So that's the data collection and validation.

[5:23:21] The other thing we're finding that we're going to need to do in order to hit that

[5:23:25] September 15, September 30 deadline is

[5:23:29] in the assessment window earlier, the Missouri Assessment

[5:23:32] Program, so our grade level and our end-of-course test windows.

[5:23:37] Right now, those windows run through the middle of

[5:23:41] May, and in order to hit this timeline for the grade

[5:23:45] cards, we're thinking we're going to need to end those test

[5:23:49] windows at the end of April.

[5:23:51] So

[5:23:52] what does that mean for our schools and districts?

[5:23:56] It puts them in a difficult position because we're going to put a stop time on

[5:24:00] the assessment window, and there's a state

[5:24:03] statute that limits how soon they can start

[5:24:07] school in the fall.

[5:24:10] And this year, the earliest day they can start school is August

[5:24:14] 24th, which is next Monday.

[5:24:16] So, and that's a statutory requirement that

[5:24:20] is, what is it? No more than 14 days before the

[5:24:24] first Monday in September.

[5:24:27] And so it floats a little bit each year.

[5:24:32] We've heard feedback from stakeholders.

[5:24:34] They have concern about instructional time, and

[5:24:38] depending on their practice for testing.

[5:24:42] We had,

[5:24:44] just between last year and this year, or between '25 and

[5:24:48] '26, we had shortened the assessment window by nearly

[5:24:52] two weeks.

[5:24:54] And

[5:24:55] it was open until

[5:24:58] right before Memorial Day. We had very few

[5:25:01] districts or students who were

[5:25:05] participating in testing in the last two weeks of May.

[5:25:08] The story's a little bit different when you look at the first two weeks of May.

[5:25:14] Is it fair to say that some of those challenges, as important as they are,

[5:25:18] are part of the kind of longer-term

[5:25:21] implementation plan here? It's not those...

[5:25:25] We can sort that problem out however it is, but it doesn't have to be sorted out

[5:25:30] by this September 15th.

[5:25:32] Well-

[5:25:32] It's important, but it can be done in parallel to getting

[5:25:37] this model up and running.

[5:25:38] Yes, it can be done in parallel.

[5:25:42] Several right to the early

[5:25:45] model,

[5:25:46] getting the '24, '25 data.

[5:25:48] The first look-

[5:25:49] The first look-

[5:25:49] ... data

[5:25:49] ... out.

[5:25:50] Yes.

[5:25:50] But there are important decisions and changes that the department is

[5:25:54] needing to make

[5:25:56] so that we get them in the cycle for the '26,

[5:25:59] '27 school year-

[5:26:01] Mm-hmm

[5:26:01] ... so we can be on time next fall.

[5:26:05] Yeah.

[5:26:05] Okay.

[5:26:05] Makes sense.

[5:26:07] So decision points, finally.

[5:26:11] These are some of the things I mentioned we've had, stakeholder

[5:26:14] engagement. We've had different conversations over time with

[5:26:18] some of you all on the board.

[5:26:21] And we have convened

[5:26:25] ad hoc and other groups of advisors

[5:26:28] who advise us on other things, like our MSIP advisory, for

[5:26:31] example.

[5:26:34] And certain things, questions have kind of risen

[5:26:38] to the top as being of concern, and

[5:26:42] these

[5:26:43] were three

[5:26:45] that really got a lot of airtime that we think is important.

[5:26:48] We'd like to hear from you about these.

[5:26:50] The first is should all schools receive a grade card?

[5:26:55] Now,

[5:26:57] sure, the executive's order says one for each, right?

[5:27:01] And that's our plan. That was in our assumptions.

[5:27:04] But if we zoom out just a little bit or dial

[5:27:08] in,

[5:27:10] we have a number of school districts that

[5:27:14] we only have

[5:27:16] data for literacy for grades one and

[5:27:20] two. We have some schools that are pre-K through

[5:27:24] second grade, or kindergarten through second grade, or some

[5:27:28] combination. So we don't have a map score.

[5:27:33] All we would have would be that literacy,

[5:27:36] that Lexile measure from the foundational reading assessment.

[5:27:40] There's about 75 of those buildings

[5:27:44] right now that would fall in that category.

[5:27:47] So the question kind of came about, is that enough

[5:27:51] information to create a grade for those schools?

[5:27:53] So 75 buildings, how many school districts are we talking about?

[5:27:57] 75 buildings across

[5:28:01] nearly 70 school districts. Yeah.

[5:28:05] But other buildings in that school district could be getting a report card.

[5:28:09] Yes.

[5:28:09] Okay.

[5:28:10] Yeah.

[5:28:10] It's like we have to walk before we run here.

[5:28:13] There's another thing that you might want to think about, too.

[5:28:16] Sometimes we think about, well, what's the cell

[5:28:20] size? We talk about that a lot. Well, that means how many students in the data

[5:28:24] set.

[5:28:25] So, if we kind of look at the distribution, there

[5:28:29] seems to be a break point at 50 students.

[5:28:32] We have about 60 school buildings that have fewer

[5:28:36] than 50 students. So,

[5:28:38] those don't, or very few of them, fall into

[5:28:42] that 75 where they only have the literacy data.

[5:28:46] So they might have all data across several grade

[5:28:50] levels.

[5:28:52] Is

[5:28:54] 50 students enough? Or is 30 students enough?

[5:28:59] Most of our schools are going to fall in that population between

[5:29:03] 50 to 500 students in a building. That's

[5:29:07] about 1,600, and then the remainder of them are

[5:29:11] over 500. Most of those are high schools.

[5:29:15] But that's another way to

[5:29:18] think about the question, should all schools receive a grade card?

[5:29:22] How much is enough data to say that's enough to

[5:29:25] produce a grade?

[5:29:28] Doug, do you have a question?

[5:29:29] I was just going to say, are we ready to answer that?

[5:29:32] I think that, in my opinion, one, it would be helpful if we

[5:29:36] actually saw some samples of what a grade card would

[5:29:40] look like for some schools, because that would drive more questions, I think.

[5:29:44] But for this particular one,

[5:29:48] because how many buildings do we have?

[5:29:50] Is there 500-something in the state?

[5:29:54] So we have about 2,200 schools.

[5:29:57] Okay, so-

[5:29:57] Yeah.

[5:29:57] So out of those, those schools that have sufficient enough

[5:30:01] data should receive a grade card, and then the ones that don't,

[5:30:05] they should receive something that's not sufficient information,

[5:30:09] or some kind of asterisk that's only those particular schools.

[5:30:13] And then it's not really punitive, it's just then ...

[5:30:16] whoever's looking at that can then look and say, "Oh, the reason why they're not

[5:30:20] receiving a grade is because X, Y, Z," like you said-

[5:30:23] Mm-hmm

[5:30:23] ... not enough students or they don't...

[5:30:25] To me, that would be the most prudent-

[5:30:27] Mm-hmm

[5:30:28] ... way to have that.

[5:30:28] And I think that's kind of the question to you, is how much is enough?

[5:30:32] How much data is enough to produce a grade card?

[5:30:35] Well, I think that has to be-

[5:30:36] Okay

[5:30:37] ... statistically proven-

[5:30:39] Right

[5:30:39] ... not that we would be able to pull a number out of the air and determine that.

[5:30:42] So you have to come to us with a recommendation, but we shouldn't let, what do

[5:30:46] they say, perfect stand in the way of the good.

[5:30:49] Let's just move forward, and for those that don't

[5:30:53] initially have a grade card, we work through whatever the

[5:30:56] challenge is, and ultimately they may get one.

[5:30:59] But we shouldn't stop the process to make it

[5:31:03] 100%. If we get

[5:31:05] 98%ish, I think we're doing the

[5:31:09] right thing, would be my recommendation.

[5:31:12] Michelle?

[5:31:13] Yeah. I think even if you have a statement that says inefficient data, that allows

[5:31:17] for a conversation for a parent to say, "Well, why?

[5:31:20] What's going on?" And just have that conversation.

[5:31:22] Yeah, there could be answer-

[5:31:23] So even if it's not a letter grade

[5:31:24] ... notes or whatever onto that particular thing.

[5:31:26] That makes it a little easier.

[5:31:28] Exactly.

[5:31:28] How much opportunity for feedback from districts

[5:31:32] and other stakeholders have we had in this process so far?

[5:31:35] I know

[5:31:39] you're operating under a strict timeline here, but I

[5:31:43] was curious.

[5:31:44] So we've had

[5:31:47] this topic before. The commissioner has an advisory

[5:31:50] council that meets about four times a year.

[5:31:53] This topic has been before that advisory council

[5:31:57] twice. We have what's called an MSIP

[5:32:00] advisory, our Missouri School Improvement Program.

[5:32:05] That has been before, I think, that group

[5:32:09] at least twice. And in both

[5:32:13] cases, we've asked for structured feedback, so

[5:32:17] provided information.

[5:32:19] We've presented at our administrators conference last

[5:32:23] month, ran a couple of large sessions,

[5:32:28] our cooperative conference for school administrators.

[5:32:31] We've spoken to other groups that they've invited us to their

[5:32:35] various conferences.

[5:32:37] And then as we come down to the...

[5:32:42] I guess before I get to the very end, we've had, as I mentioned,

[5:32:46] I would say at least half a dozen conversations, perhaps

[5:32:50] more, with various stakeholder groups,

[5:32:54] that we've convened to ask them for feedback.

[5:32:58] And then we've pulled together groups of technical

[5:33:01] advisors, so folks who are kind of in the weeds on

[5:33:05] the measurement,

[5:33:07] and received feedback from them. So we've had

[5:33:11] feedback from various stakeholders, and then as we come down to

[5:33:15] the meeting in September,

[5:33:18] as I said, we have a couple of virtual sessions scheduled and

[5:33:22] we'll be doing a couple of onsite

[5:33:25] sessions to capture that.

[5:33:27] If we do this

[5:33:32] preemptively, and I

[5:33:34] don't know how I'm going to vote on this, but

[5:33:35] you could do a lot of damage

[5:33:39] here if this isn't done, if we don't do this carefully.

[5:33:43] And I'm thinking

[5:33:47] specifically of the

[5:33:49] charter schools in the city of St. Louis.

[5:33:53] I don't know what happens to their enrollment.

[5:33:55] I don't know what happens to the enrollment at SLPS,

[5:33:59] if we don't do this

[5:34:03] carefully. And

[5:34:06] so anyway, I know we're under a deadline.

[5:34:08] I'm not sure anything can be done about it, but I would just...

[5:34:16] Potentially here, we could do a lot of damage if we're not careful.

[5:34:24] Certainly.

[5:34:26] Okay.

[5:34:28] So

[5:34:30] two more questions. Kind of we would

[5:34:33] like to hear what you all are thinking about them.

[5:34:36] So should growth to proficiency include already

[5:34:39] proficient students? So as I'll remind you, the executive

[5:34:43] order says that it wants a measure

[5:34:47] to determine for each student that has

[5:34:52] two consecutive MAP scores

[5:34:55] to determine whether they are on track to

[5:34:59] reach grade-level proficiency in three years.

[5:35:04] As I said, the way we interpreted that language

[5:35:08] was that it would focus only on those student

[5:35:12] scores in the non-proficient range.

[5:35:15] And we evaluate them every year, so we

[5:35:19] look at where those scores are this year,

[5:35:22] and then no matter what they did between this

[5:35:26] year and next year, we'd look at everybody's scores again next year.

[5:35:30] So

[5:35:31] we had some conversation about that, I think earlier.

[5:35:36] I have a question for clarification.

[5:35:38] When you say grade-level proficiency, first of all,

[5:35:43] proficiency as it's defined within the MAP rating, not the

[5:35:46] grade-level implementation. We have all these words being mixed

[5:35:50] together.

[5:35:51] So proficiency

[5:35:55] at

[5:35:56] that particular grade level. So we will define

[5:36:00] proficiency. If they're in second grade, then it's

[5:36:04] proficiency... Well, at third grade, when we're measuring it through the MAP

[5:36:08] scores, we see that they're below, and

[5:36:12] we're saying, as you demonstrated three years out, which would

[5:36:15] be third, fourth, fifth, fifth grade, that in fifth grade, they need to

[5:36:19] be proficient- At fifth-grade level proficiency.

[5:36:23] Mm-hmm. Yes

[5:36:23] That's-

[5:36:23] Yes

[5:36:24] ... just for clarity-

[5:36:24] That is correct

[5:36:24] ... and up out of the way there each way.

[5:36:26] Yes.

[5:36:26] Okay. All right. You were going to say something. I just wanted to clarify that.

[5:36:30] I have an opinion, but I'll-

[5:36:32] I was just going to say, we were kind of talking about this earlier, and

[5:36:37] I thought maybe Dr. Schill kind of brought up a point about it, but we

[5:36:41] tabled it, but I can't remember now the details of what it was.

[5:36:44] But I think it was something about

[5:36:48] measuring students who are already proficient-

[5:36:50] Mm-hmm

[5:36:50] ... or if students are

[5:36:53] really low, but they've improved, but they're still below or something like that,

[5:36:56] to capture... Like a weighted type measure.

[5:36:58] Mm-hmm.

[5:36:59] Does that make sense or-

[5:37:00] Right

[5:37:00] ... at least I think that's what you were talking about.

[5:37:02] Because you kind of said it would be captured in the other elements of the

[5:37:05] reporting.

[5:37:06] Right.

[5:37:07] So for any students that in the current year, if their score

[5:37:11] is proficient, any score is proficient or above,

[5:37:15] we're not going to see them in the growth to proficiency measure.

[5:37:18] They've already hit proficient. We will see them in the value-added

[5:37:22] growth, we'll see them in the academic achievement.

[5:37:27] And then I think the other part of the question was, well, what

[5:37:31] happens if a student was at that below basic level

[5:37:35] and they grow to proficient or advanced even?

[5:37:39] Those will show up in that,

[5:37:45] we will recognize that movement.

[5:37:52] My opinion

[5:37:54] is that we should include growth to

[5:37:57] proficiency,

[5:37:59] should include those students that are already proficient.

[5:38:03] I think we should be looking at growth of all students, bottom line.

[5:38:07] And yes, they'll get credit when they're in status,

[5:38:11] in that level, and then they'll get other credits.

[5:38:15] But

[5:38:16] we want to incent the behavior that all

[5:38:20] students achieve excellence,

[5:38:23] and it gets lost if we're only looking at

[5:38:27] it through status. You don't see it,

[5:38:31] but you'll see it here in growth to proficiency.

[5:38:33] Maybe it shouldn't be called growth to proficiency, it should be called growth,

[5:38:37] or it's maybe weighted differently, to John's point.

[5:38:40] When you're below proficient, there's a greater

[5:38:43] weighting than when you're already proficient.

[5:38:47] You're still getting credit, but you get more credit when you're on the way up

[5:38:51] to proficiency.

[5:38:52] And I would just add onto that, not to beat this to death, because I know

[5:38:56] I had earlier statements, but I won't go through specific details, but just

[5:39:00] through personal experience,

[5:39:04] I question if things like dyslexia get missed in certain patients who

[5:39:07] are proficient, but yet they have struggles and

[5:39:11] would still benefit from EIPs, et cetera.

[5:39:14] So that part makes sense to me then, that we still need

[5:39:19] to include them if they're already proficient, and we need to look at their growth.

[5:39:23] Mm-hmm.

[5:39:24] So.

[5:39:26] Okay, so.

[5:39:27] Okay. Because I would say the counterargument there is if you are proficient in

[5:39:31] third grade and then you're proficient in fourth grade, you grew.

[5:39:34] Mm-hmm.

[5:39:34] The fourth-grade assessment's more difficult than the third-grade assessment.

[5:39:37] Mm-hmm.

[5:39:37] Now, if you grew-

[5:39:39] But you-

[5:39:39] ... at a larger rate than you were expected, that's captured in value-added growth.

[5:39:43] Mm-hmm.

[5:39:44] So you now get proficiency value on that element, and you

[5:39:48] get value-added growth as a plus residual versus a negative

[5:39:52] residual. So I think your growth is being captured in two spots,

[5:39:57] and then growth to proficiency is kind of a, "Okay, you didn't make it,

[5:40:00] but are you improving?"

[5:40:02] Is my read of that. Right? So that seems like that's why that's a

[5:40:06] new piece. Hey, we have kids that didn't make it, but are they improving?

[5:40:11] Which is a new study. But the kids that are making it, they're doing what they need

[5:40:14] to be doing. Correct?

[5:40:15] The way we interpreted that as, and the

[5:40:19] reason that it does not include already proficient

[5:40:23] students, is that when you look at the status measure, it's a

[5:40:27] blend. It's an average, right? It's a blend of everybody.

[5:40:30] So it can mask low performance.

[5:40:34] If you have a lot of high performers, that average can mask

[5:40:38] the low performing.

[5:40:40] I'm not saying that it's right or wrong, I'm just explaining that's how we

[5:40:44] interpret that. And this is why we've heard about this.

[5:40:47] We've heard some differing opinions, which is why we're bringing this to you

[5:40:51] for discussion.

[5:40:52] I would

[5:40:54] counter what you're saying, Mike, in that

[5:40:57] if our target audience is our parents,

[5:41:00] is why we want to do this, we want clarity, we want

[5:41:04] parents to be able to determine

[5:41:07] the quality, if you will, of the academic outcomes in the school.

[5:41:11] If my child stays at grade level, yes, he grew,

[5:41:15] but only within grade level. Meaning, he was

[5:41:19] satisfactory in third, he's satisfactory in fourth, and again in fifth.

[5:41:22] He's not growing. I want him to be advanced.

[5:41:26] And so that's the measure of growth that we're trying to achieve.

[5:41:29] We always say we want excellence in education for all students.

[5:41:34] Well, is excellence in education achieving going above and beyond,

[5:41:38] achieving your best? And if they stay at grade level, to me as

[5:41:42] a parent, that's not achieving your best.

[5:41:45] So that's why I promote that they be included in the

[5:41:49] growth

[5:41:50] component, but just with that appropriate weighting.

[5:41:53] We really do want to focus on our underperforming

[5:41:57] students and help them to get to at least the minimum, what I'd

[5:42:01] say, of satisfactory, and then we want everybody else, and to continue

[5:42:05] to grow beyond it.

[5:42:07] That's what I'd say, is what you're describing is exactly what value-added growth-

[5:42:10] Mm-hmm

[5:42:10] ... is designed to communicate.

[5:42:12] Mm-hmm.

[5:42:13] Because it sets a trajectory based on where you are in past performance, and

[5:42:16] then you exceed that trajectory, you get a positive value-added

[5:42:20] growth.

[5:42:21] Mm-hmm.

[5:42:21] It's already built in there

[5:42:24] But maybe value-added growth is a concept that's hard

[5:42:28] for the reader to understand.

[5:42:30] Mm-hmm.

[5:42:31] And maybe a simpler measure is better. So I'll certainly concede that.

[5:42:35] Okay.

[5:42:35] Because I had to read up on what value-added-

[5:42:37] Yeah

[5:42:37] ... growth was. As I've taught statistics, I understood the explanation.

[5:42:41] If I didn't teach statistics, I don't know if I would've.

[5:42:43] You probably understand it better than I do.

[5:42:45] So, in conclusion, can you tell me what the...

[5:42:49] I mean, what's the timeline here? It seems like things are

[5:42:53] slow-

[5:42:55] Yeah

[5:42:55] ... right now as far as getting this up and going.

[5:42:58] Would that be-

[5:42:59] I-

[5:42:59] ... accurate or?

[5:43:00] We feel like we're moving pretty quickly and being able to

[5:43:04] stand up, coming up with an alternative to

[5:43:07] use the '25 data to stand something up this fall.

[5:43:11] We're feeling-

[5:43:11] Mm-hmm

[5:43:11] ... pretty good about that.

[5:43:14] I think a lot of work has been done in the last six months.

[5:43:19] Eight months.

[5:43:20] Yeah. But we've been talking about using the

[5:43:24] 25-year data for what seems like almost the whole year,

[5:43:28] and

[5:43:30] we just don't seem to be moving forward, in my opinion, as

[5:43:34] rapidly as we should on this topic.

[5:43:36] Because when do you think that it will be implemented into the

[5:43:40] classes in the schools? I mean, what's the plan

[5:43:43] there?

[5:43:45] I think we'll have,

[5:43:48] as soon as possible after the September board meeting,

[5:43:52] we'll have those grade cards available.

[5:43:56] I think we can take a lot of this conversation and the comments that you all have

[5:43:59] made and use the '24, '25 data to run the

[5:44:02] simulations to see what the impact of some of these different decision points are,

[5:44:06] so we can bring that back and show you in September.

[5:44:09] Yeah.

[5:44:09] That would be-

[5:44:09] Be helpful.

[5:44:10] Yeah.

[5:44:10] Is that good?

[5:44:10] Sure.

[5:44:10] Mm-hmm.

[5:44:11] And to answer your last question, I say no, but we can answer that question later.

[5:44:16] And I agree.

[5:44:17] After we see some examples.

[5:44:18] Yeah.

[5:44:18] Well, while we're here, why don't we discuss that?

[5:44:20] Tell us-

[5:44:20] Yeah, I think we should

[5:44:21] ... what-

[5:44:21] Sure

[5:44:21] ... conversation brought that up.

[5:44:23] So, I think that the conversation was

[5:44:29] should the framework adjust for demographic characteristics?

[5:44:32] So what about our most vulnerable student populations?

[5:44:35] So those charts that Shawn showed you that had the student groups

[5:44:39] in them, particularly students in poverty.

[5:44:42] So, the ones that

[5:44:45] participate in free and reduced-price lunch, or we identify as students in

[5:44:49] poverty by what we call a direct certification process,

[5:44:53] of income or income status.

[5:44:56] So those, when we look at the test data, those students

[5:45:00] tend to be the ones that are underperforming.

[5:45:05] We see that historically. It seems to be

[5:45:08] difficult to

[5:45:12] move that group,

[5:45:14] performance of that group as a whole.

[5:45:17] So there was a question about

[5:45:20] should we

[5:45:22] highlight or use the framework in some way, the grade card

[5:45:26] to

[5:45:27] shine light on the performance of that group of students,

[5:45:32] or those groups of students?

[5:45:34] Should we somehow adjust in the way we score,

[5:45:38] and consider those student groups?

[5:45:42] In the annual performance report,

[5:45:46] the overall evaluation looks at

[5:45:50] the group of students at a building or a district as a whole,

[5:45:54] and then it looks at those student groups as its

[5:45:58] own population, and considers both in the overall scoring.

[5:46:03] So I think, may I follow up on that? I think one of the reasons that we're looking

[5:46:07] at this question is because unlike the APR, that specifically does pull

[5:46:11] out student groups and let you look at that separately,

[5:46:14] the executive order's not charged us to do that.

[5:46:17] In fact, it charges us to keep it simple.

[5:46:19] So

[5:46:21] if we start disaggregating by student groups and reporting that way,

[5:46:25] to acknowledge that there are differences, then,

[5:46:29] well, one, it doesn't become simple anymore, and we

[5:46:33] get into schools with really small cell sizes, and we end up suppressing more

[5:46:37] data than we're able to use. So we're wanting to keep the concentration of

[5:46:40] students as big of a pool as we can so that we can report out on

[5:46:44] it. But those are a couple of reasons why we're thinking about

[5:46:47] if we want to consider it, is there a way to embed it as opposed

[5:46:51] to a separate calculation the way MSIP does?

[5:46:55] Is that fair?

[5:46:56] Mm-hmm.

[5:46:56] Terry.

[5:46:57] I think we should have the same expectations for all students.

[5:47:00] Agreed.

[5:47:01] And therefore,

[5:47:03] measurements should not be determined differently.

[5:47:07] Everybody should

[5:47:09] work to achieve the same standard.

[5:47:12] We have other ways of addressing the needs and concerns

[5:47:15] of students that are struggling, maybe because

[5:47:19] of a particular demographic background of sorts.

[5:47:22] So, we're working here to deliver education to

[5:47:26] children, and every child is capable of achieving.

[5:47:31] We should have the expectation the same for all children.

[5:47:35] Okay.

[5:47:35] Is my vote.

[5:47:36] Can I go Robbie and then-

[5:47:38] Yeah, I don't see putting in an artificiality and inflating that

[5:47:42] is not giving good data to the parents, and it defeats the

[5:47:45] purpose of what the simple report card is.

[5:47:51] Respond. Any response?

[5:47:54] Okay, John.

[5:47:55] Yeah, I was just saying, I think at this point, at this stage,

[5:47:58] my answer would be just not right now.

[5:48:01] I mean, if we get report cards out and we see that there's...

[5:48:05] I mean, obviously we will know based on building some of the

[5:48:09] demographic characteristics just by common sense.

[5:48:12] But,

[5:48:13] I think then if we did need to

[5:48:16] adjust it, I don't even say adjust it, just flag it or something, or put a

[5:48:20] footnote, just like how we were talking about school buildings that might have

[5:48:23] insufficient data. And maybe you could add a footnote to say, "Oh, by the

[5:48:27] way, this particular building has 100% free and reduced

[5:48:31] lunch," or something like that. And so that, it's like an asterisk on that

[5:48:35] particular school because I don't-

[5:48:38] I recognize that there are differences, but we want it to be the

[5:48:42] same level

[5:48:48] of

[5:48:50] expectation for everyone, but that

[5:48:54] there are other factors that weigh in, and I don't want

[5:48:57] people just look on the surface. Like I said, for the most part,

[5:49:02] common sense looking at it is like, "Okay, this school is based on location or

[5:49:06] whatever." But I think down the road, once we

[5:49:10] start to perfect this grade card system, that's when we can add

[5:49:14] stuff. I think for right now, though, it's just get something simple out there, and

[5:49:17] if we need to adjust it later, then we can do that.

[5:49:20] Yeah. So we'll get something simple.

[5:49:21] And I think really the underlying point with that is we don't want to

[5:49:25] produce grade cards that end up just being a reflection of the

[5:49:28] socioeconomic status of the community.

[5:49:31] That's not informative to parents.

[5:49:33] So, that's the consideration there, but I understand, and I think

[5:49:36] we can run simulations.

[5:49:39] Yeah, that would be-

[5:49:40] Trying different things and seeing what we come up with.

[5:49:46] Okay. Anything else?

[5:49:49] Just say one more thing. On the prior slide, you discussed potentially moving up

[5:49:52] assessment windows two weeks prior.

[5:49:55] Yes.

[5:49:55] And I understand you want to get data as soon as possible.

[5:49:57] Yes.

[5:49:57] A little concern over that-

[5:49:58] Mm-hmm

[5:49:59] ... being a classroom teacher. We already don't go to the

[5:50:03] end of the year or the end of the semester, right?

[5:50:05] If you're

[5:50:07] assessing the first two weeks of May, we lose the second two weeks of May, and now

[5:50:10] you're saying we're basically going to lose the month of May.

[5:50:14] A lot of our classes are semester-long classes, actually.

[5:50:16] So you're losing

[5:50:18] maybe 20% of your class time. So it's a concern.

[5:50:22] I understand you want to get data as soon as possible.

[5:50:26] Weigh that concern, I suppose.

[5:50:27] Yes. And

[5:50:29] you're echoing what we've heard from stakeholders, and the

[5:50:34] impact will not be trivial. We've

[5:50:38] looked at, quantified it.

[5:50:41] Happy to share that information if you'd like to hear me talk

[5:50:44] longer.

[5:50:48] Okay. We're going to stop right there.

[5:50:51] We're going to have a quick break of 10 minutes.

[5:50:54] We do appreciate your presentation.

[5:50:56] Thank you very much.

[5:50:57] So come back at 3:00.

[5:50:59] Yeah.

[6:00:57] Right on time.

[6:00:59] But we're about an hour behind in the meeting.

[6:01:01] So-

[6:01:03] What'd you expect with this group?

[6:01:04] We'll go from there.

[6:01:08] So if I could get everybody's attention, we're going to start through this.

[6:01:14] Yep.

[6:01:16] Now we have the assistant, uh, commissioner with the Office of Childhood, uh,

[6:01:20] Childhood-

[6:01:21] Childhood

[6:01:21] ... Childhood with us, and, uh, we welcome, it's Jocelyn

[6:01:25] Schluss?

[6:01:25] Jocelyn Schluss, yes.

[6:01:27] Okay, very good.

[6:01:28] Yeah.

[6:01:28] It's a little bit of a unique last name.

[6:01:30] It is, it is. It's a mouthful. Um, yes.

[6:01:33] My name is Jocelyn Schluss. I'm the assistant commissioner for the Office of

[6:01:36] Childhood.

[6:01:38] I am finishing up my second month in the position,

[6:01:42] so here to give you just a quick overview of our office and talk

[6:01:46] to you about a few items that you may be hearing about.

[6:01:49] In a nutshell, the Office of Childhood really builds the foundation of our

[6:01:52] K-12 schools.

[6:01:54] Our efforts are to set up all children in Missouri for success.

[6:01:58] So I'm going to talk to you briefly about, um, how the Office of Childhood came to

[6:02:02] be, and then our three kind of larger areas or programs.

[6:02:07] That's very nice.

[6:02:07] So the office was formed five years ago this month, actually, we're

[6:02:11] celebrating an anniversary, um, by Executive Order

[6:02:14] 2102. The intent was to bring all early

[6:02:18] learning, all services for children birth through five and after-school

[6:02:22] programming into one spot, one office, to make it a little bit

[6:02:25] easier for stakeholders to access.

[6:02:28] So prior to the Office of Childhood being in DESE,

[6:02:32] it, it brought together three, um, three agencies

[6:02:36] and offices that were housed there.

[6:02:37] So in DESE, there was the early learning,

[6:02:40] uh, from Department of Social Services, Child Care Subsidy,

[6:02:44] and then Child Care Compliance and Regulations came to this office from the

[6:02:48] Department of Health and Senior Services.

[6:02:51] The idea, like I said, was really to kind of form a one-stop shop for all

[6:02:55] people who are interacting with early childhood initiatives and care.

[6:03:04] So this is our kind of high-level organizational chart.

[6:03:08] You'll kind of see those three divisions or three programs that came over

[6:03:11] from the other agencies. So to the side, you'll see

[6:03:15] outreach. Our outreach section really services our

[6:03:19] entire office, so they report directly to me.

[6:03:23] But essentially, they focus on communication.

[6:03:25] We have a program called Community Leaders that also supports Missouri Family

[6:03:29] Resources, an app, and Dolly Parton Imagination Library.

[6:03:33] In addition to our outreach section, we have those three larger programs, like I

[6:03:37] said, that came over. So early learning is about 22% of

[6:03:41] our staff, um, and they focus on all

[6:03:45] quality initiatives, um, early learning initiatives, all of

[6:03:49] those types of things. And they support school districts, childcare providers, and

[6:03:53] families. The Child Care Compliance program is

[6:03:56] about 43% of our staff. That's what came over from

[6:04:00] Department of Health and Senior Services.

[6:04:03] And then Child Care Subsidy came from DSS, and that's about 30% of our

[6:04:07] staff.

[6:04:15] Um, so this slide just shows all of the different programs or

[6:04:19] initiatives that are housed in early learning.

[6:04:23] You'll see a lot of things that, uh, support parents, support childcare

[6:04:27] providers, and support school districts.

[6:04:29] Early learning's focus really is on early childhood development and

[6:04:33] school readiness. These programs help build the foundation for our future

[6:04:37] K-12 students. Um, the emphasis in early learning is developing

[6:04:41] the whole child. So, um, we look at physical

[6:04:45] development, social-emotional development, academic, cognitive, all of those

[6:04:48] things across the board for every child.

[6:04:51] And many of the services and initiatives that are housed in early learning

[6:04:55] are small pieces of a larger puzzle for our early childhood

[6:04:58] programs, um, school districts, and care providers.

[6:05:04] You have questions about any of those?

[6:05:06] I'm going to talk about a couple that you maybe are hearing about, but while

[6:05:10] they're all kind of up there in front of you, does anybody have questions about any

[6:05:13] of those specifically?

[6:05:17] I didn't realize there were so many, uh...

[6:05:22] I just didn't realize it.

[6:05:23] Yeah. Lots of things that-

[6:05:24] No questions, just a comment.

[6:05:25] Yeah, lots of, um, things that target families specifically, trying to

[6:05:29] support in-home. Um,

[6:05:32] also initiatives to improve the quality of our childcare facilities and

[6:05:35] preschool programming across the state, curriculum resources.

[6:05:40] Um,

[6:05:42] yes, lots of things. Um, I should probably note the Program Integrity section in

[6:05:46] here really serves as a kind of checks and balances for subsidy and

[6:05:50] how those federal dollars are, are, um, implemented.

[6:05:54] So Program Integrity is housed here, but really serves as a checks and balances of

[6:05:58] some of the other programming in the office.

[6:06:04] So the things that you're maybe hearing about, most recently,

[6:06:08] we awarded, um, after-school grants and MO QPK

[6:06:12] grants, which are preschool spots across the state.

[6:06:16] So, um, I'm going to read some of this to make sure I don't miss anything.

[6:06:20] Uh, a small but important part of early learning are these grants.

[6:06:23] So we have three after-school grants: 21st Century Community Learning Center,

[6:06:27] School Age Community, and Missouri Comprehensive Afterschool Learning.

[6:06:31] The data from these grants shows improvement for our students that participate in

[6:06:35] reading and math, and definitely an increase in engagement.

[6:06:39] Over 90% of the students that participate in those after-school grant programs

[6:06:42] are reported to have increased engagement at

[6:06:44] school. Having those after-school opportunities

[6:06:48] really are, um, helpful, safe, enriching activities for children

[6:06:52] whose parents are still working and need that before or after-school

[6:06:55] care. Um- The graph really is

[6:06:59] about the Missouri Quality Pre-K grant.

[6:07:02] So this year, there was an $11 million less

[6:07:05] appropriation to MO QPK for childcare centers and

[6:07:09] 20 million less for school districts or LEAs.

[6:07:13] Plus, an additional $6 million was restricted.

[6:07:16] So as you can see, this has resulted in fewer grants being awarded,

[6:07:20] which then in turn reduces the total number of preschool spots available,

[6:07:24] or districts and providers have to pass that cost of preschool pre-K

[6:07:28] spots onto parents or their providers.

[6:07:33] From 2023 to '24 to

[6:07:36] 2025-26, MO QPK grew from

[6:07:40] 2,500 spots up to just under 7,000 spots.

[6:07:44] And then for this current school year, we're awarding right at 5,000 spots.

[6:07:48] So you can see the difference that that reduction in funding is making for this

[6:07:51] coming school year.

[6:07:58] The next kind of large program, again, subsidy came to us from

[6:08:02] DSS. The subsidy program focuses on family

[6:08:05] eligibility, provider contracts, and payment, as well as childcare

[6:08:09] data system.

[6:08:11] Subsidy

[6:08:13] came to us from DSS, I've already said that, sorry, but DSS still houses

[6:08:17] other programs that are determined by income eligibility, and this can be a

[6:08:21] hurdle for us because we're trying to verify and gather data to make sure

[6:08:25] that we're

[6:08:26] offering subsidy to the right families and that we're reducing fraud,

[6:08:30] spending the dollars efficiently and effectively, that kind of thing.

[6:08:37] This program does a lot of work on determining family eligibility,

[6:08:41] issuing provider contracts, and provider payments, and they do a

[6:08:45] great deal of work with that data system.

[6:08:48] We have a team that provides training and technical assistance and operates a

[6:08:52] call center, and that work in that particular section with the data

[6:08:55] system is going to continue to grow.

[6:08:58] As that system is developed, things are added onto it, and then we're going

[6:09:02] to try and take ownership of that and provide that maintenance and operation moving

[6:09:05] forward for that system. Questions about

[6:09:09] anything in subsidy?

[6:09:14] So the things that you're probably hearing about, what we've been in the news

[6:09:18] about recently for childcare subsidy, is about the wait list

[6:09:22] and provider rates. So the wait list had to be implemented on March

[6:09:25] 1st of this year.

[6:09:29] The table breaks down the number of children served and the total payments, as

[6:09:33] well as the wait list numbers for the last half of fiscal year '26.

[6:09:37] A total of

[6:09:38] $174,791,000

[6:09:43] was paid in childcare subsidy during the last half of fiscal year '26.

[6:09:50] An additional piece of this that we're getting ready to take a look at is subsidy

[6:09:54] payment rates are very complex. There are multiple factors that

[6:09:58] determine how much a childcare is paid for each child that they care for.

[6:10:02] The base rates for providers are determined by market rate studies

[6:10:06] that our office conducts every few years.

[6:10:08] The rates differ based on cost and the geographic region that the

[6:10:12] provider is in.

[6:10:14] The rates have fluctuated over the years, and so a hold harmless policy was

[6:10:18] implemented to ensure that providers were never paid less, as their

[6:10:22] market rate study indicated maybe their rates had reduced.

[6:10:27] In addition to those base rates,

[6:10:31] Missouri has offered rate enhancements to increase the quality and

[6:10:34] availability of providers. So we're trying to increase the number of

[6:10:38] spots for children who receive subsidy, and we're trying to incentivize

[6:10:41] providers increasing their quality and the services that they offer through

[6:10:45] these rate enhancements. But as you can see, the cost over time

[6:10:49] to operate this program has increased, and then that in turn limits the number of

[6:10:53] children that can be served with the subsidy.

[6:10:59] One of the tasks that our office has been

[6:11:02] working on is trying to make sure that we're serving as many children as

[6:11:05] possible while also being fair to providers.

[6:11:08] So,

[6:11:11] we explored paying on enrollment versus attendance.

[6:11:14] A lot of providers ask for that. It helps them

[6:11:18] have a better... They can depend on what kind of income's coming versus paying on

[6:11:22] attendance. We did that with a beta group of children, and it was

[6:11:25] much more cost prohibitive than what we had expected.

[6:11:29] So we have returned back to paying on attendance versus enrollment.

[6:11:33] Another thing that providers have asked us to look at is the number of

[6:11:36] allowable absences that they can bill us

[6:11:39] for. But again, all of those decisions, while they may help providers,

[6:11:43] they impact the number of children that we can serve.

[6:11:46] And so that's something that our office is always kind of trying to take into

[6:11:49] consideration when we make those decisions about rates and enhancements

[6:11:53] and how many kids we can serve.

[6:11:57] In fiscal year '27, House Bill 2 introduced language that

[6:12:01] directs us to form a stakeholder group to look directly at

[6:12:05] rate enhancements and provide some feedback for the general assembly about

[6:12:09] our rate enhancements. So we are working right now with the governor's office

[6:12:13] on that stakeholder group. We actually have our kickoff meeting tomorrow, and

[6:12:17] we'll have those recommendations ready for the governor's office and the general

[6:12:20] assembly by November 1st.

[6:12:26] The last kind of larger program or section in our office is

[6:12:29] childcare compliance and regulations.

[6:12:32] And again, this table just kind of shows the different sections and the things

[6:12:36] that compliance and regulations teams looks at.

[6:12:40] This program came from Department of Health and Senior Services.

[6:12:44] DHSS still regulates medical care and facilities

[6:12:48] through safety and health standards, which is primarily what our compliance and

[6:12:51] regulations are about. They also work closely with the other

[6:12:55] programs in our office to support our mission of increasing

[6:12:58] accessibility to high-quality programs in

[6:13:02] early childhood education. They work on licensing new

[6:13:05] providers, they do compliance inspections for licensed

[6:13:08] providers, and they do complaint investigations.

[6:13:12] So as anyone can call in or file a complaint about a

[6:13:15] provider, and so our investigators go out and take a look at that and determine

[6:13:20] if corrective action needs to be taken or that kind of thing.

[6:13:24] This team also reviews the background screenings of childcare workers.

[6:13:28] So we recently stopped paying for background screenings to help reduce

[6:13:32] expenditures, and because that code had gotten out there, I think there was a lot

[6:13:35] of extra screening happening that wasn't coming back to

[6:13:40] increase our workforce in childcare.

[6:13:42] So we stopped paying for that, but this team still reviews that and

[6:13:45] determines if those people are eligible to work in our childcare

[6:13:49] facilities.

[6:13:55] The big project right now, their big news in compliance and

[6:13:59] regulations is Executive Order 2515.

[6:14:02] The order directed DESE and the Office of Childhood to review and revise

[6:14:06] Missouri's childcare licensing rules.

[6:14:09] The order's goal was to reduce the rules by at least 10%

[6:14:13] and make licensing more practical and accessible so that we can, in turn, expand

[6:14:17] the availability of licensed childcare across the state.

[6:14:20] The regulations and compliance team has been working to complete that executive

[6:14:24] order, and they're getting there.

[6:14:25] So very soon, they're going to be ready to come talk to you about the new rules

[6:14:29] and all of the rules that they want to rescind.

[6:14:32] To date, right now, they have already reduced by more than 10%, so

[6:14:36] we feel very good about the new sets of rules that they'll be bringing to you.

[6:14:41] They're going to rescind all of the existing licensing rules.

[6:14:44] There are currently two sets of rules, one for childcare centers and group

[6:14:48] homes, and one for family childcare homes.

[6:14:51] So the new sets of rules that they're going to bring to you are, again, two sets of

[6:14:54] rules. But one is going to be all of the

[6:14:57] family childcare homes and centers, and then the second one is going to be about

[6:15:01] school-age childcare, so for before and after-school programming.

[6:15:05] They think that it's much more readable, going to be much easier to

[6:15:08] navigate for people who are working to get licensed.

[6:15:13] Additionally, this initiative has recently become part of the

[6:15:17] Governor's MO Great Initiative, trying to streamline processes and cut

[6:15:20] out red tape for people. So, we recently submitted a report

[6:15:24] about this work to MO Great as well.

[6:15:30] So, that is a very brief overview. Tried to highlight just the high

[6:15:33] points, things that you might be hearing about.

[6:15:36] Thank you for the opportunity to share with you today.

[6:15:39] I am happy to try to answer questions, or if there's something you want

[6:15:42] more information about, I'm happy to

[6:15:46] gather that and get back with you.

[6:15:50] All right. Go ahead, John.

[6:15:52] I just had a quick question.

[6:15:53] Yep.

[6:15:53] If you could go back to slide number five.

[6:15:58] I'm looking at the year-over-year

[6:16:02] pre-K spots requested and then pre-K spots

[6:16:06] funded.

[6:16:08] It looks like for this year coming up, not even

[6:16:12] half of the spots were funded.

[6:16:16] Does funding come from somewhere else, or do

[6:16:20] those kids just not get to go to daycare?

[6:16:22] It depends.

[6:16:23] So this is about preschool, specifically pre-K, so the four-year-olds

[6:16:27] right before kindergarten entry.

[6:16:30] So the LEAs that are requesting it, some of them are going to fund it if their

[6:16:33] budget allows, but lots of them are going to not have that option.

[6:16:37] And so those spots won't be offered through those school districts for many of

[6:16:41] them. The childcare providers will likely still

[6:16:45] offer those spots, but that cost will go back to the parent.

[6:16:48] They'll have to pay for that slot.

[6:16:50] And then if the

[6:16:54] LEA doesn't have the funds to offer that spot, then

[6:16:58] those kids or parents would then have to go to the

[6:17:02] childcare centers?

[6:17:03] They would have to find another option for preschool, or unfortunately, their kiddo

[6:17:07] wouldn't have preschool.

[6:17:09] Okay. And just for going back to our budget,

[6:17:13] this fund comes out of our

[6:17:16] budget, or is this a grant from somewhere else?

[6:17:18] I need Kyle to-

[6:17:19] It's our budget.

[6:17:20] All right.

[6:17:20] I think I know the answer, but I don't want to speak incorrectly.

[6:17:30] These lines, Kyle Kruse, deputy commissioner of financial administrative services.

[6:17:34] These lines are in our budget, and our budget request was

[6:17:38] reduced during the legislative process, and

[6:17:42] a resulting impact is the fewer

[6:17:45] spots being funded, both for LEAs and at childcare providers.

[6:17:50] Okay.

[6:17:51] We should put a pin in this

[6:17:56] when we talk about our budget for when we have our special budget

[6:17:59] meeting. Because to me, this is the foundation stuff that we always talk

[6:18:03] about. It's scientifically proven that pre-K helps

[6:18:07] kids do better.

[6:18:08] Absolutely.

[6:18:08] If we're cutting funding, it's-

[6:18:11] May I-

[6:18:11] ... shooting ourselves in the foot, it seems like.

[6:18:13] And definitely adding onto that discussion,

[6:18:17] Kyle, mentioning that we no longer will be paying on

[6:18:21] enrollment. We're going back to paying on attendance.

[6:18:25] For childcare spots.

[6:18:27] If I could expand a moment on that situation.

[6:18:30] Yeah.

[6:18:30] Historically, childcare subsidies have been paid on attendance, and that

[6:18:34] is when the kid's in attendance and for up to five

[6:18:37] absences per month, the childcare provider could bill and receive payment.

[6:18:42] There was an effort,

[6:18:45] the federal government

[6:18:47] basically instructed states to move towards paying on enrollment, which

[6:18:51] is paying for all the days of a month for a kid to be

[6:18:55] there, and there were minimal requirements for students to actually be in

[6:18:59] the room. But,

[6:19:02] with the change of the administration, the pay-on-enrollment push

[6:19:06] has been rescinded, so it's no longer really a

[6:19:10] push of the federal government. There had also been a move to

[6:19:13] pay on

[6:19:16] prospective pay, pay at the beginning of the month instead of the end of the month,

[6:19:20] and that's also been taken back. So through the legislative process

[6:19:23] this year-

[6:19:25] The Missouri legislature actually

[6:19:27] has essentially stated, "We're going to stay with pay on attendance."

[6:19:31] If funds are available, DESE may have some leeway to

[6:19:35] move from paying for a maximum of five absences per child per month

[6:19:39] to six or seven, up to 10. However, there are budgetary

[6:19:43] constraints on what is actually possible.

[6:19:46] So we are working very hard to stay within the, I think

[6:19:50] it's a total $343 million budget for these childcare subsidy

[6:19:54] payments.

[6:19:55] And when you serve more kids, there's only so many ways to get

[6:19:59] that paid for. You either have to reduce rates, or make some changes

[6:20:03] to enhancements, or some changes to other parts of the

[6:20:07] program. And I think

[6:20:09] what Jocelyn referenced also was the budget language has

[6:20:12] instructed them to create a group to study rate

[6:20:16] enhancements and see what is the appropriate level, and report to the

[6:20:20] governor.

[6:20:22] Commissioner Priest.

[6:20:23] That's actually just what I was going to point out, is that that group that

[6:20:27] Jocelyn is working with, they've been charged with, "You have this pot of money,

[6:20:31] make it go as far as you can." And so that's what they're going to be doing is

[6:20:35] really examining the rate enhancements that are given to providers to try to get

[6:20:39] more children off that wait list and being served. So...

[6:20:43] Thank you.

[6:20:43] Mm-hmm.

[6:20:44] And while timing is everything, the output of that is not

[6:20:48] yet... The budget amount is

[6:20:51] what the budget amount is within our current budget.

[6:20:54] We have asked for additional

[6:21:00] budget for childcare, if I look back.

[6:21:03] We'll not go into that, but I guess the importance of that

[6:21:07] exercise and how it plays into what we ask for in the budget.

[6:21:11] If you could look at that very closely to see if there's anything else we need to

[6:21:15] address based on that review.

[6:21:16] We'll be watching very closely.

[6:21:18] Yeah.

[6:21:18] Yes.

[6:21:20] Is that all state general revenue money?

[6:21:23] I believe this one is. The childcare subsidy is not

[6:21:27] entirely state general revenue. I would need to go double-check this one.

[6:21:31] But I believe it's all or mostly GR.

[6:21:34] You mean MO QPK is mostly GR?

[6:21:36] Yes.

[6:21:37] Yes. The childcare subsidy is substantially federal.

[6:21:40] Correct.

[6:21:40] There is some state match as well.

[6:21:43] Mr. Petusek.

[6:21:46] So,

[6:21:48] I

[6:21:49] know a school district that has a

[6:21:53] half-day pre-K program, and there's 40, 50,

[6:21:57] 60 students in it, and it's relatively small.

[6:22:00] There's a wait list, I think, to get in it, and it's not a full-day thing.

[6:22:05] And I think the rate is

[6:22:08] not a market rate, right? So it's whatever,

[6:22:11] let's say it's 500 bucks a month or something.

[6:22:13] District can set...

[6:22:15] And there are lots of different ways that districts can pay for their preschool

[6:22:18] program. So for example, the district that I was at, we used Title I funds,

[6:22:23] and we had a half-day program. We didn't charge.

[6:22:26] I know there are other districts that'll put them on a sliding scale, so they'll

[6:22:29] set a daily tuition rate, and they'll charge the parents based on that sliding

[6:22:33] scale and their income. And then there are some that are able to offer

[6:22:37] it free of charge. And that, I think, that's the intent of MO

[6:22:40] QPK is trying to increase the number of full-day spots.

[6:22:43] That's a lot of the feedback that we receive.

[6:22:45] Those half-day spots are hard for parents to navigate.

[6:22:49] So trying to increase the availability of pre-K, but also a full-day

[6:22:53] spot and fund it.

[6:22:55] Schools can also actually

[6:22:58] turn in some pre-K attendance for formula dollars, and

[6:23:02] that is, they're allowed to

[6:23:05] claim for formula dollars up to 8% in

[6:23:09] number of their free reduced lunch population as pre-K students.

[6:23:12] So there is some formula money available.

[6:23:15] But as Jocelyn said, it's a mixture of ways in which districts

[6:23:19] fund pre-K.

[6:23:22] So

[6:23:23] if the

[6:23:25] rate in a school district for whatever their pre-K

[6:23:29] program is, is say, $500 a month, right?

[6:23:32] I'm just making numbers up. Is that 500 paid from

[6:23:36] this? Or do the parents pay that 500, and this makes up

[6:23:40] the difference to the district for what it actually costs?

[6:23:44] If they receive this grant, they're probably using it to make up the difference

[6:23:48] of what that cost-

[6:23:48] To make up the difference.

[6:23:49] Mm-hmm.

[6:23:49] So if it's going to an LEA that has a half-day or whatever their pre-K program

[6:23:53] looks like, this is making up the difference between what they're charging and what

[6:23:57] it actually costs. Okay. Thank you.

[6:23:59] This grant

[6:24:01] is separate from childcare subsidy.

[6:24:04] So the subsidy is going to pay... That's birth through school age

[6:24:08] and beyond, for after-school care that children are eligible for, and then

[6:24:12] the rate is paid per kiddo.

[6:24:16] The provider gets an extra rate if the child has a special need, that kind of

[6:24:19] thing. But the childcare subsidy is separate from

[6:24:23] the MO QPK.

[6:24:25] And that is separate from the formula claiming for pre-K.

[6:24:29] They're all separate pots, and they're not supposed to overlap. No double-dipping.

[6:24:34] Thank you.

[6:24:37] How important is pre-K?

[6:24:39] It's extremely important.

[6:24:41] Why?

[6:24:41] You guys,

[6:24:42] that's where their brains are developing. They're learning to regulate.

[6:24:45] We talked a little bit earlier about behaviors and the increase

[6:24:49] there. We talked about literacy, all of their

[6:24:53] development, their language skills, their early literacy skills.

[6:24:56] All of that's happening before they turn five, and so they need

[6:25:00] lots of exposure, lots of conversation.

[6:25:04] They need to be around peers that are giving them appropriate models and

[6:25:08] that interaction.

[6:25:11] Early childhood is so important, and

[6:25:14] I don't think that we have enough of it.

[6:25:16] And I don't know that that's an easy solution.

[6:25:20] But coming from a school district, I know that that was crucial.

[6:25:24] You could tell,

[6:25:26] halfway through kindergarten, it was still obvious who had had some good

[6:25:30] exposure and early childhood experiences and who had not.

[6:25:37] Yeah. I wanted you to come here

[6:25:40] because- ... I believe in it as well.

[6:25:43] I think it's extremely important.

[6:25:45] But it kind of came from a question from Mike Matusik, because he was

[6:25:49] doing, on your committee,

[6:25:53] the strategic plan.

[6:25:57] You asked me the question, where does early childhood go,

[6:26:01] and is it part of the strategic plan?

[6:26:04] Remember that you asked me that?

[6:26:05] Yeah.

[6:26:05] I think that

[6:26:07] because we've never had you in here, because we weren't really clear

[6:26:11] of the relationship that existed-

[6:26:13] Sure

[6:26:13] ... and things like that, I thought it was important for us to have you come in.

[6:26:18] Put a face with a-

[6:26:19] Yeah. I appreciate the opportunity.

[6:26:21] I think,

[6:26:24] as a state, no matter where our kiddos are, we can't mandate where

[6:26:28] they're at before they are school age.

[6:26:31] So, I think that's a lot of the work in our early learning division, in our office,

[6:26:35] is trying to make sure that no matter where they're at, they have opportunities to

[6:26:38] learn. So, we have programs that work with parents.

[6:26:41] So, if they're a kiddo who's taken care of at home, that's great.

[6:26:44] But how can we support that parent so they understand how to help their

[6:26:48] child grow, how to make sure that their child is receiving those language and early

[6:26:52] literacy skills that they need for the rest of their school career.

[6:26:56] And then that's the work also with the childcare providers.

[6:26:59] Our school districts recognize, I think, the importance of early learning,

[6:27:03] but the funding isn't always there for them.

[6:27:05] So, that's different by district, what they can afford.

[6:27:09] And then learning to navigate the different funding sources that are available to

[6:27:12] them is sometimes tricky for school districts.

[6:27:15] And then our childcare providers, when we're thinking about regulation,

[6:27:19] licensing, that's the minimum standard of health and

[6:27:22] safety. But what we really want to get at is making sure that they're offering

[6:27:26] great early learning experiences, and that they're working to develop that whole

[6:27:29] child, so that when they get to kindergarten, they can regulate

[6:27:33] themselves. Their brains are ready to learn.

[6:27:35] They have some of those early experiences to connect new learning to when

[6:27:39] they get there.

[6:27:44] Well, thank you for your presentation.

[6:27:45] Yep. Thank you.

[6:27:45] Very much appreciate it.

[6:27:47] Thank you.

[6:27:55] Up next, we have Lisa Sereno with regards

[6:27:58] to school safety.

[6:28:21] All right. We're going to give you

[6:28:25] control. Okay. Thank you. Again, Lisa Sereno,

[6:28:29] Deputy Commissioner for Learning Services.

[6:28:33] I would like to just give you a brief

[6:28:36] introduction for our presentation here

[6:28:40] this afternoon regarding unsafe schools, and the

[6:28:43] definition, or school safety and the definition of persistently

[6:28:47] dangerous schools. I would like to thank the

[6:28:50] board, in particular Member Matusik, for

[6:28:55] raising this to our attention.

[6:28:59] School safety, as we all are aware, is so important,

[6:29:03] and that safe and healthy environment, so that

[6:29:06] students

[6:29:08] can learn and teachers can teach.

[6:29:12] There are a number of provisions,

[6:29:16] laws,

[6:29:17] policies that cover school safety in

[6:29:21] Missouri and around the country.

[6:29:24] Today, our presentation is going to focus on some requirements in

[6:29:28] federal law and how we interpret them here in Missouri.

[6:29:33] So,

[6:29:34] just to give you a little bit of background before I introduce our

[6:29:38] guest speakers.

[6:29:40] I just want to give a little framing.

[6:29:43] We're here to talk about what's called the Unsafe School

[6:29:48] Choice Option. It's a provision in federal

[6:29:51] law. The No Child Left Behind Act

[6:29:55] in 2002 first

[6:29:59] required states to define persistently dangerous

[6:30:03] schools. So, that's been around for a while.

[6:30:07] And then the Every Student Succeeds Act in

[6:30:10] 2015 added some requirements onto

[6:30:15] that to provide options for

[6:30:18] students who either were a victim of violence in

[6:30:22] school or who attended schools

[6:30:26] that had been

[6:30:29] designated as persistently dangerous, to give them an

[6:30:33] option to attend another safe school.

[6:30:39] The federal law leaves the definition of

[6:30:43] what's persistently dangerous up to the states,

[6:30:47] and each state defines it a little bit

[6:30:50] differently. Not very many states actually

[6:30:54] have definitions that result in designating persistently

[6:30:58] dangerous schools. So, that's what we're going to hear a little

[6:31:02] bit about today.

[6:31:06] Also,

[6:31:08] over

[6:31:10] the years since these federal provisions came into

[6:31:14] effect, our colleagues at the US Department of Education

[6:31:18] have periodically reminded us of our responsibility as

[6:31:22] states. And we did receive, last year from

[6:31:26] the US Department of Education, that reminder that,

[6:31:30] "Remember, periodically, take a look at this definition.

[6:31:34] Take a look at the data."

[6:31:36] All with an eye toward making sure that our students are safe in

[6:31:40] schools. So, with that little bit of

[6:31:43] preamble, and thank you for your patience with that,

[6:31:47] I'd like to introduce Corey Codell and Rhiannon Lee.

[6:31:52] And they're here to just give us some background, talk about the

[6:31:56] data that are available, and some thoughts on that definition of

[6:32:00] persistently dangerous schools.

[6:32:03] Thanks, Lisa. Hi, everyone. Some familiar faces, some folks I haven't met yet.

[6:32:07] It's

[6:32:08] nice to be here.

[6:32:09] I'm Corey Codell. I'm the Education Policy Director at the Show-Me Institute.

[6:32:13] I'm also a professor at the University of Missouri.

[6:32:16] Lisa did a nice job covering

[6:32:19] some of the basics, so I can maybe go a little faster over some of this stuff.

[6:32:22] But the Unsafe School Choice Option is a provision of federal law.

[6:32:25] It requires each state to establish and implement a policy to ensure students

[6:32:30] who attend persistently dangerous schools have an alternative option.

[6:32:33] So, the goal is to not trap kids in schools that are

[6:32:36] dangerous, which seems like a very reasonable goal.

[6:32:41] Do you guys have handouts for me? Did that happen, Stacy?

[6:32:44] Stacy's looking at me like I'm crazy for asking her.

[6:32:47] Did-

[6:32:47] I included some handouts that should've been in your packet.

[6:32:50] You shouldn't be able to read this slide.

[6:32:52] I see you guys flipping, but maybe...

[6:32:55] If we didn't, we will take care of that. I didn't get anything coming to me, so.

[6:32:59] Okay. I-

[6:32:59] It was in the books.

[6:33:01] Okay, maybe you have it.

[6:33:02] It is?

[6:33:04] I apologize if you don't. I actually have copies in my car, but that's not doing us

[6:33:07] much good right now.

[6:33:09] Blue folder.

[6:33:11] So, I did-

[6:33:13] Oh, the blue-

[6:33:14] Oh, this stuff's closed session stuff.

[6:33:15] Yeah.

[6:33:16] No, this is just letters, right?

[6:33:18] No, it's not.

[6:33:18] Yeah.

[6:33:18] It's not.

[6:33:19] Correspondence is the blue folder, so.

[6:33:20] Well, this is a bust.

[6:33:23] No, it's...

[6:33:24] Okay, the handouts were never delivered. Okay. I have them in my car.

[6:33:27] Maybe I'll go back and get them after I talk, and I can at least distribute them to

[6:33:30] you. So for now, you'll have to just take my word because there's no way you can

[6:33:33] read this slide. But this is the first page of the letter that

[6:33:37] Lisa was referencing that the federal government sent to all the state school

[6:33:40] chiefs last May. You'll have the letter by the end of the

[6:33:44] day one way or another. Two main things about the letter that I want to point out

[6:33:48] to you, and you're welcome to look at all of it.

[6:33:49] One is, as Lisa alluded to, a big push of the letter is

[6:33:53] that most states are essential--

[6:33:58] Well, how do I want...

[6:34:00] I'll say that they're circumventing the law by

[6:34:02] setting a definition of persistently dangerous schools, which no school is

[6:34:06] ever identified. And Missouri is one of those many states.

[6:34:09] And so, since 2002, we have never had a

[6:34:13] persistently dangerous school identified in Missouri.

[6:34:16] So that doesn't hold a lot of face validity to me, and it's true of a lot of

[6:34:20] states. I believe there's only five states that have actually identified a

[6:34:22] persistently dangerous school. Another thing in the letter that's notable given the

[6:34:26] Missouri context is it urges states to consider using

[6:34:30] definitions of a persistently dangerous school based on violent incidents

[6:34:34] and not responses to violent incidents.

[6:34:36] So, a violent incident is an assault, bringing a weapon to

[6:34:40] school, something like that. A response is a suspension or expulsion.

[6:34:44] So we want to capture the incidents, not necessarily the responses.

[6:34:48] And so, that's going to feed into my next slide about what Missouri's doing.

[6:34:51] So, Missouri's current definition of a persistently dangerous school is a

[6:34:55] "and" condition, so there's two requirements.

[6:34:57] One, there must be a gun-free schools violation or act of violence each

[6:35:01] year for three consecutive years, and there must be a certain number of

[6:35:05] expulsions that are determined based on the size of the school, so

[6:35:09] some sort of enrollment-based thresholds.

[6:35:11] The fundamental issue is Missouri schools don't expel kids in any meaningful

[6:35:15] numbers, and so, that's the reason that no schools are ever identified as

[6:35:19] persistently dangerous. That's the piece of the rule that's never catching any

[6:35:23] schools. It also goes against this best practices idea of not

[6:35:27] using the policy response to count issues.

[6:35:30] It's rather you want to count incidents.

[6:35:32] So, the bottom line is we're not designating any persistently dangerous schools.

[6:35:35] We're not alone in this, but we're not doing it.

[6:35:38] This part of the presentation, what we were hoping to do, is present to you some

[6:35:41] data on what kind of incidents or violent incidents are happening in schools

[6:35:45] across Missouri. I've had some nice conversations with

[6:35:49] the folks at DESE about this, but the data right now just don't seem reliable,

[6:35:53] and we were reluctant to put the data up on the screen because hard numbers

[6:35:56] gives this sense of confidence, and we didn't want to give a false sense of

[6:35:59] confidence. So, there's a lot of weird inconsistencies in the data.

[6:36:03] I spent a lot of time doing data analysis work.

[6:36:05] I'm very used to looking at data, and I just didn't quite trust the data.

[6:36:08] But I will say, there's some indicators in there that there's some schools with

[6:36:11] some violence problems. So University City Senior High is an example

[6:36:15] of a high school that seemed to have pretty reasonable data.

[6:36:19] Over a three-year period, 51 violent incidents and 21 weapons violations.

[6:36:23] That does not sound like a very safe school.

[6:36:25] There's other indicators outside of the data.

[6:36:28] So,

[6:36:29] the St. Louis Post-Dispatch covered a petition that staff

[6:36:33] and teachers at Vashon High sent to the school district about safety,

[6:36:37] talking about the conditions aren't suitable for learning for the students.

[6:36:40] They don't have clear policies in place, they don't have consequences for

[6:36:44] behaviors, and they don't have effective building leadership.

[6:36:46] So, there is concern, there's indication out there that there's some safety

[6:36:50] issues. And this is where I'm going to pass the talk over to my colleague,

[6:36:53] Rhiannon Lee, here. And she has worked as an advocate in Columbia for

[6:36:57] many years, and in the absence of hard data, she's talked to a lot of people,

[6:37:01] and she's going to talk to us a little bit about what she's heard on the ground,

[6:37:04] and then I'll jump back in with the presentation.

[6:37:07] Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you for allowing me to speak.

[6:37:10] Like Corey had mentioned, the data on violence in Missouri schools is not

[6:37:14] reliable, so we aren't really feeling comfortable about sharing those hard

[6:37:18] numbers with you right now.

[6:37:20] But as an advocate in the Columbia area,

[6:37:23] I have heard from families, educators, and students about incidents occurring in

[6:37:27] our schools that go far beyond what should be happening or considered normal

[6:37:31] for childhood behavior. For example, since approximately

[6:37:34] 2022, advocates in the area have encountered reports involving

[6:37:38] students and staff suffering serious injuries, including

[6:37:42] fractured skulls, broken jaws, broken teeth...

[6:37:45] chemical burns, stab wounds from a hypodermic needle,

[6:37:49] lacerations, scalp lacerations, including that needed stitches,

[6:37:53] and broken ribs. I also have reported a report from a teacher in

[6:37:57] Columbia who shared with me that in separate incidences, she had been choked while

[6:38:01] pregnant and also had a student hold up scissors to her stomach to threaten to cut

[6:38:05] out her baby. The same teacher told me that she, along with the other

[6:38:08] educators she worked with, have physically intervened in at least 30 fights

[6:38:12] since 2023. School safety is an important issue, and we cannot

[6:38:16] expect students to learn if they are not safe.

[6:38:20] Thank you for taking on this issue.

[6:38:23] I should mention we're both available for Q&A if you guys have questions after.

[6:38:26] So,

[6:38:28] basically I'm going to go on and talk a little bit about what this body, DESE, can

[6:38:32] do to address this issue. But any serious effort to do this

[6:38:36] is going to require dealing with the fact that we don't have good data right now,

[6:38:39] so we're going to have to have some sort of response to that to fix that

[6:38:42] fundamental problem. If we can get some data that we can

[6:38:46] trust, what can we do about this? We can change the rule of how we define

[6:38:50] persistently dangerous school in Missouri to protect children who are trapped in

[6:38:53] these schools. A smart rule is going to be based on incidents and not school

[6:38:56] responses, and it's going to take a careful approach not to over-identify

[6:39:00] schools. I just want to be clear. I think right now we're erring on one side, and

[6:39:04] we're not identifying any schools as dangerous, which I don't think is the right

[6:39:08] place to be. There can be a knee-jerk reaction to overreact in those kind of

[6:39:11] settings and maybe set too strong of a rule and cause a lot of disruption we don't

[6:39:15] need to

[6:39:16] cause. So,

[6:39:17] we need some care with this.

[6:39:19] So,

[6:39:21] with the caveat that we're not legal experts, and again, it's going to be bad

[6:39:23] because I was counting on a handout for you guys, but I have a handout again that

[6:39:27] I'll make sure I get to you before the end of the day, with a suggestion

[6:39:30] for language you could use to adjust the rule.

[6:39:34] So, the language we're suggesting is that a persistently dangerous

[6:39:38] school will be defined as a school that in each of two consecutive years

[6:39:42] has a gun-free schools violation and has a certain number of

[6:39:45] violent incidents based on enrollment.

[6:39:48] And so the rule that we have in mind is two incidents per 100

[6:39:51] students

[6:39:53] up to a cap of 750 students. And so if you go

[6:39:56] to 750 students, that would be 15 incidents, and our thinking is

[6:40:00] anything over 15 incidents is just going to be a dangerous school, even if you have

[6:40:04] more than 750 students. I would love for these to be

[6:40:08] data-driven recommendations, but since we don't have data we can trust, they're

[6:40:12] not. If nothing else, they're a starting point for you guys to think about how you

[6:40:15] might want to do this. But these are the numbers that seem reasonable to us.

[6:40:20] The acts of violence and violent behavior, these are terms that you have to

[6:40:24] define. It turns out they're already defined in the core data in

[6:40:28] MOSIS reference manual. There is another sheet in the hand-- Oh, there's another

[6:40:32] sheet in a handout. Maybe the handout's going around now. Excellent. Look at that.

[6:40:35] All right. On maybe the back of our recommendation, there

[6:40:39] is the page out of the MOSIS reference manual where

[6:40:43] violent incidents, let's see, acts of school violence and violent behavior are

[6:40:47] defined. They're synonymous with unsafe school

[6:40:50] violations. And so you can see the full list that's already in the manual.

[6:40:53] Our idea is you would just use that list as it already exists.

[6:40:58] If you look closely at that list, you will see there are some

[6:41:01] transgressions on there that we could quibble about whether it's violent,

[6:41:04] dealing drugs and things like this.

[6:41:07] So you could use a subset of the list, and then you might change the

[6:41:11] counts for the instances you'd want to use for the recommended numbers we give

[6:41:15] here. But give-- Yes.

[6:41:17] So I'm pulling up the statute right now, but

[6:41:23] looking at it,

[6:41:25] would a violent, an act of school violent or violent behavior--

[6:41:30] It doesn't look like it. I don't know.

[6:41:35] Would that be like your run-of-the-mill school fight?

[6:41:38] So-

[6:41:38] Or would it be if a fight sort of escalated to

[6:41:42] something where a student was seriously injured, or a weapon was

[6:41:46] used?

[6:41:46] I think there's a fair

[6:41:50] amount of discretion in some of these instances where-- And I'm not

[6:41:54] an expert on what people at school personnel are going to do.

[6:41:56] Certainly, there's some level where a fight would elevate to an assault, and

[6:42:00] there's probably some level where they would decide it didn't.

[6:42:04] But I do think there's going to be some discretion on an incident-by-incident basis

[6:42:08] as to what school personnel are going to report.

[6:42:11] This may or may not be the source of your question, Mike, but it could be feeding

[6:42:14] into the question of how are we going to develop reporting guidelines that we can

[6:42:17] trust.

[6:42:19] There are certain thresholds where you could require reporting, for example, if the

[6:42:22] police have to be called or if certain types of things happen

[6:42:26] that require notifying building personnel and things like that.

[6:42:29] But there is going to be a gray area in this about what a violent

[6:42:33] act is. I don't know.

[6:42:34] And local school boards would generally have a policy in place that says when the

[6:42:38] administration is supposed to contact-

[6:42:41] Enforcement

[6:42:41] ... yeah, law enforcement. That's

[6:42:44] for the most part, or?

[6:42:45] There are some statutory requirements for reporting to law

[6:42:49] enforcement, and then there are also some requirements for board

[6:42:52] policy around other reporting and disclosures, yeah.

[6:42:59] Okay. So I want to talk a little bit about Arkansas.

[6:43:02] Arkansas, and

[6:43:03] I guess I'll say... Oh, are we okay?

[6:43:06] Arkansas, I think, is the only state I'm aware of that

[6:43:10] is implementing this with some degree of,

[6:43:15] I want to say fidelity. I can't even say that much.

[6:43:17] They're the only ones that are meaningfully identifying unsafe schools.

[6:43:21] I'll get to some numbers in a second.

[6:43:23] I'll just say them now since I'm thinking of it, but I believe in '23,

[6:43:27] '24, 25 schools across the country were identified as

[6:43:30] persistently dangerous. 15 of those were in Arkansas.

[6:43:33] So they have a real rule. And they do things a little differently

[6:43:37] than what we're suggesting, and again, it's a soft suggestion because we don't

[6:43:41] have great data, but they have a narrower definition of violent incidents.

[6:43:45] You could certainly take the list that you're starting with DESE, and you could

[6:43:48] pare it down and kind of mimic their approach there.

[6:43:52] The other thing about Arkansas, the top bullet there is some numbers

[6:43:56] on there identifying persistently dangerous schools.

[6:43:59] The language we provided to you follows in the language that we already had in

[6:44:03] Missouri, which is a trigger to identify a persistently dangerous school.

[6:44:07] If you have a certain number of things happen, you're a persistently dangerous

[6:44:09] school. What Arkansas does is their criteria trigger a

[6:44:13] process. So if you have a certain number of incidents that

[6:44:18] are problematic, then the superintendent and local school

[6:44:21] board can submit a letter to Arkansas's Department of Elementary and

[6:44:25] Secondary Education. The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education reviews

[6:44:29] that letter, talks to other LEAs, and makes some sort of decision.

[6:44:33] So the events trigger a process, not

[6:44:35] a hard hit. And going

[6:44:39] back to the question earlier, you might have a situation, maybe there's a big brawl

[6:44:42] at school and 30 kids get charged with assault, but things

[6:44:46] don't usually happen that are bad.

[6:44:47] Maybe that's an incident where you would have a special circumstance where a school

[6:44:51] might meet the number, but not be something you'd want to designate as persistently

[6:44:54] dangerous. At any rate, something like that could be done.

[6:44:59] You just want to maintain a rigorous process that does not allow persistently

[6:45:02] dangerous schools to continue to get a pass.

[6:45:04] And that is all we prepared. There's our contact information, and we're happy to

[6:45:08] take any questions if folks have them.

[6:45:13] Yeah, just a couple of comments really for the board.

[6:45:17] I think we all talk with people

[6:45:21] about any number of issues all the time, right?

[6:45:24] And

[6:45:25] I know I've had a couple of conversations with Corey over the last year about a

[6:45:29] number of issues, and

[6:45:31] this was one that

[6:45:33] really got my interest. I thought, well, here's this

[6:45:37] requirement that there's never been a designation of an

[6:45:41] unsafe school in Missouri and most states, right, as Corey

[6:45:45] said.

[6:45:49] So part of adding this to

[6:45:53] the agenda was I thought it was something that the full board would be

[6:45:57] interested in at least hearing about,

[6:46:00] and then also show the board that we have a process now where any board

[6:46:04] member can add something to the agenda, right?

[6:46:06] If you're meeting with someone and you think it's an issue that the

[6:46:10] board should hear about,

[6:46:12] add it to the agenda, and that's kind of part of this.

[6:46:15] But one of the things that Corey and I, what really got me was I think

[6:46:19] our initial discussion was,

[6:46:22] well, if a school has expelled 10 people,

[6:46:26] is that a dangerous school, right?

[6:46:28] It's more maybe the schools that have these incidences

[6:46:32] that are not expelling students. And I

[6:46:35] think that is what Corey and

[6:46:39] Rhiannon are kind of getting at here is

[6:46:42] how do we

[6:46:45] find a balance there, right? And I know Corey and I were talking about these

[6:46:48] numbers, and it's just a starting point, right? It's an idea.

[6:46:52] It could be tweaked if it ever goes to a rulemaking or whatever that

[6:46:55] process looks like. But again, I thought this was an interesting one.

[6:46:59] I agree completely. If you don't have a safe

[6:47:04] learning environment and you have fights or assaults or people

[6:47:08] bringing weapons to school, how the hell can a student learn in an environment like

[6:47:12] that? And so,

[6:47:14] we know that little disruptions in the classroom, right, create a lot of

[6:47:18] issues for everyone, and some of these where there is violence involved.

[6:47:23] So I thought it was an interesting issue

[6:47:25] that they brought up, and that's why I wanted to put it on the agenda, just so

[6:47:29] people could hear it. And in my opinion, it's something we really have two

[6:47:33] choices, right? We just do nothing and leave it where it's

[6:47:37] at and sort of disregard or ignore what

[6:47:41] the federal requirements say,

[6:47:44] or we actually take a look at it and see if there's a way we can look at what other

[6:47:47] states have done and address it in some meaningful way.

[6:47:50] So that was really why I thought this was a good agenda item,

[6:47:53] and want to thank you both for coming and presenting on this.

[6:47:56] I think it's a good issue.

[6:47:59] So,

[6:48:01] Mrs. Case.

[6:48:02] Thank you. First of all, Corey, great to see you again, and very nice to meet you,

[6:48:06] and thank you for the presentation.

[6:48:07] Mike, I think it's great, and thank you for driving this.

[6:48:11] And it definitely just underscores, even from a budget discussion,

[6:48:15] what we need to do about student behavior in the classroom.

[6:48:18] While there's

[6:48:22] overlapping between just general student behavior

[6:48:26] and things we need to address there versus the safe

[6:48:30] school initiatives and the rule that we're talking about here.

[6:48:34] But it also coincides with what we mentioned earlier we're seeing in other

[6:48:38] states that are addressing bullying.

[6:48:39] Again, only one aspect of what's going on in schools,

[6:48:43] potentially. So it is an area that's very important, and everything

[6:48:47] is connected, and I'm grateful that you brought it forward.

[6:48:51] Yeah.

[6:48:53] Dr. Shaw.

[6:48:54] Just a thought for conversation.

[6:48:57] When you mentioned Arkansas and what they were doing, just from a healthcare

[6:49:00] perspective, it kind of reminds me of quality and safety committees

[6:49:04] and the system and organization. We talk a lot about

[6:49:07] quality, and this is the safety aspect.

[6:49:10] So in a hospital structure

[6:49:13] that has a bigger tier,

[6:49:15] you'll have a patient fall or someone have

[6:49:19] a low blood sugar or a seizure,

[6:49:22] name your issue or outcome,

[6:49:25] and then

[6:49:26] if you do it right, that event happens, you have a team either on the

[6:49:30] floor or the hallway or wherever that comes together and has a huddle

[6:49:34] that minute, and then later talks about it, takes it up the flag

[6:49:38] pole, says, "Okay, what could we have done? How did this escalate?

[6:49:41] Why did this happen?" So if it's a fight,

[6:49:44] what's the deal with that kid? Behaviors previously.

[6:49:47] Is it a hallway encroachment? Did the kid bring a weapon to school?

[6:49:50] How could we have kept that from happening? Is it a doorway issue?

[6:49:54] 20,000 things, but it's just a system approach that

[6:49:57] maybe it would go to legislative priorities committee or something else

[6:50:01] to kind of start that conversation.

[6:50:04] Yeah, absolutely. And as a parent with two kids

[6:50:08] in school, school safety is-

[6:50:11] Mm

[6:50:12] ... every day I drop my kids off at school, right?

[6:50:14] I want to be sure I can pick them up in the afternoon.

[6:50:17] And I'm fortunate that we were in the Platte County School District,

[6:50:21] pretty safe school district. We live in Park Hill, right?

[6:50:25] Probably has their share of fights, but it's

[6:50:28] what, 14,000 students or something. So it's a big district.

[6:50:32] You're going to expect fights and things like that, but

[6:50:35] I imagine... To me, this was like

[6:50:39] accreditation in a sense, and I'll tell you why.

[6:50:42] So,

[6:50:43] the

[6:50:47] worst-performing school districts in the state are

[6:50:51] unaccredited, right? Generally speaking.

[6:50:53] And this is kind of the same thing, right?

[6:50:55] There's going to be schools that are dangerous, and they've

[6:50:59] never had that designation, and students are just stuck.

[6:51:04] And maybe in Kansas City and St. Louis, it's a little

[6:51:08] different because there is that charter school option already.

[6:51:13] But

[6:51:16] I just think this is a worthwhile issue.

[6:51:19] I think it's something... It doesn't require legislative action.

[6:51:23] It's something that the board could direct DESE to.

[6:51:25] I'm not saying that's what we should do, but

[6:51:28] for consideration and for next steps, it could be something the

[6:51:31] legislative committee takes a look at, or one of the other committees,

[6:51:35] to see if this is something that we want to try and clean up.

[6:51:39] And what kind of a lift it is, how much does it cost?

[6:51:42] How long does the rulemaking process take?

[6:51:44] I just think this is something that I think

[6:51:48] is worthy of our consideration. So, and I would leave it with, it'd be nice

[6:51:52] to leave here with

[6:51:55] not any sort of guarantee on anything, but a potential next

[6:51:59] step, right? Is it the committee looking at it?

[6:52:01] Or is it, maybe in a couple of months, we just kind of revisit it to see if

[6:52:05] people have had time to think about it, and so...

[6:52:09] Yeah, just to follow up. I think this is a good example of kind of

[6:52:13] more of the administrative or quote, unquote, "boring stuff" that DESE is

[6:52:17] responsible for. But,

[6:52:19] no, I think 100%, this is something that the legislative committee

[6:52:22] should

[6:52:24] discuss and then come to the board

[6:52:28] with a recommendation at one of our next meetings and say, "Hey, we looked at this,

[6:52:32] we did some research, and we think this is

[6:52:34] something that we should fix." And then we would just direct the

[6:52:38] department to go through the regular rulemaking process, which

[6:52:42] we have outlined. And that's when we

[6:52:46] reviewed one today, for example.

[6:52:48] I'll visit with Commissioner Priest to see if we need legislation.

[6:52:51] I don't know that we-

[6:52:52] No, there isn't that.

[6:52:52] I don't know that we need it to enact, but I'll work with the commissioner on that.

[6:52:56] Yeah. No, we don't, and I was just going to say one thing.

[6:53:00] Were you finished?

[6:53:01] Yeah. No, I was just saying that that's kind of what our rulemaking-

[6:53:04] Yeah

[6:53:04] ... process that we- ... don't really talk about that much, but that's one of our

[6:53:07] big duties with... Like I said, it was on our agenda earlier.

[6:53:10] We reviewed one. So this would fall under that

[6:53:13] umbrella.

[6:53:14] So,

[6:53:15] Deputy Commissioner Serino and I met with Dr.

[6:53:18] Codell, actually, to talk about this a little bit, and I had a couple of big

[6:53:21] takeaways. One was,

[6:53:24] being able to identify as persistently dangerous, one of the problems is

[6:53:28] that a lot of definitions rely on expulsion, and schools don't do that

[6:53:32] anymore. So that ends up being... So talking about identifying based

[6:53:36] on the incident and not the punishment, right?

[6:53:39] That would be-

[6:53:40] Right

[6:53:40] ... a good first step. I think determining, there are some

[6:53:44] numbers on your page as a place to start, but

[6:53:47] how much is persistently? What kind of ratio are you looking for to think

[6:53:51] about that? And then the other big takeaway I had was we will work closely with

[6:53:55] our LEAs on better data submission and making sure that we have clean

[6:53:59] data, because we're not going to be able to do anything with this if we don't

[6:54:01] really know what kinds of things are happening.

[6:54:04] So that's all I would say.

[6:54:05] And that's a question I had. Do we get incident

[6:54:08] reports from school districts too?

[6:54:12] Not individual incident reports, no.

[6:54:14] Do you want to talk just a little bit about how they report?

[6:54:17] Sure.

[6:54:18] Right. The individual reports would be things that if they're

[6:54:21] required to report to local law enforcement.

[6:54:24] So that would be between the

[6:54:27] LEA and local law enforcement. They're required to

[6:54:31] report incidents to us in the June

[6:54:35] core data submission. So we would see reports of

[6:54:39] those incidents each year for the prior school

[6:54:42] year,

[6:54:44] and that's how we're capturing the data.

[6:54:46] On that screen 32, or I think it's screen 32, but

[6:54:50] on one page of that handout, that list,

[6:54:54] we would capture those once a year from school districts.

[6:54:57] Okay.

[6:54:58] Can I interject one thing? So those are the data that are not very reliable right

[6:55:02] now. So something would have to be done to work on how to

[6:55:06] get the data sent in reliably to DESE.

[6:55:08] And why is it

[6:55:10] not? Is it just under-reporting or not reporting?

[6:55:13] Or why is it not reliable?

[6:55:16] So I, without speaking for Dr. Codell,

[6:55:20] when I looked at the data, I just saw anomalies in the data that didn't make sense.

[6:55:25] In a few places, I think the same things that you saw.

[6:55:29] So an extreme example, you see schools that have five violent

[6:55:32] incidents one year and 186 the next year.

[6:55:36] I think there's a lot of data elements DESE collects from all these LEAs.

[6:55:40] They're all, it's individual people at each LEA

[6:55:43] submitting this information, and I think it's a data element that we

[6:55:47] haven't paid much attention to. And so I think data elements like that in DESE's

[6:55:51] system, folks at DESE can probably communicate this better than me, but those kind

[6:55:55] of data elements where no one's paying attention to them often are not as reliable

[6:55:59] as the data elements that everyone's looking at

[6:56:01] I think this particular element is not

[6:56:05] like some of those that

[6:56:08] there's a correction window or an appeal window.

[6:56:11] So the data are reported, we see an

[6:56:14] anomaly. Someone picked up the phone in a

[6:56:18] couple of cases when we were comparing notes about the data.

[6:56:22] And so our staff had previously looked at those data, picked

[6:56:26] up the phone and asked the district, "What's happening here?"

[6:56:29] And in both cases, the district said, "Oh, well, we

[6:56:34] misreported." And they over-reported

[6:56:37] by a whole lot.

[6:56:39] But we didn't have a mechanism for correcting that

[6:56:43] data after the fact in our system. So that's a

[6:56:47] flaw in our system. And then certainly, that

[6:56:51] regular validation on our part, training

[6:56:56] district folks who are responsible for

[6:56:59] entering that data

[6:57:01] is something else that we can improve on, too.

[6:57:06] Would this be a big administrative burden for a district to

[6:57:10] better report?

[6:57:12] I

[6:57:12] hate

[6:57:16] to speak for our school districts.

[6:57:18] I think it

[6:57:19] should not be.

[6:57:22] But in the big scheme of all the data that they're reporting, I think a lot

[6:57:26] of it depends on the size of the district and the

[6:57:29] resources that are available to them.

[6:57:32] We know that our larger districts have staff that are just dedicated

[6:57:36] to these types of things. And then in some of our

[6:57:39] smaller districts,

[6:57:42] it's somebody who is wearing a lot of different hats and may

[6:57:46] not have a sense that, "Oh,

[6:57:48] I'm entering this number,

[6:57:52] and it's way out of range." They don't have context for

[6:57:56] it.

[6:57:58] So I think it wouldn't seem

[6:58:01] like it should be a huge lift.

[6:58:04] As a former teacher, I would say that I would've loved for it to

[6:58:08] be reported so that resources were given.

[6:58:11] And to kind of give you a different instance of relevance as well,

[6:58:16] we've been here for a few hours listening and I'm hearing about the grade card

[6:58:20] coming up for schools. And as a former teacher, I can tell you that your

[6:58:24] schools that'll come in on your lower grades will probably be your most

[6:58:27] violent schools that you have.

[6:58:30] And I was drilled in university that Maslow's hierarchy,

[6:58:34] right? Our kids have to feel safe and secure before they can

[6:58:38] even learn. So really, this is a root of how you can grow to make sure

[6:58:42] that all of those grade cards are coming in as As.

[6:58:48] So,

[6:58:49] is there any other comments?

[6:58:51] Yeah, just one clarifying thing. So I kind

[6:58:55] of just shoved this under the legislative committee, but

[6:58:58] we can skip that step if it's something that we can

[6:59:02] directly talk-- It sounds like you guys have already been working on it, and so

[6:59:05] if that's just something-

[6:59:07] Yes. Mm-hmm

[6:59:07] ... that, yeah, we don't even need to have-

[6:59:08] Yeah.

[6:59:09] You know.

[6:59:09] We can certainly bring something back for a proposal.

[6:59:11] Yeah, that's what I-

[6:59:12] We'll do the legwork and bring it back.

[6:59:14] Yeah, I think that would be helpful, so...

[6:59:18] Very much so.

[6:59:19] Yeah. Thank you both for coming, and this was very good. Thank you.

[6:59:23] Thank you.

[6:59:24] Thanks for your time.

[6:59:24] Thank you.

[6:59:29] Megan Fork.

[6:59:34] Welcome, Megan. It's good to have you here.

[6:59:52] Hello, my name's Megan Fork. I am chief counsel for

[6:59:56] Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.

[6:59:59] I have one item

[7:00:02] for the agenda about licensure. Before I get

[7:00:06] into the item, we do have some new board members, so I want to

[7:00:09] clarify what we are going to be talking about when I talk about licensure with you

[7:00:13] and how that works a little bit. I know we are late, and so I'll be

[7:00:17] as brief as I can.

[7:00:20] So,

[7:00:22] 168.071 is the statute that grants

[7:00:26] you guys, the board, the power to refuse to issue

[7:00:30] licenses, to revoke or to suspend existing licenses.

[7:00:34] It also grants you guys the sole authority to

[7:00:38] grant licenses when there is a felony or a crime of

[7:00:42] moral turpitude in their history.

[7:00:44] So we essentially will bring to you three types of cases.

[7:00:48] The first is where we have denied a license

[7:00:52] based on

[7:00:54] their criminal history. They have the opportunity to

[7:00:58] appeal our denial to the commissioner, and then that

[7:01:02] appeal, they can then appeal that to the board.

[7:01:05] We also will bring you

[7:01:08] discipline for a license where someone has committed a

[7:01:12] felony or a crime of moral turpitude while holding a

[7:01:16] license. When that happens, that is

[7:01:20] first brought as a complaint

[7:01:22] on the behalf of either a school board or DESE.

[7:01:26] That complaint is brought to a hearing officer.

[7:01:29] The hearing officer will issue their decision.

[7:01:32] That decision is just a preliminary decision.

[7:01:35] You all at the board have to approve that decision.

[7:01:40] And then finally, we will also be bringing you

[7:01:44] licenses where we are recommending that you

[7:01:48] grant a license despite the fact that there is a felony or a

[7:01:52] crime of moral turpitude. Um, it's also a

[7:01:56] little confusing sometimes because I will talk to you in open about some of

[7:02:00] these and in closed about some of these.

[7:02:02] That just has to do with whether the crime that we're talking about,

[7:02:06] whether the felony we're talking about,

[7:02:09] is on their official record or not.

[7:02:11] The statute allows us to take these actions whether or not sentence has been

[7:02:15] imposed. And so if they have a suspended

[7:02:18] imposition of sentence,

[7:02:21] that is not something that is public, so we would talk about

[7:02:25] that in closed. We also might otherwise close if there's

[7:02:28] something else about the crime that is sensitive, that

[7:02:33] it's been expunged or something along those lines.

[7:02:37] So that is the background of licensure.

[7:02:40] I have

[7:02:41] one to discuss with you all first.

[7:02:44] Yes, absolutely.

[7:02:44] So this,

[7:02:46] maybe you said it, but the vote on these has to be unanimous.

[7:02:51] Correct.

[7:02:51] So if any one board member

[7:02:55] disagrees with it, then yeah.

[7:02:57] And that vote will happen by roll call.

[7:02:59] Yep.

[7:02:59] And has to be unanimous for us to act on it.

[7:03:05] So the first one I'll bring to you guys is

[7:03:09] the case of

[7:03:12] Sheridan Powell.

[7:03:14] She has a content substitute teacher

[7:03:18] certificate, which is set to expire in September of

[7:03:21] 2027.

[7:03:23] She pled guilty to a Class A misdemeanor of fraudulent

[7:03:27] procurement of a credit or debit card,

[7:03:31] and she was sentenced to 60 days in Green County Jail.

[7:03:34] She had a suspended execution of sentence,

[7:03:38] which is different than a suspended imposition of sentence,

[7:03:42] but essentially means she is on probation.

[7:03:45] And then if she violates that probation, then she would serve that sentence.

[7:03:52] She had a hearing in front of the hearing officer

[7:03:55] about

[7:03:57] this issue,

[7:03:58] and she

[7:04:00] admitted to her fault in this incident,

[7:04:04] and had testified that she had already completed the

[7:04:08] community service. That was verified as well.

[7:04:12] It is the recommendation of the department that we

[7:04:16] suspend Ms. Powell's certificate for a period of one year

[7:04:22] preceding that hearing, which was in March of 2026.

[7:04:26] And so that is the recommendation of the board for this

[7:04:30] one. This is a little bit different than those other ones.

[7:04:34] So we are recommending a suspension in this case

[7:04:38] for one year,

[7:04:39] given the

[7:04:43] breadth of the crime as well as her actions since

[7:04:47] that has taken place.

[7:04:50] Question, what would the period of the year be, beginning from when to

[7:04:54] when?

[7:04:54] It would begin from the date of the

[7:04:58] hearing,

[7:04:59] which was March of this year, through March 24th,

[7:05:03] 2027. That also gives chance for that

[7:05:07] probationary period to pass as well.

[7:05:11] She is on probation through October of this year,

[7:05:15] so we would know that she has successfully completed-

[7:05:17] If we suspend for one year, does it come back before review at the end

[7:05:21] of that year? Not necessarily to our level, but come within

[7:05:25] the process for review again by appropriate team

[7:05:29] members at the conclusion of the year's suspension, or is it

[7:05:32] automatically?

[7:05:35] So it depends on whether or not that

[7:05:38] person's certification expired during the

[7:05:42] suspension. If it expired during the suspension,

[7:05:47] then that person would actually have to apply

[7:05:51] again, and everything would be reviewed at that point.

[7:05:56] If the certification

[7:06:00] would have normally been maintained

[7:06:02] during that period of time,

[7:06:05] we would

[7:06:07] just turn it on again,

[7:06:10] basically, reissue.

[7:06:13] And it appears that her

[7:06:15] teaching certificate would expire September 29th of 2027.

[7:06:19] So it would automatically turn on as-

[7:06:23] It would require a reapplication at the end of that.

[7:06:25] It would not.

[7:06:26] It would not. Because we're going through March-

[7:06:27] March

[7:06:27] ... of '27, and it doesn't expire until September of '27.

[7:06:32] But if there's obviously another infraction-

[7:06:34] Certainly

[7:06:35] ... crime appropriate, it comes through the process.

[7:06:38] So I've got a question. I believe due to alphabetical order, I'll

[7:06:42] probably have to go first. So I just want to make sure.

[7:06:45] You set the tone.

[7:06:46] Well,

[7:06:47] so

[7:06:49] as the gentleman explained,

[7:06:52] you're suggesting a one-year suspension.

[7:06:55] And if everything goes well,

[7:06:59] because she's still under contract, or her certification, this will

[7:07:03] exist until 2027, there will be

[7:07:07] no coming back to the board for a revote,

[7:07:11] essentially. She'll just be able to continue on with employment.

[7:07:15] So this vote is just for

[7:07:18] suspension for a year based on the crimes. Okay.

[7:07:23] I'm

[7:07:27] struggling with this one a little bit.

[7:07:29] Usually, these are pretty easy.

[7:07:34] So she stole a debit card.

[7:07:36] Correct.

[7:07:38] So

[7:07:40] according to the documents and the criminal charges that were

[7:07:43] reviewed,

[7:07:45] we

[7:07:47] do not have evidence to say that she's the one who stole it.

[7:07:50] She received a stolen debit card from someone and

[7:07:54] utilized that card

[7:07:56] It is unclear how much she knew about where that card, where that

[7:08:00] came from.

[7:08:01] And I was trying to scroll through this, but is there a dollar amount

[7:08:05] of how much? Any idea?

[7:08:08] 550 bucks. I

[7:08:11] don't

[7:08:17] want my debit card stolen, and nobody does.

[7:08:22] I don't know if I can wrap my head around

[7:08:26] suspending

[7:08:27] basically part of her livelihood, presumably.

[7:08:31] But maybe that's ignoring the person who's had their debit card stolen, too.

[7:08:36] This one I'm struggling with.

[7:08:37] I think,

[7:08:39] if I may, these are heard in front of a hearing officer, and so I am

[7:08:43] inputting my--

[7:08:46] trying to think through what he was thinking, right?

[7:08:49] And I think my impression is that

[7:08:53] Dr. Neal was probably struggling with the same things you are, right?

[7:08:57] And I think that's why, typically speaking, I have seen

[7:09:01] either we

[7:09:04] take away their license altogether or we do nothing.

[7:09:08] That's typically what I see and what I think we typically

[7:09:11] do. And so I think that Dr. Neal was struggling with the same things you are

[7:09:15] in saying, "Okay, so let's

[7:09:18] do a middle path on this one."

[7:09:21] Which is the suspension, but is

[7:09:25] that a middle path?

[7:09:26] Thinking

[7:09:31] about some of the other certificate issues we've dealt with,

[7:09:35] whether it's reinstating or whatever, I'm

[7:09:40] having a hard time seeing this as more serious

[7:09:44] than other stuff.

[7:09:47] Has there been any recommendations?

[7:09:51] Where is she currently working? He or she.

[7:09:55] Let me check.

[7:09:57] And my question is, have there been letters of

[7:10:01] recommendation received from that as part of the case,

[7:10:05] if you will, in the case review from

[7:10:09] either her workplace, her church, or the community in

[7:10:13] support?

[7:10:15] And I will say I'm trying to find them currently-

[7:10:19] Mm-hmm

[7:10:19] ... but that is part of the record that is reviewed-

[7:10:23] Uh-huh

[7:10:23] ... by the hearing officer, and that is those

[7:10:27] letters.

[7:10:27] Yeah. Normally we hear about them.

[7:10:29] It kind of

[7:10:31] expands on our understanding

[7:10:34] of the person in the case, not just the fact of the

[7:10:38] crime.

[7:10:39] And how long has she had her

[7:10:43] license?

[7:11:04] Why are you looking at Robbie?

[7:11:05] Yeah. And this is more educational as opposed to

[7:11:09] presenting this forward. Do we have to go up or down on what was

[7:11:13] recommended, or could we say we want her suspended till her

[7:11:16] probation's over? Do we have that option?

[7:11:20] Yeah, you can change the amount of time.

[7:11:22] It was 1,100 on the card.

[7:11:24] Yeah. It was 1,100.

[7:11:27] 1,100.

[7:11:31] Is she a substitute teacher, did you say?

[7:11:33] That's correct.

[7:11:36] So if I'm understanding this correctly,

[7:11:39] we can suggest or recommend a new

[7:11:42] suspension time.

[7:11:45] So we can say,

[7:11:47] "Hey,"

[7:11:49] I'd say,

[7:11:51] "I'd like her to be suspended for a month,"

[7:11:54] and that would have to then, what,

[7:11:56] go through our vote, and would it go back to the drawing board for

[7:12:00] another hearing, or that's it?

[7:12:04] No.

[7:12:05] So the hearing is essentially

[7:12:08] the department's review and us making a recommendation

[7:12:12] to you. You can

[7:12:16] adopt that recommendation. You can alter that recommendation.

[7:12:20] You can toss it in the trash. All of those are options available to

[7:12:24] you.

[7:12:25] You could unanimously vote to... Or

[7:12:29] sorry, not unanimously vote. You could vote for her to continue

[7:12:33] without any discipline. You could vote for her to

[7:12:38] have a harsher discipline or a lesser discipline. Yes.

[7:12:41] Okay.

[7:12:41] So being on probation,

[7:12:45] if we voted so she could go

[7:12:48] teach tomorrow, even though she's under probation, if we so voted.

[7:12:52] Is that accurate?

[7:12:54] Yes.

[7:12:54] How long's her probation until?

[7:12:56] It is through

[7:13:00] September. Oh, sorry, through October of this

[7:13:04] year.

[7:13:04] October 1st, is it?

[7:13:06] October 21st.

[7:13:07] October 21st, so like two months from now.

[7:13:09] She's had her license for three years.

[7:13:12] It's a substitute license, right?

[7:13:13] So is she working-

[7:13:14] Since '23

[7:13:15] ...

[7:13:16] right now? I don't know if you

[7:13:19] know that, but...

[7:13:21] While she's on probation, can she be teaching?

[7:13:28] Mm-hmm.

[7:13:28] Yes.

[7:13:28] Okay.

[7:13:29] Absolutely.

[7:13:29] Makes sense.

[7:13:31] On probation.

[7:13:35] Can you bring this back to us and check out these answers and come back to us in

[7:13:38] September?

[7:13:39] Yeah.

[7:13:40] We'll help.

[7:13:43] I do have their letters.

[7:13:47] She has a letter from the Monett School District.

[7:13:51] She says that the person who writes it is the

[7:13:54] superintendent, and he states that

[7:14:00] She has been open and transparent with the district throughout the process.

[7:14:04] Um, she self-reported the situation promptly and continues to keep the district

[7:14:07] informed as the court proceedings.

[7:14:11] He says her honesty and willingness to communicate demonstrate professionalism and

[7:14:15] accountability during a difficult circumstance.

[7:14:18] I move that we take no action.

[7:14:21] Second.

[7:14:22] Well, I don't think we need a motion. We just vote no on the recommendation.

[7:14:27] Is that right?

[7:14:27] Which is-

[7:14:28] Yeah

[7:14:29] ... what I'm saying-

[7:14:30] Yeah

[7:14:30] ... take no action.

[7:14:30] Yeah.

[7:14:30] No on the recommendation.

[7:14:31] Oh, oh.

[7:14:31] Yeah, kind of thing.

[7:14:32] Yeah, just-

[7:14:33] You're right.

[7:14:33] Yeah, okay. Yeah, yeah.

[7:14:34] So she's just allowed to work on October the 21st?

[7:14:38] Mm-hmm.

[7:14:38] Yeah.

[7:14:39] No, she would be allowed to work now.

[7:14:41] She can go back tomorrow.

[7:14:42] Okay.

[7:14:42] Yeah.

[7:14:43] Okay, so her probation is over.

[7:14:44] Right now.

[7:14:45] Got it.

[7:14:45] Yeah.

[7:14:47] I think-

[7:14:47] So is this something that needs a roll call vote, or is it just

[7:14:51] the same as taking no action, or does it-

[7:14:53] We need a roll call.

[7:14:54] It needs a roll call, yeah. It needs a roll call.

[7:14:55] It's a roll call vote, and even one no would kill the recommendation.

[7:14:58] Yeah.

[7:14:59] Gotcha.

[7:15:00] No pressure, Jordan.

[7:15:02] Mr. Bradberry?

[7:15:04] Aye.

[7:15:04] Hold it, hold it.

[7:15:05] Hold it. We should make sure we have a proper motion on the floor.

[7:15:08] Yeah.

[7:15:08] Okay.

[7:15:09] Well, we don't need the... You're voting on the recommendation-

[7:15:13] Yeah

[7:15:13] ... which is to, for the one year. So you either are in favor or not.

[7:15:15] And my motion is that we decline

[7:15:19] that recommendation and do not-

[7:15:21] Oh, no.

[7:15:22] But I think you just-

[7:15:24] Well, somebody just do the motion to-

[7:15:25] It takes it.

[7:15:27] So moved.

[7:15:29] And then second, and then we vote, and we all vote no.

[7:15:32] So restate the motion as it-

[7:15:34] Yeah

[7:15:36] ... as a motion.

[7:15:36] I think the recommendation is one

[7:15:40] year. If any one of you says no, then that

[7:15:44] recommendation won't be followed. So you don't need a motion, it's just a vote.

[7:15:48] So just no takes away-

[7:15:51] One no takes away the recommendation

[7:15:52] ... and then she can go on to work-

[7:15:54] Correct

[7:15:54] ... tomorrow if she'd like.

[7:15:56] Correct.

[7:15:56] Okay.

[7:15:57] Mr. Bradberry?

[7:15:59] Aye.

[7:16:03] I'm sorry.

[7:16:04] You were going to say, "I needed a minute."

[7:16:07] Yeah. It's a lot. I vote no.

[7:16:10] There you go.

[7:16:13] We've got to-

[7:16:13] We still do the roll, I think, don't we?

[7:16:15] Probably.

[7:16:15] Ms. Casey?

[7:16:16] No.

[7:16:16] Mr. Matusik?

[7:16:17] No.

[7:16:17] Mr. Miller?

[7:16:18] No.

[7:16:19] Mr. Myers?

[7:16:19] No.

[7:16:20] Mr. Otto?

[7:16:21] No.

[7:16:21] Mr. Shamel?

[7:16:23] No.

[7:16:23] Dr. Scholl?

[7:16:24] No.

[7:16:26] All right. And I do want to...

[7:16:28] Eric Avon, the gentleman behind me that we keep turning to, is the head of educator

[7:16:31] certification. Conduct investigations is under him.

[7:16:34] They're the ones that pour through all of the records and the details, so I want to

[7:16:38] make sure you know who he is.

[7:16:43] We appreciate your work. I think we just-

[7:16:46] Yeah

[7:16:46] ... saw a little more compassion, too.

[7:16:51] Should do those at the beginning.

[7:16:55] I want to raise just a rules process. No one made a motion.

[7:16:59] The recommendation was there, but you still have to make a motion and second it,

[7:17:02] and then vote. You just can't vote on a recommendation.

[7:17:06] So I think while we-

[7:17:08] It's usually a motion to accept the recommendation or-

[7:17:11] And that's what I'm saying.

[7:17:12] Yeah.

[7:17:12] I made a motion to-

[7:17:13] So I have-

[7:17:13] ... decline the recommendation. So either way, we can accept the recommendation,

[7:17:17] second it, and all vote no, or we can-

[7:17:20] Which is what we just did.

[7:17:21] Yeah

[7:17:21] ... no, but no one made a motion.

[7:17:22] Yeah, I thought you-

[7:17:23] No.

[7:17:23] I thought you made a motion.

[7:17:24] I thought you had-

[7:17:25] But it was-

[7:17:26] You said so moved.

[7:17:26] I said I moved.

[7:17:27] Right, but

[7:17:29] you all said that wasn't needed, and it was not the motion.

[7:17:31] You're right, you're right. We needed a motion.

[7:17:33] Just to clarify.

[7:17:34] If I could weigh in.

[7:17:36] A motion to not do something is not generally considered

[7:17:40] appropriate. You make a motion to do something.

[7:17:43] So in this case, I would suggest the motion would be to approve the recommendation-

[7:17:47] And then vote against it

[7:17:48] ... and then you vote against it.

[7:17:49] So can we just-

[7:17:50] It's okay to make a motion and then vote against your own motion.

[7:17:53] Yeah.

[7:17:53] That's-

[7:17:53] So can we just let the record reflect that Carrie

[7:17:57] moved-

[7:17:58] I seconded it

[7:17:59] ... he seconded, and then we all voted no.

[7:18:00] And that's the clarity we needed.

[7:18:02] Yeah, I think that is the correct procedure.

[7:18:04] Thank you.

[7:18:06] Okay, second item you have?

[7:18:08] Uh, I do have a second item. That we have gotten some new

[7:18:12] information, we need to move that to closed.

[7:18:14] Okay.

[7:18:15] Very good. So that's where we're at right now, and

[7:18:19] I'll excuse the gallery from the next closed session.

[7:18:24] Oh, hold on.

[7:18:24] We need to meet-

[7:18:24] We need to meet. I'll make the motion to go into closed session.

[7:18:27] I'll second.

[7:18:28] Second.

[7:18:28] Well, now I have to read it. Sorry.

[7:18:30] No.

[7:18:30] There's a more formal process for this one, so.

[7:18:33] Yeah, yeah.

[7:18:33] I move that the State Board of Education go into closed session as posted

[7:18:37] by the executive assistant to consider the following items: legal actions,

[7:18:41] causes of actions, litigation, or legal work product relating to the State Board of

[7:18:45] Education and the Department of

[7:18:47] Elementary and Secondary Education, as well as any confidential or privileged

[7:18:51] communication between those entities and legal counsel, individually

[7:18:55] identifiable personnel records, performance ratings, or records

[7:18:59] pertaining to employees or applicants for employment, and criminal records closed

[7:19:02] by law.

[7:19:04] Is there a second to that motion?

[7:19:05] I'm not seconding to that.

[7:19:08] Yeah.

[7:19:08] We didn't-

[7:19:08] I'll second that.

[7:19:11] All right. Now we need a roll call.

[7:19:12] Mr. Bradberry?

[7:19:14] Yes.

[7:19:14] Ms. Casey?

[7:19:15] Yes.

[7:19:16] Mr. Matusik?

[7:19:16] Yes.

[7:19:17] Mr. Miller?

[7:19:17] Yes.

[7:19:18] Mr. Myers?

[7:19:18] Yes.

[7:19:19] Mr. Otto?

[7:19:19] Yes.

[7:19:20] Mr. Shamel?

[7:19:21] Yes.

[7:19:21] Dr. Scholl?

[7:19:22] Yes.

[7:19:24] All right.

[7:19:25] Okay, so we've moved to closed session.

[7:19:27] And the teacher riveting

2026 08 18 Missouri State Board of Education Meeting

Transcript