[0:00] It is that time, so we're going to go ahead and get started.

[0:03] Welcome everyone in attendance. It's always great to see a good crowd and

[0:07] participation from the state, and it's something really

[0:11] special. Welcome you to this meeting, and we're going to get started here.

[0:16] So, with that, I need approval-

[0:19] Move to approve the agenda.

[0:20] Okay. We have a motion for the agenda. Is there a second?

[0:24] Second.

[0:24] Okay. Motion and a second. All those in favor say, "Aye."

[0:27] Aye.

[0:28] Okay, and minutes?

[0:29] Move to approve the minutes.

[0:31] We have a motion to approve minutes.

[0:32] Second.

[0:33] We have a second. Who was the second?

[0:36] Robbie.

[0:36] Robbie? Okay. We have a second for that.

[0:38] All those in favor say, "Aye."

[0:39] Aye.

[0:40] Aye.

[0:40] Okay, very good.

[0:42] With that, commissioner's report.

[0:44] Dr. Pritchett?

[0:45] Yes. Thank you.

[0:49] Good morning.

[0:51] So, I have a few things to mention. Last week I had the opportunity to be in

[0:55] Washington, DC for the Stronger States, Stronger Schools Outcomes Conference,

[0:59] that was held by the network of comprehensive centers, the US Department of

[1:03] Education organizations that provide technical assistance and program

[1:07] evaluation support to us. So, the event was the kickoff for the Learning

[1:10] Agenda Playbook release, which is something that the US Department of

[1:14] Education has put together to help schools

[1:18] align resources, maximize flexibilities allowed under ESSA, and there

[1:22] were eight states that had agreed to participate in that pilot.

[1:25] So, we think that playbook is going to be a really great resource for us as we work

[1:29] to improve our strategies for supporting struggling schools.

[1:35] It was by invitation only, and it was a great opportunity for me to connect with

[1:39] other SEA leaders in other states.

[1:41] And the first meeting on Wednesday morning was for state education agency

[1:45] chiefs, which is state superintendents and commissioners.

[1:48] And so, I had the opportunity to meet Secretary McMahon at that time and let her

[1:52] know that we were looking forward to seeing her this week, which takes me to my

[1:55] next point. US Secretary of

[1:59] Education McMahon will be in the boot

[2:03] heel tomorrow. She will be in Gideon 37 School

[2:06] District and Cape Girardeau Career and Technical Education

[2:10] Center. She travels from there to Washington University to

[2:14] meet with university officials. But Dr.

[2:16] Kyle Cruise and I will attend the Gideon and Cape Girardeau site visits to

[2:20] represent the department.

[2:23] And then I always want to highlight when I have an opportunity to

[2:26] visit schools, and I had a

[2:29] couple of interesting things early on in the year.

[2:31] It's just barely gotten started, but we are already underway.

[2:35] I was able to be in Lebanon

[2:37] School District for the opening of their Robert W.

[2:39] Plaster Center on Student Success, which is a tremendous investment in

[2:43] education and in the students of Lebanon.

[2:46] So, I got to tour their state-of-the-art facility, saw firsthand how education,

[2:49] healthcare, and workforce development are coming together under one roof to better

[2:53] serve students, families, and the community.

[2:55] And then the day ended with a ribbon cutting.

[2:57] And so, it was very exciting for me to be there with that.

[3:01] Love seeing

[3:03] the innovation and ideas in our public schools, and my questions to them is

[3:07] always, "So, how does somebody else do what you've done?" And got some good

[3:10] information there that we can share with other

[3:14] districts. But just a

[3:16] big shout-out to that community, too.

[3:19] The Lebanon community is so incredibly supportive of that school district

[3:22] and those school leaders, and the turnout was

[3:26] tremendous, both from school people and people in the community.

[3:30] So, that was really very impressive.

[3:33] I also saw the Boone County Nature School, which is a collaboration between

[3:37] Columbia Public Schools and the Missouri Department of Conservation, and it's open

[3:41] to all Boone County school districts.

[3:43] So, fifth graders in Columbia rotate

[3:48] two-week sessions through the nature center throughout the course of the year, and

[3:51] they're able to do their core content areas while they're at the nature

[3:55] center. It's really exciting. It's a great setup, and they've been a model

[3:59] for

[4:01] other places that want to do this. They actually presented, they meaning the

[4:05] Department of Conservation and the school district, presented at a national

[4:08] conference in the summer on the nature school and how they put that together,

[4:12] because there's a lot of interest in other people doing similar things.

[4:15] So, this upcoming week, I will be at

[4:19] St. Louis Public Schools on Wednesday, September 23rd, and at

[4:23] Normandy on Thursday, September 24th.

[4:26] So, I think the only other thing I had is just that we had

[4:30] some really good AF grade card stakeholder engagement.

[4:33] We had two in-person sessions this week and an additional virtual session.

[4:37] And so, those were very well attended, and it was a good opportunity for us to

[4:41] continue to get information out about the grade card framework and the

[4:45] plans going forward. So,

[4:47] that is all I have.

[4:49] Okay.

[4:49] Thank you.

[4:50] Any questions from the board?

[4:53] Hearing none, we'll move on to the president's report. Mr. Matusik.

[4:58] Hey, good morning. I'll give a quick update on the strategic plan.

[5:03] Well, I think I've given an update a week or two ago, so not

[5:07] much has changed since then. But last week, we approved the MOU with Bellwether to

[5:11] support us in this effort.

[5:14] The next step is, I think most of you or all of you should hear from

[5:18] them soon to set up one-on-one meetings.

[5:21] We're also putting together a list of stakeholders that we're going to reach out

[5:25] to.

[5:26] But that's the next steps, and the timeline is still to have

[5:29] something approved by the board by the end of this year

[5:32] or

[5:34] January of next year.

[5:36] Does anybody have any questions about where we're at on the strategic plan?

[5:42] And again, as a reminder, we are

[5:46] essentially updating and refining the work that has been

[5:50] done previously. So,

[5:53] we have a lot of data that we're looking at, and that's going to inform

[5:58] or help shape this plan. So, any questions?

[6:03] Thank you.

[6:06] Mr. Meyer

[6:07] Yeah, the legislative committee. We've not called a meeting yet.

[6:09] We're still trying to formulate, looking what the next session's going to look

[6:12] like. But when we do, we'll have a public meeting of the legislative committee, but

[6:16] we're not quite ready for that yet.

[6:18] Okay. Thank you.

[6:20] Mr. Otto.

[6:21] Yes. So

[6:22] I'm

[6:26] giving a report out on the governor's committee.

[6:28] I intended to have a meeting in the last week, but there's been a lot going

[6:32] on, I probably told some of you guys, in my personal life, so just haven't had the

[6:36] time.

[6:38] And so,

[6:40] the one thing we do need to address is the committee structure, committee chairs,

[6:44] things like that. And so,

[6:47] off the top of my head, I think that's one thing that we will plan to meet

[6:51] about in the next coming weeks. And then also,

[6:56] the calendar, approving the calendar.

[6:58] I think we've sent a tentative calendar out, but

[7:02] just want to make sure we finalize that and make sure there's no

[7:05] conflicts or anything like that. And then anything else that might come up with

[7:08] respect to bylaws and things like that.

[7:10] But,

[7:11] that's all I got.

[7:13] John?

[7:14] Yeah. So regarding the committee structures, I've told, I think Vince and some of

[7:17] the others, when we came up with the bylaws,

[7:21] the intent was to

[7:24] have a committee structure.

[7:27] We capped it at four people thinking that we needed to avoid a quorum, right?

[7:30] Otherwise, it's a full board meeting.

[7:32] My understanding is now that all these committee meetings are posted, that

[7:37] board members can participate in any of the committee meetings. Is that ...

[7:42] So, when we talked about this in orientation yesterday,

[7:46] the point of clarification is whether or not the committee is acting as a

[7:49] committee. So as long as they don't make decisions as the board in a committee

[7:53] meeting, so the committee can vote to recommend something to the full board, and

[7:57] therefore, then the number of people who are actually there doesn't

[8:00] matter. Correct? Megan's saying yes.

[8:03] So, as long as they're acting as a committee.

[8:06] Okay. So,

[8:08] I think we need clearer

[8:12] understanding of exactly... I mean, since last month, I

[8:16] think is when this came up, and we've still been dealing with somewhat

[8:19] hypotheticals and uncertainty for what this

[8:23] means.

[8:24] And Megan, I would encourage you to write something up

[8:28] that we can follow as guidelines and check boxes as

[8:32] we go along to what needs to be an open meeting, what needs to be a closed meeting,

[8:36] who can participate, who can't participate, instead of these conversations that

[8:40] we have on the fly,

[8:43] and we forget it, or I forget it three minutes later.

[8:46] So,

[8:47] we need that structure for our meetings.

[8:51] I would absolutely

[8:52] Yeah.

[8:53] So one of the things that we had mentioned is that Megan will give a copy of the

[8:56] slide deck that she did during the orientation yesterday, as well as

[9:00] the attorney general's office has new copies of the Sunshine Law booklet

[9:04] that they put out that she will make available to everyone, and then anything else

[9:07] that she wants to as well.

[9:09] Yeah. Well, I'll make sure I'll put that on as an action item on the governor's

[9:12] committee, and I'll meet with her directly, and that way we can have something

[9:15] clearly in writing, and we can even add that to our bylaws and policies just so

[9:18] that we have something to refer to.

[9:21] And if it's a book, it needs to have really big letters in crayon

[9:25] for me to read. Okay?

[9:27] Okay.

[9:27] Thank you.

[9:28] Well, and

[9:29] just lastly, on the bylaws,

[9:33] I don't have the solution yet, but I think it's worthwhile to look at the

[9:37] voting order again. I know that some people don't always want to vote first,

[9:41] and

[9:43] that's a valid point.

[9:44] Mm-hmm.

[9:45] So, we'll see where that goes, but just an FYI there.

[9:48] Okay.

[9:49] That's fair. Yep.

[9:53] Very well.

[9:55] Was that your report, John?

[9:57] Yes, that concludes my report. Thank you.

[9:58] Okay.

[9:59] Kerry? Finance report, Kerry Casey.

[10:01] Thank you, Mr. President. So the finance committee meeting, a committee meeting was

[10:05] held on August 31st to review updates to the FY28 budget.

[10:10] All board members were invited, and it was a productive discussion

[10:14] which informed further updates.

[10:17] After further internal review by the department, the

[10:20] FY28 budget has been prepared, and it will be presented

[10:24] today for our discussion,

[10:26] further debate, and ultimate vote.

[10:29] The final FY28 budget will then be submitted by October 1st

[10:33] as required. And that concludes my report.

[10:45] Okay.

[10:48] Okay. And so, Mrs. Casey, you're still on here

[10:51] for National Association of State Boards.

[10:54] Great. Thank you.

[10:56] So NASB, the National Association of State Boards

[11:00] of Education, of which

[11:04] we are a member, the state of Missouri.

[11:09] Just a few quick updates. The September issue of the NASB

[11:13] publication, The NASB Standard,

[11:15] is focusing on school improvement and state accountability with several

[11:19] articles, and I'd encourage each board member to review it, read it.

[11:23] It will give good insight from various perspectives.

[11:27] Thursday, September 17th, which is this week, there

[11:31] will be the third meeting of the NASB Math Improvement Learning and Action Group.

[11:35] This is a virtual call of which all of us are invited to attend.

[11:40] And Mike, I would like to extend it to you as our teacher

[11:44] representative if your schedule allows, but beyond that, get you more involved

[11:48] in this work that NASB's doing around math, knowing that that's your

[11:51] background. I think it would be very

[11:54] advantageous for what you could learn and then bring to us.

[11:59] Additionally, and

[12:01] related to that, Professor Patrick Sullivan from

[12:05] Missouri State University and I have connected.

[12:09] He is a co-founder of the Missouri Math

[12:12] Collaborative, of which

[12:14] Various educators and education

[12:18] partners are coming together to look at best practices, curriculums, et

[12:22] cetera, in math. I'm continuing to learn more about that.

[12:26] But I have introduced Professor Sullivan to NASBE

[12:30] as well, so he can also become aware and engaged in the work

[12:34] that's being done across the country.

[12:36] And I know he is already working with

[12:39] the DESE team.

[12:41] Okay.

[12:42] And just a reminder, the annual conference is in

[12:46] Baltimore October 26th through 28th, and if your schedule

[12:49] allows, extremely informative

[12:53] sessions will be there around math, as you can tell is

[12:57] a recurring theme, as well as accountability, assessments,

[13:01] and just the opportunity to meet and work with board members

[13:05] from other states.

[13:07] And that concludes my report.

[13:08] Okay. How about a modernization? Do you have one on

[13:12] modernization?

[13:13] I absolutely do.

[13:16] And just bear with me.

[13:28] So, the Missouri Funding Modernization Task Force held its 11th

[13:32] meeting yesterday.

[13:34] The task force continues to explore two different funding models,

[13:38] one that modernizes the current formula in several ways,

[13:43] and a second one that relies on a combined wealth index, or

[13:47] CWI,

[13:49] that combined wealth index approach to determine the state and local

[13:52] shares for funding.

[13:54] The combined wealth index approach includes household income, in

[13:58] addition to local property wealth, to determine the expected

[14:02] state and local shares of funding.

[14:06] The task force has identified a method to address the challenge of

[14:10] uneven property valuations across the state within the mechanism of

[14:14] the formula to help ensure property values are considered

[14:17] equitably.

[14:20] The current formula includes additional pupil weightings for students from

[14:24] poverty, those with disabilities, English learners,

[14:28] gifted students, and homeless students.

[14:31] The task force has also identified a mechanism to add

[14:35] student weights for smaller districts in the state, recognizing that

[14:40] some economies of scale are difficult to overcome in more remote areas.

[14:45] The task force discussed in some detail yesterday how to address topics such

[14:49] as small and/or sparsely populated

[14:51] districts. Also, multiple proration

[14:55] options to address any shortfalls in funding, potential hold harmless

[14:59] provisions

[15:00] for any districts that might otherwise receive less under a new formula,

[15:04] and potential phase-in approaches for transitioning from the current formula

[15:08] to the next formula over a period of time.

[15:12] The next meeting of the task force will be on October the 19th,

[15:16] when an initial draft report will be reviewed, along with simulations for the

[15:20] two models currently under consideration.

[15:23] And you can find the presentation slides and meeting recordings for all of our

[15:27] meetings via the DESE website.

[15:30] Okay, any questions with regards to that?

[15:35] Your final report should be on the search committee.

[15:40] Do you want to give a brief report on the search committee?

[15:42] Yes. Thank you. The

[15:45] search committee for our new commissioner,

[15:50] the board approved our MOU, our memorandum of

[15:54] understanding, which will result in a final agreement

[15:58] with NASBE as our partner, who will be working

[16:02] with us as we conduct a national search.

[16:04] Our next steps are now reviewing the proposals

[16:08] from search firms that were in a response to a formal

[16:11] RFP. And as the search committee reviews those

[16:15] proposals, a selection would be made with a

[16:19] recommendation for approval by the state board, of which that meeting would

[16:23] then be scheduled for approval.

[16:26] Any questions on that from the board?

[16:29] Hearing none, we'll move forward.

[16:31] But please make sure we have that report every

[16:35] month on here as far as the search committee.

[16:40] Okay.

[16:44] So do I have a motion for the consent agenda?

[16:46] Move to approve consent.

[16:48] I have a motion. Is there a second?

[16:50] Second.

[16:51] All right. We have a motion and second.

[16:52] All those in favor of the consent agenda, say "aye."

[16:55] Aye.

[16:56] Any opposed? Likewise. Okay, hearing none, that does

[17:00] pass.

[17:01] So, that takes us down to item nine,

[17:05] superintendent presentation, A through F grading

[17:09] framework.

[17:18] Good morning. For those of you listening via live stream,

[17:23] I'm Lisa Sorino. I am the Deputy Commissioner for Learning Services at the

[17:27] department, and

[17:29] I am here to

[17:32] basically introduce the presentation provided by a group of

[17:36] school leaders from the Joplin, Monett, Oran,

[17:40] and Pattonville school districts.

[17:43] They have requested to speak to the board and provide their input,

[17:47] insights, and feedback regarding the A through F

[17:51] school grading framework and the grade cards that are required by

[17:54] Governor Kehoe's Executive Order 26-01.

[17:58] So I'll let them have the floor.

[17:59] Okay.

[18:03] Do we have three or do we have four?

[18:06] Four.

[18:08] Okay. That's a change from what...

[18:11] We were told three.

[18:15] So,

[18:17] okay. Thank you. But we will

[18:21] hold you to the 20 minutes, okay? For the four of you.

[18:26] Okay. Thank you very much. Before we get started, I'd just like to thank the

[18:30] State Board of Education for the opportunity to be here this morning.

[18:33] We appreciate it very much to engage with you on such important

[18:36] conversation.

[18:39] We'll get into the introductions here.

[18:41] Before I do, we won't go over backgrounds and resumes, but I think it would be

[18:44] worth to mention that the four of us in this panel this morning are going to bring

[18:48] over 100 years of public education, of experience to this conversation this

[18:52] morning. My name is Dr. Adam Frigg.

[18:55] I'm the proud superintendent of the Orient R-III School Districts.

[18:58] My colleagues presenting alongside me today is lead researcher for

[19:02] the Pattonville School District, Dr.

[19:04] Matt Goodman,

[19:06] Superintendent of Schools for the Joplin School District, Dr.

[19:08] Carey Cicada,

[19:11] and Superintendent of the Monett School District, Dr. Mark Drake.

[19:17] So as we get into this introduction this morning, I just want to take just a moment

[19:19] and talk about the responsibility of leadership.

[19:22] As you all know very well, we're superintendents.

[19:24] We're charged with the responsibility to serve our schools, our communities, and of

[19:27] course, our students.

[19:29] As State Board of Education members, you are charged with the responsibility to

[19:33] serve approximately 900,000 students across the state of Missouri.

[19:37] It doesn't matter if it's at the Orient R-III School District or the State Board,

[19:42] every decision we make has got to be centered around do what's best for our

[19:45] children.

[19:48] There's a lot of discussion centered around accountability and high standards on

[19:51] the A through F discussion. And to be abundantly clear this morning, we

[19:55] have no opposition to accountability and high

[19:58] standards. If done correctly, we welcome them.

[20:02] But what does that look like?

[20:04] We believe moving forward, the best path for us to optimize,

[20:08] for us to achieve the best A through F framework to serve those

[20:12] 900,000 students, has got to be a partnership.

[20:15] It's got to be a partnership between the State Board,

[20:19] a partnership between DESE,

[20:21] and a partnership between school districts. We cannot work in silos.

[20:26] So we have traveled across the state today to sit here in front of you to

[20:30] form a partnership, to work together, and to do what's best for kids.

[20:35] I'm going to talk about the workflow of this presentation just real quick.

[20:38] Again, my name is Dr. Adam Frigg. I'm responsible for the introduction.

[20:42] Section two for educator concerns will be Dr. Goodman.

[20:46] Sections three and four for recommendations and additional concerns will

[20:50] be Dr. Cicada and Dr. Goodman, and closing remarks will be Dr.

[20:54] Drake. We have four

[20:57] requests today, recommendations that we believe will help

[21:01] strengthen this framework. Number one is pilot the initial release timeline,

[21:06] provide districts secure draft reports to validate calculations before

[21:09] public release.

[21:11] Number two is delay the inclusion of literacy measure.

[21:14] Phase in reading metrics in '26, '27 when approved tools are

[21:18] implemented statewide.

[21:21] Align window with instructional time to maintain testing windows through

[21:25] mid-May to protect valuable instruction time.

[21:28] And number four, preserve time for data validation to ensure adequate

[21:32] time for districts to validate and correct MOSIS and core data.

[21:37] At this time, I'm going to turn it over to my colleague, Dr.

[21:39] Goodman, for educator concerns.

[21:42] Thank you, Dr. Frigg.

[21:44] Matt Goodman, Pattonville School District.

[21:45] I work in the space of research, assessment, accountability, evaluation.

[21:50] And thinking about the educator concerns,

[21:54] we appreciate the department's feedback sessions recently, the

[21:58] webinars, the in-person sessions.

[22:01] And as those have kind of

[22:03] unfolded, that some of the larger themes that

[22:07] we're seeing come out of those comments, whether in the chat, whether in

[22:10] participant comments, go along with other themes that have been

[22:14] seen through earlier webinars with school administrators throughout the year.

[22:19] Some of that deals with a feeling of a rushed timeline

[22:23] and uncertainty towards measurement.

[22:25] And so while the department will be bringing forward a grading framework today, the

[22:29] concern kind of sits underneath that framework altogether in terms of the

[22:32] measurement,

[22:33] and how will those pieces come together in terms of the algorithm to

[22:37] calculate the score.

[22:40] And so when we see incomplete scoring metrics,

[22:43] it really has come across, from the educator side, as really

[22:47] just a big question mark to where the rules, if you will,

[22:51] are a little bit unknown as to how we'll be approaching these measures and how they

[22:55] will be aggregating together.

[22:57] And what we're hearing in the DESE sessions here within the

[23:01] last month,

[23:03] those themes do go along with feedback we've been receiving across the course of

[23:07] the year. So since winter of

[23:10] 2026, a series of webinars have been held with school administrators around the

[23:14] state to share information and provide updates on the status

[23:18] of A to F proposals.

[23:20] And so if we think about that in February,

[23:23] that was after the executive order came out, and also there was proposed

[23:26] legislation. So there were a couple of different avenues that A to F was being

[23:30] looked at in the state. So provided updates

[23:34] and able to take questions and

[23:37] have discussions with leaders across the state.

[23:40] We then provided another session in March of 2026

[23:44] as an update to where legislation stood, any new changes we knew,

[23:47] communications from the department,

[23:50] any additional thoughts on the executive order.

[23:52] But it really wasn't until July where we had the

[23:55] substantive framework that you all have in front of you for people to be able to

[23:59] respond to. So we did another session in July,

[24:02] and you can see well over 245 school administrators across the state on that

[24:06] session, to just provide an overview of what was in the framework and

[24:10] how that related to concerns that had previously been identified and to see if

[24:14] there were any new ones in that.

[24:16] Part. And if we think about the concerns that had come through,

[24:20] what we found is that the concerns that initially surfaced from the

[24:24] February webinars, what I would say were coming from

[24:28] questioning how would the executive order be approached and also the

[24:32] proposed legislation. Those themes that you see there on the left,

[24:36] they persisted into July as well.

[24:40] But the generated after July column there on the right was just a

[24:44] little bit more specificity to what we were seeing and hearing from

[24:48] administrators around the state as to where their

[24:52] heads were at, questions they were having as it dealt with the proposals as

[24:56] they sat in front of us.

[24:57] So, in that July session, asked for feedback, asked

[25:01] them to give us some information on what their levels of concerns were.

[25:05] We approached that in three ways.

[25:07] So we provided each theme and asked them to give us a rating of their level of

[25:11] concern, one to seven, Likert scale approach.

[25:14] We then asked them to rank them, sort them out, and tell us what's your highest

[25:18] concern to your lowest. And then we did a constant sum total where they had

[25:22] 100 points possible, and they could allocate the points to their level of concern.

[25:25] So if they were completely, and their only concern was one of those themes, they

[25:29] could allocate 100 points to it, or they could divvy them out however they wanted.

[25:34] And we won't go into all the measures across all those, but it will give you the

[25:36] aggregation of how those concerns ranked out

[25:40] against the different concern measures that we put in place.

[25:44] And, there's a lot of details behind any of these.

[25:46] I think you will hear us cover

[25:49] most aspects of these themes coming forward in our request and

[25:53] recommendations to you all. But in general, the highest level of

[25:57] concern was a provision within the executive order that talks about

[26:01] urging the State Board of Education to essentially take a look at the

[26:05] distribution of grades, and if it exceeds 65%

[26:09] or more of schools or districts receiving an ARB,

[26:12] to then reset to make sure that 65% are no longer

[26:16] at that standard. That came in as the number one, followed closely then

[26:20] by a feeling of an arbitrary publication date to produce significant

[26:24] consequences. And you have to remember, this was in July before

[26:28] the department had started engaging in feedback and listening

[26:32] around the state. But the idea that we were hearing then at that time was, okay,

[26:35] assessment channel windows changing, new literacy measures coming in, core data

[26:39] changes are happening, and that's that idea of the producing significant

[26:43] consequences.

[26:45] Good morning. My name is Cary Sciacca, and I'm superintendent of schools in Joplin.

[26:49] It's a pleasure to be here with you today.

[26:50] I have 34 years of public education experience, and all 34 of

[26:54] them have dealt significantly with accreditation.

[26:57] So,

[26:59] what we want to talk about this morning is very important to us across the

[27:02] district. We have a lot of people in this room today that are very vested and

[27:06] interested in this.

[27:08] And the recommendations to strengthen the proposal start first with the

[27:11] pilot. And you can see that Adam discussed

[27:15] those earlier.

[27:17] Items one and item four are of particular interest because they've not been covered

[27:21] yet, and we have some coverage already with DESE making some movement in

[27:25] items two and three. Our recommendation number

[27:28] one is to pilot the initial release time.

[27:32] And the proposal called for a public release in '25, '26,

[27:36] with A through F grades in the spring of '27, as well as

[27:40] using '24, '25 data for a fall release right now.

[27:44] This has been

[27:46] pretty much a very difficult task for DESE.

[27:49] This executive order has put them under strain, in my belief, in terms

[27:53] of getting this done and getting it accurate and correctly.

[27:56] And we want to make sure that there's not a premature release, and that all of a

[28:00] sudden, schools and districts are labeled with

[28:03] something that maybe does not line up with what we all

[28:07] consider accurate for our districts.

[28:10] And to publicly assign grades before schools have an opportunity to understand

[28:14] the metrics is problematic in our view.

[28:16] So our first recommendation would be rather than public releasing grades

[28:20] in the fall of '26, conduct a statewide

[28:24] pilot and provide districts with secure draft reports that are

[28:27] valuable to validate calculations and to make sure that everybody

[28:31] understands how these are done and it's communicated well.

[28:36] And why is that pilot necessary? Excuse me.

[28:39] One, protecting public trust. Two,

[28:43] preventing the wealth correlation.

[28:45] We're very concerned about how poverty is going to be viewed in this A through

[28:49] F framework. And we want to make sure that schools

[28:52] all over the state, and there's plenty of school districts with high poverty rates,

[28:56] that that's taken into consideration.

[28:59] And the other thing, excuse me, is the introduction of lexiles into

[29:03] the metrics as well. There's some unknowns with that in capping

[29:07] lexiles and students who score higher

[29:11] on different tests and where they're at with lexiles.

[29:14] There's a little bit of confusion with that.

[29:16] And then lack of educator input.

[29:19] We believe that we have more to give, more to offer you to

[29:23] help the department, as well as the partnership that Adam was talking about,

[29:27] and that there's a lot more that we can talk about rather than having a

[29:31] five-and-a-half-month insertion of the program.

[29:35] So a related piece to that then-

[29:37] Mm

[29:37] ... as an example, would be the weights.

[29:40] So what you see presented in the gray bar here is the proposed

[29:44] weights in the framework

[29:47] that the department's bringing forward in terms

[29:51] of how much of that score is coming from status, value-added growth, and growth to

[29:54] proficiency.

[29:56] You can see that a change in weights can change

[30:00] what the result that's brought forward is.

[30:04] And so from an idea of questions on the table, pieces in front of

[30:08] us, this very well could be in place

[30:11] as to

[30:13] the weights that are being used and are they returning the results we're expecting

[30:16] to see, just as a sample as to one of

[30:20] those methodological concerns. Additionally,

[30:25] Dr. Sciacca just mentioned it, but thinking about the incomplete methodology and

[30:28] rules

[30:30] I want to give, attribute this to school districts across southern

[30:34] Missouri. They have been working towards collecting just kind of their running,

[30:38] ongoing thoughts of concerns, questions, and issues.

[30:41] And so shared that information with us, and we've summarized it out here.

[30:45] Just to get a sense of kind of what we feel like, what the field feels like

[30:49] is unknown to this point, if we really are just a couple weeks

[30:53] away from seeing a released set of data.

[30:58] So what might that pilot process look like?

[31:00] So proposal as you see it here, we were really kind of looking at it

[31:04] between now and the spring 2027.

[31:07] And thinking if we could work towards an educator work group,

[31:11] have a dedicated work group, to provide feedback, guidance, input

[31:15] on the measurements needed to satisfy the objectives

[31:18] in those outcome areas identified in the executive order, run simulations

[31:22] statewide, provide districts with a sense of what's in those models,

[31:26] how they are unfolding,

[31:29] what we're seeing in a statewide or a regional perspective.

[31:32] We do think it would be valuable to complete one full cycle in a model

[31:36] like that. And if reports are released, that they be secure

[31:41] and labeled draft, as we know that some measures will not be available and

[31:44] some are still under development.

[31:48] So when we think about this,

[31:50] and it's kind of this idea of saying, well,

[31:54] with a pilot, is that really just to

[31:59] run the clock, so to speak? And we don't think so.

[32:02] We think that piloting is not about avoiding the

[32:06] accountability, but it's essentially around the integrity to what we're

[32:09] trying to launch. That we feel like if we do launch an untested model

[32:14] that issues mathematically flawed grades, we're going to destroy

[32:17] trust

[32:19] across the state. And looking to other states, they have run soft launches,

[32:23] specifically to catch and fix these types of issues.

[32:27] And I will jump ahead because when we think about the data side of this, even if we

[32:31] were running '24, '25,

[32:34] that data is locked down, so to speak.

[32:36] We've had that data and that's established.

[32:39] So there is no problems with the data, so to speak, but what we don't know is how

[32:42] all the measurements go together and the implications of that is where the

[32:46] concern lies in there.

[32:49] Other claims,

[32:51] if you were

[32:53] of concern that a pilot might

[32:56] have some negative consequences such as

[33:00] not promoting transparency, well, we feel like that if

[33:04] the measurement and the call is wrong, that that is worse than a delay, that

[33:08] when it comes out, it needs to be right, and an untested formula would mislead

[33:12] parents and penalize vulnerable schools.

[33:15] Another one to point out is the third one of students and parents cannot wait out a

[33:18] pilot.

[33:19] We certainly recognize that parents getting the information,

[33:23] and subsequently their kids, is critical, but that a premature failure

[33:26] label is going to have some damage

[33:30] associated with it if it is in fact not right, and we just simply don't know

[33:34] to this point to say yes or no.

[33:37] Another connection to pilot is understanding the role of demographics

[33:42] and thinking about what a potential objection could be there,

[33:46] in terms of a concern that might that be lowering the bar.

[33:49] We do not believe that. We don't see it as lowering the bar.

[33:52] We see it as demanding a higher standard for our data, not the lower bar for

[33:56] the students. And when we look at that, we look at how other states have

[34:00] approached that.

[34:01] And so just kind of summarize that out, and these are states with A to F

[34:05] grading systems. They have not

[34:08] gone about lowering the academic standards or the expectation, but they are

[34:11] accounting for those demographic differences by weighting student growth, subgroup

[34:15] performance to reward schools that are accelerating the progress of

[34:19] historically underperforming groups.

[34:23] Okay. Let's talk items two through four.

[34:26] Recommendation number two, we would propose to delay the inclusion

[34:30] of the literacy measure until the '26, '27 accountability cycle

[34:34] is in play.

[34:36] We're of the understanding that DESE plans to not include the literacy measure

[34:39] reporting until '26, '27. We want to affirm that

[34:43] and confirm that this decision will go forward, and that there

[34:47] be more study on the literacy measure with the K

[34:51] through eight lexiles, and make sure that we get that

[34:54] information right and partner with DESE in that

[34:57] regard. In recommendation number three, align the assessment

[35:01] window with instructional time. This is very important, and

[35:04] feedback came from the field immediately on that item.

[35:09] We were going to be...

[35:11] Basically, a lot of school districts were going to miss 15 to 20

[35:15] days of instruction and keeping the windows consistent

[35:19] with, because what we have been doing with MSIP6 and making sure we have good data

[35:22] and information for our kids, and we have enough time for teachers to teach.

[35:27] We would like to see that affirmed so that that goes forward so that

[35:31] mid-May is our end date when it comes to testing.

[35:34] And then recommendation four, preserve adequate time for core

[35:38] data validation. Very important.

[35:42] We think that this needs to line up with MSIP6.

[35:45] It takes quite a while in the summer to make sure that our graduates are

[35:49] all who our graduates are, and make sure we have accurate data, and that's

[35:52] not to count all the testing and everything that we get back from DESE to

[35:56] ensure that our testing is correct and that the right kids are in the formula

[36:01] when it comes to being determined for MSIP6.

[36:04] So we think those ought to line up, and that core data validation is very

[36:08] important.

[36:10] An additional concern when it comes to the distinction between accreditation and

[36:13] accountability.

[36:15] I want to be very clear. We have an MSIP accreditation process, and

[36:19] this is an additional accountability report.

[36:23] We have some elements of continuous improvement that has been

[36:26] recently embedded into MSIP6 accreditation But

[36:30] we had a conversation the other day, and we think we need to be very clear from the

[36:34] state board, DESE, and our school districts that A through F

[36:37] accountability, whatever that is for your district, is just part of the

[36:41] story. It is not the story. And we're very concerned that

[36:45] if this is not done correctly and labels get out there that aren't

[36:49] accurate, that all of a sudden they will become the de facto quality

[36:53] school designation in each community.

[36:56] And we think that could injure communities, injure school districts,

[37:00] and I don't think it's good for the chamber of commerce all the way around the

[37:03] state for those things to be out there.

[37:05] So

[37:06] yeah, when we think just to get into the specifics on it,

[37:11] we're viewing it just to project it ahead and saying, what kind of communication

[37:15] challenge does this present? What does the A to F represent?

[37:19] What does MSIP represent? What do they represent in conjunction?

[37:23] What do they represent independently?

[37:25] And so, we found this as a helpful way to think about what's in A to

[37:29] F,

[37:30] what's shared with MSIP 6 annual performance report, what sits

[37:34] alone within A to F that does not sit within MSIP 6 annual

[37:38] performance report. To Dr. Sequetta's comments of

[37:42] helping the community and public at large understand what the results mean

[37:46] and how they come together, and we view that as a significant communication

[37:50] challenge going forward that we just essentially need to get out,

[37:55] and felt it important to present and put in front of you today.

[37:58] So while it's not in the

[38:00] initial recommendations, it is a significant one.

[38:04] The final one to wrap up with is the 65% normative curve

[38:09] component in the executive order.

[38:10] So while that's not in the recommendations because it doesn't really have bearing

[38:13] at the moment, because we don't even have grades out,

[38:16] we did feel it important to surface and make a few points to that end.

[38:20] So, the language you see there on the left is what is in the executive order.

[38:24] So essentially, the executive order is urging the state board to adopt

[38:27] rules that the grading scale shall automatically increase in rigor, such

[38:31] that if we get to 65% of schools or districts at an A or

[38:35] B, that those thresholds to earn A, B, C, or D increase

[38:39] by five percentage points in the subsequent year

[38:43] in the name of increasing rigor.

[38:46] So, when we look at this, and we look at this on the measurement side of things,

[38:50] it's kind of a traditional criterion versus a

[38:54] norm-referenced approach. And that raising these thresholds when

[38:58] 65% of the schools earn an A or B is going to transform that framework from a

[39:02] criterion-referenced or an absolute standard approach to

[39:06] a relative or a norm-referenced type of competition.

[39:09] You can see what the implication of that is in terms of the goals, the questions,

[39:12] the scores, the outcomes. But a few examples might be helpful as well.

[39:16] So you can consider a normative approach compared to a criterion approach in

[39:20] these examples. We won't go through all of them, but give you a couple examples.

[39:23] Example one, we have an Algebra 1 course.

[39:25] I know we have a math teacher with us.

[39:27] In a normative model,

[39:30] a teacher decides and kind of establishes at the beginning of the course

[39:34] that only the top 65% of students can earn an A

[39:38] or B, as opposed to a criterion type of approach.

[39:41] Any student who demonstrates mastery of the course content can earn the

[39:45] associated grade. How about a driver's license?

[39:48] A driver's license is a criterion-based approach in the state.

[39:51] If you pass the criteria to earn a driver's license, you are deemed

[39:56] worthy to drive. You're eligible to drive.

[39:58] As opposed to a normative approach, which say at the end of the month, we look at

[40:01] the scores of all those who took a driver's test, we sort them out and say the top

[40:05] 65% of all scorers in the state

[40:08] can be drivers and those that can't.

[40:10] Another example, we tried to go to a department or work outside of

[40:14] education. Thought about public safety,

[40:17] highway patrol as an example. What would an absolute criterion-based

[40:21] approach versus a normative or a relative approach do?

[40:25] And so,

[40:26] example we came up here was dealing with emergency response times.

[40:29] So in an absolute standard, the goal might be 90% of priority calls

[40:33] are dealt with and responded to within eight minutes, as opposed

[40:37] to a peer ranking and normative type of approach,

[40:41] looking at the response time of all,

[40:44] and they may well have been all below that expectation in the

[40:48] absolute standard, but ranking out and kind of sorting where that performance comes

[40:52] in. So why is it an issue? Well, the concerns with raising the

[40:56] thresholds, there's a number, and so we won't go into all the details,

[41:00] but it is available there. The one I would like to point out, though,

[41:04] that is of concern is in the bottom right of disincentivizing

[41:07] collaboration. So we are concerned that

[41:11] if accountability approaches as a zero-sum game, and Pattonville

[41:15] scores and grade received may be somewhat

[41:19] related to where Iran or Joplin comes in, we feel like that

[41:23] could become a disincentive to collaborate and to share.

[41:27] Where high-performing districts sharing strategies could risk tipping

[41:31] averages over the mark and triggering penalties that can lower their

[41:35] own grades. So that's what we mean by disincentivizing collaboration.

[41:40] But we recognize that it is also proposed as a way to

[41:44] increase rigor and to increase the expectation.

[41:48] So some of the claims and a response from our perspective,

[41:52] thinking those through.

[41:54] First claim, if we remove that cap, then we'll lead to unchecked grade

[41:58] inflation. Everybody will be scoring high.

[42:01] Our thoughts towards that is that if we do see a large majority of schools meeting

[42:04] the standards in this absolute standard idea of whatever they are,

[42:09] and rewarding them all with an A would reflect objective statewide success that we

[42:13] have reached the bar, if that's where the standard sits.

[42:17] Second one, cap will force continuous improvement and push schools.

[42:20] Response for us is that the systemic academic improvement should be

[42:24] driven by formally raising standards, rigor,

[42:27] what we're wanting and expecting, not by just an automatic math

[42:31] calculation of saying, "Well, we've got too many there, so bump

[42:35] that expectation."

[42:37] You're down to one minute

[42:39] Okay. We're just about there.

[42:40] Yeah.

[42:41] Yeah. Mark, you want to bring it home?

[42:43] All right. I'm going to

[42:45] go forward. We've done that.

[42:47] I'm just going to go to my closing remarks, and I'm going to pose a question to the

[42:51] Board of Education and DESE. What is the goal for Missouri

[42:55] students? Is the goal to score proficient or advanced,

[42:59] or is the goal should align more with our mission and vision statements across the

[43:03] school districts of, are they workforce ready? Are they college ready?

[43:07] Do they have collaboration skills? Are they cooperative?

[43:10] All of those things that make you successful in life.

[43:13] I've raised four boys.

[43:15] During the course of their education,

[43:18] I've seen advanced scores, I've seen proficient scores, I've

[43:22] seen basic and below basic out of my four boys.

[43:26] That informed me, as a parent, of where they were.

[43:28] It was not a reflection of the school.

[43:31] It was just where they were, and it was okay.

[43:34] I didn't bring in my son when he scored a below basic and said, "Hey, you're an F.

[43:38] You're not worthy of it." So

[43:42] my

[43:44] ask of you guys

[43:46] is that when you're deciding right now on the framework,

[43:50] that

[43:51] you take into consideration what this might do, the damage it might do

[43:55] to our schools, our school buildings, our districts.

[43:59] There are a lot of variables in this.

[44:02] Now is not the right time. We need to do more vetting on this.

[44:05] We're here to help you. Any of the four of us will take time to

[44:09] sit on any committee, any group.

[44:12] All right. Thank you.

[44:13] The thing that matters are the educators behind me.

[44:16] Okay. Thank you for doing that, and I appreciate your comments, and

[44:20] certainly we'll take them under advisement.

[44:24] In knowing that this conversation was going to take place, I did

[44:28] write down my comments,

[44:30] in an effort--

[44:32] and I think it's within five minutes,

[44:35] but from my perspective, and I speak to you as a member

[44:39] of the board and not president or anything else, but

[44:43] in my capacity of being on this school board-

[44:47] Hey, Brooke. Sorry to interrupt.

[44:49] Go ahead.

[44:49] We have the A through F grading framework on the action item

[44:53] next. I don't know if-

[44:54] Okay. Do you want to do that then?

[44:55] ... we should wait until we get into that or-

[44:57] I'm fine. Are there any questions of these gentlemen

[45:02] that you have?

[45:05] I have a question.

[45:07] Mr. Otto.

[45:08] Are you able to provide this information to us?

[45:12] This is the first time.

[45:14] I didn't see it. I'm trying to look for it.

[45:19] Apologies. This is a lot of good information, and this is my first time seeing it.

[45:27] While she is showing you that, we sent a lot of documents

[45:31] to you last week you should have received.

[45:33] They were

[45:34] labeled 1A through

[45:37] 6A-

[45:37] Mm-hmm

[45:37] ... or 6B. Lots of information, and hopefully, you got

[45:41] this at a time also.

[45:44] Mrs. Casey?

[45:45] Great.

[45:47] Thank you. And I would like to echo what was started to be said.

[45:51] Thank you very much for not just what you've presented here today, and

[45:55] I do find it very well done, very informative.

[45:58] But I want to thank you for the time that you've given us to date.

[46:01] I especially appreciated that you acknowledged that the department has been

[46:05] reaching out

[46:09] since February, since the signing of the executive order in January,

[46:12] where there have been various formats, various

[46:16] audiences, various approaches to gaining feedback.

[46:21] It did take time to put the framework together, and

[46:25] part of that was because it was being worked through with a lot of data

[46:29] analysis, et cetera.

[46:31] But we're going to hear more about that and all those details from the

[46:35] department. What I really just wanted to say is that over the past

[46:40] several weeks, I've listened and heard from many, many

[46:43] people, and have superintendents and other

[46:47] participants in the education community, and I've really appreciated the

[46:51] feedback that you've given us.

[46:53] And I want to especially comment that you yourselves, I

[46:57] met with, and the feedback you provided has helped already to

[47:01] inform, I think the presentation that you're going to see

[47:05] next. So, it's more of an

[47:08] appreciation and an acknowledgement that we have been

[47:12] listening, and your participation as a partner

[47:15] has been there over these last months, and I thank you for that.

[47:19] Thank you.

[47:20] Thank you.

[47:21] Thank you.

[47:22] I have one question.

[47:25] Gentlemen, thank you for this presentation.

[47:28] The four primary recommendations that you brought

[47:32] forward, piloting the CARDs, delaying inclusion of literacy, keeping testing

[47:36] window where it is,

[47:38] preserving time for data validation, those are

[47:42] mechanical in nature. Those are

[47:45] requests that can be addressed, can be solved.

[47:48] There's also the philosophical side of things.

[47:50] And,

[47:52] I guess if these four things are agreed to, would you

[47:56] philosophically be behind

[47:58] the A through F grading framework?

[48:02] I'm going to answer, and I'm going to say that,

[48:05] I think the A through F framework and MSIP 6 should be released at the same

[48:09] time, and I think it should be communicated well.

[48:12] We're under an executive order, and this did not go through the legislature, at

[48:15] least it wasn't passed last year. So under these circumstances, I

[48:19] think we need to make sure that we communicate well and that people need to

[48:22] understand what both of these measurements do, so

[48:26] that there is an injury regardless of what scores a school gets.

[48:29] Because one year a school could be an A, the next year they could be a B, the next

[48:33] year they could be a C, and it could cause confusion.

[48:36] So I think more communication, more understanding to what it is and what

[48:39] it's not compared to MSIP 6, and I think we should continue to look at

[48:43] MSIP 6 down the road and build more continuous improvement with more

[48:47] peer evaluations, more things for schools to collaborate on,

[48:51] bring more

[48:53] innovation back into that as we go into MSIP 7.

[48:58] Okay. Thank you for that. Any other further questions, gentlemen?

[49:03] Hearing none, thank you very much for your presentation.

[49:06] Thank you.

[49:10] Thank you all.

[49:16] So we'll continue on with our discussion of A through F at this time.

[49:20] Do we need a motion to-

[49:21] Yes

[49:21] ... I move that we consider the A through F school grading

[49:25] framework.

[49:26] I second.

[49:28] We have a motion and a second. Vince, you have your hand up.

[49:31] I thought we were going to hear a presentation on A through F.

[49:35] Yeah, a little premature on the motion, I think.

[49:41] Yeah.

[49:41] Or discussion.

[49:42] Yeah.

[49:42] The motion's on the floor and that, so now we can have the

[49:46] discussion and presentation-

[49:48] Okay

[49:48] ... until we call for question.

[49:50] Or if we want to withdraw the motion, either way.

[49:54] We can leave it.

[49:54] Probably withdraw, technically, too.

[49:59] Okay.

[50:00] Motion withdrawn.

[50:02] Okay. Who did the second on that?

[50:05] Jordan.

[50:06] Pardon?

[50:06] I did the original second.

[50:07] Okay, you want to withdraw your second?

[50:09] Yes.

[50:10] Very good.

[50:11] Go ahead.

[50:12] Okay.

[50:14] Thank you. Again, Lisa Sereno, Deputy Commissioner of

[50:17] Learning Services here.

[50:20] First, I would like to

[50:22] thank Doctors Friga and Goodman,

[50:26] and Sachetta and Drake for their presentation.

[50:33] What I'm here today to do is to ask for your

[50:36] approval on the A through F school grading framework.

[50:41] This will allow the department to move forward to the next phase

[50:45] of implementation of the grade cards for Missouri public schools,

[50:49] public school districts, and public charter schools, as called

[50:53] for in the Governor's Executive Order 2601.

[50:57] We're asking you, just as a preview, to approve the framework that

[51:01] you reviewed at our August 18th board meeting.

[51:04] We're going to see that framework in a few moments, but first, I'm going to review

[51:08] some background and context for you, share some

[51:11] implementation decisions since last month's

[51:14] conversation, and preview what happens after the

[51:17] framework is approved.

[51:20] I want to start with stakeholder feedback, and that group

[51:24] of school leaders that you just heard from, sharing their feedback

[51:28] for your consideration, I would say they did an excellent job

[51:32] of summarizing

[51:34] the high-level concerns. And, I do want to

[51:38] acknowledge their collaboration and their

[51:41] participation in almost

[51:45] every single opportunity that we have

[51:48] provided to share information and to capture the

[51:52] feedback.

[51:54] Folks from those districts and many of their peers have

[51:58] joined us.

[52:00] So, since the signing of the executive order, DESE shared

[52:04] information about the framework on more than 35

[52:08] different occasions.

[52:10] We've hosted or spoken to our

[52:13] estimates of nearly 1,500 stakeholders.

[52:17] These things occurred at meetings that we may have held,

[52:21] like the Commissioner's Advisory Council meetings, the Missouri

[52:25] School Improvement Advisory Committee,

[52:29] at conferences like DESE's Annual Cooperative Conference for

[52:33] School Administrators,

[52:35] to the Show-Me Curriculum Administrators summer meeting.

[52:39] And most recently, since the last board meeting, we've conducted two

[52:43] in-person and three virtual sessions,

[52:48] through August and the first part of this month, really specifically

[52:52] to capture feedback in advance of this conversation today,

[52:56] when it is most fresh in mind.

[53:00] We pulled together all the feedback, the suggestions, the comments

[53:04] from these sessions and combined it with the messages,

[53:08] the notes, the emails on the topic.

[53:11] And you all have received outreach from a number of

[53:14] stakeholders,

[53:16] formally via email and informally through conversations.

[53:21] So we were able to sort the feedback into

[53:25] five general categories, and I want to talk just a little bit

[53:29] about those broad categories.

[53:34] How does this work? Specifically, the calculation details.

[53:37] This was the one that was most mentioned.

[53:39] It was brought up by the group of leaders that you just heard

[53:43] from, and it's certainly a valid concern.

[53:47] How will the grades be calculated?

[53:49] That's a general question, to something very specific.

[53:52] Will students in the district less than a full academic year be included in the

[53:56] calculations? Now, we've shared the

[54:00] basis for scoring certain grade card

[54:03] elements. There are five different elements that are required to be

[54:06] included, and the basis for

[54:10] four of them

[54:14] is provided in the

[54:18] scoring for the annual performance report.

[54:20] So, we can look at that MSIP 6 comprehensive guide to

[54:24] see where that scoring comes from.

[54:28] However, to date, we haven't shared detailed information

[54:31] about the fifth calculation, which is growth to

[54:35] proficiency. I'm going to talk to you about that in a few moments.

[54:39] Nor have we been able to share exactly

[54:43] how all of these numbers will come together

[54:47] in a calculation

[54:51] So, the availability of detailed information,

[54:56] so that stakeholders could

[54:59] run their own simulations and understand how their data would come

[55:03] together was a primary concern. And

[55:07] also, as you heard from the group who just spoke,

[55:12] that continuous improvement adjustment in the grading

[55:15] scale that's described in the executive order was a

[55:19] primary concern.

[55:21] Now, I can say that most of the wide-ranging questions will be

[55:25] answered when the technical guide for scoring is available, and that

[55:29] can happen after you all approve the framework.

[55:32] So the framework is a first step in us

[55:36] being able to produce those detailed information.

[55:40] You also heard about the timing-

[55:42] So Lisa, I'm going to cut you off here real soon.

[55:45] Yes, sir.

[55:46] Yeah. Because we do have a 9:30 stop, and I also would like to

[55:50] hear from Dr. Pruce as well.

[55:52] It starts at

[55:53] 9:30.

[55:53] Okay.

[55:55] I will want comments from Dr. Pruce, is what I'm saying.

[55:59] Certainly. I will

[56:02] keep a watch on the time.

[56:06] And of course, timing of the public release,

[56:10] that was the next most mentioned topic.

[56:13] I won't go into detail there. I think the group that you just heard

[56:17] from

[56:18] spoke about that quite a bit.

[56:21] The ability, the process for

[56:25] communicating, for messaging, for

[56:29] district and school leader and

[56:33] educator involvement in reviewing

[56:37] the calculations, helping us determine

[56:41] are they functioning appropriately, getting their feedback

[56:45] in on the actual detail of the data.

[56:50] Messaging around the grade cards, their relationship to existing

[56:54] reports and accountability calculations, support

[56:58] for local communication about the meaning of the

[57:01] grades, and concerns that the grades will provide only

[57:05] part of the story of what is happening in schools and districts were

[57:09] the themes that came out here. And I will tell you that the

[57:13] department is engaging with experts in strategic

[57:16] communication, to help with those messaging pieces,

[57:20] and that our plan moving forward,

[57:23] once we have approval of the framework, is to produce that detailed

[57:27] guide,

[57:29] and work with stakeholders to ensure that the framework is

[57:32] functioning as we intend it.

[57:35] And of course, there were concerns and questions about the new elements

[57:39] that are required in the grade cards.

[57:42] There are five things that are required in the grade

[57:45] cards altogether. There's academic achievement level,

[57:50] value-added growth,

[57:52] growth to proficiency,

[57:54] success ready graduate measure, and a four-year graduation rate.

[57:59] And of those, that third item, the growth to

[58:02] proficiency, is new. Also included

[58:06] in the academic achievement piece is a literacy measure.

[58:10] And although we have captured literacy data, prior

[58:14] to now,

[58:16] we haven't captured complete statewide data, nor have we

[58:19] reported it,

[58:21] or used it in this type of combined report.

[58:24] So, lots of questions. And you heard some specifics earlier

[58:28] about that.

[58:31] There were questions about authority.

[58:34] This category really included questions about

[58:38] our authority to create the calculations, to publish the grades,

[58:42] whether administrative rulemaking is required by the

[58:46] executive order,

[58:48] and whether it's necessary to produce the grade cards.

[58:53] And

[58:54] our legal review of the executive order

[58:59] indicates that while we could initiate

[59:02] rulemaking, it's not actually necessary for

[59:06] purposes of producing the grade cards.

[59:10] And then finally, a catch-all category that

[59:14] included some notable topics like

[59:17] communicating changes to the implementation plan

[59:22] from early this year to what we delivered to the

[59:26] governor's office in June to now,

[59:30] and making that very clear. Preserving instructional

[59:33] time, you heard loudly about that, I believe.

[59:37] Minimizing confusion, questions about private

[59:41] school participation in the process for opt-in,

[59:45] and then the

[59:48] consideration of the impact of these

[59:52] grades at the local level and what they mean.

[59:56] So, although we'd previously communicated that

[1:00:00] literacy would not be included in the grade cards prior to

[1:00:03] '26, '27, and that there would be no changes

[1:00:07] to the assessment windows this year, we still had several questions on those

[1:00:11] topics, too.

[1:00:13] So,

[1:00:15] we believe, and I think everyone in this room believes, that it's

[1:00:19] important to get this right, and that together

[1:00:23] we are working on what's best for our children, our

[1:00:27] students.

[1:00:28] We may not always agree on the details of every single

[1:00:32] report,

[1:00:33] but I think if we come together in that spirit of what's best for

[1:00:37] children,

[1:00:39] we can get it right. The majority of those

[1:00:42] details are falling within the implementation,

[1:00:46] not the framework. So I've kind of put a graphic together here

[1:00:50] about what's included in the implementation

[1:00:54] decisions. And in fact, some of the key concerns that

[1:00:57] stakeholders have raised, that the department has, that you, the board,

[1:01:01] have about how we will roll this out,

[1:01:05] are waiting on approval of the framework to proceed

[1:01:10] So,

[1:01:11] what all is involved in implementation?

[1:01:14] You see a reflection of the activities.

[1:01:17] Some are already underway. They'll happen concurrently, some

[1:01:20] sequentially. They fall outside the framework.

[1:01:24] Most of them need approval of that framework to begin before we

[1:01:28] can complete and proceed.

[1:01:31] The weighting and grading scale are needed, that's the

[1:01:35] framework, in order to construct the technical guide and the scoring

[1:01:39] references, so we can share them with the field and create the final data

[1:01:43] models. It's also necessary for the technical programming and

[1:01:46] data that our contractors and our partners are working on for

[1:01:50] us. And together, these are going to help inform the conversations with

[1:01:54] stakeholders over the actual calculations and provide a basis

[1:01:58] for messaging resources. And the

[1:02:02] implementation, of course, also includes those decisions about how

[1:02:06] and when to publish the data.

[1:02:12] So last month, we brought you some decision points

[1:02:16] for your discussion.

[1:02:19] Only one was about the framework. The other two were really

[1:02:22] implementation decisions. And here's an outline

[1:02:26] of an update on those and a couple of other implementation decision points.

[1:02:32] We want to share where we are with these items right now, and that

[1:02:36] these decisions were informed by your

[1:02:39] concerns expressed to us last month,

[1:02:44] by stakeholder input, analysis, consultation with technical advisors,

[1:02:49] and discussion with the governor's office about their

[1:02:52] priorities and intent. So, should all

[1:02:56] schools receive a grade card? We talked about this

[1:03:00] last time. It's important for us to consider

[1:03:03] whether there's enough data to produce a

[1:03:07] meaningful grade assignment, and that really speaks to the

[1:03:11] validity of the report. So, grades won't be

[1:03:14] produced for schools that don't meet minimum data thresholds.

[1:03:19] And we expect a very small number of schools to fall into

[1:03:23] this category.

[1:03:25] Should growth to proficiency include already proficient schools?

[1:03:29] So, our measure will include student scores across all

[1:03:33] performance levels. It uses a value table or

[1:03:36] value ladder approach that recognizes

[1:03:40] movement within and out of the lowest levels, below

[1:03:44] basic and basic, and it acknowledges larger

[1:03:48] gains in performance. It

[1:03:51] recognizes sustained proficiency and also

[1:03:55] encourages progression to advanced, and it

[1:03:58] rewards explicit attention to students who

[1:04:02] begin the farthest behind.

[1:04:06] Should the framework adjust for demographic characteristics? Okay.

[1:04:10] The framework itself does not include such an adjustment,

[1:04:14] and we discussed this last time. But it is important to

[1:04:18] understand that the value-added growth and the growth to

[1:04:22] proficiency measures capture improvement along

[1:04:26] the proficiency scale, no matter where the students begin

[1:04:29] or what their demographic characteristics.

[1:04:34] What their economic status is, for example.

[1:04:37] We know that together with academic achievement, these

[1:04:41] growth and improvement measures, which the executive order asked us

[1:04:45] to emphasize.

[1:04:47] These provide a more complete picture of student performance.

[1:04:50] One alone is not enough.

[1:04:53] It helps give us an understanding of schools' contributions to student

[1:04:57] learning and a clear picture of whether students are gaining

[1:05:01] the knowledge and the skills that they need.

[1:05:05] Okay. When will literacy be included?

[1:05:09] Literacy will not show up in the grade cards until the '26,

[1:05:12] '27 grade cards are produced.

[1:05:16] And will the statewide test windows change?

[1:05:18] Well, as I said earlier, the point of our work is to do what's best for

[1:05:22] students, and we all agree that preserving instructional time

[1:05:26] is in their best interest. So, the statewide assessment windows

[1:05:30] will not be shortened.

[1:05:35] Okay.

[1:05:38] So, implementation begins after approval of

[1:05:42] the framework. The framework, which we're going to go through

[1:05:46] what that is, is the grading structures.

[1:05:49] And so, it's high-level weighting and the grading scale.

[1:05:53] That's the framework.

[1:05:56] But approval of that allows us to go to the

[1:05:59] next step. So, we can create the final technical guide, provide

[1:06:03] detailed calculations for review, then that would allow our

[1:06:07] partners and vendors to produce the data that we can provide

[1:06:11] to schools and districts. We can continue those

[1:06:15] stakeholder discussions that inform whether the calculations

[1:06:19] function the way we intended them to, whether we've

[1:06:23] made a mistake. Sometimes that happens, and we need to correct a mistake

[1:06:27] if we make a mistake.

[1:06:30] So, that will help us find where adjustments may be necessary.

[1:06:33] During that period, we will also

[1:06:37] continue refining and completing communication support

[1:06:41] resources and collaborative messaging.

[1:06:44] Ideally, we speak with one voice on the meaning of these

[1:06:49] grade cards, the board, the department, and the field.

[1:06:54] And engaging parents and families on the usability

[1:06:58] and design features, preparing and reviewing the

[1:07:02] data before we publish it, and then ultimately publishing those

[1:07:06] grade cards.

[1:07:08] This rollout allows us to provide the preliminary

[1:07:12] information Explain the calculations, the underlying measures,

[1:07:17] create opportunities for folks to ask questions, and help

[1:07:20] build understanding and trust in the system.

[1:07:30] So literally, what does this look like in timing?

[1:07:34] We're looking at the coming weeks, being able to produce a

[1:07:38] technical guide,

[1:07:40] and zero in on providing preliminary

[1:07:44] data to schools and districts.

[1:07:47] And at present,

[1:07:49] we are

[1:07:52] targeting a public look at the

[1:07:55] '24/'25 grade cards after that stakeholder

[1:07:59] engagement, discussion, and refinement

[1:08:02] period.

[1:08:05] Okay.

[1:08:06] We have a question here.

[1:08:07] Yeah. Can you go back to that slide?

[1:08:12] What is the timeline for this? There's no dates on here.

[1:08:15] Right. There's no dates, where we have some general

[1:08:20] information from our partners and vendors that are leading

[1:08:23] us to believe the earliest we can do that grade card release would be

[1:08:27] the public release, so all the way up to the right, would be the middle of

[1:08:32] November.

[1:08:35] Okay.

[1:08:36] At the earliest.

[1:08:37] Now, that would include a multi-week period of

[1:08:41] time to have the data in the

[1:08:45] hands of schools and districts, their local data,

[1:08:49] and also, at the same time, for them to have

[1:08:52] information about the detailed calculations that are

[1:08:56] involved in creating these grades.

[1:08:59] And again, this would be the earliest.

[1:09:01] Yes.

[1:09:01] This is Casey. Okay, I'm sorry. Follow up. Yeah.

[1:09:04] That

[1:09:06] timeline doesn't match what was in the materials that we've been looking at in

[1:09:10] this

[1:09:11] framework. I think it's page seven of

[1:09:15] our

[1:09:17] A through F framework presentation that was presented on June 30th.

[1:09:22] The response to the governor?

[1:09:24] Yes.

[1:09:25] Yes. You are

[1:09:29] correct.

[1:09:30] That's why I think, is that where the confusion is about the release?

[1:09:34] Because that timeline, that's way sooner than what this says.

[1:09:38] So,

[1:09:39] initially we were planning a release in the

[1:09:42] spring of 2027 using

[1:09:45] '25/'26 data. We

[1:09:49] had heard concerns that it would be important to

[1:09:52] provide some sort of public preview, public look at

[1:09:56] the grade card data this fall, so that would be

[1:10:00] a look back at '24/'25 data. That is what we

[1:10:04] could produce this fall.

[1:10:06] Who brought those concerns up? Because it sounds like we're getting the opposite-

[1:10:10] Yeah, no

[1:10:10] ... reaction here.

[1:10:11] Hang on a second.

[1:10:13] Do you have a response to his question?

[1:10:16] Kind of, yeah.

[1:10:17] No, I think what you're getting at, but I think

[1:10:21] it would be beneficial if we went through the framework and

[1:10:25] made sure we all had clarity and understanding on

[1:10:29] the A to F framework and then the overall plan, and then we can come back and talk

[1:10:33] about how does all that timing work, but making sure

[1:10:37] we're discussing the timing after we're confident

[1:10:41] about the details.

[1:10:44] That's fine. Yeah.

[1:10:48] Okay. So, we'll move forward and-

[1:10:51] But come back to this one

[1:10:53] ... and we can come back to the timing, and yes,

[1:10:57] Vice President Otto, you are correct in that this would

[1:11:00] be looking at '24/'25 data in a

[1:11:04] public view,

[1:11:06] would be a new addition to that plan.

[1:11:12] Okay. So, we're going to go through this rather

[1:11:15] quickly. Please stop me if you would like more detail.

[1:11:20] We've seen this before.

[1:11:23] So, the framework consists of four pieces.

[1:11:27] This is the K through eight school structure.

[1:11:32] This would apply to in the neighborhood of

[1:11:35] 1,600 schools in Missouri that serve

[1:11:39] students in grades kindergarten through eight.

[1:11:43] So, a variety of different grade configurations.

[1:11:47] There are about five dozen different grade configurations in this

[1:11:51] category.

[1:11:53] And

[1:11:55] the executive order requires these three

[1:11:59] categories in the grade card, the academic achievement, the

[1:12:03] value-added growth, and the growth to proficiency.

[1:12:12] The second piece of the framework is the structure for high

[1:12:15] schools, and here we're looking at about 500 schools.

[1:12:19] The number of schools is going to vary from year to year just because

[1:12:24] districts,

[1:12:25] they have construction projects, they do changes, they may change grade

[1:12:29] configurations,

[1:12:31] expand and contract the number of schools.

[1:12:34] And here we see all these items are in blue,

[1:12:38] so as I mentioned before, each of these four

[1:12:42] elements are data elements that we already

[1:12:46] collect, report, and use in other

[1:12:50] ways.

[1:12:52] And then, here's a look at how this would all roll

[1:12:56] up into the district grades.

[1:13:00] And again, here's how that distribution would fall out on the

[1:13:03] right-hand side for school districts that have

[1:13:07] students in all grades.

[1:13:12] And we know that not every district is the same

[1:13:16] And we're talking about 500

[1:13:19] district and

[1:13:21] charter LEA,

[1:13:23] public charter LEA. So we're talking about

[1:13:26] 552 approximately of those that we would

[1:13:30] see grades for.

[1:13:33] And then the final piece of the framework

[1:13:37] is the grading scale. And you've seen this before.

[1:13:41] This has not changed since we discussed this at the

[1:13:45] August 18th meeting.

[1:13:49] So here, taken all together, those four pieces

[1:13:53] are the framework that we are asking you to approve so that we can

[1:13:57] proceed

[1:13:58] with the detailed development and the next steps of the

[1:14:02] implementation. And I'm certainly

[1:14:06] happy to answer any questions that you may have.

[1:14:12] Dr. Pries, would you like to add anything

[1:14:14] at this point?

[1:14:16] I don't think I have anything too specific to add unless you had questions.

[1:14:20] Just to reiterate both what

[1:14:23] Deputy Commissioner Serino is saying and our colleagues that came before

[1:14:27] her, I think a lot of people have been putting a lot of time and effort

[1:14:30] into this, and we just are really trying hard to do it right.

[1:14:36] So that's all I have to add, I

[1:14:40] guess.

[1:14:40] Thank you.

[1:14:42] So could I ask, do you believe in it, the process?

[1:14:45] You're

[1:14:47] the Commissioner of Education right now, and so my question is...

[1:14:52] I believe that this is a charge that we have been given, and we can

[1:14:56] make something good out of it. We can find a way to use it.

[1:14:59] We've talked a lot about how we can use this to improve our school

[1:15:03] improvement work, how we can really use it to

[1:15:07] highlight schools that are doing well and support the ones that aren't doing as

[1:15:11] well. One of the big things that I think has come out of this conversation

[1:15:15] is the importance around the messaging, and that was one of the things that I first

[1:15:18] picked up on is that

[1:15:20] we are layering this on top of the MSIP APR and the ESSA

[1:15:24] identification. So, parents and

[1:15:29] the public are seeing lots of different ways that we are putting

[1:15:33] out information about schools, and we want that to be as consistent as we can

[1:15:37] be even though they are doing different things.

[1:15:40] And that's why I think we were talking earlier about the

[1:15:44] pieces that also show up in the APR, the

[1:15:47] achievement and the value-added growth.

[1:15:50] We have tried as much as possible to keep that consistent with the way that those

[1:15:54] things are scored in the annual performance report, so

[1:15:58] that schools don't see their scores in the APR

[1:16:02] earn them this rating, and then those exact same scores in a

[1:16:06] different format earn them something else. So we've tried really hard.

[1:16:09] That's why you see, you wonder 38% is kind of an odd number,

[1:16:13] but it has to do with the way that those things are scored in the annual

[1:16:17] performance report. So I think I feel good about where

[1:16:21] the framework is right now.

[1:16:24] If I'm being candid, I

[1:16:28] think there are some things that we would still like to work through

[1:16:32] with our colleagues, and nobody has been taking this lightly

[1:16:36] or

[1:16:37] messing around with it or anything like that.

[1:16:40] These people have been working as frantically as possible

[1:16:43] ever since I have come on board, and I know they were for months ahead of that.

[1:16:48] So probably to the neglect of some other things that we would normally be

[1:16:52] doing. But

[1:16:53] again, we will work as hard as we can, as fast as

[1:16:57] we can, but we want to feel like we are putting out something that is good and

[1:17:01] meaningful.

[1:17:03] Certainly. Now, when the gentleman sat before us here, they were

[1:17:07] saying that they wish to work with us on this endeavor.

[1:17:10] And do you believe that's what has occurred?

[1:17:12] Yes.

[1:17:13] I was going to say, I've actually talked to all of them, I think-

[1:17:15] Okay

[1:17:15] ... pretty recently, and several other folks in the field too, so.

[1:17:19] Okay.

[1:17:20] Very good. Mrs. Casey.

[1:17:22] Great. Thank you, President

[1:17:24] Miller. So thank you, Lisa, for providing all this detail.

[1:17:28] If you'd go back to just the last slide, I think,

[1:17:32] in general. So just to recap for clarity for

[1:17:36] myself,

[1:17:39] the first concern that was raised

[1:17:42] in general through many

[1:17:45] mechanisms as well as the last presentation,

[1:17:49] was that concern about, call it the calculations, the

[1:17:53] technical details. You raised it, it was one of your most common

[1:17:57] points of feedback.

[1:17:59] And what you're saying is,

[1:18:03] based on all the feedback you've already received, the work that's been done by the

[1:18:06] department, this is now part of, but more

[1:18:10] a significant part of the technical details.

[1:18:14] And that running now the data with this

[1:18:17] decision made, should we decide on this and approve it today,

[1:18:22] that you'll be able to produce the technical guide

[1:18:25] and produce the pilot data, or I'd call it

[1:18:29] the embargo data, because I think it is important.

[1:18:33] That is the request and has been the plan of the department all along,

[1:18:36] even part of the executive order that we would produce embargo

[1:18:39] data. So that data would

[1:18:43] be presented at a certain point, we'll go back to the timeline,

[1:18:47] to the districts

[1:18:49] for all of the additional feedback sessions, for the work that

[1:18:53] each district would be able to do with it, running their own models,

[1:18:57] delving into the data. I think,

[1:18:59] Matt, you mentioned that the data's already been

[1:19:04] reviewed. It's old data, so we're not expecting to find inaccuracies,

[1:19:08] but at the same time, all of that due diligence work will be able

[1:19:12] to be done by the districts in collaboration

[1:19:16] with the department.

[1:19:18] And that is the plan?

[1:19:20] That is correct.

[1:19:20] Okay. During that time, back to this, if,

[1:19:24] for whatever reason, the great work of Matt and

[1:19:28] others that are well-versed in data analysis

[1:19:32] suggests a change to this,

[1:19:35] by us approving it today,

[1:19:39] it does not mean that it's cast in stone.

[1:19:42] It allows you to move forward, but if there's

[1:19:45] proper justification and reason,

[1:19:49] you would come back to us and we would make an adjustment if it

[1:19:53] was identified that one was needed or recommended, and we'd be able to

[1:19:56] reconsider that.

[1:19:58] Yes. If the department determined

[1:20:02] through this process that these relative weightings

[1:20:06] were for some reason

[1:20:09] creating an inaccurate picture-

[1:20:11] Mm-hmm

[1:20:11] ... or for some other reason did not work,

[1:20:15] then we would come back to you with a request to

[1:20:19] modify the framework.

[1:20:20] And I'm not assuming that that will happen.

[1:20:23] I think you've done your work as best you could, as the

[1:20:27] commissioner mentioned, with the feedback to

[1:20:32] present what you believe now is the best

[1:20:36] recommendation.

[1:20:39] One of the concerns that has been raised along the way has

[1:20:43] been poverty, and I think you do address that in

[1:20:46] general, but could you speak to how

[1:20:51] poverty,

[1:20:53] there's no explicit

[1:20:55] measure or weight given to students of poverty,

[1:20:59] but there is a recognition. In fact,

[1:21:03] if schools, districts are, as the

[1:21:07] leaders that they are, doing the job that they've been striving to do,

[1:21:10] those schools with greater numbers of children with

[1:21:14] poverty will excel under this model of

[1:21:17] recognition for the fact that that's where the significant amount

[1:21:21] of growth to proficiency will be. Am I following that correctly?

[1:21:25] So, it will follow the numbers, right?

[1:21:29] What I

[1:21:31] will say, the value-added growth is an

[1:21:35] important... It's well-vetted, well-researched,

[1:21:40] peer-reviewed, nationally and internationally recognized

[1:21:45] as a valid model for measuring

[1:21:48] student growth

[1:21:50] at the individual student level, no matter where the

[1:21:54] student starts. And when you actually then run those

[1:21:58] measures,

[1:22:00] you see that there no longer then is a relationship between

[1:22:04] the measure and poverty. Right? So that

[1:22:08] students anywhere along that continuum, the

[1:22:12] socioeconomic continuum, can show growth,

[1:22:16] meet or exceed their growth expectations.

[1:22:19] We've worked with the same set of researchers to

[1:22:23] help vet

[1:22:25] a number, to look at a number of different

[1:22:29] methodologies for growth to proficiency.

[1:22:33] And we have come to a model that

[1:22:37] also allows us to show improvement toward

[1:22:40] proficiency for all students. And in the way

[1:22:44] that we are scoring it,

[1:22:47] we're providing extra recognition

[1:22:51] for students who move the most, and

[1:22:55] also extra recognition or

[1:22:58] attention for improvement of those students at the

[1:23:01] very lowest

[1:23:04] end of the range. Again,

[1:23:06] independent of demographic information.

[1:23:11] So, I'll just wrap up on this one point.

[1:23:14] So to go back, the first concern was that there be a pilot.

[1:23:17] Yes, there will be. We'll go back and talk about the specific dates

[1:23:21] and go over that, but there will be an embargoed period

[1:23:25] in which all of the districts will have the data

[1:23:28] internally to work within their teams and in

[1:23:31] collaboration with DESE, which will build on the feedback that we've been getting

[1:23:35] for months along this

[1:23:38] timeline here.

[1:23:40] You've addressed that literacy,

[1:23:42] as

[1:23:43] was recommended, will not be included until '26, '27.

[1:23:48] Alignment with the instructional time, the assessment alignment has

[1:23:52] been addressed, and that is confirmed, because I think that was the question.

[1:23:56] You wanted assurance that it was confirmed.

[1:23:59] And then the time for data validation, which ties back to the

[1:24:03] embargoed period, will be there, albeit we need to talk about what that length of

[1:24:07] time is. But we have addressed the four concerns that were

[1:24:10] raised.

[1:24:12] I believe so.

[1:24:13] Okay. Wanted to clarify. Thank you.

[1:24:15] I have something.

[1:24:16] Barry.

[1:24:17] Yes, and thank you, Lisa, and gentlemen as well.

[1:24:21] It sounds like there's

[1:24:26] the ability for everyone to work

[1:24:30] together, seemingly with

[1:24:33] accountability not being something that anyone is running from.

[1:24:37] It sounds like

[1:24:41] most folks are just asking for the opportunity to have it

[1:24:45] extremely clarified and be able to

[1:24:49] evaluate what's happening within their own ecosystem-

[1:24:52] Mm-hmm

[1:24:52] ... and be given the opportunity to address what they

[1:24:56] need to address

[1:24:59] in order to

[1:25:01] ultimately and positively help the outcome of the children.

[1:25:06] When I look at us voting on the framework,

[1:25:10] it seems like, and please correct me if I'm wrong,

[1:25:13] but in order to go on to ask

[1:25:17] the questions that may help design, we

[1:25:21] need to have a framework in place.

[1:25:25] I-

[1:25:26] Why wouldn't we be able to have a pilot in

[1:25:29] place first to avoid the

[1:25:33] unintended consequences that we don't know?

[1:25:37] It seems like we're handling an

[1:25:41] extremely sensitive

[1:25:44] situation here, and I think that

[1:25:49] we should look at the whole picture

[1:25:53] and have complete clarity, understand what it's going to look like

[1:25:58] in schools, without. I

[1:26:00] guess,

[1:26:03] why wouldn't we be able to do that?

[1:26:07] But

[1:26:09] isn't that doing that now, what you're-

[1:26:11] So-

[1:26:11] ... recommending?

[1:26:12] You're

[1:26:15] talking about doing that work prior to us asking

[1:26:19] you to approve the framework.

[1:26:21] Correct.

[1:26:22] Yeah.

[1:26:22] As Carrie stated, essentially, if there's an

[1:26:25] instance in which

[1:26:28] there are questions raised around the framework and

[1:26:30] it's brought back to the board to

[1:26:34] vote,

[1:26:37] the likelihood of that happening are probably extremely

[1:26:41] slim.

[1:26:41] Yeah.

[1:26:42] And so to avoid that, why wouldn't we just roll

[1:26:46] out something

[1:26:48] that is spot on with how it's going

[1:26:52] to look, and identify everything so we

[1:26:56] can get in front of

[1:26:58] things that are incorrect,

[1:27:00] the whole range of what we're look-

[1:27:03] PR,

[1:27:05] students being affected, parents, we know that in-house, and then

[1:27:09] be given the opportunity to, "Here's what we need to adjust.

[1:27:14] We understand what we're bringing to the table, what we're not," and then

[1:27:18] moving forward with a vote to implement that?

[1:27:23] So

[1:27:24] Dr. Pries will be next, Mr. Otto will follow her, and

[1:27:28] then Vincent Schmo will follow John Otto.

[1:27:32] So I

[1:27:33] think we're talking about the same thing, it just depends on how you want to

[1:27:36] approach it. So Elisa is saying,

[1:27:40] approve this framework so we know what we're running calculations based

[1:27:44] on. Right? And so we would do it based on that.

[1:27:46] And then if we determine that this isn't quite right and we need to recommend

[1:27:50] adjustments, we could always come back and do that.

[1:27:53] If you didn't approve the framework at this point, I think what would be fair

[1:27:57] to say that we would do is run our simulations based

[1:28:01] on this, and then as we're doing that, if we decide that

[1:28:05] there need to be adjustments, we would come back to it.

[1:28:07] But we need to know, at the very least, if

[1:28:10] you're talking about postponing an

[1:28:14] approval of the framework, that you understand that this is what we would start

[1:28:17] with, if that makes sense.

[1:28:21] Is that fair?

[1:28:22] Yes.

[1:28:22] Okay.

[1:28:22] And I would also say the reason that we haven't taken

[1:28:26] that approach

[1:28:28] is that then it feels much

[1:28:32] more like speculation then at least we have a basis, right,

[1:28:36] that we're starting from.

[1:28:39] And we're asking you at the policy level to look at the

[1:28:42] relative weightings between and among those

[1:28:46] categories,

[1:28:49] and then approve the grading scale.

[1:28:51] The implementation decisions, lots of the work, the

[1:28:55] detailed calculation work, those are implementation decisions,

[1:28:59] certainly we would share those

[1:29:03] details with you, but not things included in the policy decision that we're

[1:29:07] asking you to make. That's just the rationale for why.

[1:29:11] Okay.

[1:29:12] Again, the process would be very

[1:29:15] similar.

[1:29:16] So if I'm hearing this correctly, it sounds like it's essentially a

[1:29:20] breathing process that will be updated

[1:29:24] as you're building out, and superintendents and schools will have

[1:29:27] the opportunity to provide feedback and what's

[1:29:31] working and what's not working, and then it still be sculpted uniquely around

[1:29:35] that feedback. Is that correct?

[1:29:37] Yes.

[1:29:38] Okay.

[1:29:39] Mr. Otto.

[1:29:39] Thank you.

[1:29:40] Yeah, that's all.

[1:29:42] Just wanted to clarify or follow up on that.

[1:29:46] From my understanding is that we are approving this as

[1:29:50] presented today, and then we have the opportunity to

[1:29:54] make modifications as the test data is coming through, which is why

[1:29:57] I'm more concerned about the timeline and things like that.

[1:30:00] But

[1:30:01] I think at this point,

[1:30:02] it's not set in stone. I think

[1:30:06] Board Member Casey said that, and that's how I understood is that we'll have time

[1:30:10] to, once we actually see what it looks like,

[1:30:13] to make tweaks along the way. Hopefully not significant tweaks, but

[1:30:18] little tweaks here and there to make sure that it's a valid tool for us

[1:30:22] to use

[1:30:23] going forward. That's how I understood it. Is that...

[1:30:29] Yeah.

[1:30:29] All right.

[1:30:31] I agree.

[1:30:32] There's consensus there.

[1:30:33] I think we need to have the question on the floor because we're doing a lot of

[1:30:37] conversation.

[1:30:39] Yeah.

[1:30:39] If you

[1:30:41] would hold off just a sec.

[1:30:43] Sure, yeah.

[1:30:44] So the framework is separate from the implementation and the

[1:30:48] timeline.

[1:30:49] Yes, that is correct.

[1:30:50] Okay. And of the four

[1:30:53] things they discussed was the moving of the test date, and it was

[1:30:57] assured for this test year. Can we build that in the framework that we don't

[1:31:01] intend to move that period?

[1:31:03] It's not part of the framework,

[1:31:08] and I would

[1:31:10] like to

[1:31:12] be able to have some degree of flexibility around the test window

[1:31:16] because circumstances do change from year to year.

[1:31:19] So we have weather events that we might make adjustments to the test

[1:31:23] window. There may be other factors in the testing that

[1:31:28] our assessment section would need to have some discretion to make

[1:31:31] changes.

[1:31:33] But their concern of moving it forward, I think is a very valid

[1:31:37] one, that losing educational time and everything else.

[1:31:41] Agreed

[1:31:41] And so, in concept, if we can...

[1:31:45] Well, however that would be, that that is never our intention to move that

[1:31:49] forward. I don't know if that goes in the framework or where that would go.

[1:31:53] I think that's

[1:31:56] outside of this project, because it has larger

[1:31:59] implications, and our intention at the department would always

[1:32:03] be to preserve that instructional time.

[1:32:06] We had consultation with the governor's office, and really,

[1:32:09] the challenge for us there, and the

[1:32:13] reason why we looked at shortening those test windows,

[1:32:18] was our concern about ultimately being able to hit a

[1:32:22] September 15th date every year once we become

[1:32:25] operational.

[1:32:27] And in our conversations with the governor's office and feedback that we received

[1:32:31] after we'd been into this, we'd heard from stakeholders, we'd heard from you

[1:32:35] all, we shared with the governor's office, and they

[1:32:39] clearly came back to us that instructional time is more important

[1:32:42] than the deadline. We made a commitment to do

[1:32:46] our best in that first operational year,

[1:32:50] and

[1:32:53] without changing the test window, and see where we land.

[1:32:57] Mr. Shamal.

[1:32:59] I

[1:33:01] think we're debating the question, so I'll just go ahead and

[1:33:05] explain why I'm going to vote no.

[1:33:08] A, I've had enough conversations with folks, A to F

[1:33:12] is going to get approved. I understand that.

[1:33:17] And I'm not sure I'm opposed to it, but

[1:33:19] all of us

[1:33:22] want to impact the classroom. We want to

[1:33:26] improve the quality of the teacher and the experience in the

[1:33:30] classroom.

[1:33:32] And for us as a board to do that, we've got to work through the

[1:33:35] districts.

[1:33:37] They've got to be our partners in anything we put together.

[1:33:42] And

[1:33:43] I won't drag this out. Our partners are here

[1:33:47] asking us to slow down and listen,

[1:33:50] and I think we should.

[1:33:57] Mrs. Paisley.

[1:34:03] I would like to add to what Board Member Shamal said, in

[1:34:07] that, that is the request, that is the plan on

[1:34:11] the table. In order to give you what you are asking

[1:34:15] for,

[1:34:16] we need to approve this framework.

[1:34:20] In order to give you the time, the slowdown,

[1:34:24] to work together as partners, we need to give you this

[1:34:28] framework. Giving you this framework is helping you.

[1:34:32] It is not rushing this. It is going to allow us to

[1:34:35] bring back to the table any

[1:34:39] concerns that have not yet been discussed, worked into the

[1:34:43] data, evaluated, et cetera.

[1:34:47] If we do not approve the framework,

[1:34:51] as our commissioner said, you'll get the data based on this

[1:34:55] framework,

[1:34:57] and we'll be in the same spot 60 or 90 days or a year

[1:35:01] from now.

[1:35:03] So our approval is allowing this to move forward in

[1:35:07] a

[1:35:08] orderly,

[1:35:10] I think as you said, confirmed manner.

[1:35:14] Not with speculation that, "Oh, well, it's still going to change." It

[1:35:18] may change, but it will only change based on your feedback.

[1:35:23] We need your feedback, and this is the best way to get your feedback.

[1:35:26] It's the best way for us to be your partner, as I believe we've been a

[1:35:29] partner throughout this.

[1:35:33] Our problem is it's new, it's change.

[1:35:36] No one likes change.

[1:35:38] No one likes

[1:35:40] change when there are unknowns, and we're trying to answer

[1:35:44] all those unknowns, because those unknowns bring a lot of fear and a lot of

[1:35:48] speculation. And if we don't

[1:35:54] move forward by approving this framework, those speculations,

[1:35:58] those fears, those unknowns will still remain, because you'll wonder if

[1:36:02] we're still going to change it.

[1:36:05] So please be our partner with us on this, as we're trying to be a partner with

[1:36:09] you,

[1:36:11] and take the time,

[1:36:14] after we evaluate the timeline, that

[1:36:16] what we believe, collectively, is the best

[1:36:20] timeline, to ensure that that partnership is

[1:36:24] there. To ensure that you have the time to do what you need to do,

[1:36:28] so that we can move forward with something that is truly going to benefit the

[1:36:32] children of Missouri, because this is about the kids.

[1:36:36] I think someone, in the last presentation, made a

[1:36:40] statement that,

[1:36:42] "What's our goal? Proficient and advanced?

[1:36:47] Or is it workforce development and

[1:36:50] career ready skills, life skills, et cetera?" It's both.

[1:36:55] But our job is to

[1:36:58] educate our children

[1:37:01] so that they can read,

[1:37:04] they can do math,

[1:37:07] they can think critically,

[1:37:10] they can have life skills. You cannot separate those.

[1:37:16] And I would say that my first

[1:37:19] responsibility to be a partner

[1:37:22] is to help the children of Missouri.

[1:37:25] And if I can help them

[1:37:29] by putting

[1:37:32] awareness to Out of APR, I totally respect

[1:37:36] and I appreciate what the department has done to keep parity, if you will,

[1:37:40] between the APR process and the

[1:37:44] A to F grade. We don't want mixed messaging.

[1:37:47] We don't want you to think you've got to work harder on this and this,

[1:37:53] reporting versus harder on that, a different priority and

[1:37:57] another sense of reporting. But APR reporting,

[1:38:01] you would say yes, so it already includes your evaluation of your academic

[1:38:05] outcomes. So why not share that more clearly with your parents,

[1:38:09] and with your teachers, and with your administrators so that

[1:38:13] you indeed can know that you're focusing right where it needs to

[1:38:17] be focused? Because that is our first responsibility, educating the

[1:38:21] children.

[1:38:24] Okay.

[1:38:25] Any other--

[1:38:27] Two coming. Mike, I'll call on you first and then we'll come...

[1:38:30] Just a clarification for my purposes, I suppose.

[1:38:33] At this juncture, the board could vote, "No, we don't believe

[1:38:37] A through F grade cards should be produced," period.

[1:38:40] No.

[1:38:41] No.

[1:38:43] That's what I'm asking. With the approval of the framework, inherent in that is-

[1:38:47] Yeah

[1:38:47] ... there also approval of A through F grade cards

[1:38:51] overall? Or is it-- Because my read of it is,

[1:38:56] by approving the framework, we're also saying, "Yes, philosophically A through F

[1:38:59] grade cards will be produced." The train's leaving the station.

[1:39:02] Well, it is an executive order by the governor, which we are approving.

[1:39:05] And a board-approved-

[1:39:06] Mm-hmm

[1:39:06] ... motion back in December.

[1:39:08] Yes. Two-

[1:39:09] Okay. That-

[1:39:10] History that-

[1:39:11] That was my question. So not on the table is will this be done?

[1:39:14] On the table is this framework and the process moving forward.

[1:39:17] Correct.

[1:39:18] Okay. Thank you.

[1:39:20] Dr. Reese. So approving the framework, does the board retain the right

[1:39:24] on any timeframe on implementation that you would come before

[1:39:28] us before anything would release? Could we do that?

[1:39:32] Well, I think you could do whatever you would like to do.

[1:39:35] So is your question, should you approve the framework, could you

[1:39:39] also put conditions on things that would have to

[1:39:43] occur before there would be any release of data? Is that your question?

[1:39:48] Yes. So basically, any implementation dates would come back

[1:39:52] to the board, either in a special meeting,

[1:39:55] or at a regular meeting before anything moved forward.

[1:39:58] Say, "Hey, we ran this, and here's what we've

[1:40:02] seen. We didn't see a problem. Here's the timeframe we're thinking about."

[1:40:06] And we say, "Yay or nay," or-

[1:40:07] Mm-hmm

[1:40:08] ...

[1:40:10] could that be part of adopting the framework?

[1:40:13] Yeah, I would say, that's an easier way, is just can we just

[1:40:18] stick to the timeframe that was presented before, which is

[1:40:23] next spring is when everything is released.

[1:40:26] March 31st, 2027 is what this says.

[1:40:28] So-

[1:40:29] When was that? I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with that

[1:40:31] That's, I think what we were looking at with the 25/26 data, and that's when we

[1:40:35] were having to work with the Office of Administration IT department, and they

[1:40:39] were saying, "With 25/26, that's as early as we could get you

[1:40:43] that information."

[1:40:44] I guess-

[1:40:44] So the 25/26 is still sort of up in the air.

[1:40:47] So what we're talking about is if we do

[1:40:49] a draft or a pilot, and when we say those things, I think we mean the same thing as

[1:40:53] the field when they say pilot, and we talk about a draft, is using the

[1:40:57] 24/25 to put it into this framework and use the

[1:41:00] calculations and see what happens.

[1:41:02] So

[1:41:04] when we would have to make that public, I think

[1:41:07] is the question that's on the table.

[1:41:09] That's right, yeah. I guess what I'm saying is, thanks for the

[1:41:12] clarification on which data would be used, but I think we could still

[1:41:16] use that same timeframe, and that would allow us

[1:41:20] time to pilot this and make tweaks and

[1:41:24] as necessary that come across before anything is

[1:41:27] released. Because we're approving the framework, but we haven't even seen

[1:41:31] it yet. And so, that's all I'm saying is just-

[1:41:35] It's a chicken and the egg question.

[1:41:36] Right.

[1:41:37] You know? We can't give you the impact data-

[1:41:38] Let's play around with it-

[1:41:39] ... until we approve the framework

[1:41:39] ... and then release it-

[1:41:40] Yeah

[1:41:41] ... next spring at some point. That's my recommendation.

[1:41:43] Which, I have one more add on, and it seems like it's

[1:41:48] somewhat of semantics, but it's a framework, but it's

[1:41:52] a pilot as well.

[1:41:54] Am I correct in saying that? That we're still

[1:41:57] identifying and uncovering clarity,

[1:42:01] what it looks like day to day, outcomes.

[1:42:04] Is that what's happening?

[1:42:06] Yes. That is accurate. The framework provides that

[1:42:10] basis for us to move forward, answer all

[1:42:14] of the weedy questions that have not yet been answered, and do the pilot.

[1:42:18] Yes.

[1:42:21] Mrs. Casey, and this time I am correct that we

[1:42:25] are coming down to our time limit on this topic.

[1:42:27] Okay, I'll be quick.

[1:42:30] I'm not making this explicit motion, I'm putting a thought on the table

[1:42:34] here that to the point around all of the concern around the

[1:42:37] timeline,

[1:42:39] framework being separate from rollout and implementation.

[1:42:44] And we don't have necessarily a separate, more detailed

[1:42:47] presentation yet to come on implementation, it's just the

[1:42:51] references within this. So a thought is a recommendation

[1:42:54] that, one, we address the framework,

[1:42:57] totally separate. Here we are October. No, we are September, excuse me.

[1:43:02] And we will be coming in October,

[1:43:05] that there be

[1:43:08] a lot of detail. You'll need to let us

[1:43:12] know at least the first step of that.

[1:43:14] If you could go back to the framework or to the timeline.

[1:43:20] I think that first step

[1:43:23] is here today.

[1:43:24] Yes.

[1:43:24] That second step is you completing your technical guide and

[1:43:28] the data for review. Those three

[1:43:32] things, once we approve one, number two and three can happen

[1:43:37] Yes.

[1:43:37] Yeah

[1:43:37] Not tomorrow.

[1:43:39] Exactly.

[1:43:39] We will apply the-

[1:43:39] But there's... And that would be my next question.

[1:43:41] What kind of time, you don't have to answer it just yet, but what is the

[1:43:44] expectation for you to get to the point where you will have the

[1:43:48] guide and the data in a format ready to share with the

[1:43:52] districts, with all the school leaders?

[1:43:54] Then

[1:43:56] you'd begin your stakeholder discussions based on that feedback,

[1:44:01] which will likely begin at some point prior to our October

[1:44:04] meeting. You can come back in the October meeting, and then we can

[1:44:07] discuss the timeframe that's needed for more

[1:44:11] piloting, for more feedback, for

[1:44:15] any changes, and ultimately, a public release.

[1:44:19] Because I think we need to, again,

[1:44:22] be able to see what we're working with to make

[1:44:26] those ultimate final

[1:44:28] plan on the timing for the public release, which goes

[1:44:32] back to some of the questions that John was raising, and isn't it better to be

[1:44:36] the spring? Well, what is... Whether it's December, January, February,

[1:44:40] all of that would become more clear for us

[1:44:44] if we came back and talked about the timeline in

[1:44:46] October. But today,

[1:44:51] with the approval of the framework, you would at least be able to get the data in

[1:44:54] the hands of the

[1:44:57] schools.

[1:44:58] Right. The approval of the framework is what we need for that technical

[1:45:01] guide and to produce the first sets of data

[1:45:05] for schools and districts. And we're definitely

[1:45:09] open to your guidance on timing

[1:45:13] implementation rollout.

[1:45:16] But hard to give you the guidance until we see the results.

[1:45:20] So the data is there produced, and we start to begin to get that

[1:45:24] feedback,

[1:45:26] that additional feedback to what we've already gotten.

[1:45:29] That would be my recommendation on how we approach this.

[1:45:35] Okay. Are you doing a motion?

[1:45:37] Yes. So

[1:45:39] unless there are further-

[1:45:40] Yeah

[1:45:40] ... comments before.

[1:45:41] Do you have a comment?

[1:45:43] I can be very quick. I think all of this conversation we're having about the

[1:45:46] '24, '25 data and how we're going to use it, the goal is that we

[1:45:50] get to the point that the '26, '27 data, everything rolls

[1:45:54] on time according to the executive order.

[1:45:57] We have the coding done with our colleagues in OAIT.

[1:46:00] We've worked through the '24, '25 data to figure out

[1:46:04] the sweet spots for all of these calculations to land.

[1:46:08] So,

[1:46:09] that's our ultimate goal, is that '26, '27 will be the first rollout

[1:46:13] that has all of the elements included. So it will have literacy in it.

[1:46:16] But this is our opportunity to twist it

[1:46:20] and look at it every possible way we can think of to make sure that we're doing it

[1:46:24] right, so that '26, '27 can roll out without a hitch.

[1:46:28] Okay. That sounds good. So the only question...

[1:46:31] I have one question, and that is, do we have the internal

[1:46:35] skill set among our staff

[1:46:38] to be able to work with the superintendents and things, and come up, and work

[1:46:42] together,

[1:46:44] and

[1:46:45] come up with a

[1:46:46] suitable timeframe and things on getting this out there?

[1:46:50] Yes, sir. Yes, we do.

[1:46:52] Okay.

[1:46:52] And not only do we have that moving forward, but we have a history of doing

[1:46:56] so.

[1:46:56] Okay. I'm very good with that.

[1:47:00] I would like to say, as chairman, I think this is my

[1:47:04] opportunity, that I did all this preparation, but I'll cut

[1:47:08] it down, but I fully support this effort.

[1:47:12] Last fall when we started looking at our MSIP numbers and everything

[1:47:16] else,

[1:47:19] for me, and I know I have limited wisdom, but there was

[1:47:23] no understanding that I could have.

[1:47:25] And we talk about vulnerable populations, low income, and things of that

[1:47:29] nature, and I'm not certain

[1:47:31] that they would have the ability to understand the performance of their schools

[1:47:35] and such. And so that's certainly a concern I have.

[1:47:39] I'm in favor of expediting this as fast

[1:47:43] as we can.

[1:47:45] I respect, Vince, your position,

[1:47:49] but I think if we're going to put forth a motion, that we need to put it forth, and

[1:47:53] we need to move on with this process.

[1:47:54] I think Mike had a-

[1:47:56] Mike.

[1:47:56] I was going to make one final comment.

[1:47:57] I recognize that this process is pursuant to an executive

[1:48:01] order.

[1:48:01] Sure.

[1:48:01] I would love to see this

[1:48:04] either parallel or maybe in the

[1:48:07] near future go through the standard rulemaking process and go through the

[1:48:10] legislature. It'd be nice to see if this could be codified into law as

[1:48:14] opposed to an executive order, which could be undone by the next governor,

[1:48:18] potentially.

[1:48:18] Mm-hmm.

[1:48:18] That's a wishlist comment, right?

[1:48:20] I know that's not something that's-

[1:48:22] Right over to-

[1:48:22] ... under our purview here.

[1:48:23] Mm-hmm.

[1:48:23] But

[1:48:24] at the same time, I think that would lend even more

[1:48:28] credibility to this movement of making sure all

[1:48:31] parties have signed off on this. But just making that

[1:48:35] comment.

[1:48:37] Other comments?

[1:48:39] Carrie?

[1:48:40] I have no further comment.

[1:48:43] I would like to make a motion.

[1:48:44] Okay.

[1:48:46] And I move that the State Board of

[1:48:48] Education approve the A to F school and district

[1:48:52] grading framework that is required by the executive

[1:48:56] order

[1:48:58] that will enable the next steps of completing the technical

[1:49:02] guide and providing pilot data of the '24, '25

[1:49:07] school year out to the districts for

[1:49:10] feedback.

[1:49:13] Further move or include that then the department

[1:49:18] present a detailed implementation plan

[1:49:22] in addition to feedback already received at that point in our October

[1:49:26] board meeting.

[1:49:30] Is there a second?

[1:49:31] Second.

[1:49:32] Okay.

[1:49:34] I'll take John Otto's second on that.

[1:49:37] Okay. Is there a discussion about that motion?

[1:49:41] Mr. Matusik?

[1:49:41] Yeah. Thank you.

[1:49:46] I fully support the framework. I support the concept.

[1:49:52] I did have a lot of questions. I think some of the information that Dessie shared

[1:49:56] with us on Friday was helpful. I would've liked to have seen that months

[1:50:00] ago.

[1:50:01] To be candid, I don't know what the department did in the first half of this year

[1:50:04] on A through F. Not saying nothing happened.

[1:50:08] A little self-reflection. I didn't stay on top of it.

[1:50:11] I don't think this board stayed on top of A through F.

[1:50:14] I don't think it was a discussion item on our agendas enough.

[1:50:18] The information was lacking. That's my opinion.

[1:50:21] Tell me I'm wrong.

[1:50:24] My biggest concern at this point, I think has already been addressed.

[1:50:28] I had told Stacy and others last week, I want to see the

[1:50:31] data. I want to see what the distributions look like

[1:50:35] before we send anything to the school districts, right?

[1:50:40] I want to see that. And I'm

[1:50:43] going to vote to approve the framework to move forward with the next steps,

[1:50:47] but my understanding of this is that

[1:50:51] no data, no distribution will be sent to any districts until this

[1:50:55] board has a chance to see it. Is that correct?

[1:51:00] We can arrange for that, certainly.

[1:51:03] Well, I will say my vote hinges on that point.

[1:51:06] Do you want to amend the motion?

[1:51:09] So...

[1:51:11] I think with the question, I don't know that it needs to be in the motion, but the

[1:51:14] question is there will be a review of the data at

[1:51:18] the appropriate level.

[1:51:20] We will have impact data by October. We had hoped to have it today.

[1:51:23] Our colleagues that we are working with, they aren't there.

[1:51:28] It's the last thing they're able to do is run it and tell us what the distribution

[1:51:31] looks like. So,

[1:51:33] that won't be a problem for October. I'm looking at Lisa for confirmation.

[1:51:37] It won't be.

[1:51:37] Yeah. That's not a problem. So if you want things to be contingent on that,

[1:51:41] then yeah.

[1:51:42] However-

[1:51:43] Absolutely do that

[1:51:43] ... we're not waiting until the October board meeting.

[1:51:48] Let me go back to my question that I stopped you from answering, forgetting

[1:51:51] this discussion. How long is it expected that you need to complete

[1:51:55] those first two to three steps, the

[1:51:58] technical guide, and the preparation of the data?

[1:52:02] We should have those complete prior to the October board meeting.

[1:52:05] But will they be completed earlier?

[1:52:10] Let me rephrase that. If they are completed earlier, and it is our

[1:52:14] desire, to President Miller's point, this is

[1:52:17] important to continue to move along, doing it right.

[1:52:21] If they are ready earlier, we should have a special board

[1:52:25] meeting to review it so that we're not waiting five, because our board

[1:52:29] meeting is five weeks out, and if it will take

[1:52:33] less than five weeks, ideally whatever that time

[1:52:37] is, we need to review it.

[1:52:39] We'll arrange to share the impact data as soon as it's available with the

[1:52:43] board.

[1:52:43] Yeah.

[1:52:43] Thank you. And I don't think the motion needs to be amended.

[1:52:46] I think as long as there's an understanding that the department will share that

[1:52:49] data with us before any future decisions are made, that's

[1:52:53] uncomfortable.

[1:52:54] Okay. Mr. Schomil, and then we'll go to a vote unless there's further

[1:52:58] questions. Mr. Brad Mari. Go ahead.

[1:53:02] I actually had one more.

[1:53:04] Hypothetically,

[1:53:06] what happens to districts if they receive a C, D, or F?

[1:53:12] Is that going to be worked out through the

[1:53:16] pilot, or do we have an understanding of what that may or may

[1:53:20] not look like today?

[1:53:22] So, our intention is

[1:53:25] to expand the work that we have in

[1:53:28] progress on providing structured supports

[1:53:32] for schools that are identified in various ways in need

[1:53:36] of improvement. So, whether they are in that

[1:53:40] provisional range or below on the APR, whether

[1:53:44] they are identified for improvement as one of the lowest

[1:53:47] performing schools under the federal Every Student Succeeds

[1:53:51] Act, or whether they are scoring

[1:53:54] in that D or F range on the grade

[1:53:58] card. What we're looking at is the

[1:54:02] ability to provide some structured

[1:54:05] analysis of where those schools are

[1:54:09] struggling and direct them to appropriate

[1:54:13] resources and supports.

[1:54:17] I would be also remiss if I did not mention that

[1:54:20] then locally, schools and districts, in addition to their own

[1:54:24] improvement efforts supporting what's going on in the

[1:54:28] classroom with teaching and learning,

[1:54:32] they also

[1:54:33] would need to be thinking about how those grades mesh with

[1:54:37] other measures and other reports.

[1:54:40] And that's part of our strategic communication planning,

[1:54:44] talking points about how the grade card information folds

[1:54:48] in with other APR information, and

[1:54:52] how it doesn't.

[1:54:54] Thank you.

[1:54:55] Mr. Schomil will be the last question, and then I'll call for the

[1:54:59] question on the vote.

[1:55:01] Just sitting here listening to this conversation,

[1:55:05] and I

[1:55:07] put myself kind of in the seat of somebody that runs a school district

[1:55:11] someplace.

[1:55:14] Fundamental questions have come up here,

[1:55:17] catching staff in the presentation by surprise.

[1:55:20] We don't know dates.

[1:55:23] We don't know

[1:55:24] schedules.

[1:55:26] Fundamental questions about this process

[1:55:30] have come up during this debate. This is not ready for prime time.

[1:55:35] We could

[1:55:36] pass this identical

[1:55:40] language

[1:55:41] 60 or 90 days from now, and it would be entirely different,

[1:55:47] because we would've taken 60 or 90 days

[1:55:50] to talk with our partners and find out

[1:55:54] what we're going to do here.

[1:55:56] I don't think we should approve this. I don't think it's ready.

[1:56:00] I don't think the program has been put together properly.

[1:56:04] Certainly, the questions that came up here,

[1:56:07] they're fundamental in

[1:56:11] nature.

[1:56:12] I think we should take some time. There is no reason

[1:56:16] why the exact framework

[1:56:19] outline that the president can't say to the

[1:56:23] commissioner, "Go run the data." It doesn't have to be

[1:56:27] adopted by the board for the staff to be able to run

[1:56:31] scenarios.

[1:56:33] We're

[1:56:37] a new board.

[1:56:39] We got a lot of opportunity here. I'm impressed with my

[1:56:42] colleagues on this board,

[1:56:45] and I think this is a great opportunity for us

[1:56:48] to build a trusting relationship with the districts that we're going

[1:56:52] to have to work with.

[1:56:55] End of speech.

[1:56:57] Any follow-up questions? Are there any follow-up questions?

[1:57:03] Okay, so we do have a motion, and you want to repeat the motion

[1:57:07] here?

[1:57:14] Board member Casey moved

[1:57:16] that the State Board of Education approves the A through F school and district

[1:57:19] grading framework required by Executive Order

[1:57:22] 26-01, so that it will enable the department to

[1:57:26] pilot a grade card using the

[1:57:30] '24, '25 data to be shared with

[1:57:33] districts for additional feedback.

[1:57:36] Okay, and that was seconded by?

[1:57:38] I thought there was a timeline.

[1:57:40] And the second part of the motion included or the-

[1:57:43] An implementation plan in our October meeting.

[1:57:46] Yes, correct.

[1:57:49] And who was the second?

[1:57:49] And the data to be reviewed before the board.

[1:57:52] Seconded by Mr. Otto.

[1:57:53] Yes.

[1:57:53] Okay. So I've asked for a roll call vote, and so

[1:57:57] Mrs. Frankie, if you'd do that, please.

[1:58:00] Mr. Bradbury?

[1:58:01] Yes.

[1:58:03] Ms. Casey?

[1:58:04] Yes.

[1:58:05] Mr. Matusik?

[1:58:06] Yes.

[1:58:07] Mr. Miller?

[1:58:08] Yes.

[1:58:10] Mr. Myers?

[1:58:11] Yes.

[1:58:13] Mr. Otto?

[1:58:14] Yes.

[1:58:15] Mr. Shamel?

[1:58:16] No.

[1:58:16] Dr. Scholl? Yes.

[1:58:20] Okay, and with that, that motion carries. Okay.

[1:58:24] So it is 10:30, and if you don't mind, is it okay if we take a little break here?

[1:58:29] Restroom break and such. Thank you.

[1:58:30] 10 minutes.

[1:58:32] They were here till-

[1:58:34] Yeah, and all guests here today, if you would sign in so we would

[1:58:38] have record of your participation and attendance. Thank you.

[2:16:51] We'll get going here. Carey Casey's also coming this way,

[2:16:55] and Robbie,

[2:16:58] glad you could join us here.

[2:16:59] Yeah.

[2:17:03] Yeah.

[2:17:04] Okay. So,

[2:17:07] let me see here. Where are we at? Are we on item E?

[2:17:12] Yes.

[2:17:13] Childcare subsidy.

[2:17:14] Okay. Childcare subsidy, SCHLS.

[2:17:17] Yes.

[2:17:18] Okay.

[2:17:18] Good morning, Jocelyn Schlos-

[2:17:20] Thank you

[2:17:20] ... Assistant Commissioner for the Office of Childhood.

[2:17:22] I have Christine Nguyen, our program administrator for childcare subsidy with

[2:17:26] me. We are back in front of you for a second time talking about a

[2:17:30] proposed amendment to one of our rules, because we got

[2:17:33] some stakeholder feedback. So I'm going to let Christine speak to you

[2:17:37] about the comments and the amendment before you.

[2:17:41] Thank you, Jocelyn. Good morning, members of the board.

[2:17:45] We are here today to finalize the order of

[2:17:49] rulemaking for 5 CSR

[2:17:51] 25-200.060

[2:17:55] regarding eligibility and authorization for childcare subsidy.

[2:17:59] First introduced before you in May of this year, the rule has

[2:18:03] successfully completed its 30-day public comment period.

[2:18:08] The updates to the rule, including the incorporated by reference

[2:18:12] Childcare Subsidy Eligibility Policy Manual, really

[2:18:15] focus on three core priorities.

[2:18:18] First is to exclude children who receive protective

[2:18:22] services or adoption subsidy from the wait list.

[2:18:27] Second being to clarify wait list requirements.

[2:18:30] And again, just for reference, that wait list started on March 1st of this

[2:18:34] year.

[2:18:35] And lastly, to establish an excessive absence policy

[2:18:39] that really allows the department to discontinue eligibility for

[2:18:43] children who are not utilizing the benefit, in hopes that we can

[2:18:47] free up slots for families that are waiting.

[2:18:54] So the notice of the proposed amendment was published in the Missouri Register on

[2:18:58] June 15th of 2026. The 30-day public

[2:19:02] comment window was open from June 15th through July 15th.

[2:19:07] During that timeframe, the department received 28 total public

[2:19:11] comments from providers, advocates, and families.

[2:19:15] A primary theme across several comments was concerned

[2:19:19] regarding absence caps for sick children or when

[2:19:23] families need to take a break or a vacation.

[2:19:27] The department clarified in its response that excessive absence

[2:19:30] standard really relies on timely communication from the parents

[2:19:34] to the provider, rather than just arbitrarily terminating

[2:19:38] a subsidy benefit.

[2:19:41] Additionally, the department, just for your awareness, is preparing

[2:19:45] training and guidance documents for families and providers

[2:19:48] around the excessive absence policy so everyone knows

[2:19:52] what to expect, what their role is,

[2:19:56] before a subsidy benefit might be terminated.

[2:20:00] Based on the comments we received, we are proposing to

[2:20:04] modify one portion of the rule regarding wait list

[2:20:08] requirements in the Incorporated by Reference Policy

[2:20:11] Manual and in Section eight of the rule to

[2:20:15] explicitly add children under legal guardianship

[2:20:18] subsidy agreements with Children's Division to the list of populations

[2:20:22] exempt from the subsidy wait list.

[2:20:25] They are already in that broader definition of children receiving protective

[2:20:28] services through the Children's Division

[2:20:32] I will pause here to see if there are any questions.

[2:20:36] How many children are on the wait list?

[2:20:38] As of yesterday, there were around

[2:20:42] 10,700 children waiting.

[2:20:45] And what has been the

[2:20:48] average wait list over the past...

[2:20:50] That's an increase-

[2:20:52] Mm-hmm

[2:20:52] ... because of-

[2:20:52] Yes

[2:20:52] ... the decrease in subsidy. What had the wait list been-

[2:20:56] Um

[2:20:57] ... roughly, on average?

[2:20:58] There wasn't a wait list before March 1st.

[2:21:00] Right.

[2:21:01] Okay.

[2:21:01] Yeah.

[2:21:02] That number is increasing, though, as new applications are added.

[2:21:07] John, do you have a question?

[2:21:09] Yes. So out of all the comments, you said the key theme was

[2:21:13] excessive absence, and you-

[2:21:14] Yeah, just some confusion around that

[2:21:17] ... did this amendment address that?

[2:21:20] The amendment to-

[2:21:22] That you're recommending

[2:21:22] ... no. We're not making any changes to that policy.

[2:21:25] The only change that we're requesting is to explicitly

[2:21:29] add children receiving legal guardianship subsidy

[2:21:34] and the children that are exempt from the wait list.

[2:21:37] Through our trainings and our guidance documents, we hope to really clarify with

[2:21:41] families and providers the excessive absence requirements.

[2:21:45] We didn't make any change based on the comments because it was already in the

[2:21:49] policy that it was, the key factor in there is communication.

[2:21:53] Mm-hmm.

[2:21:53] So they'll just make sure that they clarify that when we publish.

[2:21:56] Got it. Thank you.

[2:21:59] Mr. Mantis.

[2:22:00] So, thank you, and thank you for your work on this.

[2:22:04] So the update again in,

[2:22:08] essentially if you receive a legal guardianship

[2:22:11] subsidy,

[2:22:13] you have priority on receiving the

[2:22:17] childcare subsidy.

[2:22:18] Right. They bypass the wait list.

[2:22:19] Bypass the wait list.

[2:22:20] Children in protective services, which includes children receiving adoption or

[2:22:23] legal guardianship through Children's Division, bypass the wait list and are

[2:22:27] served without delay.

[2:22:29] Thank you.

[2:22:31] So,

[2:22:33] the 10,000 that are on the wait list, are they not participating

[2:22:37] with daycare now, or do we know?

[2:22:40] They could be in childcare, but they would be

[2:22:44] paying privately.

[2:22:45] Privately.

[2:22:46] Not receiving subsidy at this point.

[2:22:49] Yeah.

[2:22:50] That's a pretty large number-

[2:22:53] Mm

[2:22:53] ... the 10,000. And I know

[2:22:55] subsidies for childcare only started, when?

[2:22:59] Was it about five years ago?

[2:23:01] Through this office, yes.

[2:23:02] Yes.

[2:23:02] But it-

[2:23:03] Yeah

[2:23:03] ... was over in DSS prior to the Office of Childhood.

[2:23:06] Prior to that? Okay.

[2:23:07] I mean, 10,000 is a lot of children-

[2:23:10] It is

[2:23:10] ... that aren't getting access to care and things that...

[2:23:15] Yeah.

[2:23:16] Thank you.

[2:23:18] Any other questions at this time?

[2:23:20] Can you explain to me the change in subsidy that you

[2:23:24] referenced that caused the wait list to grow?

[2:23:28] The change, it's really based on the budget, how much-

[2:23:32] Okay

[2:23:32] ... children we can afford to serve.

[2:23:34] And we don't have the COVID relief dollars anymore that we had for a

[2:23:38] number of years.

[2:23:38] Okay.

[2:23:38] So we're getting back to a pre-pandemic budget.

[2:23:41] Yeah. I just wanted to understand.

[2:23:43] It's a-

[2:23:44] Right

[2:23:44] ... it's a budgetary issue.

[2:23:45] Yes.

[2:23:45] Yeah. Okay.

[2:23:47] Can I follow up there? Are we mandated on how much we pay?

[2:23:51] Other words, could we cut it in half per child, and

[2:23:55] we'd be able to see more

[2:23:58] children, or include more children, and maybe their parents would be able to

[2:24:02] subsidize the other half? You understand what my question is?

[2:24:06] I'll let Christine answer because I don't know that I know the specifics well

[2:24:09] enough. I think we have some leeway. I don't know that we could cut it in half.

[2:24:14] Yes, I don't know that we could either, but we have-

[2:24:18] ... a market rate survey that is getting ready to happen that is

[2:24:22] one factor that helps inform our rate setting for providers.

[2:24:25] We also have income guidelines for families that we

[2:24:29] do have some flexibilities with that we are exploring.

[2:24:32] Yeah.

[2:24:32] So income guidelines are based on our state median income and the federal

[2:24:36] poverty levels-

[2:24:37] Mm-hmm

[2:24:37] ... that are set.

[2:24:38] Correct.

[2:24:39] So those are things we are exploring in conjunction.

[2:24:42] Some daycare is better than none daycare,

[2:24:46] I guess is the way I feel about it. If there was some way that we could

[2:24:50] provide access to more people in some kind of way,

[2:24:54] it'd be something to consider. Thank you.

[2:24:59] We need a motion.

[2:25:01] Is there a motion required?

[2:25:03] Yeah. At this time, I do ask the board to consider moving forward with revisions to

[2:25:07] 5 CSR 25-200.060 and authorize

[2:25:11] publication of the Order of Rulemaking in the Missouri Register.

[2:25:15] So moved.

[2:25:15] Okay.

[2:25:16] Second.

[2:25:17] Seconded by Mr. Otto, moved by Mr.

[2:25:21] Meyer.

[2:25:22] Any questions?

[2:25:26] Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion as presented, say

[2:25:29] aye.

[2:25:30] Aye.

[2:25:31] Any opposed?

[2:25:33] Hearing none, motion passes.

[2:25:34] Thank you.

[2:25:35] You bet.

[2:25:50] Welcome.

[2:25:52] Hi.

[2:25:52] It's good to have you.

[2:25:54] Good to see you guys.

[2:25:56] Yeah, especially you're smiling. Both of you are smiling, so you must be happy.

[2:26:00] Good morning. I'm Jocelyn Strand, and I'm the assistant commissioner in the Office

[2:26:04] of Quality Schools, and I'm joined today by Shanika Williams, who is the

[2:26:08] director of the Charter Schools office, Mark Loderson, who is

[2:26:11] the executive director of the Missouri Charter Public School Commission,

[2:26:16] and Denetria Neal, who is the founder of the

[2:26:19] application that is in front of you today.

[2:26:22] And with that, I'll turn it over to Shanika.

[2:26:24] All right.

[2:26:26] So we bring to you today,

[2:26:30] for consideration, the application for North County Innovation

[2:26:34] School, or NCIS.

[2:26:38] So let's first talk about authority to make sure

[2:26:42] that we cover that. And the authority of oversight and approval

[2:26:46] of charter schools is spread across multiple

[2:26:49] entities, from the legislation who create the laws, and the State Board of

[2:26:53] Education who enforce the law and the rules,

[2:26:57] and the charter sponsor that is responsible for the oversight and

[2:27:00] monitoring of the charter school, and the charter school's governing

[2:27:04] board.

[2:27:08] Today, we are going to focus on the State Board of Education's primary

[2:27:12] role, which is related to sponsor activities.

[2:27:15] The State Board of Education reviews and approves

[2:27:19] sponsorship applications, enforces

[2:27:22] regulation related to charter school sponsors,

[2:27:26] evaluates sponsors every three years or more

[2:27:30] frequently if necessary, and reviews renewal

[2:27:34] applications and new charter school applications.

[2:27:41] So DESE's responsibilities include sponsor evaluation every

[2:27:46] three years. The State Board can evaluate at any

[2:27:49] time for cause, publish annual reports, retain

[2:27:53] fees for sponsor expenses, and

[2:27:57] reviewal of approved--

[2:28:00] I'm sorry,

[2:28:01] review approved by the charter sponsor.

[2:28:05] Review renewals

[2:28:09] approved by the charter sponsor. Good gosh, try to say that.

[2:28:12] And

[2:28:14] again, the State Board can

[2:28:19] evaluate the sponsor at any time for cause if necessary, outside of

[2:28:23] those three years.

[2:28:25] So today,

[2:28:27] we're going to talk about the application for North County

[2:28:31] Innovation Schools.

[2:28:34] Part of the in-house procedure when we get an application is

[2:28:37] to

[2:28:39] put together a committee of different departments, whether it's

[2:28:43] finance, SPED,

[2:28:46] law, legal. All those departments come together and review the

[2:28:50] application, and they provide comments back.

[2:28:53] We get those comments, we put them together, and then we provide those comments

[2:28:57] to the sponsor. Then we meet with the sponsor and talk to them about some of the

[2:29:00] comments we've seen and ask them for any

[2:29:04] questions they may have or any changes they may want to make.

[2:29:09] All this is done within 60 days.

[2:29:15] So North County Innovative School is going to be located in St.

[2:29:19] Louis in the Riverview Garden School District.

[2:29:22] The sponsor is the Missouri Charter Public School Commission, who

[2:29:26] we have here today. The proposed opening day is for fall of

[2:29:30] 2027. The enrollment for the first year

[2:29:35] is for 107 students, and the proposed

[2:29:39] grades are from pre-K to second. The focus

[2:29:43] of the school is on STREAM,

[2:29:45] S-T-R-E-A-M, and

[2:29:49] project-based learning.

[2:29:51] So it's like STEAM, but includes reading.

[2:29:56] The school currently does not have a facility.

[2:30:00] They have plans that include three different

[2:30:03] options.

[2:30:09] A complete statutory review of the NCIS

[2:30:12] application finds that all 17 requirements of

[2:30:16] the statute are fully satisfied. The application

[2:30:20] includes a clear mission and vision, detailed governance

[2:30:24] statute structure and bylaws, a three-year

[2:30:28] financial plan and audit provisions, comprehensive

[2:30:31] personnel policies, and PD plan,

[2:30:35] defined grades served, and full-term academic calendar,

[2:30:39] complete academic performance standards and metrics,

[2:30:43] detailed curriculum, financial accountability procedures,

[2:30:47] pre-opening requirements, discipline and admission policies,

[2:30:51] grievance procedures, sponsor intervention triggers,

[2:30:55] and closure procedures, and special education services.

[2:31:00] All those things were included in the application, and they have met their

[2:31:03] statutory requirements.

[2:31:06] The department recommends that the State Board of Education authorize

[2:31:11] North County Innovative School to commence

[2:31:14] operation according to the charter granted by the Missouri Charter

[2:31:18] Public School Commission for five years, effective beginning

[2:31:22] with the 2027-28 school year.

[2:31:27] And before we move on

[2:31:32] from the recommendation, I want to

[2:31:36] allow

[2:31:38] the commission to

[2:31:40] show their presentation. There we go.

[2:31:43] Thank you, Shaneka. Members of the board, good morning.

[2:31:48] I want to thank, on behalf of my commission, you all for hearing

[2:31:51] today's item. I also want to thank DESE staff for their

[2:31:55] review and favorable recommendation on today's

[2:31:59] presentation,

[2:32:00] and their work to ensure that both the applicants submitted all required elements

[2:32:04] of the application, and that the commission's review was complete and

[2:32:08] thorough. We know that you all are busy, and we're grateful for your time.

[2:32:12] I don't want to take up too much of it this morning, as I know you likely have

[2:32:14] questions for us or the school, but I wanted to quickly

[2:32:18] highlight several items about our process and application, if I may.

[2:32:23] First, this application has undergone significant changes and feedback since

[2:32:27] being originally submitted in late 2024.

[2:32:30] Commission staff believes this is a testament to the applicant team's

[2:32:33] perseverance, openness to feedback, and commitment to providing a high-quality

[2:32:37] school. I often tell people that there is no such thing as a

[2:32:41] perfect charter application, but there can be strong applications with great

[2:32:44] governing boards behind them, and my staff and I think that is exactly what you

[2:32:48] have before you today.

[2:32:50] Second, the commission has a rigorous application review process.

[2:32:53] We not only implement all required practices of a Missouri sponsor when

[2:32:57] accepting new applications, such as a thorough review of the written application

[2:33:00] and a capacity interview. This is evidenced in our most recent evaluation

[2:33:04] by the DESE team in 2023. But we go on to take several

[2:33:07] additional steps, including conducting a board interview, whereby

[2:33:11] members of the commission interview members of the applicant team's board,

[2:33:15] hold a public hearing, whereby members of the public are invited to attend and

[2:33:19] offer their views and opinions on the application.

[2:33:21] In this case, 16 members of the public spoke in favor of the applicant at a

[2:33:25] hearing last month. And then, when we take those two practices

[2:33:29] together, you are looking at strong alignment with national best practices across

[2:33:33] the country for other sponsors, and we believe set the commission apart from other

[2:33:37] sponsors as they speak to a multifaceted, comprehensive

[2:33:40] approach that we take when considering new applications.

[2:33:44] As a result of our review, staff and board interviews, as well as the public

[2:33:47] hearing, the commission voted to approve this application

[2:33:51] team at its August 17th meeting, and you'll see that highlighted on the slide

[2:33:55] before you, and attached five conditions.

[2:33:58] I'm happy to go through those conditions with you today.

[2:34:01] I have copies of our recommendation memo that was provided to my commission as

[2:34:05] well, if it's helpful. But the commission's

[2:34:08] conditions

[2:34:11] are meant to ensure that the school makes progress in critical areas that we

[2:34:15] know must be in place for the school to open successfully.

[2:34:18] Commission staff will monitor this over the fall and winter if the school is

[2:34:22] formally authorized today, and the conditions tie to progress in the

[2:34:26] following areas: facilities, leadership development, school

[2:34:30] leader selection, enrollment, and fundraising.

[2:34:33] If you want to go to the next slide, I think these are outlined.

[2:34:38] There we go.

[2:34:42] Should the school be approved today, and should the conditions be met to the

[2:34:45] satisfaction of the commission, this school will have the green light to open

[2:34:49] next August. And from there, commission staff will continue to monitor the school

[2:34:53] like we do our other 19 schools that we already oversee in our

[2:34:56] portfolio through the following mechanisms, which are outlined on

[2:35:00] this slide.

[2:35:02] Regular monitoring, site visits, school quality reviews,

[2:35:06] annual reports, and engagement with the governing board of each school on an

[2:35:09] ongoing basis. All of these approaches align to Missouri statute

[2:35:13] as well as national best practices.

[2:35:15] And you see that depicted here

[2:35:18] in the slide before you, which kind of gives you a glimpse of the charter school

[2:35:21] life cycle.

[2:35:23] And obviously, I would be remiss if I did not point to our accountability

[2:35:26] reporting. So we do a significant amount of work as a team in holding schools

[2:35:30] accountable throughout that life cycle.

[2:35:32] Performance standards are built into our contract and framework, and we

[2:35:35] publish that data regularly, and this school will be no different if approved

[2:35:39] today and moving forward. You can also find a copy of those reports on

[2:35:43] our website if you're interested.

[2:35:45] So with that, President Miller, I'd conclude my remarks.

[2:35:48] I'm happy to take any questions that you or other members of the board have of

[2:35:51] either the commission or the applicant. We appreciate your time this morning.

[2:35:57] Okay. Are there any questions that we have at this time?

[2:36:03] Mrs. Casey.

[2:36:05] Thank you, President Miller, and thank you

[2:36:08] both DESE team and the commission.

[2:36:11] I appreciate it, and I assume this is the school leader

[2:36:15] to be if this works out.

[2:36:17] Yes.

[2:36:17] Nice to meet you.

[2:36:18] Nice to meet you.

[2:36:18] Thank you for being here.

[2:36:23] I'm especially interested in the area of governance and

[2:36:27] the oversight that I know the commission does give to all the schools.

[2:36:30] But in particular, with the opening of a new school,

[2:36:33] there are so many very important

[2:36:37] steps until you get that foundation built.

[2:36:39] So I have a few different questions,

[2:36:42] and they are in no particular order.

[2:36:44] But the academic outcomes, the targets that you've set to

[2:36:48] be in your accountability reporting, where

[2:36:51] are you setting those targets? Or what are the targets?

[2:36:54] And primarily in,

[2:36:59] if you think back to this long last discussion that we just had, the

[2:37:03] importance of

[2:37:05] reading and math and the early grade academic outcomes.

[2:37:09] And I might have missed it. Are you starting

[2:37:11] with how many children in the enrollment?

[2:37:14] 107 in pre-K through second.

[2:37:18] Okay.

[2:37:19] Thank you for that question, Member Casey. Mark Moderson for the record.

[2:37:23] So I would start, before I turn it over to Miss Neal to provide some

[2:37:27] more context on these goals, but the commission firmly believes

[2:37:31] that goals need to be rigorous and ambitious, but also

[2:37:34] attainable. And I'll let her speak to the details on how

[2:37:38] she developed these goals. I believe it's primarily based on

[2:37:42] the performance of the school district, but also how they can

[2:37:46] make sure students are successful should they leave, stay with the school

[2:37:50] all the way through eighth grade. But I would say we were particularly impressed by

[2:37:53] the fact that their goals are robust.

[2:37:56] They cover all of the key core curricula areas,

[2:38:00] ELA, math, and they also include additional items such as attendance,

[2:38:03] behavior, and school culture. But I'll turn it over to Miss Neal to

[2:38:07] speak to how they were developed and why she believes they're appropriate given the

[2:38:11] school is proposing to launch in 12 months.

[2:38:14] Thank you for that, Mark. Good morning to everyone.

[2:38:16] Thank you to DESE's team and staff, as well as the board members.

[2:38:19] I will be very brief. We looked at benchmarks, of course, through the Riverview

[2:38:23] Gardens attendance area in terms of what their benchmarks

[2:38:27] were in reading and math. But then also, we looked at other schools,

[2:38:31] charter schools that had newly founded, and what their early scores

[2:38:35] were in terms of reading and math. And then we also looked at a charter school that

[2:38:39] was mature, and what their scores were in terms of reading and

[2:38:43] math. And we put those together, and we looked at what is not

[2:38:47] only ambitious and rigorous, but what is also realistic So

[2:38:50] those early benchmarks, again, are realistic.

[2:38:53] They are ambitious, but it comes from data that we've received from

[2:38:57] around the actual region, as well as new and mature charter schools.

[2:39:01] Can you tell me what a few of those benchmarks are?

[2:39:05] Absolutely. So for us, in year three, for students that have been with us for

[2:39:09] a full year or more, for us, for year three, that is 25%

[2:39:12] proficiency. For year four, that is

[2:39:15] 45% proficiency, and then for year five, that

[2:39:19] is 65% proficiency.

[2:39:24] Okay.

[2:39:25] Thank you. Just-

[2:39:26] Another question. Mike? Mr...

[2:39:29] Oh, Gary, do you-

[2:39:30] No, go ahead.

[2:39:30] Oh. I was just going to say thank you to Shanika and

[2:39:34] Jocelyn. I sort of laugh, it's kind of like when Paul gets up here, there's a lot

[2:39:38] of behind-the-scenes work, and then the board may not ask a lot of questions, but

[2:39:42] we do appreciate the work that goes on.

[2:39:45] To Mark, I had an opportunity to speak with you.

[2:39:47] I think other board members did as well, and I found the information that you

[2:39:51] provided to be extremely helpful, and even a model for

[2:39:55] others that are approaching the board about an issue like this.

[2:39:59] That's just my own opinion. I thought it was very helpful and

[2:40:03] the way you explained it was great.

[2:40:06] So and assuming this gets approved, good luck-

[2:40:09] Thank you

[2:40:09] ... leading the school.

[2:40:12] Mrs. Casey.

[2:40:13] Just a final few clarifying questions or confirming questions.

[2:40:17] This would go to you, Commissioner.

[2:40:20] The governing board you referenced, has the board been

[2:40:24] fully formed

[2:40:26] for this school?

[2:40:27] The school's board?

[2:40:28] Mm-hmm.

[2:40:28] Yes. Member Casey, thank you for that question. Mark Modersohn for the record.

[2:40:32] So this is a board of 12.

[2:40:34] Yes.

[2:40:34] Very robust board,

[2:40:36] and we were particularly impressed with not only are they fully formed, but they

[2:40:39] have significant roots in the community, and I

[2:40:43] think that's a true asset to really any charter school proposal, that it's

[2:40:47] coming from and for the community that it's proposing to serve.

[2:40:51] I would let Ms. Neal and/or members of the board, which are behind me,

[2:40:55] speak to their backgrounds and qualifications if I could, if you have follow-up

[2:40:59] questions. But certainly we were impressed by this board as it is

[2:41:03] fully formed and we believe ready to go.

[2:41:05] And what level of training will the board receive?

[2:41:08] Thank you for that question. The board will receive a lot of

[2:41:12] training and oversight from the commission.

[2:41:15] We historically do provide lots of training on things

[2:41:19] such as Sunshine Law, best practices on charter school governance

[2:41:23] throughout that incubator year. By way of example,

[2:41:27] just last week we finalized a Sunshine Law training for

[2:41:31] all of the schools in our portfolio.

[2:41:33] That's sort of a minimum bar threshold.

[2:41:36] We know that governance goes beyond just following what's in the Sunshine Law,

[2:41:40] but it's an example that immediately comes to mind that we'll be ensuring that not

[2:41:43] only this board, but all of our governing boards receive, along with other best

[2:41:47] practices and items along the way. Hopefully that helps.

[2:41:49] And lastly, are you on track to meet your required funding?

[2:41:57] Mark Modersohn for the record. So I appreciate that question.

[2:42:00] I will let Ms. Neal speak to the work that's been happening over the

[2:42:04] summer and between the commission's approval on

[2:42:08] August 17th and today. But we know that this school

[2:42:12] has proposed significant fundraising to occur

[2:42:15] before it opens in August, and that is a big reason why we have actually

[2:42:19] attached a condition to their approval, which

[2:42:23] requires them to demonstrate that that funding has been

[2:42:26] successfully

[2:42:28] received or earned. And so the first checkpoint on that

[2:42:32] condition from the commission is December 31st, 2026,

[2:42:36] where they are required to demonstrate they have at least $50,000 raised.

[2:42:40] I will let Ms. Neal speak to the efforts to date and any progress that's

[2:42:44] been made in this interim period.

[2:42:46] Awesome. Thank you. Denitria Neal for the record. Thank you for that question.

[2:42:50] We have done some extensive background work in reference to

[2:42:53] fundraising, applying for grants.

[2:42:56] Grants do have cycles that you do have to wait for before you can apply or

[2:43:00] before you are awarded or notified.

[2:43:02] But we have explicitly been applying for grants as well as

[2:43:06] actively doing fundraising. We have an event that is coming up actually in

[2:43:10] November that we're looking to solidify, and ongoing things that we have done

[2:43:13] throughout the year. I do want to say that we have not waited until this

[2:43:17] juncture to begin that fundraising and those activities.

[2:43:20] We have been actively working up until that date and will include to do so.

[2:43:24] I will yield the floor, if I may, to our board treasurer, Mr.

[2:43:28] Patrick Fox, at this time.

[2:43:30] I'll speak loudly if that's okay.

[2:43:32] Would you stand, please?

[2:43:33] Sure.

[2:43:33] Yeah. Or yeah. Take a seat at the table.

[2:43:39] Hello. My name is Patrick Fox. I'm the board treasurer and I also serve on the

[2:43:42] governance committee. I will say to Mark and his team, I appreciated

[2:43:46] having these conditions in place to make sure that we have

[2:43:49] the financial resources to make this happen.

[2:43:52] They are fair, realistic, and I believe attainable by us.

[2:43:57] The thing that always comes to mind when I say that it is kind of a chicken and egg

[2:44:00] scenario. In order to really convince those major donors to

[2:44:04] go ahead and support the work you are doing, you have to go through all the steps

[2:44:08] to be able to actively participate.

[2:44:10] So I think this being that final step, but also knowing that there's

[2:44:14] really important financial safeguards in place really

[2:44:18] speak to the work that

[2:44:20] has been done, and we think it's very attainable given what we believe we can

[2:44:24] do.

[2:44:27] What are those safeguards?

[2:44:29] Well, we have a quite large application in for a

[2:44:33] grant for the CSP funds. That is one.

[2:44:38] The other thing we are exploring, I have a background in nonprofit and government

[2:44:42] finance, so I've served both for nonprofits and for

[2:44:45] government and quasi-government entities in a finance role, and my

[2:44:49] philosophy is always I'd rather be looking at it than looking for it when it comes

[2:44:52] to finances. But what I will say is when you are starting up,

[2:44:57] the problem you face is that many of the f-

[2:45:00] Well-intentioned funding opportunities have a reimbursement model.

[2:45:04] So in order to be successful in that, you have to either have fundraised for

[2:45:08] general operating support from donors, or you have to

[2:45:12] establish some realistic potential lines of credit to

[2:45:15] tide you over for that short period of time.

[2:45:18] So, that is a contingency plan that I have in place for

[2:45:21] when we start, get

[2:45:24] operating. Because I also know it takes time for funds to be remitted by the

[2:45:28] state back to us, and that doesn't necessarily correspond to when we have to pay

[2:45:32] our staff, which is any organization's largest

[2:45:35] expense.

[2:45:37] Thank you.

[2:45:40] Ms. Neal, could I ask you, is this your first school?

[2:45:44] Yes, it is the first founding school for myself.

[2:45:46] Okay. So as you look into the future, how do

[2:45:50] you measure success? How are you going to measure, say, like in the first year or

[2:45:54] the second year-

[2:45:56] Absolutely

[2:45:56] ... as a new leader?

[2:45:57] Thank you for that question. And so because we are not testing in year one, because

[2:46:00] we're only through second grade, we have those early indicators and early

[2:46:04] benchmarks that we'll be looking at through i-Ready.

[2:46:06] So we will still be looking at growth goals for our children around the

[2:46:10] reading, around math, around behavior with Panorama,

[2:46:14] discipline, things of that nature.

[2:46:16] So as we then get to testing, of course, we're looking at those accountability

[2:46:19] structures, we're looking at state alignment, we're looking at state proficiency.

[2:46:23] But those are the things that we would use to track what we're doing to be

[2:46:26] successful around our metrics and academics.

[2:46:29] Okay. Thank you.

[2:46:31] Leadership development was mentioned.

[2:46:33] Just could you describe that, like we're looking at?

[2:46:37] Mark Mottershead for the question. Thank you, Member Myers.

[2:46:41] So, Denetria and her board have many wonderful qualities and

[2:46:44] assets as a part of this application, but one of the shortcomings and opportunities

[2:46:48] for growth that we have is that Denetria is not an experienced,

[2:46:52] seasoned school leader. So the commission

[2:46:56] last month believed that it was appropriate to attach a condition related to her

[2:47:00] ongoing development. And in the spirit of charter school autonomy, that will be a

[2:47:04] choice for the board of the school to make, and it's our job to hold

[2:47:08] up the mirror and say, "Did you do it or did you not do it?" And tell us about the

[2:47:12] credentials behind that coaching and development program.

[2:47:15] So,

[2:47:17] hopefully, Member Myers, that gets to the question, but we know that it takes a

[2:47:20] quality board, it takes a quality leader, and it takes quality staff, and we want

[2:47:24] to make sure all those are in place.

[2:47:25] So that's the spirit that we're operating with.

[2:47:27] Thank you.

[2:47:31] Other questions you may have?

[2:47:35] No questions, motion.

[2:47:36] Okay.

[2:47:37] Very good.

[2:47:39] Thank you for your presentation.

[2:47:41] Mrs. Casey.

[2:47:43] I would like to make a motion to authorize the

[2:47:46] NCIS or North County Innovative School,

[2:47:50] to commence operations according to the charter granted by the Missouri Charter

[2:47:54] Public School Commission for five years, effective

[2:47:57] beginning with the year '27, '28 school year.

[2:48:01] I would also like to ask that they come before us in one year

[2:48:06] to give us an update on their successful opening.

[2:48:11] Second.

[2:48:12] You want that added to the motion?

[2:48:13] Yes.

[2:48:13] Okay.

[2:48:14] Second.

[2:48:16] We have a motion and a second. Are you okay with the

[2:48:20] one-year return?

[2:48:21] I assume you mean the school and the commission.

[2:48:23] Yes.

[2:48:24] Okay.

[2:48:25] Yeah. Okay.

[2:48:27] So we have a motion, we have a second. All those in favor say aye.

[2:48:32] Aye.

[2:48:33] Any opposed?

[2:48:35] Hearing none, the motion carries, and we wish you the absolute best of luck, okay?

[2:48:39] Thank you all so much. See you in a year.

[2:48:40] Good luck.

[2:48:54] Okay, Mr. Crews, I think it's your turn.

[2:48:59] Thank you.

[2:49:03] And your presentation today is on the budget.

[2:49:06] Correct.

[2:49:07] Yeah.

[2:49:11] Good morning. Kyle Crews, Deputy Commissioner for Financial and Administrative

[2:49:14] Services. I'm joined by Rebecca Jackson, our Chief Budget Officer,

[2:49:18] and we are here today to present to the board for your consideration-

[2:49:22] ... the fiscal year 2028 budget request.

[2:49:31] Can you hand me that?

[2:49:32] Yep.

[2:49:32] The contents of the presentation include

[2:49:35] a list of recommended supplemental and new decision item

[2:49:39] requests. We've grouped those into the requests that we consider

[2:49:43] statutory, legislative, or judicially

[2:49:46] mandated or required. There's a list of federal or other

[2:49:50] dollar

[2:49:51] supplementals and NDIs, and then there are a list of a few other

[2:49:55] initiatives that don't fall under the first two categories.

[2:49:59] As you recall, last month we brought to the board a comprehensive

[2:50:03] list of potential supplemental and NDI

[2:50:07] requests. And since that time we took feedback from the board, the

[2:50:11] finance committee, and the commissioner, and what you have today is the budget

[2:50:15] we are presenting for your consideration.

[2:50:18] It has a significantly reduced list of

[2:50:22] requests.

[2:50:24] And to answer some board questions, we've included a list of requests that are not

[2:50:28] recommended, not the full list of those that didn't make the cut.

[2:50:31] But as you recall, last month I mentioned there being a narrow gate through

[2:50:35] which our requests need to pass in order to make the final budget.

[2:50:39] And so with the input of all those parties, we have

[2:50:44] decided which requests don't really fit through the gate.

[2:50:48] But just for your information, some that were high priority but did not get

[2:50:52] through the gate are listed just so you see what they were.

[2:50:55] They were important but did not fit the requirements.

[2:50:58] We also have a list of the core fiscal year 2028 budget- ...

[2:51:02] and an appendix with additional information throughout the presentation.

[2:51:07] So if you'll

[2:51:09] Like to proceed, we'll look at the recommended supplemental and new decision item

[2:51:13] requests.

[2:51:15] Last month, again, we gave you the comprehensive list of possible requests.

[2:51:19] We worked through the list, and the process has now brought

[2:51:23] you these requests recommended for approval.

[2:51:27] And we can spend as much or as little time as you like on the requests,

[2:51:31] since we have discussed them in some detail in the past

[2:51:33] months. Under the statutory, legislative, and

[2:51:37] judicial category,

[2:51:40] we have the foundation formula new decision item request of

[2:51:43] $388.6

[2:51:45] million.

[2:51:47] Transportation,

[2:51:52] a new decision item of $64.2 million.

[2:51:56] Early childhood special ed, there is a supplemental for

[2:51:59] $56.7 million and an NDI for $65.6

[2:52:03] million. High-needs special education, $15.1

[2:52:06] supplemental, NDI of $30.5 million.

[2:52:10] And then there is an item for the A through F school grade card, both a

[2:52:13] supplemental of $518,000 and an

[2:52:17] NDI of about $6.5 million, and the request is also

[2:52:21] for two FTE to fully administer that program.

[2:52:26] Any questions about this page at this time?

[2:52:30] Okay.

[2:52:31] Other statutory and legislative judicial.

[2:52:35] There is money for the Interscholastic Oversight Commission, and that is

[2:52:39] a DESE-operated board to essentially be

[2:52:43] there to review decisions of the Missouri State High School

[2:52:46] Activities Association if required.

[2:52:49] That's new legislation. New legislation also brought us an

[2:52:52] antisemitism prohibition and reporting requirement.

[2:52:56] It brought us the expansion statewide of an elementary school

[2:53:00] agricultural education program, and also there is a

[2:53:04] legislation for a STEM career awareness activity.

[2:53:09] Any questions on this slide?

[2:53:13] The last statutory legislative judicial category item is

[2:53:17] there's a requirement for a communications access

[2:53:21] services program,

[2:53:23] Missouri Commission for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, and it's partly to help

[2:53:26] locate missing individuals who fall into these

[2:53:30] categories. And again, that does come from statute.

[2:53:33] We have a list of federal and other dollar

[2:53:38] new decision items or supplemental requests, and if it's okay, I won't

[2:53:42] spend too much time on these. They don't require general revenue.

[2:53:45] They fall into federal dollars or other dollars.

[2:53:50] Title I request for $20 million in supplemental authority.

[2:53:55] School meals.

[2:53:58] Project CLIMB, that is grade six through eight literacy.

[2:54:01] Missouri Healthy Schools grant.

[2:54:04] Childcare subsidy systems compliance.

[2:54:06] 21st Century Community Learning Centers after-school programming.

[2:54:10] And then we also have an other initiative,

[2:54:13] and this is the only one we brought to you today, and that is for essentially

[2:54:17] additional dollars to continue our state's

[2:54:20] literacy efforts.

[2:54:23] A while back, about $25 million was put into a fund,

[2:54:27] and that money has been used since that time to provide

[2:54:31] reimbursement for schools for their own literacy efforts, whether it's stipends

[2:54:35] for teachers,

[2:54:36] paying for literacy coaches, or paying for high-quality instruction materials.

[2:54:41] And that fund is now diminished to the point that

[2:54:44] after the current year, there will be about $3 million left in the fund,

[2:54:49] and it's been about a $10 million expenditure per year.

[2:54:52] So it seemed appropriate that a request to allow us to continue our

[2:54:56] literacy efforts at current levels was appropriate.

[2:55:01] Here's a summary of recommended supplemental and new decision item

[2:55:04] requests. Supplementals work out to about

[2:55:07] $73.4 million in general revenue.

[2:55:11] The new decision item requests work out to $566.9

[2:55:15] million. And of course, the majority of the GR in new decision

[2:55:19] items is foundation formula and transportation, as well

[2:55:23] as early childhood special education and special

[2:55:27] education high needs fund.

[2:55:30] The ones that were considered and considered a high priority but didn't ultimately

[2:55:33] make the list.

[2:55:36] The State Board

[2:55:38] Origin Struggling Schools grant.

[2:55:40] There is a piece for Recovery High School tuition because DESE does have

[2:55:44] responsibility for paying

[2:55:46] tuition dollars that exceed what a

[2:55:50] student's home district pays into the Recovery High School.

[2:55:53] We believe there are some other avenues for funding to cover that.

[2:55:57] Virtual schools remote testing. We have managed to

[2:56:01] use some workarounds and cover the requirement to provide remote

[2:56:05] testing.

[2:56:07] We, of course, would like to maintain the data tool that's currently

[2:56:11] on our DESE website right now, but it is a $1 million GR

[2:56:14] request and didn't make it through the narrow gate.

[2:56:18] There's a $3 million piece for critical data infrastructure, and that

[2:56:22] involves DESE data storage, DESE data cleaning,

[2:56:26] and being able to access data, and then, of course, the Imagination

[2:56:29] Library, which I'm sure you've heard discussed.

[2:56:34] If you like, I can go through the entirety of the fiscal year

[2:56:37] '28 core budget, or we can pause at the moment and see if

[2:56:41] there are any questions and if the board is ready to

[2:56:46] take action regarding the budget, including the new decision

[2:56:50] items and supplemental requests.

[2:56:56] Let me call on Mr. Meyer first.

[2:56:58] Please, sir.

[2:56:59] New decision items-

[2:57:00] Yes

[2:57:00] ... that weren't mandated by legislation

[2:57:04] or not accompanied with some type of grant.

[2:57:07] Right.

[2:57:08] Is it just the one?

[2:57:09] Just the one.

[2:57:14] Thank you.

[2:57:15] Thank you, Dr. Cruz and Rebecca, for all the

[2:57:19] hard work I know you've been putting into this.

[2:57:21] Could you go back to slide 15 right

[2:57:25] here?

[2:57:26] Yeah.

[2:57:26] And just give us, at a very high level, the impact, for example, on

[2:57:30] the recovery high school tuition. We have authorized recovery high schools.

[2:57:34] We have.

[2:57:35] We know that one will not be opening in St.

[2:57:37] Louis-

[2:57:38] Correct

[2:57:38] ... but will be, I think, down in the Cape and then over in Kansas

[2:57:42] City. What is the impact of our not including this?

[2:57:45] The potential impact of not including this may vary.

[2:57:49] There are some other dollars available, potentially from other agencies, that can

[2:57:53] help along this, covering the tuition, and it may

[2:57:57] be that DESE does not receive a bill for the excess tuition.

[2:58:00] Should DESE receive a bill for the excess tuition, we would need you to carry that

[2:58:04] bill into the next fiscal year and have dollars there, or else

[2:58:08] actually use, potentially, some formula dollars to cover

[2:58:12] that.

[2:58:14] At this time, the schools will still open that are-

[2:58:17] Correct

[2:58:17] ... planning to open.

[2:58:18] That is correct.

[2:58:19] They may struggle to have their bills covered.

[2:58:22] If there is tuition requirement in excess of what the home

[2:58:26] district could provide,

[2:58:28] and if the other dollars that we've been made aware of are not

[2:58:32] available after all, then DESE would receive the bill, and

[2:58:36] there'd be some discussion about do we go ahead and pay the bills from

[2:58:39] potentially formula dollars or hold the bills until the next fiscal year.

[2:58:44] Virtual remote testing, does this mean we will not be able to

[2:58:48] do virtual remote?

[2:58:49] No, it means we'll continue using the workarounds that we have in the last year or

[2:58:53] two. The problem with those is there is less security, and there

[2:58:57] is some loss of test items, because we can't guarantee that they've

[2:59:01] been kept completely secure during the remote testing process.

[2:59:07] And then the remaining items?

[2:59:09] The remaining items, the Educational Support Center, ESC, data visualization

[2:59:13] tool is a tool on our website currently that was developed by grant

[2:59:17] funds. And it actually provides academic performance information

[2:59:21] about all school districts in the state, and you're actually able, with this tool,

[2:59:25] to go in and find

[2:59:28] groupings of district as you would choose to select them.

[2:59:31] Whether it's a geographic group in a district, and do some comparisons, or if

[2:59:35] you're looking for districts that have like demographics, and do some

[2:59:39] comparisons, or just drill in and see what your

[2:59:42] home school district is doing as far as student

[2:59:45] performance. It's a nice tool, a lot of graphing, a lot of

[2:59:49] visualization possibilities, and it makes it pretty evident

[2:59:54] which schools are performing very well and which schools have some

[2:59:58] room for improvement. And

[3:00:01] we'd like to keep it on the website, but again, it

[3:00:05] didn't pass through the narrow gate of our budget instructions or

[3:00:09] being statutorily or judicially mandated.

[3:00:13] So, the bottom line is it would be removed.

[3:00:15] Yes, I can't-

[3:00:16] It would not be maintained

[3:00:17] ... I can't tell you the timeframe.

[3:00:18] It could be we can maintain it simply with no updates, or it could actually be

[3:00:22] required to come down as money runs out.

[3:00:27] Critical data infrastructure. We began a project a couple of years

[3:00:31] ago using COVID dollars to update our data

[3:00:35] storage and our data cleaning. We have multiple

[3:00:39] sets of the same data existing in various locations

[3:00:42] around DESE, and sometimes the formatting

[3:00:46] differs just slightly. For example, a school district

[3:00:50] code

[3:00:51] could be 036136,

[3:00:55] and in various data sets, it may be

[3:00:57] 036-136, it may be 036

[3:01:01] space 136. But those cause issues in data

[3:01:05] utilization. So, that money would actually help clean

[3:01:09] that data and also help condense our storage, so we don't have data

[3:01:13] stored in multiple versions in multiple places on

[3:01:16] multiple servers.

[3:01:19] It would give us, essentially,

[3:01:22] a source of truth,

[3:01:24] a clean copy in one place to access.

[3:01:27] Of course, Imagination Library is the program that

[3:01:32] mails books to

[3:01:34] children birth zero to five,

[3:01:36] and the state started funding that, I believe, in 2022 or

[3:01:40] '3. And at that time, when it began, about 16,000 or

[3:01:44] 18,000 students in the state were receiving books through local efforts

[3:01:48] of the Imagination Library. And currently, I believe it's about

[3:01:52] 160,000 children have been receiving books due to the state funding.

[3:01:56] And that statute, that legislation, actually had

[3:02:00] a sunset, and so the contract actually expires December

[3:02:04] 31st. And currently, we don't have dollars in order

[3:02:07] to renew the contract and continue the program.

[3:02:11] So, what we've done so far is we have stopped accepting new

[3:02:15] enrollments, and we're using the money until it runs out, which will be around the

[3:02:18] end of December, and students will receive books until that time.

[3:02:22] And then in the spring, the program will no longer operate at the state level.

[3:02:27] Thank you.

[3:02:29] Maybe this is for the commissioner.

[3:02:30] The Struggling Schools grant, especially given our previous

[3:02:34] discussion,

[3:02:36] as we identify those schools needing supports for continuous

[3:02:39] improvement, this was an important component of the budget

[3:02:43] in order for us to do that.

[3:02:47] If I could jump in for a moment.

[3:02:48] Yeah.

[3:02:48] If we go back to the A through

[3:02:52] F grade card

[3:02:55] request, there's actually a $3 million piece of the A through F

[3:02:59] grade card that is intended to provide

[3:03:03] the beginnings of support for schools that may be receiving Ds or

[3:03:07] Fs, or are in other ways struggling.

[3:03:09] So, there are dollars in there, although it's not as robust as the-

[3:03:16] Struggling Schools Initiative that had been

[3:03:19] considered at the board level.

[3:03:22] I hope that answered your question.

[3:03:23] Mr. Otto?

[3:03:25] Yeah. Just back on that, the A through F budget, is that

[3:03:29] something that once that

[3:03:32] tool is developed and

[3:03:36] implemented, is that something that this

[3:03:39] data visualization tool, can we leverage that as

[3:03:43] a way to incorporate what's already there with

[3:03:47] this new data?

[3:03:48] From the work I've done with the data visualization tool,

[3:03:52] I think the two tools could essentially work hand-in-hand.

[3:03:56] A school district that had a D or an F or

[3:04:00] something like that on the grade card,

[3:04:03] if you then went to the data visualization tool,

[3:04:06] you could drill down and look at the demographics of that school, and

[3:04:10] there's actually a version where it tells you, "This school is performing at a

[3:04:14] higher or lower level than comparable schools in your area," or,

[3:04:18] "This school has a higher or lower

[3:04:21] population of fill in the blank," or, "This school is

[3:04:27] performing at a high or low level in mathematics,

[3:04:31] but the reading levels are not as robust." It does

[3:04:35] have information like that. It's a very useful tool, and to me,

[3:04:39] were I

[3:04:40] operating a school district that was in the D, any

[3:04:44] category, C, D, E or C, D, F, I would certainly want to use

[3:04:48] that tool to help me identify and diagnose the

[3:04:51] specifics of how we could improve.

[3:04:54] It was a... I don't know if you know where I'm going with that.

[3:04:56] Is there a way to roll some of the

[3:05:00] maintenance or support for that tool into the A

[3:05:04] through F budget? And I'm not saying add it to it, but just leverage

[3:05:08] some of the funds that are in that-

[3:05:09] Actually

[3:05:11] specify some of the dollars that are in A through F school grade card to support

[3:05:15] the data visualization tool?

[3:05:17] Mm-hmm.

[3:05:17] I think that's what it... Yeah.

[3:05:19] We can do that.

[3:05:20] Yeah, that should be doable. We would need to rewrite some of the

[3:05:23] description in the

[3:05:25] new decision item. The supplemental's mainly for the mechanics

[3:05:29] part to get it going, but if we rewrote part of the new decision item, we

[3:05:33] should be able to incorporate that.

[3:05:35] Yeah, I guess that's what I'm saying.

[3:05:36] I remember when we had a demo of that, and I thought that that was a useful tool,

[3:05:39] so I don't want to see it necessarily go away, but if we could incorporate that

[3:05:43] into-

[3:05:43] Okay

[3:05:44] ... And it's not urgent, right? So we could just incorporate it as the A through F.

[3:05:48] Yes. We will make a note of that, and unless there are any objections, we'll plan

[3:05:52] to make that change in the NDI.

[3:05:57] Okay.

[3:05:59] Any other questions on the budget?

[3:06:06] Any motions or anything with the budget? Do you need a motion to approve?

[3:06:10] I would ask for a motion from the board to approve the budget as presented and with

[3:06:14] the modification that Mr. Otto specified.

[3:06:19] Okay.

[3:06:19] I'll motion.

[3:06:20] Does somebody want to make that motion?

[3:06:22] I make that motion.

[3:06:22] Mrs. Casey. We need a second for

[3:06:27] it.

[3:06:27] Second.

[3:06:28] Mr. Schmel.

[3:06:30] I had a question if we're in-

[3:06:32] Okay

[3:06:32] ... discussion now.

[3:06:35] So

[3:06:36] I guess I don't see a... It's kind of hard to...

[3:06:40] You have a lot of detail here, but what's the ultimate number we're

[3:06:44] approving, and then what is that compared to last year?

[3:06:46] I think it's in one of these slides, but if you have it.

[3:06:51] Is that it?

[3:06:52] As far as the supplemental and new decision items, this is the

[3:06:55] total of the supplementals and new decision items that would be in

[3:06:59] addition to the core budget. And so what you're looking at,

[3:07:03] I would need to add those numbers up. I forgot.

[3:07:05] Apparently, I failed to fill out the total line.

[3:07:08] So-

[3:07:09] I didn't catch that either

[3:07:10] ... Sorry. I apologize for the error there.

[3:07:11] That's about 630 million from the general revenue and about 100

[3:07:15] million from federal funds?

[3:07:17] Yes.

[3:07:18] And then how does that compare to what we did last

[3:07:22] year?

[3:07:23] Okay. As far as new decision items and other pieces

[3:07:27] compared to last year?

[3:07:29] Yes.

[3:07:30] I don't know.

[3:07:30] I really just want to get to the, I think what most of us want is what

[3:07:35] was our budget that we approved last year, and what's the

[3:07:39] difference this year?

[3:07:40] I see.

[3:07:41] You want that?

[3:07:48] You can go to this one.

[3:07:52] There's a slide in here on 27. Is that-

[3:07:55] Yeah.

[3:07:55] That it? I don't know if that's what that-

[3:07:57] Go on a few more down.

[3:08:00] Back a couple.

[3:08:02] Sorry, wrong way. Nope.

[3:08:06] It's 27.

[3:08:08] I think you're going the wrong way.

[3:08:19] There we go.

[3:08:19] Okay. So

[3:08:21] the final fiscal year '27 budget

[3:08:25] after vetoes was right at

[3:08:28] $8.5 billion.

[3:08:32] There were $160.4 million in one-time funds.

[3:08:37] So the fiscal year 2028 core budget, the beginning

[3:08:41] place was $8.37 billion.

[3:08:45] And to that, you would add the request for about

[3:08:49] 600 and some million in general revenue and

[3:08:52] about 100 for the

[3:08:55] federal, and then the other.

[3:08:57] So it would come in-

[3:08:59] Over nine

[3:09:00] With an understanding.

[3:09:01] It could be right over nine.

[3:09:03] Nine

[3:09:04] million

[3:09:04] ... Right around $9 billion total request.

[3:09:08] And again, the majority of the new dollars

[3:09:11] can be attributed to the Foundation Formula request, which is

[3:09:16] 388 million, transportation, 64 million,

[3:09:20] and then the high-need special ed and early childhood special ed

[3:09:24] Yeah, it looks like it's about 500 million of that-

[3:09:27] Yeah

[3:09:28] ... is for those three things.

[3:09:29] Correct. And I would ask you to recall that

[3:09:33] in the fiscal year '27 budget, we had actually requested

[3:09:37] 190 million in additional formula dollars, and those

[3:09:41] were not approved. So had that been

[3:09:44] approved, the fiscal year '27 number would be just under $200 million

[3:09:48] higher.

[3:09:55] That make sense to everybody?

[3:09:56] Mm-hmm.

[3:09:57] All right.

[3:10:00] Are there any other questions?

[3:10:06] Okay. We do have a motion on the floor, and it was made by Carrie.

[3:10:10] Was it Carrie?

[3:10:11] Yeah.

[3:10:11] And seconded by Jens. Okay. All those in favor of

[3:10:15] the motion as presented-

[3:10:16] Can we get a roll call on this?

[3:10:17] Yeah, we can.

[3:10:20] Mr. Bradberry?

[3:10:22] Yes.

[3:10:23] Ms. Casey?

[3:10:24] Yes.

[3:10:26] Mr. Matusik?

[3:10:26] No.

[3:10:30] Mr. Miller?

[3:10:31] I, no.

[3:10:34] Mr. Myers?

[3:10:35] No.

[3:10:37] Mr. Otto?

[3:10:38] Yes.

[3:10:40] Mr. Shamal?

[3:10:41] Yes.

[3:10:42] Dr. Scholl?

[3:10:43] No.

[3:10:46] So, the summary of that vote count is...

[3:10:50] Four yes, four no.

[3:10:53] Does not pass.

[3:10:54] Great.

[3:10:56] Can I make a comment?

[3:10:57] Yes.

[3:10:58] We do need to pass a budget. Now-

[3:11:00] No

[3:11:01] ... no. There is a budget submission required October 1st.

[3:11:04] So, my question is, what changes would be

[3:11:08] recommended

[3:11:09] that we could consider?

[3:11:20] I think I've said my piece about the budget to everyone on the board.

[3:11:23] My position should not be a mystery to anyone.

[3:11:29] If you'd just formally state it is all I'm asking-

[3:11:32] Yeah, I-

[3:11:32] ... so we can-

[3:11:33] I don't think this is-

[3:11:33] ... the right discussion

[3:11:34] ... a serious budget. I think we're asking for money that doesn't exist.

[3:11:38] There's a dozen reasons why

[3:11:42] I think it doesn't make sense to approve this budget.

[3:11:45] All things that I've

[3:11:49] stated in previous meetings.

[3:11:51] I think my preference, that's just me,

[3:11:55] if I was waving my magic wand,

[3:11:58] I would just request a flat budget, right? What did we just get approved for?

[3:12:03] I think that makes the most sense. I think it's realistic that we'll get it.

[3:12:08] And I think our budget process next year could look quite a bit different.

[3:12:11] We'll have a strategic plan in place.

[3:12:13] If I'm going to ask the legislature

[3:12:17] for six or $700 million more, I want to go in and

[3:12:20] tell them, "Hey, here's what you can expect to get for that." Right?

[3:12:25] We're expecting your improvements of X or whatever.

[3:12:29] Mm-hmm.

[3:12:30] We're asking for money that actually does exist.

[3:12:33] So yeah, I'm a firm no on the budget request

[3:12:37] as it sits. I think there's a better way to do it.

[3:12:40] Mm-hmm.

[3:12:40] I think it...

[3:12:43] So,

[3:12:44] I'll pause.

[3:12:46] Mr. Shamal?

[3:12:47] Mike, I think the question, we talked about this a bit last month, I think the

[3:12:51] question gets down to,

[3:12:53] do we ask for money that

[3:12:56] we know we're not going to get? And,

[3:13:02] I said last month that I think

[3:13:06] we have

[3:13:07] an obligation to inform the legislature

[3:13:10] as to

[3:13:14] what the full funding would look like.

[3:13:17] This came right out of the formula, right?

[3:13:19] Correct.

[3:13:21] And so,

[3:13:25] I don't know what we send over, though.

[3:13:28] Where do we take that money out

[3:13:32] of? Do we have that plan?

[3:13:36] If you're asking me,

[3:13:39] I think the request that goes to the legislature and the governor is essentially

[3:13:42] saying, "Hey, the board has asked or is

[3:13:45] requesting a flat budget. And if you want other

[3:13:49] information, here is that data." Right?

[3:13:51] We can provide you with

[3:13:54] what that

[3:13:55] dollar amount would look like. But, the department and this board, we don't

[3:13:59] appropriate any money.

[3:14:00] Yeah.

[3:14:01] We ask for it. And right now, I think we're asking for a lot of money without a

[3:14:05] real justification for spending it.

[3:14:07] I've said it before, I think this board, this department, has a

[3:14:11] credibility problem. And I think sending over a nine plus billion dollar

[3:14:15] budget to people who make these decisions doesn't

[3:14:18] help our credibility problem, and won't help us in the

[3:14:22] future when we do go to the legislature and the governor and ask for

[3:14:25] money to support specific things,

[3:14:31] decisions that this board will make on a strategic plan on other efforts.

[3:14:36] If we can say, "Hey, we need extra money, but here's why." Right?

[3:14:39] This is the strategic plan we just passed. Here's our focus.

[3:14:43] We need money here for X, Y, or Z to accomplish this.

[3:14:47] And I think we have a stronger case to make that argument

[3:14:52] if we're not sending over yet another budget that nobody in those buildings is

[3:14:56] taking seriously.

[3:14:59] Okay. Any other comment?

[3:15:00] So yeah, I was thinking possibly the core budget, the new decision

[3:15:04] items, all except one are mandated by

[3:15:08] legislature or accompanying grants.

[3:15:10] I was going to ask for some clarification on Mr.

[3:15:12] Matusik's point,

[3:15:14] and I brought back this slide here. And Mr.

[3:15:17] Matusik, is your objection

[3:15:20] largely in the realm of general revenue?

[3:15:23] Are you okay with the federal funds and other funds?

[3:15:27] And

[3:15:28] If it's mainly general revenue, then we're talking about formula and

[3:15:32] transportation, and high-need special education, and early

[3:15:36] childhood special education. And I'm just looking for clarification about

[3:15:40] which direction you're looking to go with this.

[3:15:45] Yeah. I think my big focus is general revenue.

[3:15:49] The statute says that DESE has to

[3:15:52] calculate

[3:15:54] a number. It doesn't say we have to request that number.

[3:15:59] Right? We can calculate what that number is

[3:16:03] and provide that to the legislature, and if they want to fund it, they

[3:16:07] can.

[3:16:09] I don't know that the statute

[3:16:13] implies that the board's budget request

[3:16:18] has to mirror this number, right? If

[3:16:22] all of this is all predetermined, then what are we even doing here?

[3:16:25] Why are we even talking about the budget?

[3:16:27] Throw it up there, and we'll approve it, right, if we have no ability to say

[3:16:30] anything else.

[3:16:31] Well, I think there's other things that we have the opportunity to say.

[3:16:34] I think that's an inappropriate-

[3:16:36] So the items you mentioned, all of those are in statute as far

[3:16:40] as why they needed to be raised.

[3:16:44] Looking at this list here,

[3:16:47] and again, I've moved back to the general revenue concentration.

[3:16:50] Sure.

[3:16:50] Foundation formula is literally in statute.

[3:16:53] Transportation, the formula's not in statute.

[3:16:55] However, the

[3:16:58] part about funding

[3:17:01] 75% of allowable costs is in statute.

[3:17:05] Early childhood special education, high-need special education, those are both in

[3:17:08] statute, and there have been court cases.

[3:17:11] A through F school grade card is not.

[3:17:13] It's tied to an executive order that got it through the gate onto this

[3:17:17] list.

[3:17:20] These items here are all new in statute

[3:17:23] items.

[3:17:26] Yes, and that's the list.

[3:17:28] Mr. President?

[3:17:30] Yes. Are you done with your comments?

[3:17:33] I am. Thank you.

[3:17:34] Okay.

[3:17:35] I have great respect for this discussion. I think it's an important one to have.

[3:17:39] I would disagree that we're just rubber stamping.

[3:17:43] I think we have

[3:17:46] our own responsibility in portions of this to do

[3:17:50] the calculation. I think to the very point that we spoke

[3:17:54] about much earlier,

[3:17:56] Board Member Shamel speaking well about the importance of partnership with our

[3:18:00] schools.

[3:18:02] It is important that because it has been justified in the

[3:18:05] past, not that we're getting all the right results, but the school funding

[3:18:09] formula says this is what is required.

[3:18:12] But we are working on that, in the future, to see a better formula.

[3:18:18] For us to say that

[3:18:21] we are the arbiters of how much a school should

[3:18:25] get in money, that's not our job. That's the legislature's job.

[3:18:30] Our responsibility is to deliver the

[3:18:33] resources, to do our job in focusing on the needs of the

[3:18:37] schools, and it's already been determined that the formula, the foundation

[3:18:41] formula, is the definition of one of those needs.

[3:18:45] So for us not to support it is not being in partnership with

[3:18:49] our

[3:18:51] districts and LEAs.

[3:18:54] But that said, I respect the point about the money,

[3:18:57] and I would disagree to a degree about the credibility,

[3:19:02] but that's not the point here. I do think that we want to be good

[3:19:05] stewards of the money.

[3:19:07] For us to ask for something that isn't there, it

[3:19:11] would seem foolish.

[3:19:14] But for us to assume the responsibility

[3:19:16] of

[3:19:19] that our governor or our legislature doesn't think education

[3:19:23] is as important and therefore we will lower the need.

[3:19:27] It's our job to present the need, and we do represent that need.

[3:19:32] They are the ones to determine how that works in

[3:19:36] the scheme of all of the bigger priorities within the budget.

[3:19:40] That is not our job.

[3:19:42] But

[3:19:44] I do believe, and these others are requested by

[3:19:47] legislature, the majority of them.

[3:19:49] Not to go through each one again.

[3:19:52] Required. Required, not requested. Good point.

[3:19:55] So, to go in at a flat budget

[3:19:59] is also disregarding the ask that's been made of us.

[3:20:04] So I think there's a way to address, we want to

[3:20:08] be the good leaders, the good stewards, the thought leaders.

[3:20:11] We want to recognize the revenue

[3:20:14] condition in the state, et cetera.

[3:20:16] So why don't we determine if it is a

[3:20:19] foundation formula number in particular, that we have a

[3:20:23] better way of communicating that?

[3:20:25] We can say we recognize that the state money isn't there,

[3:20:30] and so therefore, the budget request would be

[3:20:33] $388,000 less,

[3:20:37] but that this is the required amount per statute,

[3:20:41] per formula.

[3:20:42] Let's try and figure out a way that we can submit a budget that

[3:20:46] reflects the needs of the department and of the state or of the

[3:20:52] education community,

[3:20:53] but also communicate our message.

[3:20:56] Yeah. Well, I

[3:20:58] realize there may be more than one statute that applies here, but the

[3:21:02] statute reads, "The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

[3:21:06] shall calculate..."

[3:21:07] Right. Oh, I get it, Mike. I don't think we're not trying-

[3:21:10] So-

[3:21:10] We're trying to do our job here, and

[3:21:14] that is to represent the needs of the children of Missouri, which

[3:21:18] in this case is financial funding to the schools.

[3:21:24] I'm not debating a statute. I'm saying we

[3:21:28] have a responsibility to submit a budget

[3:21:31] Based on a calculation, we can determine, and I'm asking,

[3:21:35] let's then determine what a different amount is and find a different way to

[3:21:38] communicate it. It's not a debate about the statute and

[3:21:42] saying that we have to do that.

[3:21:45] Yeah. I just got one comment and then one question.

[3:21:49] So

[3:21:50] just to follow up on kind of what we've been talking about here is that this is the

[3:21:54] first time in, at least that I've known, in the history of this board,

[3:21:58] that we've actually had a finance committee that

[3:22:01] evaluated the budget, worked with DESE staff to

[3:22:07] find out what exactly is required. We've spent a lot of time...

[3:22:11] I know

[3:22:13] Kyle and his team have spent a lot of time kind of poring over this,

[3:22:17] and we were dissecting things that we--

[3:22:22] He called it a narrow gate, right?

[3:22:24] Mm-hmm.

[3:22:24] That's a good analogy, I think. We were like, "Hey, what do we need?

[3:22:26] What do we not need?" And the initial budget we didn't like, and so they

[3:22:30] went back and pared it down a little bit.

[3:22:33] And so I just want to make that point that this

[3:22:37] is the first time this board has, at least that I know of, that has

[3:22:41] done that other than, I think we used to just rubber stamp it.

[3:22:44] But I think we're actually trying to figure out what we can do

[3:22:47] to

[3:22:49] reduce costs and fund things that are absolutely necessary.

[3:22:53] But now my second thing is, if you could go to slide

[3:22:56] 17. You made a comment earlier, and I want to follow up on

[3:23:00] that.

[3:23:02] You said last year that we requested

[3:23:06] a certain amount from Foundation Formula, and then some of it was

[3:23:10] not all the way fully funded.

[3:23:12] Sure.

[3:23:12] Is that what this slide shows?

[3:23:14] Yeah. I'll talk through that. First off, though, I want to make sure I

[3:23:17] express my appreciation for your point about the finance committee.

[3:23:21] That has been so helpful in understanding the board's

[3:23:25] wishes in terms of budget. And

[3:23:29] in full transparency, last month, we did bring you the entirety

[3:23:33] of the list of potential supplementals and NDIS, and that

[3:23:37] was an effort to make sure the board knew all of the items that

[3:23:42] were placed on the table for consideration.

[3:23:44] And I thought it was only fair to the board that you see the entire layout

[3:23:48] of what gets brought forward. And that's why the last month was

[3:23:52] significantly longer. And then the process since that time has been the,

[3:23:57] again, to use the analogy, determining which ones made it through the narrow gate.

[3:24:01] Now, to answer your question, Mr. Otto, about the formula.

[3:24:05] In fiscal year 2026, the Foundation Formula

[3:24:09] was funded at the level of $4.282 billion.

[3:24:13] And

[3:24:15] in '27, we asked for the

[3:24:18] $4.282 billion plus another $190

[3:24:22] million because that's what the formula calculated.

[3:24:25] We didn't get the $190 million extra.

[3:24:29] So for current year,

[3:24:31] we've

[3:24:37] been operating at the $4.282 billion level.

[3:24:41] And so we operate at that level.

[3:24:44] There was some one-time funds in the fiscal year '27

[3:24:48] budget that we have to first replace to refill and

[3:24:52] get back to the $4.282 billion. And then there

[3:24:56] is an additional formula call. And so the one-time money coverage

[3:25:00] plus the additional formula call is what brought us to the request for

[3:25:04] $388 million in extra formula funds.

[3:25:07] I'm not sure I explained that clearly, but fiscal year '26,

[3:25:12] the formula called for and was appropriated at

[3:25:16] $4,282,736,000.

[3:25:21] For fiscal year '27,

[3:25:23] the formula calculated the same

[3:25:25] $4,282,736,000 plus

[3:25:30] $190 million.

[3:25:31] Okay?

[3:25:33] And we didn't get the $190 million.

[3:25:35] So current year appropriation is still

[3:25:37] $4,282,736,000.

[3:25:41] For the '28 budget,

[3:25:44] what we have to do is first

[3:25:48] realize that there were one-time funds put in for

[3:25:52] '27. So there's basically

[3:25:55] $4,282,736,000

[3:25:58] minus

[3:26:00] the one-time funds that we would have to ask to be replaced first

[3:26:04] just to get back to

[3:26:05] $4,282,736,000.

[3:26:09] Once those one-time funds have been replaced, then there's an additional call

[3:26:13] on the formula calculation, and that brought us to the totality

[3:26:17] of

[3:26:19] if you add

[3:26:20] $118,886,306

[3:26:25] plus the additional calculation in the formula,

[3:26:29] it ends up asking for

[3:26:32] a request

[3:26:33] in the formula of

[3:26:35] $388,655,679.

[3:26:39] The $388,655,679 covers

[3:26:42] replacing the one-time money, $118 million, and

[3:26:47] the additional call calculated by the formula.

[3:26:51] I hope that all made sense.

[3:26:53] I know it's a lot.

[3:26:55] I was sort of following along. I don't know if everybody else followed, but I guess

[3:26:59] the real point of the question is that I think maybe

[3:27:04] one,

[3:27:05] why was that

[3:27:07] additional ask from last year not funded?

[3:27:12] And

[3:27:12] if

[3:27:17] maybe that's the flat budget number that we're talking about here.

[3:27:20] You know what I mean? If we know that they're going to take off a certain amount

[3:27:23] that we're asking and that the formula requires an increase, if we just keep

[3:27:27] that flat. Does that make sense?

[3:27:29] I think I'm following. So last year, the $190

[3:27:33] million increase that the formula calculated was not funded.

[3:27:38] So we remained at the four To a two-

[3:27:41] And why was it-

[3:27:42] 736

[3:27:42] ... that was just the legislature said we're not going to increase the form-

[3:27:44] foundation-

[3:27:45] Both the governor and the legislature, I believe, chose to

[3:27:48] go with not funding the calculated increase.

[3:27:52] Okay. And that formula, just to refresh my memory, is that

[3:27:56] just based on, for lack of a better way to say it,

[3:28:00] cost of living adjustments, like annual in- inflation? I don't know.

[3:28:03] What causes it to go up every year?

[3:28:06] Okay.

[3:28:08] Maybe that's too-

[3:28:09] That's a loaded question

[3:28:10] Okay, never mind then. I thought it was an easy answer.

[3:28:11] Well, no, I can give you the

[3:28:14] 30,000-foot level.

[3:28:18] In the formula, and I think I've said it before, there are what I

[3:28:21] consider...

[3:28:22] I think of it in three parts. The original formula calculation, which

[3:28:27] we determine what the state adequacy target is

[3:28:31] for a student, how much money it takes for a student to be

[3:28:35] educated by the schools of Missouri.

[3:28:38] And then we look at, it's calculated in what the student

[3:28:42] count is.

[3:28:44] And then there are also a list of

[3:28:49] special payments that get stacked on top of the formula, and those

[3:28:53] include things like paying tuition for

[3:28:56] students who are in virtual schools,

[3:29:00] the 169-day calendar incentive

[3:29:03] where schools get an extra 1% and now 2% if they

[3:29:07] adopt a 169-day calendar. Back in the mechanics

[3:29:11] of the formula, there is a call that is generated because

[3:29:15] of a charter school local effort measure that has been

[3:29:19] placed into the formula calculation.

[3:29:21] So it's a number, it's a lot of factors that are recalculated

[3:29:25] every year.

[3:29:26] And our request each year

[3:29:29] is the difference between

[3:29:31] what last year's number was and what this year's number

[3:29:35] calculates out to be. That's the very high view of the

[3:29:39] formula.

[3:29:40] Okay.

[3:29:41] Mr. Meyer?

[3:29:42] On the one-time funds, that wasn't anything that this board or

[3:29:46] DESE asked for. They found that.

[3:29:49] Yeah. As a means of funding the formula current year,

[3:29:54] they chose to put about $118 million in what are called

[3:29:58] one-time funds into the formula.

[3:30:01] And so

[3:30:03] just to

[3:30:05] stay at the

[3:30:06] 4,282,736,000 number

[3:30:10] for fiscal year '28,

[3:30:12] we would need at least $118 million to replace the

[3:30:16] one-time funds. One-time funds are in the budget for that year, and then they go

[3:30:20] away, and they have to be replaced with something else to stay at that same level.

[3:30:27] And that's on our budget end to come up with that as opposed

[3:30:30] to theirs?

[3:30:31] We're required to make the ask.

[3:30:33] To make the ask.

[3:30:34] If we want to remain at that same level-

[3:30:35] Right

[3:30:35] ... we have to make the ask in form of a new decision item.

[3:30:39] We don't determine where the dollars come from, but we have to make the

[3:30:43] ask if we want to fill that one-time fund hole.

[3:30:50] So just back to what I said earlier, if

[3:30:54] we were to just try to get ahead and say, "Okay, we're just going

[3:30:58] to request flat foundation formula," what is the

[3:31:01] risk that then they say that, like before,

[3:31:06] we asked an amount and they took it down.

[3:31:08] Right.

[3:31:09] If we ask a flat amount and they take it down again, that's putting us in a worse

[3:31:13] spot.

[3:31:13] Mm-hmm.

[3:31:14] I don't know if that could happen, but I don't-

[3:31:15] No

[3:31:15] ... maybe it will. I don't know.

[3:31:16] To clarify,

[3:31:17] if the will of the board is to

[3:31:21] make a request that totals the

[3:31:24] $4,282,736,000,

[3:31:28] we're going to have to have a new decision item for at least $118 million

[3:31:32] to replace the one-time funds.

[3:31:35] Now,

[3:31:37] as far as what are the odds of the legislature or the governor doing something

[3:31:41] different, I don't think I can speak with any kind of authority as to what the

[3:31:45] will of the legislature and the governor would be.

[3:31:48] There's a possibility.

[3:31:49] Mm-hmm.

[3:31:50] There's always a possibility of many things.

[3:31:52] Mm-hmm.

[3:31:54] I'm just thinking out loud.

[3:31:55] Well, I agree. I think we... Go ahead.

[3:31:57] Just-

[3:31:58] We've got to submit something

[3:31:58] ... yeah.

[3:31:58] Robbie.

[3:31:59] Well, the new decision items,

[3:32:01] they're either statutory,

[3:32:04] legislative, judicial, or executive order,

[3:32:07] except for the one.

[3:32:08] The GR one's correct. The federal and others are different.

[3:32:11] And-

[3:32:12] And then there's the one other initiative, right

[3:32:13] ... and we're just trying to show good faith, so we could

[3:32:17] ask the one-time,

[3:32:19] I think what they put in it, plus the one-time funds last year, plus those

[3:32:23] others, but it's the increase of what these other

[3:32:27] ones ran through, what they ran up to,

[3:32:30] just keeping those level. In doing

[3:32:34] that, we wouldn't be presenting a level budget.

[3:32:36] We would be saying,

[3:32:39] particularly our largest line item,

[3:32:41] we're presenting that

[3:32:44] without a cut.

[3:32:48] Most departments are going to have to present with a cut because the state

[3:32:52] does not have the money. But

[3:32:56] I'm open to... I just want us to show to them that we're

[3:33:00] serious in trying to look at this, and we understand the reality.

[3:33:04] We know there's not 600

[3:33:06] million more that this department could get because they do not have it.

[3:33:10] Yeah, and the-

[3:33:12] So let's-

[3:33:12] Two sec.

[3:33:13] Yeah.

[3:33:14] I was just

[3:33:15] asking

[3:33:21] for what was just approved,

[3:33:24] and then, if we wanted to say, "Hey, if you have an extra $700

[3:33:28] million laying around, here's what we would do with it."

[3:33:32] Okay? Because that's really what we're talking about right now

[3:33:36] is $600 or $700 million that

[3:33:41] doesn't exist.

[3:33:43] We know we're not going to get it.

[3:33:45] That's why I say this isn't a serious budget request, and I think

[3:33:49] Yes, we can calculate those numbers and provide those to anybody

[3:33:53] that wants them, but it doesn't mean we have to request it.

[3:34:00] Mrs. Casey?

[3:34:01] And that was what I was trying to recommend, Mike, that we come up with an

[3:34:04] alternate solution here. That we all come together,

[3:34:08] because we do need to submit a budget.

[3:34:11] Or we get nothing.

[3:34:13] Can't let that happen.

[3:34:16] So rather than a flat out, let's

[3:34:20] construct it together here. If we believe

[3:34:24] that

[3:34:26] not just flat, but the amount of

[3:34:30] the funding

[3:34:33] of the core budget,

[3:34:37] including those statutory

[3:34:41] requirements-

[3:34:43] Judicial, wasn't it?

[3:34:44] Judicial.

[3:34:45] But also, I'm going to ask a question, including the one

[3:34:49] additional initiative, the 10 million on the-

[3:34:53] The-

[3:34:53] ... evidence-based reading initiative.

[3:34:55] I'm not asking for a vote, I'm just kind of putting this

[3:34:59] together out loud here. So, if

[3:35:03] we are saying the key concern

[3:35:07] of the biggest amount, more than half,

[3:35:11] is the foundation formula,

[3:35:16] including, and we can choose to add in the transportation,

[3:35:21] but that everything else we are asking for.

[3:35:24] That's one option. To take out the foundation formula

[3:35:28] increase.

[3:35:30] So you're saying take out the 388

[3:35:33] million?

[3:35:33] And communicate it differently. But go ahead.

[3:35:36] Well, except for the 118.

[3:35:39] Right.

[3:35:40] Oh, okay.

[3:35:40] So we would have to have the 118.

[3:35:41] Yeah.

[3:35:41] So it'd be taking out-

[3:35:42] Just for clarity purposes-

[3:35:44] Yeah

[3:35:45] ... Ms. Casey, are you suggesting that

[3:35:48] the only items you're looking at changing would be formula

[3:35:52] and transportation?

[3:35:54] That's what I'm trying to get us to say this is where we're going.

[3:35:58] I'm not wanting to... Yes?

[3:36:01] Is the early childhood special education, is

[3:36:05] that

[3:36:06] some formula that's in statute?

[3:36:08] It's not a formula, but there is statute about it, and there's actually been a

[3:36:11] court case about it.

[3:36:12] Mm-hmm.

[3:36:12] What's happening right now is-

[3:36:15] Yeah

[3:36:15] ... our appropriation has not been sufficient to pay the bills.

[3:36:18] We've been carrying bills from one year into the next, and we're trying to remedy

[3:36:21] that. And that's for both early childhood and high needs special education.

[3:36:28] So I believe that it's the foundation formula that

[3:36:32] is the biggest issue. It is the foundation formula where we

[3:36:35] can communicate our message.

[3:36:39] Where these others, by their nature of what

[3:36:42] they are provided for, as well as the legal issues behind them, that

[3:36:46] I would recommend we keep them in. And we submit a budget

[3:36:50] absent the 388 million,

[3:36:55] offset by the 118 million

[3:37:00] as suggested. So I guess we would reduce it

[3:37:04] only 270 million?

[3:37:07] No, I thought it was the other way around.

[3:37:08] Or we'd add it.

[3:37:09] It's 500 million-

[3:37:10] Yeah

[3:37:10] ... if you do that.

[3:37:11] Thank you. I went the opposite direction.

[3:37:14] So you would figure out the number.

[3:37:17] Okay.

[3:37:18] Just for clarity again, are we talking specifically about the

[3:37:22] foundation formula as the only item being adjusted from what's

[3:37:26] presented here?

[3:37:27] That is a suggestion that I'm putting out so that we can move this

[3:37:31] discussion forward.

[3:37:33] And then we can throw in... Someone else can disagree or add something

[3:37:37] else, but right now, starting with that.

[3:37:40] I would just clarify, does foundation include transportation?

[3:37:43] Because those are-

[3:37:43] They are separate

[3:37:44] ... big ticket, but they're two separate things.

[3:37:48] My vote would be to keep transportation requests in the budget.

[3:37:54] Just for context, the budget's

[3:37:57] almost nine billion or something like that.

[3:37:59] So 64 million sounds like a lot to me and most

[3:38:03] people, but-

[3:38:04] It's a minimal

[3:38:05] ... in the bigger scheme of things, it's just a drop. So just for context.

[3:38:08] So if the formula is what we're looking at adjusting, then

[3:38:12] some clarity on what the formula target should be

[3:38:16] is what we'd need.

[3:38:17] Well, the

[3:38:19] suggestion was that it stay flat.

[3:38:21] Okay. So go ahead.

[3:38:23] Yeah.

[3:38:26] What was the foundation formula funded at

[3:38:29] this past year?

[3:38:31] It was appropriated at 4 billion

[3:38:32] 282736000.

[3:38:35] So that would be my request again then.

[3:38:37] That includes the one-time money?

[3:38:39] That's the appropriation for fiscal year '27.

[3:38:42] So if I understand what you're talking about correctly, you're looking at

[3:38:47] between the combination of core budget for the

[3:38:51] formula

[3:38:52] and new decision item for the formula, the total should

[3:38:55] read 4 billion

[3:38:57] 282736000. Is that what you're looking at?

[3:39:02] Well, it's a question for the board, but-

[3:39:04] Yeah

[3:39:04] ... I don't know how I can make this any simpler.

[3:39:09] Okay. The governor just signed a budget into law a couple of months

[3:39:12] ago, right?

[3:39:14] And that provided money for what? The foundation formula, the transportation

[3:39:18] formula, and everything else.

[3:39:20] That is what I would ask for. Exactly that. I wouldn't include anything new.

[3:39:25] We don't have a

[3:39:27] permanent commissioner in place. We don't have a strategic plan.

[3:39:30] We have a new board that has a lot of questions about this budget.

[3:39:33] We have unfunded mandates from the legislature.

[3:39:35] If it were me, I would tell them, "Give us money and we'll fund it, and we'll ask

[3:39:38] for it."

[3:39:39] But we have to ask for the money-

[3:39:41] But what I-

[3:39:42] ... so they give it to us.

[3:39:42] Right. But what I would

[3:39:44] do is just take what was just approved, ask for that again,

[3:39:49] and then say, "Oh, and if you have $700 million more,

[3:39:53] ... this is what we would do with it.

[3:39:55] We would put X amount into the foundation formula, X amount into the

[3:39:58] transportation.

[3:40:00] But asking for it-

[3:40:02] What I think is problematic, if we don't ask for the new decision items which were

[3:40:06] required by laws they passed, or what the governor put, or

[3:40:10] what judges at, if we don't have those line

[3:40:13] items in the budget, we can't spend it.

[3:40:18] Is that fairly accurate?

[3:40:23] DESE requires two things to expend dollars, and number

[3:40:27] one is correct, an appropriation in the budget for those

[3:40:31] purposes, and number two is dollars to

[3:40:35] actually send the money out.

[3:40:38] Okay.

[3:40:42] I would like to make a motion.

[3:40:48] That we submit a budget

[3:40:50] that is not,

[3:40:52] to Mike's recommendation, just flat, but with respect for

[3:40:56] the concerns that he has raised.

[3:41:00] That is

[3:41:01] the budget that does not include

[3:41:04] the increase in the foundation formula.

[3:41:07] That we hold flat to the foundation

[3:41:11] formula element of the budget

[3:41:15] that was approved in 2027.

[3:41:17] So you're wanting-

[3:41:18] And that we continue to include

[3:41:21] the early childhood special education, the high needs special

[3:41:25] education, and the A through F grade card, and

[3:41:29] the

[3:41:30] federal grants, et cetera, and the 10 million on the

[3:41:34] reading initiative,

[3:41:37] and the transportation formula.

[3:41:41] May I inquire?

[3:41:42] Yes.

[3:41:43] So for clarity's sake,

[3:41:45] it would essentially be the budget as presented, except

[3:41:49] that the formula number between core

[3:41:53] and new decision item together would total last year's

[3:41:57] appropriation-

[3:41:58] Correct

[3:41:58] ... $4,000,282,736,000. Is that-

[3:42:02] Is my starting recommendation here so we can say yes or

[3:42:05] no.

[3:42:07] Well, I was going to say, so then...

[3:42:10] Well,

[3:42:11] we got a motion on the floor. Let's see what happens there.

[3:42:14] We should discuss it.

[3:42:15] Well, yeah. And not if it's not-

[3:42:17] And then we vote on it

[3:42:17] Second it, then.

[3:42:17] Okay.

[3:42:18] Second it.

[3:42:19] Yeah.

[3:42:21] Okay.

[3:42:21] By adding the new decision items and saying the budget stays flat,

[3:42:28] somewhere we're going to have to make the cut besides just the growth

[3:42:32] of the foundational formula.

[3:42:35] The

[3:42:36] legislature would make the cut.

[3:42:38] No, we'd have to make it in the request because how much is in the new decision

[3:42:42] items?

[3:42:43] As I understood-

[3:42:44] Not counting the foundation formula

[3:42:46] ... I understood Ms. Case's motion-

[3:42:47] Yeah. It was maybe-

[3:42:48] ... it was budget as presented except that the

[3:42:52] formula would be adjusted down.

[3:42:53] Correct.

[3:42:54] Everything else would stay, is my understanding.

[3:42:56] And you understood that it would be the formula would be what was last year,

[3:43:00] including the one-time money. Is that was your understanding?

[3:43:03] My understanding is the formula number would end up

[3:43:07] at

[3:43:08] $4,000,282,736,000

[3:43:12] between a combination of core budget and new decision item.

[3:43:16] So Dr. Price? So just for clarity, to make sure that...

[3:43:20] So if that motion goes forward like that, but you do want to keep it flat funding,

[3:43:23] that will mean on paper-

[3:43:25] No, I did not say I wanted to keep it flat funding.

[3:43:27] What I said in the beginning-

[3:43:28] Yeah, the-

[3:43:29] ... was I am not suggesting we keep it flat.

[3:43:32] What I am suggesting is that we do

[3:43:36] exactly what Kyle just said, that we take the budget

[3:43:40] as presented and remove the foundation formula

[3:43:44] increase.

[3:43:45] It would still be an increased budget.

[3:43:48] Correct.

[3:43:48] But the bulk of it will be things that they put into

[3:43:52] law that we may or may not ask for.

[3:43:54] Right.

[3:43:54] I assume-

[3:43:54] That's what I understood

[3:43:55] ... I assume most of them we didn't ask for.

[3:43:57] Yeah. Correct.

[3:43:57] It would still be an increased budget, but it wouldn't be new-

[3:43:59] The only thing we are asking for is that 10 million in

[3:44:04] the reading.

[3:44:08] Just to be clear, though, with the foundation formula

[3:44:12] staying at the same level as last year, will still mean on

[3:44:16] paper a new decision item of 118

[3:44:20] million-

[3:44:20] Mm-hmm

[3:44:21] ... to backfill the one-time money.

[3:44:22] Yes.

[3:44:23] So you can either be 118 million below last year to

[3:44:26] stay totally flat or say, "Okay, we know that the one was a

[3:44:30] one-time money," so to stay flat at the total amount

[3:44:34] requires the 118 additional. Is that fair?

[3:44:37] I think, right.

[3:44:38] I am not recommending that we go below last year.

[3:44:41] We need to-

[3:44:42] I think I phrased it as-

[3:44:43] 118.

[3:44:43] No, I agree. We need to account for that 118 million so that

[3:44:47] we are flat to the foundation formula of last year.

[3:44:51] I think the way I stated it was, if I understand you correctly, you're looking for

[3:44:56] the total amount for the foundation formula would be

[3:45:00] $4,000,282,736,000 through a

[3:45:04] combination of core budget-

[3:45:06] Plus

[3:45:07] ... and about $118 million new decision item.

[3:45:10] Correct.

[3:45:10] Okay.

[3:45:10] Or one-time money again. We don't care.

[3:45:12] Wherever-

[3:45:13] Well, yeah. Where they get the money-

[3:45:15] Or Robbie's donation

[3:45:15] ... where they get the money, I can't say.

[3:45:17] I understand.

[3:45:18] Yeah.

[3:45:19] I would also include, though,

[3:45:22] that an explicit-

[3:45:25] Don't we have a motion?

[3:45:26] Well, yeah, you're right. And maybe I should have made this part of

[3:45:30] the motion.

[3:45:30] No, I think-

[3:45:30] But just that somehow how we communicate the message over to the

[3:45:34] legislature needs to be discussed, so...

[3:45:37] Can we

[3:45:39] have the motion read to us?

[3:45:41] Motion back.

[3:45:43] If I understood the motion, it's approve the budget as presented

[3:45:47] with the exception of the foundation formula,

[3:45:51] and the total for the foundation formula should equal

[3:45:54] $4,000,282,736,000

[3:45:58] between the combination of core-

[3:46:00] Yes

[3:46:00] ... and NDI.

[3:46:01] I think that's the motion you were talking about.

[3:46:04] Yes.

[3:46:09] Yeah, so just clarification. And

[3:46:12] that's the motion, I understand the motion, so what's the-

[3:46:18] Increase

[3:46:18] ... well, the reduction. Right? It's the

[3:46:22] 388, is that what we're talking about?

[3:46:25] Yes.

[3:46:25] Okay.

[3:46:27] It would be-

[3:46:27] 388 would be reduced

[3:46:30] to a total of 118.

[3:46:33] Okay.

[3:46:34] That's to make up for-

[3:46:35] The one-time money

[3:46:36] ... one-time.

[3:46:37] Oh, I see. Yeah.

[3:46:37] Where's our math teacher?

[3:46:40] I got numbers here.

[3:46:42] Let's hear them, Mike.

[3:46:43] Well, I guess if I could speak,

[3:46:48] the question I have on the 4282,

[3:46:53] at what level was that funded?

[3:46:56] The formula has you have 100%. What

[3:47:00] percent was the 4282 representing?

[3:47:04] 428276000,

[3:47:08] it would've been short $190 million of being fully

[3:47:12] funded.

[3:47:12] Okay.

[3:47:13] If that answers the question.

[3:47:14] Yes. And then the transportation,

[3:47:17] what was that at?

[3:47:19] Last year, it totaled 376

[3:47:22] million-ish,

[3:47:24] and that is letting us pay at just

[3:47:28] under... We're supposed to pay

[3:47:32] 75% of allowable costs,

[3:47:37] and we're able, right now, to pay just under

[3:47:40] 90% of that 75%.

[3:47:44] So formula for transportation is currently under funded as well.

[3:47:48] And the request here would be to put us at approximately full funding for

[3:47:52] transportation.

[3:47:53] Okay.

[3:47:55] And then there's a list of,

[3:47:58] below the major funding foundation programs, there's this slide,

[3:48:02] formula foundation, transportation, small schools, Prop C.

[3:48:05] And then after that, there's several slides of state level

[3:48:10] line items.

[3:48:11] Right. Talking the core budget, right?

[3:48:13] Core budget, correct.

[3:48:14] Correct.

[3:48:15] It seems like

[3:48:17] with the core budget, any cuts to the core budget seem to come off of

[3:48:21] the foundation formula-

[3:48:23] That's our biggest piece

[3:48:24] ... and/transportation, though those are-

[3:48:27] Right. That's our biggest piece.

[3:48:28] Which seem to be the pass-through items, so they get cut from the

[3:48:32] district level.

[3:48:33] Correct.

[3:48:34] Right. The state level items, unless they're

[3:48:38] line item vetoed by the governor, they get funded.

[3:48:42] The pass-through gets shorted, so the districts end up getting short

[3:48:45] of what the DESE calculation suggests would be.

[3:48:48] Right. Historically, when there have been cuts to the

[3:48:52] DESE budget, the largest place to find dollars is in

[3:48:56] transportation and in foundation formula.

[3:48:58] And so typically, those are the ones that draw the most

[3:49:02] attention. A lot of our other items are tied to

[3:49:05] matches required for different federal funds or other

[3:49:09] programming that

[3:49:11] doesn't

[3:49:17] provide the dollar savings that formula and

[3:49:21] transportation typically have.

[3:49:27] Hope that answered your question.

[3:49:28] It does. I think

[3:49:30] we're going into this with an assumption that all of the line items of the state

[3:49:34] level budget request, part of the core budget,

[3:49:37] maintain through. They carry through from '27 to twenty-

[3:49:40] Yeah, there are some re-

[3:49:42] Minus some of the one-

[3:49:43] There are some reductions in the core budget. Correct.

[3:49:46] But any increases would be on this list of supplementals or

[3:49:50] under decision items.

[3:49:51] Right.

[3:49:52] I guess my concern is that

[3:49:55] the easiest place to cut is from the funding of the districts.

[3:49:59] Historically, that has been the case.

[3:50:01] What percentage

[3:50:03] of the budget is the foundation formula?

[3:50:05] About half.

[3:50:10] Okay, so we do have a motion, right?

[3:50:12] Yes.

[3:50:13] And we have a second. And who seconded that? John Otto.

[3:50:17] Okay.

[3:50:19] Are you ready for a vote on this?

[3:50:22] Yep.

[3:50:23] Okay.

[3:50:25] We'll do a roll call vote.

[3:50:26] Mr. Bradbury?

[3:50:28] Yes.

[3:50:30] Ms. Casey?

[3:50:31] Yes.

[3:50:32] Mr. Matusik?

[3:50:33] Yes.

[3:50:34] Mr. Miller?

[3:50:35] Yes.

[3:50:36] Nope.

[3:50:37] Yes.

[3:50:38] Mr. Myers?

[3:50:39] Yes.

[3:50:40] I'm sorry.

[3:50:41] You can ask for it.

[3:50:43] Mr. Otto?

[3:50:44] Yes.

[3:50:44] Mr. Shamel?

[3:50:45] Yes.

[3:50:46] Dr. Scholl?

[3:50:46] Yes.

[3:50:50] Very well. Thank you. We will forward-

[3:50:51] Now-

[3:50:51] ... the budget

[3:50:52] ... before we-

[3:50:52] Yes

[3:50:52] ... so not part of a motion or a vote, but I think it's important that this message

[3:50:56] be well communicated over the legislature, because we need to be sure

[3:51:00] that we communicate-

[3:51:02] Cut it again

[3:51:03] ... E- exactly. That is, now, I would hope that the dedication and commitment to

[3:51:07] education would be there, but we cannot presume that,

[3:51:11] and I'm worried, to a degree, that that could occur,

[3:51:16] and I think we've just taken that bit of a risk, but how do we measure it?

[3:51:20] I think it's important that through the communication of the budget, I

[3:51:24] believe that there is a letter that is written by the commissioner, and I

[3:51:28] request that the commissioner include

[3:51:31] our commitment to education, our commitment to

[3:51:35] our districts, our LEAs, to delivering

[3:51:39] the resour- resources that are needed inclusive of

[3:51:45] proper funding. But our respect for the governor and the state and the state of

[3:51:49] the general revenue, et cetera, et cetera.

[3:51:51] And that that be communicated explicitly to the amount,

[3:51:55] including the amount that we are not

[3:52:00] asking for, that we call it the gap now to the fully funded

[3:52:04] formula

[3:52:06] And I would just add-

[3:52:06] My two cents

[3:52:07] ... yeah, I would add to that, Carrie.

[3:52:08] I would love to see that letter in advance too before it's sent.

[3:52:12] I know there were some previous issues between the department and the legislature

[3:52:16] where I don't think the board necessarily knew what was being

[3:52:19] communicated until after it happened.

[3:52:21] And so, Stacy, to the extent that

[3:52:24] whatever you're going to draft and prepare to send,

[3:52:28] I don't know if the others agree, but I would love to see it before it goes to the

[3:52:32] legislature and the governor.

[3:52:35] Is that something that the legislative priorities committee could-- It seems like

[3:52:39] that falls under that purview, right?

[3:52:40] I think that's a good recommendation.

[3:52:42] Ask the chairman, Robbie.

[3:52:42] We could

[3:52:45] meet a meeting with that and-

[3:52:47] Yeah, just to review or just email.

[3:52:49] And

[3:52:50] none of this is trying to take away from districts or

[3:52:54] kids. That's still our priority. This is recognizing reality,

[3:52:58] just as we talked about earlier, trying to build relationships with the schools and

[3:53:01] superintendents. We also got to build relationships with the legislature and

[3:53:05] being clear-eyed and recognizing that

[3:53:09] the financial realities,

[3:53:12] what even we're asking for,

[3:53:15] I would be very surprised for it to be funded at that level.

[3:53:18] Thomas Sowell said there are no solutions. There's only compromise.

[3:53:22] Okay, at this time, we're going to break for lunch.

[3:53:26] And we are running a little bit late, so we think if we could keep a

[3:53:30] short lunch time there and get back here at

[3:53:34] 12:35.

[3:53:35] What time?

[3:53:36] 12:35.

[3:53:37] 12:45.

[3:53:39] 12:40? 12:45. Okay.

[3:53:40] Yeah.

[3:53:40] I'll give you 20 minutes.

[4:17:31] I think it's the second part of our meeting, but

[4:17:34] the afternoon portion of our meeting. How about that?

[4:17:41] Carrie?

[4:17:42] I saw her walk in.

[4:17:44] I think she was going to the other room.

[4:17:45] Okay.

[4:17:47] She was roaming.

[4:17:47] Yep.

[4:17:49] So Carrie and Vince are who we are waiting on.

[4:17:53] They should be back.

[4:18:07] I tell you what, not to keep you all waiting, let's go ahead and get started on our

[4:18:11] conversation here. How does that sound?

[4:18:13] Very

[4:18:13] good. Thank you.

[4:18:16] This is Lisa Sorino, Deputy Commissioner of Learning Services.

[4:18:20] Once again, good afternoon.

[4:18:22] I would like to thank Dr. Maya Berry,

[4:18:26] Superintendent of St. Louis Public Schools, for joining us today.

[4:18:30] Dr. Berry and her colleagues are here to provide a

[4:18:34] report and update to the State Board of Education, returning

[4:18:38] for the third time-

[4:18:40] Yes

[4:18:40] ... since the change in classification

[4:18:44] from fully accredited to provisionally accredited.

[4:18:48] The department has asked Dr. Berry to provide a progress report,

[4:18:52] an update,

[4:18:54] how the district is monitoring its results, and plans

[4:18:58] for moving forward. With that, I'll turn it over to Dr. Berry.

[4:19:01] All right. Thank you so much.

[4:19:03] Thank you for being here. Appreciate it.

[4:19:05] Of course. Thanks for having me. Good afternoon, President Miller, Vice President

[4:19:08] Otto, members of the board, and the listening audience. As Dr.

[4:19:11] Sorino said, we are here to provide an update from SLPS.

[4:19:16] With everything that we do,

[4:19:18] we are keeping our students at the forefront, and we follow the guidelines of our

[4:19:21] Portrait of a Graduate, which we also consider our seven Cs.

[4:19:25] The last time we were here, we talked about the core four, the four areas that we

[4:19:29] are focusing on at SLPS. Today, we will review them

[4:19:33] briefly to go over goals, strategies, and action steps.

[4:19:37] So the first one, in the area of attendance.

[4:19:40] So looking at our comprehensive school improvement plan, shortened CSIP,

[4:19:44] we're looking at the attendance goal.

[4:19:46] Our goal is to increase our attendance by 30% from a

[4:19:50] baseline of 52.5 to 82.5

[4:19:54] by the 2028 school year.

[4:19:58] A few ways that we are doing this. We are looking at the Attendance

[4:20:01] Strategy Works framework. When we're looking at the attendance

[4:20:05] framework, we use a few key areas. We're looking at our early

[4:20:08] intervention, our chronic absenteeism,

[4:20:12] and improving overall attendance.

[4:20:15] We often involve the family engagement and looking at our data to

[4:20:19] make our data-informed decisions.

[4:20:22] Our attendance, we're looking at our estimated.

[4:20:24] We have not received the unembargoed data as of yet, but from our

[4:20:28] own calculations, we have increased slightly from 52 to

[4:20:31] 54.5. We are also, we talked about

[4:20:35] last time, our attendance campaign.

[4:20:37] Every student, every day, together like never before.

[4:20:41] We are focusing this year on our high schools, and so we are looking at high

[4:20:44] schools. If a student, after two hours being late, no matter the time,

[4:20:49] we are making individual phone calls.

[4:20:51] So no longer just sending out the text message.

[4:20:53] We're actually calling the homes.

[4:20:55] We are also having attendance teams, they are meeting weekly, and a

[4:20:59] 30-day impact teams.

[4:21:03] In the area of literacy, looking at our CSIP goals for literacy.

[4:21:06] The first and second goal, we will have updated data after the

[4:21:10] unembargoed data is shared. And so the first goal, the number of

[4:21:14] schools receiving a 70% on our AYP will

[4:21:18] increase to nine by 2027.

[4:21:21] And so our second CSIP goal,

[4:21:23] we are expecting an increase in the MAP and EOC assessments

[4:21:27] by 15% by the end of the 2028 school year.

[4:21:31] And our goal three, we are currently using and doing our STAR and benchmark

[4:21:35] assessment now. That window closes on the 18th of September, and we are

[4:21:39] looking to increase the number of students in proficient and

[4:21:43] advanced by 10% using the STAR benchmark.

[4:21:49] Some key strategies that we're utilizing.

[4:21:51] We are thankful DESE did complete their first comprehensive visit.

[4:21:55] Most of the schools, we did receive a glowing report.

[4:21:58] DESE shared from our area supervisors that it was stronger

[4:22:02] and a better start than before, and we're looking at our 30-day action

[4:22:06] plans, but some additional strategies that we are utilizing.

[4:22:10] Our 95% group, we talked about that a little bit last year.

[4:22:14] We had a few schools last year that did the pilot program.

[4:22:16] We're doing their second year, and what we saw was those double-digit increases in

[4:22:20] their early literacy. So we're expecting to see some great gains this year

[4:22:24] because this will be the second year for the entire district, and that's the

[4:22:28] phonics program. We are using our letters training.

[4:22:31] We have a cohort one and two going on, about to start our second

[4:22:34] cohort one. We have 25 teachers that are using the

[4:22:38] ASPIRE. That is the DESE literacy training for our

[4:22:42] secondary teachers. We also are doing the virtual high-dose

[4:22:46] tutoring Our reading success plans, what we're seeing, we have more

[4:22:50] students that are exiting than we do have students that are newly

[4:22:53] qualified. And in addition, too, we are also having our benchmark

[4:22:57] cycles with the data teams to look at the test to see what we need to

[4:23:01] do for our students.

[4:23:04] In the area finance,

[4:23:06] we are currently on track for our audit up timeline.

[4:23:10] We are meeting with the auditor almost weekly.

[4:23:13] We are on accrual system, so we're meeting with our departments weekly to look at

[4:23:17] where we are, what checklists we need to finalize.

[4:23:20] We are also still having weekly check-ins with LDR.

[4:23:24] They are also assisting with our audit, various processes,

[4:23:29] and then Dr. Kyle Cruz is also meeting with our CFO.

[4:23:33] For our budgeting,

[4:23:35] we are projecting to close our budget gap within the next three

[4:23:39] years, by the end of 2029.

[4:23:41] Our budgets are normally completed by departments at the end of March and April.

[4:23:45] We are looking to have those and work on those by January of

[4:23:49] 2027.

[4:23:50] We are also working on a new ERP system, and that's in the area of

[4:23:54] finance, payroll, and our HR system.

[4:23:57] And lastly, with our grants management, we are working towards hiring

[4:24:01] someone to assist with our grants management.

[4:24:03] We have recently updated the travel policy again, and we have trained all

[4:24:07] staff in the area of P cards, which is using their credit cards.

[4:24:11] So could I pause just a second here?

[4:24:13] And first off, I'd ask that the supervisors be here, and they're not in

[4:24:17] attendance, or are they?

[4:24:20] I do see Dr. Hazel. Okay.

[4:24:23] You want to come on up? And I guess from my perspective,

[4:24:27] one of the reasons why I requested, we only have one school in the state of

[4:24:31] Missouri that's on provisional status.

[4:24:33] Yep.

[4:24:34] And unfortunately, that's yours, and so you bring special attention.

[4:24:38] And I think we need to, because we've not had any further discussions since

[4:24:42] we've gone to provisional status,

[4:24:45] is there a summary of

[4:24:49] why we put them on provisional status and where they're at in that process

[4:24:53] at the present time?

[4:24:55] There's a lot of confusion around this.

[4:24:59] You've got so many different people auditing and things of that nature.

[4:25:03] I think our critical issue is

[4:25:07] why we put you on provisional status. Are you making progress?

[4:25:11] Is our staff supporting you appropriately to get you off

[4:25:15] provisional status and moving you in the right direction?

[4:25:18] That's why I requested your participation today.

[4:25:22] Yeah. Thank you.

[4:25:23] And pause.

[4:25:23] Just for a point of clarification, I don't know if we are the only district that's

[4:25:26] provisional in the state of Missouri. Is that accurate?

[4:25:28] Or not. Okay, so there is more. Okay.

[4:25:33] So.

[4:25:33] So do you recall why your school's on provisional status or was

[4:25:37] put on provisional status by this board?

[4:25:39] Yeah. We were told because of the last audit, because of the

[4:25:43] deficit spending out of the fund balance, and it was shared with a

[4:25:46] turnover of leadership.

[4:25:48] Okay.

[4:25:48] That is what we were told.

[4:25:50] Okay. And do you believe that we're addressing that?

[4:25:53] How well are we addressing that?

[4:25:57] I think I'm going to let Dr. Barry-

[4:25:58] How well are we addressing that? Yeah, I guess my frustration, if we're going to

[4:26:01] take action as a board, we need to be following up to make certain

[4:26:05] that we are carrying out assisting you in any way that

[4:26:09] we can be assisting you. And that's

[4:26:13] my whole intent is to make you a better board.

[4:26:15] You have a lot of eyes looking at you and things of that nature, and we really do

[4:26:19] want to make you a better school district.

[4:26:21] Yeah.

[4:26:21] So that's where I come from. And so can we talk

[4:26:25] about...

[4:26:25] Let's talk about it.

[4:26:27] Yeah.

[4:26:27] DESE has been great.

[4:26:29] Surprisingly, not just from DESE, from every state entity-

[4:26:32] Yeah

[4:26:32] ... we have been randomly selected for every review last year, and so that

[4:26:36] actually-

[4:26:36] Yeah.

[4:26:38] I can imagine.

[4:26:39] But I can say, when you do a review, all you can do is take it and

[4:26:43] become better from it. So it's been very-

[4:26:44] Mm-hmm

[4:26:44] ... helpful because a lot of the areas were zero findings.

[4:26:48] And so, I will say Dr. Cruz and a team, I just met with

[4:26:52] Dr. Priest last week, and we had a conversation.

[4:26:55] DESE has been very instrumental. Dr. Hazel and Dr.

[4:26:57] Holland, they are on site, if not every week, just about

[4:27:01] every week in classrooms. So we have a lot of support from DESE.

[4:27:05] Mm-hmm.

[4:27:07] Okay. So can you give us an update of where you feel like their

[4:27:11] growth is and-

[4:27:12] Sure

[4:27:12] ... how well they're doing?

[4:27:13] So we were in schools on day 11, and all the schools

[4:27:17] that are in comprehensive school improvement have comprehensive school improvement

[4:27:21] plans.

[4:27:21] Okay.

[4:27:21] There's requirements that are related to that.

[4:27:25] Here's what we know about school improvement.

[4:27:27] There's three big areas to focus on: delivering

[4:27:31] core well-

[4:27:32] Mm-hmm

[4:27:33] ... okay, with fidelity, integrity, however you want to say it,

[4:27:37] and increasing the expertise and knowledge of your teachers that are teaching the

[4:27:41] core. There's another area I'm not going to go into at this point, but those are

[4:27:45] the two basic areas. What I can say is leaders are actively, at

[4:27:49] day 11,

[4:27:50] working their comprehensive plans.

[4:27:53] And we've never been in buildings this early in the...

[4:27:55] This is going into my third year-

[4:27:57] Okay

[4:27:57] ... of working with SLPS.

[4:28:01] Teachers are utilizing the core curriculum.

[4:28:03] They have already received professional developments, and buildings

[4:28:07] have plans for job-embedded professional learning to continue to build

[4:28:12] that content knowledge and expertise of teachers and leaders.

[4:28:16] And I'll speak specifically to, in my

[4:28:20] opinion, not all curriculums are created equal, and so you

[4:28:24] have to have the highest quality curriculum that has the research

[4:28:28] and the evidence behind it. That is part of the requirements of ESSA

[4:28:32] and working a comprehensive plan. Okay?

[4:28:36] And they have to note the source of that evidence.

[4:28:38] So it can't just be the company saying,

[4:28:41] "We're backed by the science of reading." We hear

[4:28:45] that a lot.

[4:28:45] Mm-hmm.

[4:28:46] Show me the evidence that this works.

[4:28:48] SLPS doesn't have any time-

[4:28:51] To mess around with things that aren't going to work.

[4:28:53] So they have the highest quality phonics curriculum.

[4:28:56] Some of our board members got to see that during their visit

[4:29:00] last year.

[4:29:01] So,

[4:29:03] what we did notice is some of the buildings accessed even additional

[4:29:07] professional development during their O week, and we saw leaders and

[4:29:11] teachers. We saw higher evidence of leaders even using

[4:29:15] that language and knowledge as they have been in classrooms

[4:29:19] already at day 11,

[4:29:21] providing support and feedback.

[4:29:24] Now, let me just speak to one other thing.

[4:29:27] We also saw evidence of systems being put into place to provide that

[4:29:31] ongoing feedback and follow-up, because principals are busy,

[4:29:35] right? We get into classrooms, we give feedback, but it's

[4:29:39] about that bite-sized feedback and then following up to

[4:29:43] ensure that bite-sized feedback is put in place.

[4:29:46] And that's how you grow teachers.

[4:29:50] And I will say all of this in only 15 days into

[4:29:54] the school year. So we started at the 11th day.

[4:29:56] We ended our site visits at the 15th day.

[4:29:59] There is still much work ahead, but it is encouraging to see the

[4:30:03] systems and the expectations taking shape so early.

[4:30:07] Now, what I will say is

[4:30:10] SLPS- ... 16 comprehensive schools, and so those are

[4:30:14] the schools that we visited. We did do a debrief with the

[4:30:18] executive team. Is that-

[4:30:19] Mm-hmm

[4:30:20] ... probably what you call it? The executive team, which included the network

[4:30:23] superintendents

[4:30:25] and

[4:30:26] the chief of schools, Dr. Dino. Sorry,

[4:30:30] I work with a lot of different districts with a lot of different terminology.

[4:30:34] And what was encouraging about the debrief is that they

[4:30:37] basically did the debrief. They saw these things.

[4:30:41] So we identified schools that are going to need additional support.

[4:30:44] Here's the question is, that was 16 of their schools.

[4:30:48] What do the other, a lot, 30, 20-

[4:30:51] Yeah

[4:30:52] ... 47-

[4:30:53] There you go.

[4:30:54] ... schools, how is their implementation going?

[4:30:58] So I might let you take a breath for a moment. So- ...

[4:31:01] two things. You've been hearing from Lisa Hazel, who is our area

[4:31:05] supervisor of instruction,

[4:31:07] one of two in the St. Louis area, and her role is to

[4:31:11] provide support and oversight for, and work closely

[4:31:15] with leadership in our schools in the St. Louis region.

[4:31:19] She mentioned comprehensive schools, and just as a

[4:31:23] point of vocabulary,

[4:31:26] those are the schools that are identified under the Every Student

[4:31:29] Succeeds Act,

[4:31:32] these schools are identified as the lowest

[4:31:36] performing,

[4:31:38] 5% statewide. That's what that means.

[4:31:42] What also comes along with that designation is funding

[4:31:46] to provide for support. Those are federal dollars that come

[4:31:50] along with that designation, and then support

[4:31:54] ongoing meetings and intentional work that's

[4:31:58] led by our area supervisors there. So I let you take a breath.

[4:32:02] Thank you. Sorry, you can tell I'm a little passionate about school improvement

[4:32:05] work.

[4:32:06] You should be.

[4:32:07] And would love to have conversations with anybody about it.

[4:32:10] So, and what our role is and how we can ensure there's

[4:32:14] so many things to focus on, right? And we can't do everything

[4:32:18] well. So when you're in comprehensive school improvement,

[4:32:22] literacy

[4:32:24] has to be a focus, and

[4:32:27] they do have the highest quality program right now, and

[4:32:31] they're working it, and it's going to take time.

[4:32:33] We had six schools that came off the comprehensive last year.

[4:32:38] Okay. So when you say it's going to take some time, when as a board should we

[4:32:42] be reviewing the status of that school

[4:32:45] district,

[4:32:47] in your opinion? Have I put you on the spot?

[4:32:49] Well, actually, I think it's an annual thing

[4:32:53] to formally review the classification status of the

[4:32:57] school or district. And then certainly, these types of reports

[4:33:01] from

[4:33:03] the district are useful to give you an update on what

[4:33:07] they're doing, the information that Lisa has shared about what we're doing, what

[4:33:10] the department is doing to be supportive.

[4:33:14] The key time comes when we can pull all of that

[4:33:17] information, the assessment information together,

[4:33:21] and share that with you.

[4:33:23] Yeah.

[4:33:25] Yeah.

[4:33:25] And if I may,

[4:33:27] so each year,

[4:33:29] we do go up as far as when you're looking at the MSIP, but I do ask, and I will

[4:33:33] come and present to you every month if I have to, but I just ask that

[4:33:37] if I am presenting, and we are not the only ones that are having issues with

[4:33:40] finances, which we actually have over a 50% fund balance, and if we're not the

[4:33:44] only district that's provisionally accredited, if we could just make sure that I am

[4:33:48] not the only one having to present.

[4:33:52] And we looked, I think there's four other schools besides yourself that are

[4:33:55] provisionally accredited.

[4:33:58] Dr. Berry, good to see you.

[4:34:02] It's my understanding that the schools or the district was placed

[4:34:06] on probation over what I will call mechanical issues,

[4:34:10] transportation, leadership turnover, et cetera.

[4:34:14] Budget concerns.

[4:34:16] How are we doing on those things? I'm pleased to hear the report,

[4:34:21] but how are we doing on the mechanics-

[4:34:23] Yeah

[4:34:23] ... the transportation, the budget?

[4:34:25] So we shared last year, we have a new transportation department.

[4:34:28] We provided that update last year. We had a 95% on-time rate.

[4:34:32] We are doing well with the transportation.

[4:34:34] Our fund balance, again, is well over 50%, when DESE requires

[4:34:38] 3%. Most schools in Missouri have less than 40 or

[4:34:42] 30%, and we have well over 50%. We are strong financially.

[4:34:46] We have a double A-minus rating with our bonds department.

[4:34:50] We have about $619 million we can go out for bonds.

[4:34:53] So SLPS is strong financially.

[4:34:57] And I can share with the board that

[4:35:00] the feedback on the transportation system, to me personally, has

[4:35:04] been unbelievable. Can you describe a little bit

[4:35:08] how this works? Because I've had parents tell me this is

[4:35:11] amazing, that they get on their cell phone, and they know exactly where their child

[4:35:15] is.

[4:35:16] Yeah. A few board members did join us last year.

[4:35:19] Hopefully, if you come back, we can get you on a bus.

[4:35:21] But yes, we have a new transportation system.

[4:35:23] There's an app with the Zoom app where the parents can track their children from

[4:35:26] the time they leave their homes, the bus stop, what time it's going to pick them

[4:35:29] up. They can text and have a conversation if they're going to be late, almost like

[4:35:33] an Uber or a Lyft. You can cancel the ride.

[4:35:36] So it's been very helpful. And the students have a key card that they have to

[4:35:40] swipe when they get on the bus, so the parents will know they're actually on the

[4:35:43] bus. If they don't have that key card, the driver can actually type in.

[4:35:47] Yeah.

[4:35:50] Good progress.

[4:35:51] Thank you.

[4:35:52] Mrs. Casey?

[4:35:53] Thank you very much. I have various questions, but I'm wondering if you have

[4:35:57] more to present?

[4:35:58] I can certainly wait. I think we were just going to talk about how we were going to

[4:36:01] close the

[4:36:03] fund balance, or I'm sorry, the overage spending from

[4:36:07] our fund balance. And so we were originally talking about having a $41

[4:36:11] million deficit. We did get about $16 million in additional

[4:36:15] revenue from our local revenue. We are being very conservative,

[4:36:19] so we're not saying 16, we're using 12.

[4:36:21] And with that $12 million instead of a $41 million deficit spend, we're looking at

[4:36:25] a $29 million deficit spend. With Future Ready, we are

[4:36:29] projecting to save about $13.6 million in staffing and

[4:36:33] $10 million in transportation. There will be some additional savings in deferred

[4:36:37] maintenance, but we didn't want to put that number until we really know.

[4:36:40] And so that 13.6 and that 10 million is

[4:36:43] 23.6. From that 29 million, it's roughly $5.4

[4:36:46] million, but we're going to go up and say six million.

[4:36:49] So within two years, we will have that six million down to a zero

[4:36:54] fund balance spend. And then we were just, of course, if

[4:36:58] we were going to ask some things that we did talk about the bond, I did

[4:37:02] share that we have a $619 million capacity

[4:37:06] for our bond debt. We do, on time, conclude all of our

[4:37:09] presentations and our bond proposals.

[4:37:12] And then just, I know there were some questions around the audit, and just wanted

[4:37:16] to share that the '25 and '26 audit was based off the

[4:37:19] '23 and '24

[4:37:22] academic years. And while we do not dismiss those findings,

[4:37:26] we did not wait to receive the findings to start taking action.

[4:37:29] We began taking action October 17th of 2025.

[4:37:34] And everything in this latest audit, which was also from '23 and

[4:37:37] '24, we have responded to. We've adopted the read and

[4:37:41] success plans. We're a cash-free district.

[4:37:44] Just about everything in the audit that was questioned, we have

[4:37:47] responded, if not already implemented.

[4:37:50] And then just lastly, there was one part of the audit that was

[4:37:54] from this year under my leadership, and it was allegations

[4:37:58] to enrollment, graduation rates, comprehensive school

[4:38:02] qualifications, timekeeping, and federal grant oversight.

[4:38:05] And I think it's worth noting that the auditor found no significant

[4:38:09] deficits in internal controls, policies, procedures that

[4:38:13] relate to the enrollment, graduation rates, comprehensive schools,

[4:38:17] timekeeping, or federal grant oversight.

[4:38:19] And so while we are not asking to ignore the other findings,

[4:38:24] I think it is very worth noting that no findings were

[4:38:28] available.

[4:38:32] And just lastly, we accept the accountability,

[4:38:35] we accept the call to action, and we responded.

[4:38:39] But I stand firm and resolute that this leadership will continue serving the

[4:38:43] students, staff, and families of the entire city of St.

[4:38:46] Louis with nothing but the best, highest expectations, and

[4:38:51] love. Thank you.

[4:38:53] Great. Thank you, and thank you, Dr.

[4:38:55] Perry. I really do appreciate the passion and commitment you've

[4:38:59] brought to addressing all the various issues, and I recognize that some of them

[4:39:03] are older, maybe no longer applicable.

[4:39:06] You have done a remarkable job on the transportation.

[4:39:08] Our visit to your school last spring was very

[4:39:12] helpful to see. And

[4:39:15] things take time, so we respect that.

[4:39:18] So my questions are more for our benefit

[4:39:22] of further understanding, not

[4:39:24] in any way a reflection that you're not doing anything.

[4:39:28] And they're various. So if you could go back to the attendance slide.

[4:39:32] It was moving so quickly, I'm not sure that I caught.

[4:39:36] So

[4:39:42] this has been the attendance, and you have been yourself working on it

[4:39:46] over the last year-

[4:39:48] Yes

[4:39:48] ... now into this year. So what progress have you made?

[4:39:50] Yeah. So we've gone up about, what, 0.2%?

[4:39:54] So it was 52.5, where this is an estimation of

[4:39:57] 54. But we're also, the first day, when we compare it to

[4:40:01] last year, we had a higher number of membership, meaning students that attended

[4:40:05] on day one that were coming to school, than we have in the past.

[4:40:08] We have a two-prong going on right now with our communications.

[4:40:11] We are actively going, knocking on doors-

[4:40:15] Mm

[4:40:15] ... putting signs out. But in addition to that, there are a three- to

[4:40:18] five-step process that we're asking schools to go through and having

[4:40:22] contact with families, and so it's more hands-on than it was in the past.

[4:40:26] Good. And so with some of that in place, you've made a

[4:40:30] two-point increase, but now you're going to be roughly a

[4:40:33] 30-point increase

[4:40:36] by next year. So do you feel that is achievable?

[4:40:39] You've got all the right things in place to

[4:40:43] see your attend-- I'd love it, but to see your attendance improve to that

[4:40:47] 82%.

[4:40:48] Yeah. We are certainly putting things in place.

[4:40:50] I don't want to say yes, we're going to get it, but we are actively, I think more

[4:40:54] heavily than we have in the past, pushing for that engagement to get our

[4:40:57] students to school.

[4:40:59] Okay.

[4:41:01] The next slide spoke about

[4:41:04] CSIP.

[4:41:06] Excuse me.

[4:41:08] I

[4:41:09] didn't even catch the other two goals, it went so quickly, but you're going

[4:41:13] to increase to a total of nine

[4:41:17] that will now hit 70%. Are you saying that...

[4:41:20] How many will not be at 70%?

[4:41:22] So we had six

[4:41:25] schools two years ago. Last year we moved up to seven, and so their

[4:41:28] projected goal is nine. We have-

[4:41:31] That will be.

[4:41:32] Yes, that will be.

[4:41:32] That will achieve.

[4:41:33] Yes.

[4:41:33] But how many will not? Are you saying all the remaining schools will not-

[4:41:37] So we have-

[4:41:37] ... be at 70% yet?

[4:41:38] So we have 61 schools as they stand, in

[4:41:42] various departments. They're comprised of also

[4:41:46] special education, so there's various schools.

[4:41:48] Mm-hmm.

[4:41:48] So I'll have to get the actual number because not everyone would take this test

[4:41:52] from the 61 schools that we have.

[4:41:53] Sure, but of those schools that, call it, are

[4:41:57] measured under APR,

[4:42:00] still the majority of them will not be at-

[4:42:03] At 70%

[4:42:04] ... 70%, which is our-

[4:42:05] As a totality.

[4:42:06] Our-

[4:42:07] We are going up each year.

[4:42:09] Yes.

[4:42:13] That remains a significant concern.

[4:42:16] One of the things that was in the audit most recently produced

[4:42:20] was that you needed to establish a reading success

[4:42:24] plan policy.

[4:42:26] Mm-hmm.

[4:42:26] When was that policy put in place?

[4:42:29] It was adopted in 2025. I don't know the exact date. It was in 2020.

[4:42:32] So roughly-

[4:42:33] Yes

[4:42:33] ... in the last school year, which is good.

[4:42:34] So what

[4:42:36] governance do you have over reading success plans, and what

[4:42:40] results,

[4:42:41] realizing you don't have exact numbers, but how effective is the policy?

[4:42:46] And how are you governing over your reading success plans?

[4:42:49] So I can tell you with the reading success plans, in

[4:42:53] 2025 of February, we had 3,032, and then

[4:42:57] in June, we added an additional 272.

[4:43:01] And then in February, that number went down to

[4:43:04] 1,279. We had

[4:43:07] 205 that exited. So

[4:43:09] we're working the plan, and students are

[4:43:13] coming off the plan. And you may know with the reading success plans, you start

[4:43:18] up until the third grade, and then if you have not finished it, well, you start

[4:43:21] third grade. If you haven't finished it, it follows you through your middle school

[4:43:24] year, and we see more students that are falling off.

[4:43:28] How are you governing over those plans, though, monitoring them?

[4:43:32] Yeah.

[4:43:33] What mechanism do you have in place?

[4:43:34] Yeah. Teachers have interventions. I'm going to call Dr. Dana up.

[4:43:36] She's our chief of schools, and so I'm sure she can give you a more detailed

[4:43:40] approach of the governing of the reading success plans because this is her

[4:43:43] wheelhouse.

[4:43:44] And the reason I'm asking is reading success plans are fundamental

[4:43:47] to improvements in literacy, along with

[4:43:51] curriculum and best teaching practices.

[4:43:54] And not having had a policy in place,

[4:43:58] now having a policy in place, it's just not having the policy and putting the

[4:44:01] plans out there. If you really want to turn around those other 40 or

[4:44:06] 50 schools, this is a key component.

[4:44:08] Mm-hmm.

[4:44:09] So I do want to share that even prior to having a board-adopted

[4:44:13] reading success plan policy, we

[4:44:16] did have reading success plans, and we've been tracking that data in SLPS.

[4:44:20] One of the changes that was made during last school year is when

[4:44:24] we moved to a new student information system, we were able to

[4:44:28] turn those plans from paper/pencil scans that people would

[4:44:32] submit via PDF to us into our student information system, so we can

[4:44:36] track students better, we can follow them better, we can run reports.

[4:44:39] As they move from elementary now to middle school, those middle schools have them

[4:44:43] right away to review. We do have a literacy team and our teach

[4:44:47] and learning team who reviews pretty regularly

[4:44:51] are the reading success plans in place,

[4:44:54] how do they provide guidance to the teachers for when, because you

[4:44:58] develop them with parents, right?

[4:44:59] And so with conferences coming up in October, we do

[4:45:03] another push with teachers there.

[4:45:05] We're also looking, because you have to have two benchmark periods where you're

[4:45:08] showing growth before you come off the reading success plan, we're monitoring that.

[4:45:13] Before, I would say individual teachers were monitoring things at the classroom

[4:45:16] level. We're now able to monitor more at a system level,

[4:45:20] and that also allows us to support schools with how do

[4:45:24] they develop their intervention blocks for larger groups of students, and

[4:45:28] where do we see things across the board?

[4:45:30] So one, I think that our

[4:45:33] having adopted the new student information system that had the RSP

[4:45:37] module in it, so that we could do that was one piece, and then the other piece was

[4:45:40] definitely being able to look at the data from a bigger picture.

[4:45:43] Good. Thank you. I have one last point then to raise, and it goes back to what

[4:45:47] you were saying on your funding.

[4:45:49] Okay.

[4:45:50] And recognizing it's a challenge

[4:45:54] to

[4:45:55] have plans approved and things of that nature, but I know you have not yet had

[4:45:59] your school building closure plan approved

[4:46:04] by your board.

[4:46:05] Our future-ready plan, no.

[4:46:06] Right.

[4:46:06] It's up for a vote in November.

[4:46:08] And it has been up for a vote multiple times, and either for

[4:46:12] one good reason or another has been shifting.

[4:46:15] But your projection of it isn't just

[4:46:19] having the fund balance, but it's been your spend rate, and the fact that

[4:46:22] the auditor, Auditor Fitzpatrick, has actually raised

[4:46:26] that even again with the release of the second audit, that you are

[4:46:30] on a trajectory by 2030

[4:46:34] to

[4:46:36] have no more funds.

[4:46:37] Right.

[4:46:38] And so your plan, though, is dependent on that plan... Excuse me.

[4:46:41] Your financial outlook is dependent on that

[4:46:46] future ready success plan being approved.

[4:46:52] Yes. I just want to make sure I understand the question.

[4:46:53] So the audit mainly was still from the '23, '24

[4:46:58] academic year.

[4:46:59] But it spoke forward To the trajectory based on your

[4:47:02] spend rate. And yes, you've been addressing your spending-

[4:47:05] Mm

[4:47:05] ... but it was still a serious concern raised by Auditor

[4:47:09] Fitzpatrick in the release of the second phase of the

[4:47:13] audit.

[4:47:14] Yeah, and I think what wasn't taken into account, you have to also,

[4:47:17] we have a collective bargaining agreement. You think about the teacher raises.

[4:47:21] So I think he was calculating what that looked like projected

[4:47:24] forward. And so some of those numbers are definitely off.

[4:47:28] I think after five years we would still, because even in 2028, we would

[4:47:31] still have money. So the five-year spend, but we

[4:47:35] do have to do something differently because if we continue with the

[4:47:39] 61 schools and the way that we run the school district now, we would

[4:47:43] be in a crisis. But right now, we're solid.

[4:47:46] But if that plan is approved, you're solid?

[4:47:51] You can't continue to do what you're doing now-

[4:47:53] Right. We would have to-

[4:47:55] ... remain solid

[4:47:55] ... And not even so much, even if they kept every building, we would just have to

[4:47:59] move teachers and move students into a

[4:48:02] single building so that we can have our resources spread around.

[4:48:06] So the building themselves, you really don't save money on the building themselves.

[4:48:09] It's the resources being put into the buildings.

[4:48:12] I mean, there is annual spend, but I'm not necessarily trying to debate any of

[4:48:15] those details, I'm sure. What I'm trying to call out is there is still a

[4:48:19] significant risk until those plans are approved by your board.

[4:48:23] The projections are on paper, and there is a significant

[4:48:27] risk financially, as called out by State Auditor Fitzpatrick, to

[4:48:31] this district,

[4:48:33] that we just need to be aware of.

[4:48:37] So if you had a request of us,

[4:48:40] as a board and things, what would it be?

[4:48:43] Yeah. Thank you. I think I would one, want clear guidelines on what does

[4:48:47] it take for us to get our accreditation back.

[4:48:51] Again, and not to put any of my colleagues out here, but there are a number of

[4:48:55] school districts that are having financial stress.

[4:48:58] There are a number of school districts that are not meeting 70%.

[4:49:01] There are a number of school districts who turn in late audits multiple years in

[4:49:05] a row, and I think for SLPS to be called out on their

[4:49:09] accountability with no one else, it just shows to our community there's

[4:49:13] a spotlight over SLPS. Now, Grant,

[4:49:16] I will stand in the spotlight because we want to be better and we will do better,

[4:49:20] but it just seems like to my community, when I have to explain to them the why

[4:49:23] behind it, they don't understand why SLPS and why not

[4:49:27] someone else.

[4:49:27] Mm-hmm.

[4:49:30] Brooks.

[4:49:31] Oh, did you have something?

[4:49:32] Go ahead. No.

[4:49:34] Thank you for coming in. I think the last time that we saw you

[4:49:38] was in St. Louis in May. Is that correct?

[4:49:41] Yes.

[4:49:41] Yes. Okay.

[4:49:44] Yes.

[4:49:44] And how many students do St. Louis Public Schools serve?

[4:49:47] Yeah. So I just got a count number. So we have projected enrollment

[4:49:50] 17,100. We have membership, meaning students who actually came

[4:49:54] already, 16,015.

[4:49:58] Okay.

[4:49:59] And I think I made this-- I don't think I phrased it

[4:50:03] right in May, but I agree with your point about

[4:50:07] wanting to hear from other districts, and I think I said the same thing.

[4:50:10] It would be nice to

[4:50:13] have those other districts that are provisionally accredited come before the board

[4:50:17] just to,

[4:50:18] what are their challenges? Right?

[4:50:23] And certainly wish you the best. Right? All the students.

[4:50:26] I think this board and everybody needs, the state needs St.

[4:50:30] Louis to be successful and those students to get a great education.

[4:50:33] I think there's a lot of challenges.

[4:50:37] But it is nice to hear from you. I don't know what the accreditation

[4:50:41] process looks like at the end of this year or early next year.

[4:50:46] But I do think it would be helpful to hear from other districts.

[4:50:49] And just to add to that point, not to change the subject, but some of

[4:50:53] us I think are going to go see Liberty Public Schools in a couple of weeks.

[4:50:57] I'm going up to North Davies, I think, a week after that to see, I think, what

[4:51:01] is one of the smallest K through 12 districts in the state.

[4:51:03] It would be helpful to the board to

[4:51:08] hear from others, right, and districts that are

[4:51:12] different, right? And so I just wanted to reiterate that.

[4:51:15] I wish you the best, and thank you.

[4:51:17] Thank you.

[4:51:19] I have a question, Brooks. This is more for the board.

[4:51:22] Is there a reason why we aren't hearing from other

[4:51:25] districts that have the same or similar issues?

[4:51:29] No.

[4:51:30] Like I said, I was under the impression we only had the one until it

[4:51:34] was brought to my attention right here.

[4:51:36] But they will all be before us.

[4:51:39] I, as chairman of the board, will give

[4:51:43] everyone an opportunity to come and reach out to us.

[4:51:47] We want you to succeed. That's the reality of

[4:51:51] it. And you're too big-

[4:51:54] ... and you mean too much to our state for us not to

[4:51:58] work with you in a way to help

[4:52:02] you-

[4:52:02] Thank you

[4:52:02] ... move forward. And so that's where I come from.

[4:52:05] But we will in fact invite the others, the remaining four,

[4:52:11] in future meetings to come and share with us what their needs are

[4:52:14] as well,

[4:52:16] and how we can be of assistance, or what we need to do.

[4:52:19] So 16 or 17,000, right? That's the number.

[4:52:22] How many different schools are there in St. Louis, did you say?

[4:52:26] So we have 61 total buildings. There are multiple other

[4:52:30] schools, private, parochial, charter, that are in the same surrounding

[4:52:33] neighborhood. Just to give you an idea, there are 34, roughly

[4:52:36] 34,000 students in the city of St. Louis, that we are all trying

[4:52:40] to service, so.

[4:52:43] Mike, Park Hill

[4:52:48] enrollment is like 11 or 12,000?

[4:52:50] That sounds right.

[4:52:52] Ish.

[4:52:52] Sounds about right. Yes.

[4:52:53] And how many buildings does Park Hill have?

[4:52:56] You got two high schools.

[4:52:58] Two high schools, and then we have the LEAD Center.

[4:53:00] LEAD Center, and then you got-

[4:53:02] Four middle, and I think each

[4:53:06] middle has I think three or four feeding

[4:53:10] So I guess my question is-

[4:53:13] Your buildings

[4:53:14] ... yeah.

[4:53:15] Is it because the buildings are bigger, or why?

[4:53:19] Because there's only

[4:53:21] 5,000 less students, but-

[4:53:23] Yeah. Thank you for your-

[4:53:24] ... three times the buildings

[4:53:24] ... question. And so when we were talking to our community, we even show there are

[4:53:28] districts, and I'll just use Hazelwood as an example, that have roughly the same

[4:53:31] number of students, and they have almost half the number of buildings.

[4:53:35] Our footprint in St. Louis City is much larger.

[4:53:38] And so originally you may have, if you paid attention to the, maybe not, the Future

[4:53:41] Ready plan, originally we started with 22 schools, but when you start looking at

[4:53:45] the size of the building, and some of the schools only hold about 200 students, and

[4:53:49] then you look at the area, and if you were to remove that school, where students

[4:53:53] would actually go. So because the footprint is so large, a lot of buildings,

[4:53:57] we have to say, "Well, we need to keep a building actually in this area to service

[4:54:00] students." But that is a very good point.

[4:54:02] More buildings serving... Okay. Yeah.

[4:54:04] Yeah.

[4:54:04] Thank you.

[4:54:07] Any other questions?

[4:54:08] I did have one question. Sorry to

[4:54:11] spend the time, but

[4:54:14] the attendance statistic kind of stood out to me.

[4:54:17] It was kind of alarming, right? Like 50%, and you just said 16,000

[4:54:21] students, so that's 8,000 students are absent.

[4:54:25] That's a lot.

[4:54:27] Yeah. Yes, what you can do. Or as the way you calculate attendance in

[4:54:31] Missouri is by the minute.

[4:54:34] Okay. Well, at any rate, that's still

[4:54:38] alarmingly low compared to other school districts, right?

[4:54:41] And so I didn't know.

[4:54:44] I see your actions there, but I didn't know if

[4:54:50] part of your strategy included maybe leveraging or reaching out to

[4:54:54] larger school districts, like our urban school districts like Kansas City or

[4:54:58] Springfield, who has a, I just looked it up, they have a really,

[4:55:02] really high attendance. And so just to kind of see what they're doing,

[4:55:06] if that could be something that you guys could do, because even if you got up to

[4:55:09] the state average, that's a 25% increase-

[4:55:13] Yeah

[4:55:13] ... from that 50%.

[4:55:14] We actually work closely with them.

[4:55:15] The superintendent in Springfield gave me her whole playbook-

[4:55:18] Got it

[4:55:18] ... on what she did for attendance, so yes.

[4:55:21] Good.

[4:55:21] Elaborate, by the minute, how does that impact St.-

[4:55:24] Yeah

[4:55:24] ... your school in particular?

[4:55:25] Okay. You're going to make me call Chief Mitchell up here. She does our attendance.

[4:55:30] There's a lot that goes into the calculation of proportional attendance.

[4:55:34] But some districts, not in St. Louis, if you are

[4:55:38] absent for the day, that's considered an absent.

[4:55:40] But if you are in high school, and you're absent for the first period, there's a

[4:55:43] different calculation for what that absent looks like. Chief Mitchell?

[4:55:47] Yeah, I think it really has to do with data entry.

[4:55:50] The by the minute makes it incredibly challenging.

[4:55:52] Many other states do, if you show up, you're there for the day.

[4:55:56] But for middle and high school in Missouri, you do period attendance

[4:56:00] because it's aligned to instructional minutes.

[4:56:02] And so, yes, if a student is a few minutes late, let's say I come to

[4:56:06] first period but I miss second period, so not only does it

[4:56:10] create a lot of challenges around appropriate data

[4:56:13] entry as a state, it also just becomes very tedious

[4:56:17] because it's minute calculations versus saying, "Yes, you're here today.

[4:56:21] You get your X amount of minutes for the day," and then we move on to

[4:56:25] the

[4:56:27] duty of instruction or whatever. And it's not the same in other

[4:56:31] state. And we know that we were one of the districts that implemented Focus, and as

[4:56:34] you may know, the other Missouri districts that also implemented Focus

[4:56:38] had some attendance challenges with that particular system.

[4:56:42] They came out of Florida. Florida does daily attendance, and so it

[4:56:46] took that SIS system a little while to get their system accurate for

[4:56:50] Missouri. They want to launch in Missouri into more districts, and so, yes,

[4:56:54] as they had an obligation as a company to get their attendance calculations

[4:56:58] correct, but because of the way that we do it here in the state,

[4:57:01] it's not the easiest formula. We'll just leave it at that.

[4:57:04] But is there any particular challenges to your school district that doesn't

[4:57:08] apply to other school districts why that minutes is...

[4:57:11] Because that's what we're comparing it to, is others

[4:57:14] using the same system.

[4:57:16] I would say definitely things with transportation, so those

[4:57:20] early transportation issues that we're working on resolving.

[4:57:23] So if my bus is late, and we're on a three-tier system district, right?

[4:57:27] So every single minute counts, and so that's the messaging we give to students is

[4:57:30] every minute matters. Also, within the community, helping parents

[4:57:34] understand if you bring your child late or if you pick your child up

[4:57:37] early, every single minute that you miss of school counts against those attendance

[4:57:41] minutes. And so I don't know if that's completely unique to St.

[4:57:44] Louis Public, but that is definitely some of our challenges.

[4:57:46] It's about that chronic absenteeism and making sure that we're at that

[4:57:50] 90% and making sure our families know every single minute

[4:57:54] matters.

[4:57:55] And so with that, we're looking at healthy start times because we have earlier

[4:57:58] times, and many times you have their older siblings, because parents went to work,

[4:58:01] that are taking their younger siblings to school, so now they're late to school.

[4:58:06] Yeah.

[4:58:07] Thank you.

[4:58:07] Of course. Thank you.

[4:58:08] Yeah. Thanks for that clarification because then when I saw that initially, I'm

[4:58:12] thinking that they're just out in the wild somewhere-

[4:58:15] Yes

[4:58:15] ... but they're probably in the building just trying to go to class.

[4:58:17] Because I have teenagers, and I know what it feels like. So good.

[4:58:21] Thanks for the context.

[4:58:22] Of course.

[4:58:23] Okay, so we're going to have to draw a conclusion.

[4:58:25] And I just want you to leave knowing that we want you to

[4:58:29] succeed.

[4:58:29] Thank you.

[4:58:30] And that's

[4:58:31] what we're about, working with you, trying to keep moving it

[4:58:35] forward. You're a big school district. You have a lot of challenges.

[4:58:39] Thank you.

[4:58:39] And we want to do whatever we can to help.

[4:58:41] I appreciate it. Could I have one more ask?

[4:58:43] Yes.

[4:58:43] Okay. I ask that if there's no consideration right now

[4:58:47] regarding the lowering of accreditation, give us time to implement the plan.

[4:58:51] We will come and present as often as we need to, but trust that we are moving

[4:58:54] forward.

[4:58:55] Okay. And that's our ultimate goal. I hear that.

[4:58:57] Thank you so much.

[4:58:58] Okay. That sounds great. Thank you for your time.

[4:59:04] Thank

[4:59:09] you.

[4:59:09] Okay, so now we have the report on the career technical

[4:59:13] education, and that is Ms. Holmes

[4:59:21] Yeah, exactly.

[4:59:24] Good afternoon. Perry Goral, Program Administrator of Career and Technical

[4:59:28] Education in the Office of College and Career Readiness.

[4:59:31] And I have with me today Dr. Pantleo, who is a professor at University of Central

[4:59:34] Missouri.

[4:59:36] So

[4:59:37] we are here to conduct our annual update of career and technical

[4:59:41] education.

[4:59:42] Because of

[4:59:45] many of you being new to the board, I'm going to try to keep this at very high

[4:59:48] level, and we can work off from there.

[4:59:52] So when you look at career and technical education in the state of Missouri,

[4:59:56] I want you to focus on this first diagram

[4:59:59] here.

[5:00:02] Career and technical education is made up of many partners, and these many

[5:00:05] partners are what makes our programming for

[5:00:09] across the state of Missouri.

[5:00:11] We have what we call area career centers across the state of Missouri.

[5:00:16] There are 57 career centers

[5:00:20] across the state. 54 of these career centers are

[5:00:23] located in comprehensive high school or school districts.

[5:00:28] The other four of these

[5:00:30] career centers for our secondary programs are located at

[5:00:34] community colleges.

[5:00:36] These programs typically or traditionally provide the

[5:00:40] more highly specialized programming for our students.

[5:00:44] Many times it's in the skilled technical sciences or within the health science

[5:00:48] programs.

[5:00:49] From there we move into the comprehensive high schools and providing a career and

[5:00:53] technical education to our students.

[5:00:56] Comprehensive high school is probably the more traditional programming

[5:01:00] of career and technical education.

[5:01:02] These programs are such as the ag education, business

[5:01:06] marketing, and DECA programs, and FBLA programs,

[5:01:10] FACS,

[5:01:12] and those programs are located there.

[5:01:16] These more traditionalized programs

[5:01:19] are housed at the secondary programs.

[5:01:22] 85% of our career and technical education students are located

[5:01:26] in our comprehensive high schools.

[5:01:29] Now, the one thing I do want to share about comprehensive high schools is that this

[5:01:32] is also beginning to change. We are seeing across the state of

[5:01:36] Missouri that comprehensive high schools are starting to provide more

[5:01:40] specialized programming in health science programs and the skilled

[5:01:43] technical science programming, and so on.

[5:01:47] And so we are starting to see a movement within the state of Missouri

[5:01:50] of comprehensive high schools moving not only from the traditional

[5:01:54] programs, but offering the more specialized programs that

[5:01:58] have once only been contained at the area career centers.

[5:02:02] The next partner within career and technical education is our post-secondary

[5:02:07] partners. I think it's important to understand that within career and technical

[5:02:10] education at the secondary level,

[5:02:13] there are some requirements, not only federal requirements, but requirements that

[5:02:17] we like to see, and those are partnerships with our post-secondary

[5:02:20] partners. We want their education to continue once they've

[5:02:24] continued or have finished programs at the secondary level.

[5:02:28] There are 12 community colleges that these articulation and dual

[5:02:32] credit agreements are housed at, and then there also is the one

[5:02:36] state college at State Tech.

[5:02:40] These are important partners because we provide

[5:02:44] sometimes the foundational education that will lead them to these

[5:02:47] secondary partners. There's also the post-secondary partners with the four-year

[5:02:51] universities that the career and technical education programs provide as well,

[5:02:56] and we see this in the Teacher Pathways as an example.

[5:03:01] The next part of this wheel or the diagram is school counseling and

[5:03:04] career advising and the importance that it plays in career and technical education.

[5:03:09] We often talk about

[5:03:11] you know what you know, and individuals need-to-know

[5:03:15] information, and school counseling and career advising is an ultimate

[5:03:19] foundation for career and technical education.

[5:03:22] Behind the student who goes onto these programs is someone

[5:03:26] who's referring them or is recommending them, and it's important with school

[5:03:30] counseling and career advising that these individuals are part of

[5:03:34] career and technical education.

[5:03:36] They provide interest inventories for our students.

[5:03:39] They provide the development of the ICAP, or the Individualized Career Academic

[5:03:43] Plans, for our students.

[5:03:45] They are an intricate part of this process.

[5:03:48] Without that process, many of our students probably wouldn't go into career and

[5:03:51] technical education.

[5:03:53] And then lastly, we have our industry partners.

[5:03:56] Industry partners have always been an important part of career and technical

[5:03:59] education. But more and more each day, they become an intricate part

[5:04:03] of providing many different services and opportunities.

[5:04:06] Such things as they serve on our advisory council, which

[5:04:10] Dr. Pantleo will talk about here in a bit, but they also serve

[5:04:14] on our advisory councils for our programs.

[5:04:16] Every program area is required to have an advisory council,

[5:04:20] and many of those advisory councils are made of industry partners.

[5:04:24] And so they're bringing their expertise, their technical

[5:04:28] expertise to the table and helping these programs be relevant

[5:04:32] and continue to serve. They also are valued by

[5:04:35] providing work-based learning opportunities for our students, opportunities

[5:04:39] for our students to take what they've learned in the classroom and into the

[5:04:42] industry to put those to real work.

[5:04:45] And so I think it's important to understand what makes up career and technical

[5:04:49] education.

[5:04:51] This is at a very high level, but without these

[5:04:54] five components, career and technical education

[5:04:58] would struggle, not to exist, but there would be components

[5:05:02] missing.

[5:05:02] All right. Did you mention how many high school students are enrolled in

[5:05:06] CTE?

[5:05:07] I'll get to that. I got it.

[5:05:12] DESE oversees different

[5:05:16] CTE programs, and today I've brought with me...

[5:05:18] I think it's important for you all to see ...

[5:05:20] the individuals behind the scene.

[5:05:23] And so I brought my CTE program directors and coordinators for

[5:05:27] Career and Technical Education, and they are located here behind me.

[5:05:29] And so as I call them, I'll just have them stand up.

[5:05:32] CTE coordinator is Lori Brown. She's an integral part of overseeing

[5:05:37] our enhancement grant, new teacher institute for our department.

[5:05:41] Ag education is Jeffrey Boris.

[5:05:44] Business marketing, information technology, and education is Larry Anders.

[5:05:49] Family consumer sciences and human service education is Teresa Stroup.

[5:05:53] Health science education, Rachel Fisher. She's unable to be with us today.

[5:05:58] Skilled technical science is Dr. Oscar Carter, and technology and

[5:06:01] engineering education is Mia Quezo Gilbert.

[5:06:04] These individuals are responsible for the administrating of our programs.

[5:06:08] They work hard each and every day to ensure that our programs are of

[5:06:12] high quality across the state, answering a variety of questions from school

[5:06:16] districts. I think it's worth being noted that this year,

[5:06:20] technology and engineering education, it is the first year

[5:06:24] for us as a department of them being approved CTE programs.

[5:06:29] In the prior years,

[5:06:32] industrial technology and

[5:06:34] education, as it was called in the past, or AKA

[5:06:37] industrial arts in the past,

[5:06:40] has not been an approved CTE program, and now it is.

[5:06:42] And so this has been a lengthy process.

[5:06:46] We went through the summer of approving programs.

[5:06:49] We have approved, I believe, over 120

[5:06:52] technology and engineering education programs across the state of Missouri and look

[5:06:56] forward to approving more in the years to come.

[5:07:01] The CTE program areas, and I'll talk about the enrollment.

[5:07:08] Ag education, typical courses, animal science, plant science,

[5:07:12] and so on. There's approximately

[5:07:14] 32,451 students. Business education.

[5:07:20] Accounting computer is 84,512.

[5:07:24] Family consumer science is 77,056,

[5:07:28] and health science education, 18,160.

[5:07:31] Marketing education, 14,787. Skilled technical

[5:07:36] science education is 15,983. And technology and

[5:07:39] engineering education is 13,026.

[5:07:50] Sorry about that.

[5:07:58] So in 2025 through '26 selected

[5:08:02] data year,

[5:08:03] the total number of secondary students enrolled in CTE is

[5:08:07] 185,000 students across the state of Missouri.

[5:08:11] These are students that are taking an approved CTE program

[5:08:17] and/or course within the state of Missouri.

[5:08:19] Post-secondary, we have 55,794.

[5:08:25] Organizational membership, part of being in an approved CTE program is that they

[5:08:29] must have a CTSO. It's a Career Technical Student Organization.

[5:08:34] And so examples of those is DECA, FBLA, FCCLA, and so

[5:08:38] on. We have over 77,000 students

[5:08:41] that participate in these organizations,

[5:08:44] which is an integral part, an important part of

[5:08:48] our career and technical education.

[5:08:51] Industry-recognized credentials earned, or certifications.

[5:08:55] This prior year was 13,867.

[5:09:00] These industry-recognized credentials are important because they lead to

[5:09:03] employability within our workforce,

[5:09:07] and for our students.

[5:09:11] The CTE certificate earned,

[5:09:13] when we talk about, Dr. Parent-Leo's going to talk about this

[5:09:17] in his part of his presentation. Last year we presented

[5:09:20] 4,228 students.

[5:09:23] When we talk about the importance of our advisory committee legislation that came

[5:09:27] about because of the advisory committee, one of these was the

[5:09:31] CTE certificate. And the last piece of data there is the registered

[5:09:35] apprenticeship participants, which is 656.

[5:09:40] If you're unaware with what a registered apprenticeship is

[5:09:44] ...

[5:09:45] I am so sorry. That's what I get for brush hogging and

[5:09:51] being out on a

[5:09:53] vacation. But registered apprenticeship is

[5:09:57] where students take the career and technical programs that they're enrolled in,

[5:10:01] actually become a registered apprentice in the industry.

[5:10:06] The minimum amount of hours to receive an

[5:10:10] apprenticeship certification is 2,000 hours, and so currently we have

[5:10:14] 656 active students.

[5:10:17] Over the course of time, we've actually had 280 students

[5:10:20] complete a registered apprenticeship.

[5:10:23] Many of these apprenticeships last longer than just the 2,000 hours.

[5:10:30] I know earlier you all had a good conversation in and around

[5:10:34] budget funding, and I think it's important for you all to understand our

[5:10:38] two buckets of money, or two funding sources that we have.

[5:10:44] First of all, we have our federal funding.

[5:10:45] Our federal funding is due to the Carl Perkins Act.

[5:10:49] It's where we receive our federal dollars, and it's approximately

[5:10:52] 28,500,000. That federal

[5:10:56] funding then is broke out into secondary and post-secondary

[5:11:00] allocations, and then the last of it is program support.

[5:11:04] And under program support, we do a lot of leadership

[5:11:07] implementation. One of the things that we do under program support,

[5:11:11] as an example, we do teacher externships during the summer.

[5:11:15] We do a cooperative project with the Missouri Chamber of Commerce,

[5:11:19] and provide teacher externships in four different regions across the state

[5:11:24] And teachers go into industry and

[5:11:27] participate, or see what is industry

[5:11:31] doing, and then take that back to the classroom.

[5:11:34] As for the core state funding, it is approximately $52 million.

[5:11:38] It's like $52,400-and-some thousand.

[5:11:42] $29 million of that is CTE based on performance, and CTE

[5:11:46] based on performance is based upon number of teachers, students, and so

[5:11:49] on. And so that is the first core of that.

[5:11:53] The next is 15 million, this enhancement grant.

[5:11:56] The enhancement grant is the opportunity for approved programs,

[5:12:00] career and technical education programs, to submit a grant to us

[5:12:04] for either purchasing new equipment, updating equipment,

[5:12:08] or maybe starting a new program.

[5:12:11] We wish that it was a 75/25

[5:12:15] allocation.

[5:12:17] This past year, we had over $18 million of requests, and

[5:12:21] so because of that, we have to pro-rate it down to all those approvable

[5:12:25] items. And so our amount is at $15 million that we

[5:12:29] approve for this

[5:12:31] type of grant project.

[5:12:33] Limited access grant at $2 million,

[5:12:36] this is where providing program in areas that hasn't traditionally happened

[5:12:40] in the past. It has to be within the skilled trades, it has to be within the health

[5:12:44] science, and it has to be in the advanced manufacturing areas

[5:12:48] to be able to apply for the limited access grant.

[5:12:52] And then program improvement grants

[5:12:55] happen throughout all the programs.

[5:12:57] That's where we provide 50/50 money for

[5:13:01] programs to update equipment, and then we have program support.

[5:13:06] The last one there is 5.5 million, which is not a part of

[5:13:10] the 52 million.

[5:13:12] These are construction grants. Traditionally, in the past, it's been for

[5:13:16] area career centers, and this year it's been opened up to area

[5:13:20] career centers and comprehensive high schools.

[5:13:23] This funding is for a grant opportunity for

[5:13:27] building renovations or the addition of programs to build

[5:13:31] facilities. And so in the past, we've had about, annually,

[5:13:35] 14 different either area career centers or school districts apply.

[5:13:39] This grant application's actually due today, and so

[5:13:43] in the next few weeks, we'll be reviewing those applications and then

[5:13:47] sending those out.

[5:13:56] Oh, good afternoon. I'm Mike Pantaleo.

[5:13:58] As Perry said,

[5:14:00] I am the four-year university representative on the CTE Advisory Council.

[5:14:04] Before

[5:14:05] working at the university, I was a CTE teacher and an administrator for

[5:14:09] multiple years.

[5:14:11] Part of the act of establishing

[5:14:15] the CTE Advisory Committee was in 2013.

[5:14:19] There are just maybe some focuses back in those

[5:14:22] days that CTE wasn't going in a direction maybe

[5:14:26] that stakeholders thought was a good idea.

[5:14:29] And so the committee was reestablished from a long

[5:14:33] time past that was, I think, in the '70s.

[5:14:35] There was a similar committee that pretty much had dissolved.

[5:14:39] But through that time, a lot of the

[5:14:43] CTE

[5:14:44] probably initiatives and just focus wasn't going in the right direction, so the

[5:14:48] committee was formed, and you can see the actual bullet points

[5:14:52] there that I'll talk about probably a little bit more in detail

[5:14:55] because what I see is that the actual duties

[5:14:59] that are assigned and allocated to the CTE Advisory Committee are

[5:15:03] outlined in the parts of the strategic plan, but also in the

[5:15:07] next couple slides. But

[5:15:10] developing a comprehensive awareness plan, increasing the total numbers, it's

[5:15:14] all part of that, of what we're trying to do as a

[5:15:18] CTE Advisory Committee, but also listening to the stakeholders.

[5:15:22] And you'll see on the next, probably go ahead and click on the next couple slides,

[5:15:26] very wide

[5:15:28] swath of membership, just like other good boards have

[5:15:32] representatives from across the state, but also different levels of folks that are

[5:15:36] involved to provide input.

[5:15:39] And so they're also kind of addressing back to the duties that

[5:15:45] hearing what the stakeholders have and hearing what their concerns are,

[5:15:48] is something that that CTE Advisory Committee does.

[5:15:51] Again, all levels of folks involved and at

[5:15:55] all different throughout the state and different locations.

[5:15:59] So that's an important part of what we do, meeting four times a year

[5:16:03] to hear those and address those concerns

[5:16:06] and go from there.

[5:16:09] Again, kind of part of moving on from the...

[5:16:12] Go to the next one, is the actual strategic plan, which is probably the

[5:16:16] most important part of what we have been doing over the last, oh, at

[5:16:19] least three years, I would think. It's been a continuous

[5:16:23] effort,

[5:16:25] especially in the governor's

[5:16:27] plan from the EOC part of that,

[5:16:31] that Perry will talk about. But as you

[5:16:35] can see, some of those strategic plan, and I can get a little bit more

[5:16:39] detail, but increasing the statewide awareness,

[5:16:42] like I said, one of the initiatives is probably

[5:16:46] at the middle and high school level.

[5:16:48] Giving toolkit to the counselors, to the teachers that are in those schools,

[5:16:51] just so they have an idea of what those careers look like.

[5:16:55] Experiences for the students, if that can work out, but also the

[5:16:59] awareness to business and industry of what CTE

[5:17:03] has to offer in the state is an important part of what that awareness is.

[5:17:07] So looking at different options for that in the strategic plan as the years

[5:17:11] progress,

[5:17:13] that's part of what the committee's looking at and trying to decide

[5:17:17] and make decisions on. The second one, which Perry alluded to a minute

[5:17:21] ago,

[5:17:22] for those of you not aware of the Missouri CTE certificate, my

[5:17:27] Selfless definition of it is kind of the ideal career and technical

[5:17:30] education graduate. When a student in career and technical education

[5:17:34] graduates from high school, having met the criteria, which

[5:17:38] is having a concentrator of a program, so at least been

[5:17:42] in three different classes. They have 95% attendance in that

[5:17:46] school. They've earned a 3.0 GPA in their core

[5:17:50] CTE area. They've also had some work-based learning experience, I think 50

[5:17:54] hours of work-based learning, whether that's a clinical time as a

[5:17:58] CNA or LPN type student, or doing an

[5:18:02] apprenticeship or an internship, but actually having some actual job time on the

[5:18:06] hours or job time in the workforce is important.

[5:18:09] Also, earning an industry credential or a technical student assessment, which is

[5:18:13] like the end of course program assessment for the programs.

[5:18:17] And then scoring,

[5:18:20] I guess, an adequate standard score in the CCR, which is like

[5:18:23] ACT, ASVAB, and those scores. So again, a comprehensive

[5:18:27] measure of the CTE graduate, and again, that's my definition of it,

[5:18:31] kind of how I think about it. And actually, that was one of the first

[5:18:34] initiatives that when the CTE advisory committee was formed in

[5:18:38] 2013, it took them a year to get it accomplished, but that was their first

[5:18:42] initiative, to actually get that CTE certificate

[5:18:46] created and approved through the process.

[5:18:49] So from there,

[5:18:51] the third one is kind of what I already talked about, is work-based learning, as we

[5:18:54] all know, giving experiences for students early on or

[5:18:58] in later life, letting them decide, "Is this the right career?" It's better for a

[5:19:02] student to learn in high school that being a doctor or

[5:19:06] an RN is not maybe something I do, instead of going to college for four years,

[5:19:10] three years and deciding that. So giving those experiences maybe that they can help

[5:19:14] with some of that is an important plan.

[5:19:16] But

[5:19:17] just getting more and more businesses, it's a tough sell

[5:19:21] a lot of times just because of

[5:19:24] lots of different scenarios of having businesses involved.

[5:19:27] But we got to show them the value, and again, that goes back to that

[5:19:32] awareness plan and that marketing plan.

[5:19:35] So the bottom two really are, as you might understand,

[5:19:39] to be a career tech educator in some aspects, especially a

[5:19:42] carpenter, an auto mechanic, a plumber, you're going to ask some of those folks

[5:19:46] that have been in the workforce to probably take a cut in pay about half to come

[5:19:50] back and teach into that high school or career

[5:19:53] center. So it is a challenge. So keeping those teachers,

[5:19:58] trying to get that, trying to evaluate what are the challenges.

[5:20:01] So those

[5:20:03] numbers four and five are really specific to the

[5:20:06] advisory committee because that's what we hear.

[5:20:08] That's what we hear from our stakeholders that are out in the

[5:20:12] schools is, it's hard to hire teachers, it's hard to

[5:20:16] get them to come teach,

[5:20:19] just because of some of the things I said, but there's a lot of,

[5:20:22] I guess, variables out there that do that.

[5:20:25] But trying to get some more information is part of that, so

[5:20:29] doing a lot of the surveying with that and other surveys to try to just get some

[5:20:32] ideas of how we can help. Again, that's just like this board, trying to

[5:20:36] gather input to try to do what you can to help the CTE

[5:20:40] stakeholders in Missouri.

[5:20:43] Thanks. My part. Right.

[5:20:47] All right. Moving on to the Governor's Workforce of the Future Challenge

[5:20:51] report.

[5:20:52] We are required to submit a report on September the 30th of

[5:20:56] this year,

[5:20:58] just an update of where we are on those

[5:21:01] priority areas. And so I want to share with you the priority areas and what's

[5:21:05] happened to the state.

[5:21:07] First of all, strengthen work-based learning, employer engagement, and workforce

[5:21:10] development.

[5:21:11] I think it's also important to understand that all this work that we do

[5:21:15] in career and technical education is also going hand-in-hand

[5:21:19] with DOWDE, or the Department of Higher Education and Workforce Development.

[5:21:23] Our two agencies are very linked in this work.

[5:21:26] When it came to this workforce challenge, they were very involved also with this.

[5:21:30] And so how do we improve or what were things we could do within

[5:21:34] our system internally

[5:21:38] to help meet those recommendations through the executive order?

[5:21:42] And so we're going to be giving that update to them.

[5:21:45] So progress to teacher externships and registered apprenticeships continued.

[5:21:51] I know within the Department of Higher Education and Workforce Development, one of

[5:21:54] those requests was to evaluate WorkKeys.

[5:21:57] I don't know if you're familiar with WorkKeys.

[5:22:00] WorkKeys is an alternative assessment given

[5:22:03] by ACT. It talks about being workforce ready.

[5:22:07] And so

[5:22:08] DOWDE has completed that assessment of that program

[5:22:12] to determine its value. Expand early

[5:22:16] career exploration, school counseling, advising systems.

[5:22:20] So we

[5:22:22] did a deep dive into our internal budget, where were areas that we

[5:22:26] could see where there may be some inefficiencies and of

[5:22:30] movement. And so one of those areas is that we are bringing on some career

[5:22:33] advisors across the state of Missouri.

[5:22:37] Prior to the executive order, we had nine career advisors

[5:22:41] at .5 FTE, meaning they were half-time individuals.

[5:22:45] We're actually bringing these career advisors in our four more metropolitan

[5:22:49] areas, St. Louis, Kansas City, Springfield, and Columbia, to full-time

[5:22:53] individuals. These individuals will help school districts

[5:22:57] to providing opportunities for students,

[5:23:01] to advising students in career expansion.

[5:23:04] And then the last one there is strategic communication and marketing to promote

[5:23:07] CTE.

[5:23:09] We are working hand-in-hand with the University of Central Missouri, Dr.

[5:23:13] Pantleo here, to do our CTE perception survey.

[5:23:19] It actually will go out here sometime November, December,

[5:23:23] to our stakeholders. Our stakeholders, our audience that

[5:23:27] we will send this out to, will be our students, our parents,

[5:23:31] our career centers, and industry.

[5:23:34] We will partner with industry partners, individuals within our

[5:23:38] advisory committee to get the CTE's perception survey.

[5:23:42] That survey is very important because we also get a

[5:23:46] pulse on what's happening out there from industry providers.

[5:23:49] And then director of strategic initiatives,

[5:23:52] we've brought on that individual within our department to help with all this

[5:23:56] process. And so, that status report will be delivered to the

[5:24:00] governor by September 30, 2026. So,

[5:24:06] that's a very quick

[5:24:08] update.

[5:24:11] Do you have any questions?

[5:24:16] Mr. McCluskey?

[5:24:18] No questions, but I think just

[5:24:21] my old district,

[5:24:24] when I was on the local school board, we went to the high school graduation, and

[5:24:27] shortly after that, it was all the technical...

[5:24:30] There was a separate graduation, and everyone showed up in their

[5:24:34] scrubs if it was nursing or whatever it was, and aviation.

[5:24:38] And I looked at, and I'm thinking, "This is like a room of

[5:24:42] future small business owners," and I just thought it was a really neat thing

[5:24:46] to see. So,

[5:24:48] no questions, just a neat example of what this...

[5:24:51] Anyway, so thank you.

[5:24:56] Mrs. Casey?

[5:24:57] Thank you very much, and

[5:25:00] thanks for this update. Very important.

[5:25:03] You'd mentioned that there's nine, was it nine, is it counselors that

[5:25:07] you're adding?

[5:25:08] So, these career advisors-

[5:25:09] Career advisors

[5:25:09] ... help partner with districts to bring career advising

[5:25:13] initiatives to their schools.

[5:25:15] Good.

[5:25:15] And so, they have the framework, and so we're

[5:25:18] increasing those. There are nine halftime individuals.

[5:25:22] There were nine halftime, and now within Kansas City, St.

[5:25:27] Louis, Columbia, and Springfield, they will be full-time.

[5:25:30] Okay.

[5:25:31] And the reason for those areas is that

[5:25:34] those other .5s were in the RPDCs, but when you

[5:25:38] look at the total population of those areas, those are our more

[5:25:41] highly populated areas. And so, a .5 person wasn't

[5:25:46] enough to cover those areas.

[5:25:48] It makes sense. It sounds-

[5:25:49] Yeah

[5:25:49] ... like they'd be very fruitful.

[5:25:52] Did we approve them in the budget?

[5:25:55] So, we actually-

[5:25:57] Okay

[5:25:57] ... we pulled it out of our $52 million.

[5:25:59] Okay.

[5:26:00] So, it is a part of our core.

[5:26:03] Great. Thank you.

[5:26:06] Other questions?

[5:26:10] Hearing none, thank you very much for your presentation.

[5:26:12] Thank you. Welcome.

[5:26:14] This

[5:26:19] time we have Dr. Mark Wheatley.

[5:26:38] Good afternoon, President Miller, members of the board.

[5:26:40] Mark Wheatley, the assistant commissioner in the Office of Special Education.

[5:26:44] I'm here today

[5:26:45] to provide an update on the MSSD Reimagined work that

[5:26:50] has been,

[5:26:52] gosh, I guess there have been components that started some three

[5:26:56] years ago with regard to the Missouri Schools for the Severely Disabled, and

[5:27:00] looking at that program evaluation and making some

[5:27:03] changes to the processes, to the structure,

[5:27:07] and ultimately down to the students and the impact on their

[5:27:11] education within that program. And so, today, this is just an

[5:27:15] opportunity for us to come back to you today and give you an update based on the

[5:27:19] work that's happened since the last year.

[5:27:21] So, before I jump into that, though, I would like to do a couple of quick

[5:27:24] introductions. To my right and your left, I have Jacob

[5:27:28] Klett with Public Consulting, as well as

[5:27:32] Josh Chisholm with Capital A&E. Two of our

[5:27:36] partner consulting firms that work with us and have worked with us

[5:27:39] throughout the evaluation, and then the implementation of the

[5:27:43] recommendations through this process.

[5:27:45] And so, they're going to be here and share some of the information along with me

[5:27:49] as it relates to some of the work that they've done over the past, well, 12

[5:27:53] months really, but again, going back more historically than that.

[5:28:01] So, again, for today, we're going to start, because of context, I think, to

[5:28:05] provide you with a little bit of information for those new board members

[5:28:09] to an overview of what the Missouri

[5:28:12] Schools for the Severely Disabled is and does, as well as an

[5:28:16] update on that MSSD Reimagined process.

[5:28:20] We're going to share some accomplishments and data around the steps that have

[5:28:24] taken place over the last year, and then talk briefly about

[5:28:27] implementation and next steps. But this visualization

[5:28:31] that's up in the corner, I think does a good job here to

[5:28:35] indicate the importance of several different areas that

[5:28:38] include a variety of things in school operations,

[5:28:42] not just educationally, but all of those other components that were

[5:28:46] considered through the original study and evaluation of the

[5:28:49] MSSD programming, and that ultimately led us down

[5:28:53] paths towards each of those five areas that you see there.

[5:28:57] And so, that's kind of going to be the anchor for which a lot of the information is

[5:29:01] shared today. So, I hope you find that informational and provide a little greater

[5:29:05] context as we move forward.

[5:29:09] So, for greater context, MSSD is one of three

[5:29:13] state-operated programs, and so those are school programs.

[5:29:16] Missouri also operates the Missouri School for the Deaf in Fulton, Missouri,

[5:29:20] as well as Missouri School for the Blind in St. Louis, Missouri.

[5:29:27] A little more background. The MSSD program was

[5:29:30] established in 1957. To give you a little historical

[5:29:34] context, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,

[5:29:39] originally known as Public Law

[5:29:41] 94-142, was

[5:29:45] actually established into federal law just over 50 years ago in

[5:29:48] 1975.

[5:29:50] So from that perspective, you can see that Missouri

[5:29:54] had prioritized access to public education for students with

[5:29:58] disabilities, even those students with the most extensive support needs, way

[5:30:02] in advance of the federal recognition through that federal law of the

[5:30:05] Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which I think is really

[5:30:09] important to share. In addition to that, though, the

[5:30:13] IDEA actually focuses on ensuring

[5:30:16] free and appropriate public education for all students with disabilities,

[5:30:21] and that that also occurs in the least restrictive,

[5:30:25] most inclusive environment, as appropriate and as

[5:30:29] determined by the individual student's needs with that individualized

[5:30:33] educational program team being the decision-makers when it comes

[5:30:37] to each individual student. And that team is made up of the educators,

[5:30:41] the family, the student, when appropriate, all of the

[5:30:45] stakeholders coming together to work together to come up with a plan and a

[5:30:49] program that supports those individual students' needs.

[5:30:53] A little more information about who is served within MSSD.

[5:30:56] Again, going back to some earlier comments and the previous slide,

[5:31:01] MSSD supports the students with some of the most extensive

[5:31:05] support needs.

[5:31:07] Many are non-ambulatory, many

[5:31:11] have limited communication skills, many are non-verbal.

[5:31:16] Neurodivergent students exhibiting

[5:31:19] or working with specific disabilities around

[5:31:23] autism and other categories such as that, other health impaired, many of

[5:31:27] those areas. Some come with significant behavioral needs that have to

[5:31:31] be supported through the program as well.

[5:31:34] But

[5:31:35] intellectual disability as well.

[5:31:37] And so all of those things combined

[5:31:40] require that LEA school districts and those

[5:31:44] IEP teams look for an appropriate placement where they can be provided

[5:31:48] with the most extensive services.

[5:31:50] And so MSSD happens to be one of those placements on that

[5:31:54] continuum, if you will, of placement considerations

[5:31:58] that are available to the IEP team when they're making those decisions.

[5:32:02] So in MSSD,

[5:32:05] they provide a modified curriculum

[5:32:09] with essential elements that are connected to those core

[5:32:13] competencies that you would see in the academic setting, because

[5:32:16] MSSD buildings are schools first.

[5:32:20] So when we talk about IDEA some 50 years ago,

[5:32:25] prior to that, many states didn't have a

[5:32:28] provision set to support students with the most extensive support needs,

[5:32:32] and so they were oftentimes placed in other facilities

[5:32:36] besides schools. So again, getting back to the importance of recognizing

[5:32:40] that all students with disabilities should have access to educational

[5:32:43] opportunities in the public setting.

[5:32:46] And then they also work on functional skill development as well.

[5:32:53] As we are here to speak with you today, you probably have a little bit of an idea

[5:32:56] about this, but MSSD, as the other two buildings or the other

[5:33:00] two programs as state-operated schools, are operated by DESE

[5:33:04] on behalf of the State Board of Education.

[5:33:07] So each school program has a superintendent.

[5:33:11] MSSD superintendent is Dr. Greg Kane,

[5:33:14] and he reports directly to me as the assistant commissioner in the Office of

[5:33:18] Special Education, but ultimately, under DESE

[5:33:21] leadership and structure with accountability extending to the Commissioner of

[5:33:25] Education and this board.

[5:33:29] MSSD currently serves approximately 600 students across

[5:33:33] the state, and this map gives you a representation of

[5:33:37] geographically where those 22 schools are

[5:33:41] currently located. And you're going to learn more in just a little bit about some

[5:33:45] of the processes that have taken place over the last year, where

[5:33:49] six schools had closed and consolidated in advance of

[5:33:53] last extended school year, which is that summer school term

[5:33:56] during July. And this is

[5:33:59] the map of those existing remaining facilities.

[5:34:03] Again, that's 22 schools and 600 students.

[5:34:06] And as you can see, that map is divided out geographically

[5:34:10] by school district. And those districts

[5:34:14] that are shown and shaded in colors are districts that

[5:34:18] actually feed or place students within the

[5:34:21] MSSD schools.

[5:34:28] So getting more back into

[5:34:31] who are the students that are served.

[5:34:33] So these are students with extensive support needs.

[5:34:37] How are they placed?

[5:34:39] They're placed when an IEP team makes that decision,

[5:34:43] that the local school district determines, along with that

[5:34:47] IEP team, that that placement is most appropriate.

[5:34:50] But then they're still required to go through a qualifying

[5:34:54] of criteria established by the state plan for special education to be

[5:34:57] eligible to actually attend the MSSD schools.

[5:35:01] And so that's a process that takes place as well.

[5:35:04] And then why is it important to have the MSSD

[5:35:08] schools? Well, it's a statewide option for many of our students

[5:35:12] with extensive support needs that otherwise wouldn't be served in their local

[5:35:16] school district. And so there are additional options on that

[5:35:19] continuum, such as approved private placement and other

[5:35:23] placements that may be available to the district.

[5:35:26] But Missouri, under statutory authority, established these, as I

[5:35:30] mentioned, back in the late 1950s.

[5:35:34] Now I'm going to turn it over to Jacob, and he's going to share more information

[5:35:38] about the MSSD Reimagine work that has taken place over the

[5:35:41] last three years or so, culminating in where we are today.

[5:35:45] And that's really the progress report that we want to provide to you,

[5:35:50] because I think it's important that we recognize not only where's the program come,

[5:35:54] but most importantly, what has been the impact on the students that are served

[5:35:58] within the program.

[5:35:59] Jacob?

[5:36:01] Thanks. Thank you, Dr.

[5:36:02] Wheatley.

[5:36:09] So in terms of the continuous improvement efforts, we want to

[5:36:13] recognize that this work started 2023,

[5:36:17] with the first comprehensive review of MSSD that's been conducted in

[5:36:21] more than 20 years. And so this has been an ongoing effort.

[5:36:26] DESE has partnered with Public Consulting Group and Capital AE

[5:36:30] throughout the last couple of years to dig deep into the

[5:36:34] data, the current state,

[5:36:36] and then more recently, to support the implementation efforts to

[5:36:40] reimagine or transform MSSD.

[5:36:43] Throughout this process, we've gathered input from a variety of

[5:36:47] stakeholders, including families of children who attend MSSD

[5:36:51] schools,

[5:36:52] as well as MSSD staff and folks who are working within

[5:36:57] local education agencies as well too, in an effort to create a sustainable

[5:37:01] roadmap that creates a path forward for

[5:37:05] MSSD that effectively serves children and

[5:37:08] stakeholders well.

[5:37:11] As I mentioned, this work began back in 2023, initially

[5:37:15] with a smaller scale operations study of MSSD that

[5:37:18] was focused primarily on facilities, finance,

[5:37:22] and staffing.

[5:37:24] As a result of that, it was identified that a more comprehensive review of

[5:37:28] MSSD as a program was needed. So that was completed

[5:37:32] in 2024. That really looked at the full ecosystem of

[5:37:36] MSSD,

[5:37:37] across all areas.

[5:37:40] Through that report, it was recommended to convene a

[5:37:43] long-range planning advisory committee or LRPAC,

[5:37:48] that consisted of a group of over 50 stakeholders,

[5:37:51] just over 50 stakeholders that met across

[5:37:55] 2024, 2025,

[5:37:57] both virtually and in person,

[5:38:00] to review the results of the comprehensive report,

[5:38:04] and to distill the data from those reports down to a set

[5:38:08] of core recommendations that continue to guide the work of continuous

[5:38:11] improvement for MSSD today.

[5:38:14] Which brings us to the present day, 2025, and continuing through

[5:38:18] 2028, a period that we're calling MSSD Reimagine, where

[5:38:22] we're really moving from studying and planning the

[5:38:26] approach to solving some of the challenges that were raised, to

[5:38:30] implementing the continuous improvement plan and the steps forward.

[5:38:34] This consists of currently four active subcommittees that are driving

[5:38:38] the work,

[5:38:40] developing stronger systems and setting baseline metrics

[5:38:44] to have clear

[5:38:46] metrics to measure success.

[5:38:50] So just to frame this out, when PCG

[5:38:54] provided the original report in July of 2024,

[5:38:58] at that time, the state of MSSD revealed many

[5:39:02] challenges.

[5:39:03] There had been a long period of leadership turnover

[5:39:07] that had disrupted the sustainability of the system and made it

[5:39:11] difficult to maintain consistent direction across all the schools within the

[5:39:15] MSSD system. There were persistent communication

[5:39:18] challenges

[5:39:20] across buildings throughout the state,

[5:39:23] communication challenges between area offices and the central offices and the

[5:39:27] schools,

[5:39:29] as well as operational structures that made it difficult

[5:39:32] to manage the system. Our report also noted that there was a

[5:39:36] need to establish key performance indicators so that there was clarity

[5:39:40] on how to move forward, and how progress could be monitored over

[5:39:44] time.

[5:39:48] The LRPAC recommended six key recommendations

[5:39:52] to drive the future of MSSD and the continuous improvement

[5:39:56] efforts.

[5:39:57] So one, they recommended

[5:40:00] establishing clear communication across all stakeholders,

[5:40:04] that includes families, school districts, as well as schools within

[5:40:08] the MSSD system. They recommended renaming

[5:40:12] MSSD to be more consistent with terminology that's

[5:40:15] used in the present day. As Dr. Wheatley shared, MSSD has existed since the

[5:40:19] 1950s. Things have changed since then, and one of their recommendations

[5:40:23] was to evolve with the times.

[5:40:26] They recommended developing an accountability structure for

[5:40:29] MSSD schools so that we knew that schools were being successful,

[5:40:33] and to be able to intervene if they were not.

[5:40:36] They also recommended high-quality professional learning and optimizing

[5:40:40] facilities for students who have extensive support needs, recognizing

[5:40:44] that staff need unique training to meet the needs of students who

[5:40:47] have extensive needs, and that facilities also

[5:40:51] need to meet needs of students who

[5:40:54] diverge from what typical students in a

[5:40:57] classroom may otherwise need.

[5:41:00] And then finally, they recommended to build the capacity

[5:41:04] of local school districts to better serve students with extensive support

[5:41:08] needs. As you saw on the map, there are many districts that do

[5:41:12] send students to MSSD, but MSSD has not always been

[5:41:16] accessible to all districts due to geography.

[5:41:19] So the committee recommended that local school districts build their

[5:41:23] systems to serve students with this population as well too.

[5:41:28] Where are we today?

[5:41:30] Today, the work of MSSD Reimagined is focused on

[5:41:34] continuing to build the infrastructure that's needed for success to

[5:41:37] guarantee longer-term sustainability.

[5:41:41] We've been working across the four active committees to establish a

[5:41:44] foundation for clear structures, defined priorities, and

[5:41:48] routines for progress monitoring. Leadership has stabilized.

[5:41:52] We'll also share some data about site-based leadership in just a moment so you

[5:41:56] can see how that's evolved over the last couple of years as well, too.

[5:42:00] And then currently working to analyze and gather baseline

[5:42:04] data to set those clear performance metrics that will

[5:42:08] continue to guide the decisions of MSSD Reimagined

[5:42:12] between now and 2028.

[5:42:17] We'd like to, as part of this progress report, share some of the data that we

[5:42:20] have looked at. So first, as Dr.

[5:42:24] Wheatley mentioned, there were six MSSD schools that consolidated over the

[5:42:28] past year. We recognize that through emergency

[5:42:32] closures that had occurred in the past, families had expressed

[5:42:36] challenges and concerns with those experiences.

[5:42:40] The work of MSSD Reimagined really intentionally recognized

[5:42:44] that stakeholder engagement, and particularly family engagement, is essential.

[5:42:49] And so to support the consolidation of the MSSD

[5:42:53] portfolio with those six schools,

[5:42:55] a variety of stakeholder engagement efforts were conducted,

[5:42:59] including six in-person meetings, four town halls,

[5:43:03] and six webinars. There was 100% family

[5:43:06] contact through outreach, whether that be through phone calls, through emails,

[5:43:10] through written correspondence, or some kind of focus group or meeting, able to

[5:43:14] reach every parent who was impacted by a closure.

[5:43:18] Recognizing that some families don't respond to phone calls or emails right away,

[5:43:22] there was a persistent effort on behalf of MSSD staff to make sure

[5:43:25] that all families were informed, including making sometimes

[5:43:29] over six attempts to interact with families

[5:43:33] to ensure that they received the communication and support they needed to navigate

[5:43:37] that transition.

[5:43:38] And ultimately, 100% of IEP meetings that were

[5:43:42] required were successfully held, and student placements for the upcoming

[5:43:46] year were determined.

[5:43:50] We've seen an increase in student attendance with the consolidation of the

[5:43:54] portfolio over the past year.

[5:43:56] We've actually seen that more students are attending school more frequently.

[5:44:00] So from school year 2024 to 2025

[5:44:04] to '25, '26, seeing an increase of just

[5:44:08] about 6% in terms of student attendance rates.

[5:44:11] And I would just

[5:44:13] to put context to that as well. When you have some students with

[5:44:17] extensive medical fragility or needs that way,

[5:44:20] we have to keep that number in mind when we're looking at that 89%,

[5:44:25] but it's still positive growth for sure. Thank you.

[5:44:33] Notably also, in terms of students accessing MSSD,

[5:44:38] once it's determined that a student may need MSSD services,

[5:44:43] there's an application process that occurs and an intake process.

[5:44:47] That time, in terms of admission of a student to

[5:44:51] MSSD or notifying the student and the family of

[5:44:55] ineligibility, has notably decreased in terms of how long that

[5:44:59] takes. Over the last year, it's decreased by 55%.

[5:45:03] So when we looked at this data in November of 2025, it took

[5:45:06] approximately an average 155 days to process that

[5:45:10] application and make a decision. By June of 2026, that's been

[5:45:14] reduced to about 69 days.

[5:45:18] And now I'll turn it to Josh.

[5:45:20] Good afternoon.

[5:45:22] Mr. Matusik.

[5:45:23] Thank you. Just a quick question. Sorry to interrupt.

[5:45:25] So the admissions process.

[5:45:30] So we had a student that was

[5:45:35] severely disabled or whatever,

[5:45:40] and the district

[5:45:43] was trying to figure it out to keep the student in the district.

[5:45:47] And I don't know where it ended up,

[5:45:51] but I don't remember ever hearing in the

[5:45:55] conversations that we had on the local school board, I

[5:45:59] don't remember ever hearing

[5:46:01] a state school being considered as an option for

[5:46:05] placement for this student.

[5:46:07] My understanding is they were looking at if they couldn't do

[5:46:11] it in-district,

[5:46:14] they were looking at essentially paying a private provider,

[5:46:19] or sending that student to a private provider.

[5:46:24] And I guess so my question is,

[5:46:26] the IEP sort of allows or that's the authority, but

[5:46:31] does the parent have to essentially agree

[5:46:35] to send their child to a state school, or does the

[5:46:39] district

[5:46:40] make that determination on its own?

[5:46:42] Right. So

[5:46:44] without digging too deep into the special education process, that's kind of where

[5:46:48] this would take us to a certain degree.

[5:46:50] School districts, LEAs, are responsible for providing a continuum of

[5:46:54] placement options for all students with disabilities that they serve.

[5:46:58] So that can be up to 80% or more of the day in the general

[5:47:02] education setting, all the way down to separate

[5:47:06] placements, and those separate placements may be

[5:47:10] public placements, private placements, homebound,

[5:47:14] medical. So there are a variety of different options that are all taken into

[5:47:18] consideration by that IEP team. So the team is

[5:47:22] responsible for looking at those placements.

[5:47:25] The LEA is responsible for providing a free and appropriate

[5:47:29] public education. So ultimately, that IEP team makes the

[5:47:33] decision, where is that least restrictive environment,

[5:47:37] and In the case of MSSD, if they meet the eligibility,

[5:47:41] that doesn't necessarily mean that that team determines that that is the most

[5:47:45] appropriate placement, but they have to have that entire

[5:47:48] continuum available for all students.

[5:47:51] And the parent is a member of the IEP team, so they're still there, and

[5:47:55] they're advocating for their own child.

[5:47:58] That's their role on the IEP team, just as the LEA is responsible,

[5:48:02] or the school district is responsible for providing FAPE.

[5:48:06] So, does that answer that question a little bit?

[5:48:08] Well, it does. But if the IEP team

[5:48:12] suggests sending a student to a state school, does the

[5:48:16] parent have veto authority over that, or is that the

[5:48:20] decision of the team, and that's where the student's going to go?

[5:48:23] It's the decision of the team that that placement would be appropriate

[5:48:27] as a public separate facility. And

[5:48:31] so then, at that point, the onus is on the LEA to

[5:48:35] find and provide that separate facility.

[5:48:37] So, in the case of MSSD as a public placement,

[5:48:41] that would be one of those day school options available to them.

[5:48:45] And yes, the school district then determines where they can provide

[5:48:49] that on the continuum. But the team determines if that

[5:48:52] separate placement is necessary, then the district is responsible for

[5:48:56] determining where that placement is, because ultimately, they're financially

[5:49:00] responsible for FAPE, as well as, obviously, academically.

[5:49:04] Thank you.

[5:49:04] Yeah. You're welcome.

[5:49:07] So throughout the long-range planning process, there was

[5:49:11] an identified need to

[5:49:14] build a more resilient portfolio of schools.

[5:49:17] And there were a handful of closures that occurred

[5:49:21] reactively instead of proactively.

[5:49:24] One of those identifying factors was enrollment.

[5:49:27] And do we have enough enrollment in each of our schools

[5:49:31] to sustain the staffing models? Do we have enough staff in our schools to

[5:49:35] sustain the enrollment? And so two of the things that we looked at were, do

[5:49:39] we have... So MSSD still today serves over 600

[5:49:43] students across the state. The

[5:49:47] average enrollment

[5:49:49] a couple of years ago was around 22.

[5:49:51] It's up to around 30 now, after the consolidation and closure

[5:49:55] process.

[5:49:57] And so you can see that in FY23, almost a quarter of

[5:50:01] schools had an enrollment of less than 10, and

[5:50:05] 6% had enrollment less than five. That is a point.

[5:50:09] We get to the 10 mark,

[5:50:12] it's sort of the caution flag. We get less than five, it becomes

[5:50:16] challenging to maintain the schools.

[5:50:18] And so the big goal was how can we consolidate our

[5:50:22] portfolio and in such a way where we still offer

[5:50:25] relatively geographically a service to the

[5:50:29] students across the state, but still not be in a position where we have to

[5:50:33] reactively close because two staff didn't show up to work today, and we have

[5:50:37] nowhere to send students. And so you can see today, we're in

[5:50:40] FY26, we have no schools in the portfolio that

[5:50:44] have less than 10 students. Certainly none that have less than five.

[5:50:51] Okay. This slide here shows utilization rate.

[5:50:54] How many students can this

[5:50:57] school hold, and how many students do we have in it?

[5:51:00] Back in

[5:51:02] 2024, we still had 34 schools. 53%

[5:51:06] of the capacity was being utilized.

[5:51:08] So

[5:51:09] roughly half of the portfolio was being utilized.

[5:51:13] Some schools were more utilized, some schools were less. Overall, roughly half.

[5:51:17] Now we're up to 70% utilization.

[5:51:20] A healthy target, maybe 85%, but we

[5:51:24] start to get into the same conversation that St.

[5:51:27] Louis Public Schools was describing, where we're very

[5:51:31] spread out geographically. And so in order to serve the students across the

[5:51:35] state,

[5:51:36] having

[5:51:37] maxed out capacity is really not realistic.

[5:51:42] Okay.

[5:51:43] So could I ask, how much

[5:51:45] are we paying per student of the 600?

[5:51:48] What's our expense related to that?

[5:51:52] I don't have that number in my head, sir.

[5:51:55] Don't you think that's a pretty important number?

[5:51:57] It's definitely in the report.

[5:52:03] We can

[5:52:04] look on that.

[5:52:05] Okay.

[5:52:05] Yeah.

[5:52:06] Yeah.

[5:52:06] That's probably based on the current numbers and the

[5:52:10] change in the facilities and portfolio, that number has changed a little bit since

[5:52:14] the last report, so we can provide the board with that information following this.

[5:52:18] Yeah.

[5:52:18] Okay. And so my follow-up question is going to be, why don't we

[5:52:21] privatize this whole thing?

[5:52:23] Okay.

[5:52:24] Have we done a feasibility study to see if this can be

[5:52:27] done in a better way through a different mechanism and things?

[5:52:32] Six hundred people statewide,

[5:52:35] it makes no sense.

[5:52:37] You can't sustain that, depending on how much money you're paying per student.

[5:52:42] And so my question is, and we had this conversation several months

[5:52:45] ago.

[5:52:46] Sure.

[5:52:47] What are we doing long range to try to fix this problem?

[5:52:52] And the problem is we

[5:52:54] don't have a large portfolio of students.

[5:52:57] They're spread geographically around the state and things, and it seems

[5:53:01] like this is almost the identical same

[5:53:04] report that we had several months ago.

[5:53:08] So I think it's important when we look at some of those statistics and

[5:53:12] figures, it's important to recognize that regardless of whether the

[5:53:15] cost is a cost that is covered through general revenue through

[5:53:19] the state,

[5:53:21] or whether it's a cost that is provided by the LEA,

[5:53:25] the cost to

[5:53:26] meet

[5:53:30] the educational needs of that student is going to remain relatively consistent

[5:53:34] across the board.

[5:53:35] But you're not sharing that with us.

[5:53:36] I mean, we don't have that before us-

[5:53:38] Okay

[5:53:39] ... to look at this program, and I don't know whether you have a proposal attached

[5:53:42] to this.

[5:53:43] No, this was an informational meeting to allow you-

[5:53:46] Okay

[5:53:46] ... to have an update based on the consolidations.

[5:53:49] But we certainly could do some analysis for you and

[5:53:53] share the current rates for those approved private agencies

[5:53:57] as compared to the student rate-

[5:53:59] Mm-hmm

[5:53:59] ... within MSSD, and I think that would give you

[5:54:03] more information about what you're asking for there.

[5:54:05] Okay.

[5:54:05] And we can do that.

[5:54:06] And I don't mean to be frustrated, but I believe you two gentlemen presented the

[5:54:09] last time we did this. Right? I mean, weren't you part of that

[5:54:13] presentation?

[5:54:14] We were.

[5:54:14] Yes.

[5:54:15] And the last presentation was about the long-range plan that was developed for

[5:54:19] MSSD. As part of the-

[5:54:22] Okay

[5:54:22] ... process and the analysis, there were different models that were reviewed

[5:54:26] with the committee to understand what are our

[5:54:29] options, how can we best serve the students, what are the costs

[5:54:33] associated, how are other nearby states-

[5:54:36] Okay, and so are we doing that here today?

[5:54:39] This conversation is about how we are implementing the long-range

[5:54:43] plan.

[5:54:44] We don't even know what the long-range plan is.

[5:54:46] What is-

[5:54:47] Well, I think the-

[5:54:47] What's the long-range plan?

[5:54:47] ... consolidation and closures to improve the efficiency and the program

[5:54:51] student outcomes is the most-

[5:54:53] So it's not to privatize it? And-

[5:54:55] No, there was never a discussion around that from the-

[5:54:58] It was a consideration.

[5:54:59] It was a consideration that was discussed through the long-range planning and

[5:55:03] advisory committee.

[5:55:04] When did that come to the board to consider?

[5:55:07] It wasn't presented as an option. There were three options that

[5:55:11] were provided from the long-range planning committee,

[5:55:15] and they looked at

[5:55:17] maintain the status quo with 34 buildings as it stood

[5:55:21] originally, consolidate down to a more

[5:55:25] effective number that would provide for greater outcomes for students,

[5:55:29] and then the third option that the team looked at was the

[5:55:33] closure of the program. And the overwhelming, resounding

[5:55:37] feedback from that long-range planning advisory committee, made up of all those

[5:55:41] stakeholders, was to recommend to the board that we

[5:55:44] continue under this current model.

[5:55:46] And so I think it's important-

[5:55:48] So you had 50-

[5:55:48] ... that we honor the work of that long-range planning advisory

[5:55:51] committee, but continue to evaluate and assess as we move

[5:55:56] forward.

[5:55:56] You had 50 stakeholders providing input for 600

[5:56:00] students.

[5:56:03] I mean, that's what was quoted. We had 50 stakeholders working on

[5:56:07] this for 600 students.

[5:56:09] Right, and that information was shared back in August when the board

[5:56:13] approved the recommendation for the consolidation and closures of the six

[5:56:16] additional buildings.

[5:56:18] I apologize, but I just see this as a futile

[5:56:21] effort here that we keep bringing up time and time again,

[5:56:25] and with no real... What is your proposal?

[5:56:28] Can we get to a last sentence to say-

[5:56:31] This was

[5:56:33] essentially a report to the board, the status update with regards to the

[5:56:37] program to show and explain where the program was

[5:56:41] when the last board action occurred, which was August of 2025,

[5:56:45] to now that we've done that consolidation in August of 2026 and now

[5:56:49] September in 2026. So I think we can go through and see some of

[5:56:53] those other outcomes, and hopefully it'll answer some questions as to why

[5:56:57] we continue to operate that model that we have been

[5:57:00] recommended to operate and move forward from this point.

[5:57:04] But we can certainly have additional conversation around those other

[5:57:07] pieces at a time where

[5:57:10] if we're considering something new or different, then I think that's a

[5:57:14] process that we need to do again with the stakeholders as well.

[5:57:19] Okay, so quick update with the data.

[5:57:22] For post-consolidation, we've gone from 34 schools to 21

[5:57:26] schools. Transportation time is certainly a consideration

[5:57:30] during consolidation. Post-consolidation, you can see

[5:57:34] travel within an hour, those did go up.

[5:57:37] But beyond an hour on the bus, less than an hour and a half, less than two

[5:57:41] hours, both of those have gone down

[5:57:43] post-consolidation. Nothing beyond two

[5:57:47] hours. Staffing from building administrator

[5:57:50] perspective, prior to the closures, there were nine

[5:57:54] schools that didn't have a building administrator, think principal.

[5:57:59] Many schools were sharing building leadership, and they were going back and

[5:58:02] forth two days a week here, three days a week there.

[5:58:08] Actually today, there are zero schools that do not have

[5:58:11] a dedicated building administrator.

[5:58:15] Okay? Again, building resilience in the program, having

[5:58:19] consistent, stable leadership and guidance.

[5:58:22] Last here, historically,

[5:58:25] we've struggled to fill positions in the schools.

[5:58:29] There were four vacancies in MSSD from a building administrator

[5:58:32] perspective in FY23, school year '23.

[5:58:35] Now all positions are filled.

[5:58:40] Okay, and I'll hand it back to Dr. Wheatley.

[5:58:41] Yeah, thank you. So coming back around to the

[5:58:45] purpose of today's presentation is to provide you with a little more

[5:58:49] context of where we've come over the last year.

[5:58:52] And so I think it's critical that we talk to two groups.

[5:58:56] There are two groups that probably have the greatest

[5:58:58] perspective with which to consider what has happened thus

[5:59:02] far with those closures and consolidations, and those would be the

[5:59:06] families of the students that were directly involved with the

[5:59:09] closures and consolidations with six buildings, as well as those

[5:59:13] staff members that were directly engaged in that work and

[5:59:17] experienced that in real-time. And so these are just some of the

[5:59:20] pieces that I think are important to share.

[5:59:24] As we talked in the beginning, communication was critical.

[5:59:27] We had to make sure that families, staff members, the school districts

[5:59:31] were all fully aware of this plan that was going to be implemented beginning

[5:59:36] in the August of 2025/26 school year.

[5:59:40] In addition to that We looked at making sure that it

[5:59:43] was transparent to those families and those

[5:59:47] LEAs, as well as the staff, as to why we made the

[5:59:50] recommendations that we made and why we've made those changes, and then how can we

[5:59:54] do that effectively to still make sure that we're educating and supporting

[5:59:58] those students that are going to be experiencing some significant changes.

[6:00:02] And as you can see, some of those results really right away are very positive from

[6:00:06] both the family perspective as well as the staff's

[6:00:10] perspective. We had to also look at the

[6:00:14] care for the students and the families in the process.

[6:00:17] If I'm a student attending a building in my hometown and now I am

[6:00:21] moving to a building outside of my hometown because my local

[6:00:25] school is closing, then we have to have considerations for

[6:00:29] the potential ramifications that impact not just

[6:00:32] the wellness of the student, but the educational

[6:00:36] needs of that student have to be considered from the point A to point B

[6:00:40] as we move through that process, and being very thoughtful about our

[6:00:44] approach to address that with those families and those students.

[6:00:47] And then, of course, the logistical considerations, some of which Josh

[6:00:51] spoke to just a few moments ago.

[6:00:54] As we looked at the staff, I think it was important to

[6:00:58] recognize that they felt like the schools and staff were primarily ready,

[6:01:03] and that students have adjusted well here.

[6:01:05] They've been in school, they started extended school year right

[6:01:09] after the Fourth of July weekend, and then they had a

[6:01:13] little bit of time off before the regular school year, and now they've been in

[6:01:15] session for just a little bit. But the information that is shared from the

[6:01:19] families and the staff is that those students are

[6:01:22] actually performing at a level of which we would expect,

[6:01:26] despite some pretty significant transitions for some of those students who have the

[6:01:30] most extensive support needs. And then lastly,

[6:01:34] talking about how those logistical pieces and

[6:01:37] transportation, those things that mom and dad have to be concerned, if we're going

[6:01:41] to put a child on a bus who has medical fragility or

[6:01:45] other issues, are we doing that in the most efficient and effective

[6:01:49] manner? And as you saw above some-- or previously, some of

[6:01:53] that data actually improved over time, but that doesn't mean that there weren't

[6:01:56] students that were impacted in other ways based on that busing and

[6:02:00] transportation. A few of the challenges, though, that I think is important,

[6:02:04] we have to recognize those and continue to consider those moving forward

[6:02:08] should there be a need to consider something of this nature in the future, whether

[6:02:12] emergency or permanent, based on the needs of the

[6:02:15] population. And I think we have to make sure that

[6:02:19] as soon as we can, engage with the families in the

[6:02:23] conversation, right? Even though we began this conversation in what would've

[6:02:27] been September of 2025,

[6:02:30] and we had that whole school year essentially to make all of those

[6:02:34] preparations, anytime you can provide more support to families and the

[6:02:38] students, then that's going to be more beneficial.

[6:02:41] And then as far as staffing goes, making sure that they

[6:02:45] have the time to adjust. That some of those logistical

[6:02:48] pieces of making sure every piece of equipment went with the

[6:02:52] student to the appropriate school or facility, that you are

[6:02:56] really concerned most about the specific student needs,

[6:02:59] medical, other staffing needs, that we

[6:03:03] don't let some of those smaller pieces that we might take for granted

[6:03:07] fall through the cracks, and just making sure the staff are along the way.

[6:03:11] And ultimately, they looked for an opportunity for perhaps a little

[6:03:15] earlier preparation on their part for the school year, and that was a

[6:03:19] piece that would be considered in the future as well.

[6:03:23] So with that,

[6:03:25] President Brooks or Chair Brooks, I just want to kind of share our

[6:03:29] implementation plan and timeline, and this is very similar

[6:03:33] to the last timeline that you received when we were here in

[6:03:37] August. I guess we were in Sedalia in August.

[6:03:40] And that basically shows that this was a board update, a

[6:03:44] progress report, if you will, to the program, and that at this

[6:03:48] point, the next time we plan to work with and come to this

[6:03:51] board is again to provide an update because we'll have gone through

[6:03:55] a full year where the students are now in a

[6:03:59] new school for those 60 students that were impacted.

[6:04:02] And then we can talk more specifically about student outcomes and measures that are

[6:04:06] used to determine those academic successes for our

[6:04:10] students with disabilities in MSSD.

[6:04:14] So what other questions can I answer for you today?

[6:04:18] Go ahead. You go.

[6:04:20] You want me to go first?

[6:04:22] Thank you.

[6:04:24] Last summer, it was a friend of a friend, but was

[6:04:28] involved with the state school in St. Joe.

[6:04:32] And I

[6:04:33] was working on trying to get up there to basically see it.

[6:04:37] It didn't really make sense to do it in the summertime because I don't think any

[6:04:41] students were going to be there.

[6:04:43] And then there was some turnover staffing and so I kind of

[6:04:47] lost that connection. That's just a long way of saying, I think there

[6:04:51] are two schools in Kansas City, one in St.

[6:04:54] Joe, one in Chillicothe maybe, which is

[6:04:58] in my neck of the woods. I mean, Kansas City and St. Joe would be the closest.

[6:05:01] But before the end of the year I'd welcome the

[6:05:05] opportunity to--

[6:05:06] If there was a chance to actually go visit one of those schools.

[6:05:10] I can't do it in the next few weeks, and you probably-- But by the end of the year,

[6:05:13] it would be nice to go. I don't know what the best example would be, right?

[6:05:17] If it's St. Joe or Kansas City or somewhere else, but I think it'd

[6:05:21] be neat if I could-- I'd like to go actually see one and-

[6:05:24] Yeah. I think that's something that would be a great opportunity for this board to

[6:05:27] be able to do. We talked about that and introduced that idea

[6:05:30] last year, and so would be happy to help work with the board to arrange a

[6:05:34] time where we could look at some-- There are geographic characteristics of

[6:05:38] those buildings that are different. There are sizes.

[6:05:41] There are many different factors.

[6:05:42] So you could see, kind of get a nice sampling of the different types of buildings

[6:05:46] across the state, and I think that would give a good perspective to this board

[6:05:51] Absolutely. Thank you.

[6:05:52] Yeah, and to Brooke's point,

[6:05:57] these are challenging environments, right?

[6:06:00] It's a difficult thing,

[6:06:04] sort of removing my emotion from it for a second, right?

[6:06:07] I heard a statistic that 50% of the lawsuits against DESE

[6:06:11] are state school related, right, or something like that.

[6:06:15] It was a majority or close to... No, it

[6:06:18] wasn't-

[6:06:20] I don't know.

[6:06:20] Yeah, I had thought someone had told me-

[6:06:22] It was-

[6:06:22] ... roughly half or something.

[6:06:25] And so,

[6:06:27] every kid needs to have the opportunity to

[6:06:31] have an education, right? No doubt about it.

[6:06:35] So I think it would be helpful just to see these, see a school, and what is

[6:06:39] it like. And I could only imagine, my commute to work used to be

[6:06:43] 50 minutes each way, and I could only imagine riding a bus for an hour and a half

[6:06:46] or two hours every day.

[6:06:49] So I don't know what the answer is. I guess to Brooke's point, though,

[6:06:53] is it sustainable, right?

[6:06:56] So I think Brooke made some valid points and

[6:07:00] observations, but I personally would like to see one of the schools.

[6:07:03] Absolutely. Yeah, I think we can arrange for that for the board.

[6:07:06] Lars.

[6:07:07] Yeah. As a new board member, I appreciate you giving us an update on an

[6:07:10] ongoing initiative. I appreciate that.

[6:07:13] And under our purview of our students that we have under our purview, these are

[6:07:17] clearly the ones with the strongest needs and the most vulnerable, and I

[6:07:21] appreciate the work you all are doing in that, so thank you.

[6:07:23] Thank you.

[6:07:24] Thank you.

[6:07:24] I have one question about the transportation, the up to

[6:07:28] two hours. Is that each way, or is that cumulative?

[6:07:32] No, that's each way.

[6:07:33] That's each way?

[6:07:34] Yes. And again, I'll point back to the fact

[6:07:38] that when you look at this information, we've actually reduced the

[6:07:41] amount of travel for many of our students percentage wise,

[6:07:45] but it's still a significant number just with 22 buildings versus

[6:07:49] 34. It wasn't as efficient with 34, but again,

[6:07:53] that doesn't mean that some families now aren't impacted more than were

[6:07:57] previously based on the closures and consolidations to meet

[6:08:01] that need. There are about, and

[6:08:04] I'm going to give you a rough number,

[6:08:08] roughly 90 approved private agencies across the state,

[6:08:12] but they are not geographically distributed

[6:08:16] with any more

[6:08:19] consistency as far as measures go.

[6:08:22] And so I think when we look at, to your point

[6:08:26] President Miller, I think looking at those facilities,

[6:08:29] they might be able to provide some support.

[6:08:32] And LEAs do have that option again, as in that continuum to

[6:08:35] consider those. But there would still be some challenges with

[6:08:39] transportation unless that number would be increased, and

[6:08:43] particularly in regional rural areas.

[6:08:45] Have you-

[6:08:45] I think that's a huge need

[6:08:47] ... have you given consideration to the public school system?

[6:08:51] Yeah, and so that was part of the presentation, and we shared more information

[6:08:54] about some of the initiatives in the previous

[6:08:57] presentation around some granting

[6:09:01] that we've provided to local LEAs to better support that work.

[6:09:05] I think that was in one of the earlier slides that Jacob shared.

[6:09:08] How's that going?

[6:09:09] So we had 52 districts that were impacted by the closures,

[6:09:13] and one district applied for a grant.

[6:09:16] Okay. And so-

[6:09:17] I'm sorry, two districts applied for a grant-

[6:09:19] I'm not going to

[6:09:20] ... one received a grant.

[6:09:21] It just seems to me like if we have a saturation of

[6:09:25] schools, and we do have a saturation of schools, we can say that,

[6:09:29] rural, urban, and everything else, and we have a program here that has

[6:09:33] need, but a limited amount of need, where you could

[6:09:37] bring in healthcare professionals for speech

[6:09:41] or

[6:09:43] things of that nature that treat this population, right?

[6:09:48] I

[6:09:51] think that's a good question that you're posing, and I want to

[6:09:54] just put it in the context of the responsibilities under the Individuals with

[6:09:58] Disabilities Education Act to ensure that we're supporting the

[6:10:02] educational needs through related services for educational

[6:10:06] need, and that's our responsibility as it relates

[6:10:09] to that individualized educational program.

[6:10:13] And so any related services, all of those that you mentioned, the

[6:10:17] language, the speech therapies, physical therapies, those

[6:10:21] are to provide access to the

[6:10:23] educational aspects of that student.

[6:10:26] And many of our students receive care outside

[6:10:30] of school for other medical needs and some of the same

[6:10:34] therapies, but they don't address the same issues relative.

[6:10:38] I just want to make sure that everybody recognizes there are

[6:10:41] two service models that are available.

[6:10:44] One are the educational service models, and the other are the medical service

[6:10:48] models, and we have to be careful because we're obligated through

[6:10:51] IDEA to ensure those educational related services are

[6:10:54] provided.

[6:10:55] Okay.

[6:10:55] So does that help context with that a little bit?

[6:10:58] No, not really.

[6:10:58] Okay.

[6:10:59] And my question is, there seems to be capacity in rural areas

[6:11:03] in the state of Missouri right now, right? Am I right?

[6:11:07] In schools they have capacity?

[6:11:09] I think there are challenges with capacity.

[6:11:12] They could provide some services here?

[6:11:15] Is that not-

[6:11:16] I think it's resources, the skilled resources that-

[6:11:20] Okay, but we're funding those now, and they could go directly to the school

[6:11:24] to-

[6:11:24] Yeah.

[6:11:25] Yeah.

[6:11:25] I'm-

[6:11:26] So, I'm sorry, may I jump in?

[6:11:27] Yeah.

[6:11:28] I will work with Dr. Wheatley to help arrange tours

[6:11:31] for anyone who would like to see them.

[6:11:33] One of the things that was most eye-opening to me when I was here the first time

[6:11:37] and became the deputy is we're not talking about students with

[6:11:41] mild learning disabilities or anything like that.

[6:11:43] Many of the students in the school I saw, they weren't verbal or

[6:11:47] mobile, and their healthcare needs were so extreme it

[6:11:51] would be hard for them to be served well in a public school.

[6:11:54] You know-

[6:11:54] So I would love to-

[6:11:54] I would just verify that I went to school

[6:11:58] Fifth and sixth grade, matter of fact, in a school with those

[6:12:02] children.

[6:12:04] You understand what I'm saying? At one time,

[6:12:07] that's the way we delivered services to these young people.

[6:12:12] And I'm saying, are we looking outside the box on how

[6:12:16] we're going to take care of these going forward? And that's all I'm saying.

[6:12:20] We're hearing the same presentation we heard several months ago, and we

[6:12:24] are not moving this ball down the road as far as I'm concerned. That's my opinion.

[6:12:28] And to your-

[6:12:29] Terry.

[6:12:30] Thank you, President Miller. And to your point, having been part of

[6:12:34] the original committee task force, but

[6:12:38] back when I was in your position of barely being on the board,

[6:12:42] so-

[6:12:42] Mm-hmm

[6:12:42] ... it was all so new to me.

[6:12:44] There was an awful lot of out of the box, and I think maybe what we-- And

[6:12:48] I would be happy to work with you, Stacy, at least just give you my input from that

[6:12:52] past experience, that we come back.

[6:12:55] I think we need to take a step back from an education, there are so many new board

[6:12:59] members, to help provide some of the context to the

[6:13:03] work that the

[6:13:05] committee did, the task force did, that addressed some of those

[6:13:09] very important questions and concerns, and the

[6:13:13] research that was done. There was a tremendous amount of work

[6:13:17] done to come to these ultimate recommendations, and

[6:13:21] I think that's the piece that's missing, if you could-

[6:13:25] And-

[6:13:25] ... recommend that

[6:13:25] ... just to be fair, from what I'm seeing,

[6:13:29] some consultants were hired, a plan was put into place, and annual

[6:13:33] update was required to come do this.

[6:13:35] Yeah.

[6:13:35] I think they're just giving their annual update, and I think, I

[6:13:39] agree that we need to address other things, but for them saying that they're

[6:13:43] giving the same presentation, they are giving the update of last year's

[6:13:46] presentation.

[6:13:47] We asked them to.

[6:13:47] We did not follow through on the last recommendation.

[6:13:50] Okay.

[6:13:51] That was to build a new building.

[6:13:54] Ms. Minor?

[6:13:55] Yeah. So if-

[6:13:56] That was to build a new building-

[6:13:57] Correct

[6:13:58] ... that was quite expensive.

[6:13:59] That was a long range plan, though-

[6:14:02] Right

[6:14:02] ... not to begin at that point.

[6:14:04] That's all.

[6:14:04] And so that's where some of this confusion is coming in.

[6:14:07] A mixture of what was presented in some long range, and now

[6:14:11] we're talking about some of the immediate actions that were reactive-

[6:14:14] Correct

[6:14:15] ... to your point, in the last two years, and it's a little disconnected.

[6:14:18] So I think if we can come back to a fuller picture,

[6:14:22] and Brooks and I actually did have the opportunity when

[6:14:26] we were touring SLPS.

[6:14:30] That was a district that, urban, had enough of a

[6:14:33] population to bring in the right resources, and had enough of the students,

[6:14:37] too. And it was very

[6:14:41] compelling to appreciate the skill level of the

[6:14:45] teachers and the resources that are required for these

[6:14:48] children. And to have

[6:14:52] that in all of our public schools is impossible, but

[6:14:56] that's why it's a concentrated

[6:15:00] model. But to look at it again

[6:15:04] through the lens of that project would be beneficial.

[6:15:07] Yeah, for sure.

[6:15:08] Thank you.

[6:15:09] Happy to do.

[6:15:13] Other questions?

[6:15:16] Hearing none. Thank you for your presentation.

[6:15:18] Thank you.

[6:15:19] Thank you.

[6:15:45] And so

[6:15:46] next, we have here

[6:15:50] consideration to discipline the license to teach

[6:15:55] of Christopher Adam Cohen. And

[6:15:58] okay, I think you can share the greater...

[6:16:03] Yes. Thank you. My name's Megan Ford, chief

[6:16:07] counsel.

[6:16:09] I have just one item for you

[6:16:12] on open today.

[6:16:14] This is a

[6:16:17] licensing issue for Christopher Cohen.

[6:16:20] Pursuant to 5 CSR

[6:16:22] 20-400.230, the board is allowed

[6:16:26] to

[6:16:27] take a voluntary surrender of license to

[6:16:31] settle

[6:16:32] disciplinary actions that we might be taking.

[6:16:36] We can do that when we have either a

[6:16:39] crime of moral turpitude or a felony or other circumstances

[6:16:43] approved by the board.

[6:16:45] Mr. Cohen, in this case, pled guilty to a Class A misdemeanor of endangering the

[6:16:49] welfare of a child, and as a condition of his plea of

[6:16:53] guilt, they also required him to surrender his license to the board.

[6:16:58] So the department recommends that the State Board of Education revoke Mr.

[6:17:01] Cohen's certificate in accordance with his voluntary surrender,

[6:17:05] pursuant to its authority under 168.071 and 5

[6:17:09] CSR 20-400.230.

[6:17:12] So moved.

[6:17:13] Second.

[6:17:14] We have a motion and a second.

[6:17:15] Yeah, Brooks.

[6:17:16] We have Leisinger.

[6:17:17] Any further questions?

[6:17:19] Yeah, just again, I know you guys put a ton of work into this.

[6:17:22] I say it every time, and it seems like we just breeze through it.

[6:17:25] But reading the information, this is a no-brainer to me, so

[6:17:29] I

[6:17:30] just always want to reiterate, we're not dismissing all of the behind the scenes

[6:17:33] work,

[6:17:35] so thank you.

[6:17:36] Thank you.

[6:17:37] Other questions?

[6:17:39] Hearing none, I'll call for the vote. All those in favors...

[6:17:43] Do we need a roll call?

[6:17:44] Yeah.

[6:17:44] Okay, we'll need a roll call.

[6:17:44] Mr. Bradbury?

[6:17:46] Yes.

[6:17:47] Ms. Casey?

[6:17:48] Yes.

[6:17:48] Mr. Matusik?

[6:17:49] Yes.

[6:17:49] Mr. Miller?

[6:17:50] Yes.

[6:17:51] Mr. Myers?

[6:17:52] Yes.

[6:17:52] Mr. Otto?

[6:17:53] Yes.

[6:17:54] Mr. Shamel?

[6:17:54] Yes.

[6:17:55] Dr. Scholl?

[6:17:56] Yes.

[6:17:59] Okay, and that motion carries.

[6:18:02] Now closed session.

[6:18:03] Yeah. I need a motion to go into closed

[6:18:07] session.

[6:18:10] So moved.

[6:18:11] Well, I have to say it.

[6:18:12] Did you have to say it?

[6:18:13] I don't know. Do we have the...

[6:18:17] It's not on my cheat sheet.

[6:18:19] It's not on mine either, but I assume that...

[6:18:23] You have one from last month or anything?

[6:18:25] I do.

[6:18:26] I

[6:18:36] can read it, yeah.

[6:18:39] There you go. Thank you.

[6:18:41] Thanks.

[6:18:44] I move-

[6:18:46] Just hold on.

[6:18:47] Mr. Mayor.

[6:18:48] Oh,

[6:18:49] okay.

[6:18:51] I'm not sure about the minutes.

[6:18:53] All right. I move that the State Board of Education go into closed session as

[6:18:56] posted by the executive assistant to consider the following items, legal actions,

[6:19:00] causes of action, litigation, or legal work product relating to the State Board of

[6:19:03] Education and the Department of

[6:19:06] Elementary and Secondary Education, as well as any confidential or privileged

[6:19:09] communication between those entities and legal counsel,

[6:19:12] individually identifiable personnel records, performance ratings or records

[6:19:16] pertaining to employees or applicants for employment, and criminal records closed

[6:19:20] by law.

[6:19:23] Second.

[6:19:23] Okay. We have a motion, second, by Mike Matusik. A roll call, please.

[6:19:28] Mr. Bradbury?

[6:19:30] Yes.

[6:19:31] Ms. Casey?

[6:19:32] Yes.

[6:19:32] Mr. Matusik?

[6:19:33] Yes.

[6:19:33] Mr. Miller?

[6:19:34] Yes.

[6:19:36] Mr. Myers?

[6:19:37] Yes.

[6:19:38] Mr. Otto?

[6:19:38] Yes.

[6:19:39] Mr. Shamel?

[6:19:40] Yes.

[6:19:40] Dr. Scholl?

[6:19:41] Yes.

2026 09 15 Missouri State Board of Education Meeting

Transcript