To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Sault Sainte Marie Air Defense Sector

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sault Sainte Marie Air Defense Sector
Air Defense Command.png
Sault Sainte Marie Air Defense Sector.png
Emblem of the Sault Sainte Marie Air Defense Sector
Active 1958–1966
Country United States
Branch United States Air Force
Role Air Defense
Part of Air Defense Command
Map all coordinates using: OpenStreetMap · Google Maps
Download coordinates as: KML · GPX
 Map of Sault Sainte Marie ADS
Map of Sault Sainte Marie ADS

The Sault Sainte Marie Air Defense Sector (SsmADS) is an inactive United States Air Force organization. Its last assignment was with the 30th Air Division, being stationed at K.I. Sawyer Air Force Base, Michigan.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/1
    Views:
    302
  • Michigan State Board of Education Meeting for August 12, 2014 - Morning Session

Transcription

>> THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION MEETING OF AUGUST 12, 2014 IS CALLED TO ORDER. THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE APPROVAL OF AGENDA IN ORDER OF PRIORITY. ARE THERE ANY ITEMS TO ADD OR DELETE FROM TODAY'S AGENDA? I HAVE A MOTION THEN? >> SO MOVED. >> SUPPORT. >> MOVED BY LUPE, SUPPORTED BY JOHN. ALL IN FAVOR, AYE. >> AYE. >> OPPOSED, SAME. THANK YOU. MERTZ, YOU'RE UP. >> GOOD MORNING. I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE THE PEOPLE SEATED AT THE BOARD TABLE. TO MY IMMEDIATE LEFT IS MIKE FLANAGAN-- HE'S CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD AND HE'S THE STATE SUPERINTENDENT. AS WE GO AROUND THE TABLE, THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD IS JOHN AUSTIN, AND HE RESIDES IN ANN ARBOR. NEXT TO HIM IS THE BOARD'S VICE PRESIDENT CASANDRA ULBRICH FROM ROCHESTER HILLS. DAN VARNER IS IN THE SEAT NEXT TO CASANDRA AND HE IS ON HIS WAY, HE'LL BE HERE MOMENTARILY, HE'S THE BOARD SECRETARY FROM DETROIT. LUPE RAMOS-MONTIGNY IS A BOARD MEMBER, SHE'S FROM GRAND RAPIDS. NEXT TO HER IS MELODY ARABO, SHE IS TEACHER OF THE YEAR FOR 2014-2015, AND WHEN SHE'S NOT HERE WITH US, SHE'S TEACHING AT KEITH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 3rd GRADERS IN THE WALLED LAKE CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT. WELCOME. AND ACROSS THE TABLE YOU HAVE EILEEN WEISER-- OH, I'M SORRY, CRAIG. >> NO PROBLEM. >> CRAIG RUFF, GOVERNOR'S STRATEGIC EDUCATION ADVISOR. NEXT TO CRAIG IS EILEEN WEISER, A BOARD MEMBER FROM ANN ARBOR. KATHLEEN STRAUS, BOARD MEMBER FROM DETROIT. MICHELLE FECTEAU, BOARD MEMBER FROM DETROIT. MICHELLE IS THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE BOARDS OF EDUCATION REPRESENTATIVE. AND NEXT TO ME IS RICHARD ZEILE FROM DEARBORN AND HE'S THE BOARD TREASURER. THANK YOU. >> SO RICHARD ZEILE, WAS THAT A TOAST? [ LAUGHTER ] >> JUST A SIGNAL, YEAH. >> JUST A SIGNAL. WELL, GOOD MORNING, IT'S BEEN TWO MONTHS, AND WE'RE BACK AT WORK TOGETHER. I WANTED TO START WITH A SHORT VIDEO, THAT IT'S NEVER TOO EARLY TO TRAIN FUTURE LEADERS. THE LIGHTS ARE COMING DOWN... [ GAVEL BANGS ] >> CALLING THE MEETING TO ORDER? >> YEAH. >> SAY, "EVERYONE BE QUIET!" >> EVERYBODY BE QUIET! >> "THE MEETING'S STARTING." >> DA MEETING STARTING. >> STARTING, YEAH. GOOD BOY. WELL, THANKS, WILL! [ GAVEL BANGS REPEATEDLY ] WE'LL USE THAT AT THE BOARD MEETING, OKAY? GOOD WITH THAT? >> YEAH. >> OKAY. [ LAUGHTER ] >> THAT'S OUR GRANDSON WILL, AND HE WANTED TO SIT HERE AND DO WHAT GRANDPA DOES. HE GOT STARTED AND THAT MADE IT OFFICIAL. WE HAD ALL OF THE GRAND-KIDS OVER ON SATURDAY NIGHT AND I'M STILL RESTING. [ LAUGHTER ] >> THERE IS A REASON THAT YOUNG PEOPLE HAVE THESE BABIES I THINK. YOU KNOW, ONE THING IT'S BITTERSWEET, THERE'S A FEW ANNOUNCEMENTS RIGHT UP FRONT-- SHE GAME ME PERMISSION TO ANNOUNCE THIS, EVEN THOUGH SHE'S BEEN VERY MODEST ABOUT APPROACHING RETIREMENT, AND THAT'S FLORA JENKINS. MOST OF US KNOW AND LOVE HER. SHE'S A WONDERFUL PERSON. IT'S REALLY BITTERSWEET TO ANNOUNCE HER RETIREMENT, AND GAVE ME PERMISSION TO DO SO AT THE MEETING HERE, DR. FLORA JENKINS REALLY HAS SERVED THE DEPARTMENT FOR 25 YEARS, THE LAST 8 AS DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION SERVICES. DR. JENKINS HAS SERVED MICHIGAN AS A TEACHER, AS ASSISTANT DEAN OF STUDENTS, RESIDENCE HALL DIRECTOR, EDUCATION CONSULTANT MANAGER-- I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MUCH WE APPRECIATE HER MANY YEARS OF SERVICE AND DEDICATION TO THE CHILDREN HERE IN THE STATE. JUST A WONDERFUL PERSON, FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO KNOW HER AS A PERSON AND NOT JUST IN HER CURRENT ROLE. WOULD EVERYONE PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE AND THANK FLORA? [ APPLAUSE ] >> ...SLIDE OUT OF HERE QUIETLY. [ LAUGHTER ] >> WE WEREN'T GOING TO LET THAT HAPPEN, THAT'S WHY THE CAMERAS ARE HERE. [ LAUGHTER ] WE'LL BE REPORTING THAT. I DON'T THINK THE NEXT PERSON COULD JOIN US, IN FACT-- OKAY. ELEANOR WHITE, WHO'S BEEN OUR SPECIAL ED DIRECTOR HERE AT THE DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN OFFERED A NEW POSITION AND TAKEN IT IN THE EDUCATION ACHIEVEMENT AUTHORITY, SHE'S ACCEPTED THAT POSITION-- I THOUGHT SHE WAS GOING TO BE HERE. NOW THAT I'VE STARTED IT, I BETTER COMPLETE IT. SHE'S GOING TO BE SPECIAL ED DIRECTOR FOR THE EDUCATION ACHIEVEMENT AUTHORITY. WE WANT TO THANK HER FOR HER SERVICE HERE. I JUST WANT TO SAY THIS: THERE IS WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE IN A LOT OF PLACES IN THE STATE WITH RESPECT TO ADHERENCE TO SPECIAL EDUCATION RULES, AND I THINK SHE'S COMMITTED TO TRYING TO STRAIGHTEN THAT OUT. I'VE ONLY MET THE NEW EAA CHANCELLOR ONCE, BUT SHE SEEMS DEDICATED TO MAKING THOSE CHANGES, AND I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY WHY SHE RECRUITED ELEANOR, AND WE'LL BE SORRY TO SEE HER GO, AND WISH HER WELL IN THAT POSITION. WHEREVER YOU MAY BE, ELEANOR, WE JUST WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE YOU AT THE BOARD, AND APPARENTLY, THIS IS HER LAST WEEK, I THINK. THIS ONE IS MORE JOYFUL IN ONE SENSE, BECAUSE WE HAVE A BIG RESPONSIBILITY, AND MAYBE IT WILL GIVE ME A CHANCE IN A FEW MINUTES, DEPENDING ON IF THE PRESS CONFERENCE ACROSS THE STREET IS DONE, TO SPEAK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT SOME ACTIONS WE'VE TAKEN IN THE DEPARTMENT. ONE OF THE MISUNDERSTANDINGS I THINK I'VE SEEN IN THE PRESS IN THE LAST DAY OR SO IS THAT POTENTIALLY WE'RE NOT TREATING CHARTER AND TRADITIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS THE SAME. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT FOR THE FIRST TIME, THE LAW ALLOWS US, NOW, TO LOOK AT SCHOOLS THAT NEED ASSISTANCE, THEY'VE BEEN ON THE BOTTOM 5% FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, AND THE LAW CALLS FOR US TO POTENTIALLY PUT SOME SCHOOLS IN THE STATE REFORM DISTRICT. ALL OF THE SO-CALLED BOTTOM 5% ARE UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF THE STATE REFORM OFFICE, BUT IT'S A DIFFERENT ISSUE THAT'S NOT BEEN DONE TO PUT THEM INTO THE STATE REFORM DISTRICT, IF IN FACT THEY HAVEN'T IMPROVED IN THE LAST THREE YEARS. AND I SHOULD SAY, THOSE WILL BE CHARTERS, TRADITIONAL PUBLIC-- THERE'S NO DISTINCTION. SO I WANTED TO USE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY WHAT WE MAY BE DOING WITH AUTHORIZERS IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN WITH INDIVIDUAL SCHOOLS. THE 4,000 SCHOOLS ARE ALL TREATED SEPARATELY, AND THAT'S KIND OF A PREFACE TO-- AS YOU KNOW, AT ONE OF OUR EARLIER MEETINGS, DEB CLEMMONS, WE INTRODUCED AS RETIRING, AND SHE DID A GREAT JOB IN GETTING US UP AND RUNNING IN THAT REGARD AS A STATE REFORM OFFICIAL, A STATE REFORM OFFICER. BY THE WAY, SHE HAS A CUTE LITTLE-- I THINK HER EMAIL STILL IS COMING UP WITH SOMETHING-- I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT SAYS BUT IT'S REALLY CLEVER. WELL, WE'LL FIND OUT NOW THAT I'VE LEFT YOU HANGING, BUT THERE'S A REAL CLEVER WAY OF DESERVING RETIREMENT AND FINALLY GETTING THERE, SO WE'RE VERY HAPPY AND APPRECIATIVE OF HER WORK. WE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE PAPER SCREENING IN HOUSE. THE WAY I HIRE ALL OF THESE MAJOR POSITIONS IS EVERYONE IN THE ORGANIZATION GETS A CHANCE TO WEIGH IN ON PAPER SCREENING, WE TAKE THE TOP TEN FROM THERE AND THEY ARE ASSIGNED TO AN INTERVIEW COMMITTEE, IN THIS CASE LED BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT KEESLER. THEN I GET TWO, WHICH IS SOMETHING I'VE DONE FOR 25 YEARS EVEN AS A LOCAL SUPERINTENDENT. YOU'RE MORE LIKELY TO GET THE RIGHT CANDIDATE WHEN YOU HAVE A LARGER GROUP OF PEOPLE LOOKING AT CREDENTIALS AND THINKING ABOUT IT AND ASKING QUESTIONS. SO I HAVE TWO EXCELLENT CANDIDATES TO SAY THE LEAST. I'M JUST DELIGHTED TO SAY I WAS SO IMPRESSED WITH THE BACKGROUND OF A PERSON, WHO'S ALREADY BEEN IN THE DEPARTMENT, BY THE WAY, BUT HAS SOME EXPERIENCE IN NEW YORK AND OTHER PLACES THAT I THINK MAKE HER A PERFECT CANDIDATE. THE BOARD IS AWARE OF THIS THROUGH OUR MID-MONTH BUT I THOUGHT I'D INTRODUCE HER WITH A NAME AND A FACE, NATASHA BAKER, WHO IS OUR NEW STATE REFORM OFFICER, LET'S WELCOME NATASHA. [ APPLAUSE ] AND MARTY ACKLEY ALWAYS REMEMBERS THESE THINGS: WHAT DEB HAD WAS, "GOODBYE TENSION, HELLO PENSION." [ LAUGHTER ] >> VERY CLEVER. DON'T THINK ABOUT THAT ANY TIME SOON, THE REST OF YOU. BUT NATASHA HAS STEPPED UP, EVEN IN A SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME ON THE WHOLE. IMPORTANT YEAR. WE WELCOME YOU AND APPRECIATE YOU STEPPING UP TO THIS IMPORTANT POSITION. CLASSROOM EXPERIENCE IN NEW YORK CITY, MY OLD ALMA MATER, I'M MUCH OLDER THAN HER-- SHE'S PROBABLY THE GRAND DAUGHTER OR GREAT-GRAND DAUGHTER OF ONE OF MY TEACHERS. [ LAUGHTER ] AND THEN I KNOW KATHY WROTE US ALL ON THIS, AND IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT-- PEOPLE WHO SERVE ON THE STATE BOARD, I THINK IT'S VERY UNHERALDED. IT'S NOT APPRECIATED ENOUGH IN THE WORLD WE'RE IN OF ELECTED OFFICIALS. FOLKS WHO SERVE ON THIS BOARD ARE NOT SELF-CONGRATULATORY TYPES, THEY'RE NOT OUT THERE LOOKING FOR OTHER THINGS-- SO WHEN KATHY MADE US ALL AWARE THAT MARILYN LUNDY, A FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD, PASSED AWAY, I WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT AND THANK HER FOR HER SERVICE. I GOT TO KNOW HER A LITTLE BIT WHEN I WAS AT WAYNE RESA AND WE WORKED ON SOME PROJECTS. SHE'S KIND OF A PHILANTHROPIST I THINK ALSO IN HER OWN WAY. >> SHE'S VERY ACTIVE IN DETROIT AND WAYNE COUNTY. >> YEAH, SO THIS IS TO CALL ATTENTION TO HER PASSING, AND WE APPRECIATE HER SERVICE ON THE BOARD FOR ALL THOSE YEARS. I THINK IT WAS FROM 1989 TO 1996. >> SHE WANTED TO FOCUS ON MIDDLE SCHOOLS. >> IS THAT HER? >> AS I RECALL WAS ONE OF HER MAJOR INTERESTS. >> AND DID YOU? >> WE DID. >> SO WE GOT THE MIDDLE SCHOOLS IN GOOD SHAPE. [ LAUGHTER ] >> YOU KNOW, I WAS GOING TO WAIT ON THIS BUT-- APPARENTLY THERE WAS A PRESS CONFERENCE AT 9:00, AND I THOUGHT IT WAS WORTH CLEARING THE AIR AND SAYING WHAT OUR ACTIONS WITH AUTHORIZERS WAS AND WAS NOT, BECAUSE THERE'S SOME REAL MISUNDERSTANDINGS ABOUT IT. BEFORE I DO, BY THE WAY, TALK ABOUT REMINDING OURSELVES OF A LITTLE DIFFERENT ISSUE FOR A MOMENT ABOUT WHY IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT TESTING AND I HOPE THE FEDS AND ALL THE REQUIREMENTS CHANGE A LITTLE BIT ON TESTING OVER TIME. IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW IF KIDS HAVE MET THE STANDARD, BUT WE'VE ENTERED AN ERA WHERE WE'RE TESTING THE HECK OUT OF IT, AND THAT REMINDED ME WHEN I PICKED UP MY LOCAL "NEW YORK TIMES," WHICH IN MY CASE IS "THE LANSING STATE JOURNAL," I WAS REMINDED OF THE ROBIN WILLIAMS TRAGEDY AND HIS DEATH. I THOUGHT OF "DEAD POET'S SOCIETY" RIGHT AWAY. YOU REALIZE THAT'S WHAT MOST TEACHERS DO-- THEY INSPIRE KIDS BEYOND THE STANDARDS AND GET THEM ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT LEARNING. I'M SURE A LOT OF HIS MOVIES WILL BE ON IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS, AND I ENCOURAGE YOU, ESPECIALLY YOUNGER PEOPLE, IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN "DEAD POET'S SOCIETY," I RECOMMEND IT TO YOU. IT'S INSPIRATIONAL, AND I THINK WHY A LOT OF PEOPLE BECOME TEACHERS. I MADE SOME NOTES ON THIS WHILE I WAS EATING BREAKFAST BECAUSE IT WAS A FORUM FOR ME TO SEE WHERE OTHER FOLKS HAVE SEEN OUR DECISIONS, SO I THOUGHT IF I MIGHT, FOR A MOMENT-- WE DO THINK THIS IS STATE SUPERINTENDENT AUTHORITY. APPARENTLY THE CHARTER SCHOOL ASSOCIATION AND PERHAPS THE AUTHORIZERS HAVE A DIFFERENT VIEW OF THAT. WE THINK IT'S CLEAR. I WOULD SAY THIS, BY THE WAY: I REALLY RESPECT-- THIS IS FOR ANY POSSIBLE SUCCESSOR THAT MIGHT BE LISTENING WHO WANTS TO APPLY FOR THIS JOB. AND I KNOW YOU'RE LISTENING, YOU'VE ALL TOLD ME YOU WATCH TO TRY AND GET A FEEL FOR IF YOU WANT TO APPLY. ONE OF THE HARDEST THINGS FOR ME HAS BEEN, IN ONE SENSE, YOU WORK FOR A BOARD, YOU REPORT TO A BOARD, AND YET YOU HAVE YOUR OWN AUTHORITY-- THERE'S ALWAYS THIS FINE LINE. AND I WANT TO CLARIFY ONE THING BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS A BIT OVERLY PERSONAL WHERE THE THOUGHT WAS THAT THESE ACTIONS WERE THE RESULT OF EITHER THE STATE BOARD OR THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE. I SAY THIS RESPECTFULLY: THE BOARD AND THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OBVIOUSLY HAVE THEIR OWN IMPORTANT AUTHORITY. I HAD NO DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR DECISION TO PUT AUTHORIZERS AT RISK WITH EITHER THE STATE BOARD OR THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE. AND ONE REASON, HONESTLY, IS WHAT I THOUGHT WOULD HAPPEN, HAPPENED ANYWAY. THERE'S THIS FEELING THAT, "IT IS A PARTISAN DECISION, IT'S BASED ON--" NUMBER ONE, I DON'T THINK THAT THE BOARD, IN MY OBSERVATIONS, MAKES PARTISAN DECISIONS. SECONDLY, I APPRECIATE THAT THE BOARD RESPECTS MY OWN AUTHORITY AS STATE SUPERINTENDENT. AND I'D ALSO SAY THIS: THE IRONY OF THIS DECISION IS THAT THERE'S NO CONSEQUENCES YET. I MAKE DECISIONS-- BECAUSE I'M AUTHORIZED TO THROUGH THIS APPOINTMENT-- THAT ARE FAR MORE SIGNIFICANT ALMOST EVERY DAY. NOW THIS ISN'T TO MINIMIZE HOW THIS FEELS TO CHARTER AUTHORIZERS RIGHT NOW, AND I'LL SPEAK TO THAT IN A MOMENT. BUT TO PRETEND A DECISION I MADE LAST WEEK WITH REGARD TO AN APPEAL BY MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, THAT HAD IMPACT IMMEDIATELY-- ON ISDs, ON MAISA, ON MICHIGAN STATE. THOSE KINDS OF DECISIONS JUST COME WITH THE JOB. THE REASON I SAY THAT IS TO CLEAR THE AIR BECAUSE IT'S JUST NOT TRUE. IT'S AWKWARD AT TIMES, BUT I THINK THAT'S PROPER-- AND I THINK THE BOARD TODAY WILL HAVE THEIR OWN DIALOGUE ON WHERE THEY THINK THIS TOPIC SHOULD GO, AND I RESPECT THAT ALSO. THAT'S ONE ISSUE, TO LAY IT TO REST: THIS ISN'T PARTISAN. I'VE WORKED WITH, IN FACT WE STARTED WITH THIS WITH THE AUTHORIZERS IN FEBRUARY. I WOULD ACKNOWLEDGE, AND THINK I SHOULD, THE GOOD WORK DONE BY "THE FREE PRESS" AND OTHERS. YOU KNOW, SOME OF IT IS MORE CONTESTED-- THERE IS DIFFERENT OPINIONS ON PIECES OF THAT SERIES, BUT THIS WAS ONGOING BEFORE THAT. I WOULD ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE SERIES GAVE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAY "OKAY, LET'S BE MORE THOUGHTFUL ABOUT THIS NOW," AND SO WE CALLED THE AUTHORIZERS IN AND MET WITH THEM, AND IN A SEPARATE MEETING WE MET WITH THE STAKEHOLDERS. I WILL ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS-- IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, IT WAS MY CALL, AND I DECIDED WE WOULD NOT PULL THE PLUG, EVEN WITH MY AUTHORITY, AT THIS TIME, BECAUSE WHAT WAS MORE PRUDENT, I THINK, WAS TO INDICATE THE AUTHORIZERS THAT WE THINK ARE AT RISK. I HAD A PRESIDENT CALL ME, AND I DON'T THINK HE'D NECESSARILY-- I REALLY APPRECIATED THIS CALL, BECAUSE HIS VIEW WAS, "THANK YOU FOR CALLING THIS TO MY ATTENTION AND GIVING ME AN OPPORTUNITY TO CORRECT THAT." I MEAN, I WOULDN'T WANT TO BE IN A SPOT-- THIS IS ONE THAT MAYBE IS REMEDIABLE. SO I THINK WE DID THIS IN A THOUGHTFUL WAY. WE DID IT IN A WAY THAT WASN'T A GOTCHA. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THERE ARE SOME OF THE 11 THAT ARE NOT ABLE TO REMEDIATE THIS BY THE TIME WE ARE, I THINK IT'S MY RESPONSIBILITY, AND ONE COULD MAKE A CASE THAT I SHOULD HAVE USED THAT EARLIER, BUT IT'S MY RESPONSIBILITY TO SAY THAT THEY CAN'T AUTHORIZE NEW CHARTERS. BUT THAT'S NOT DETERMINED YET. I WAS A LITTLE TAKEN ABACK, AND PROBABLY SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN-- MARTY ACKLEY AND SOME OTHERS ARE WISER ON THESE ISSUES, OF SOME OF THE RESPONSE. SO ALL I WANT TO SAY, PARTICULARLY TO THE TWO ASSOCIATIONS THAT HAVE WEIGHED IN WITH SOME PRETTY POINTED STATEMENTS, IS JUST TAKE A DEEP BREATH HERE. WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE A FAIR-- ONE THING THAT HAS BEEN MISSED THAT I'D BETTER EMPHASIZE TODAY IS "WHY WOULD THEY DO A METRIC? THEY'RE NOT TRANSPARENT ABOUT THEIR METRIC." THE METRIC IS JUST A COMPILATION OF THE TOP TO BOTTOM LIST THAT'S KNOWN BY EVERYONE, THAT THE SCHOOLS HAVE HAD SINCE JUNE, THAT WE, IN OUR REGULAR PRACTICE-- I THINK IT'S TOMORROW, IT'S ANNOUNCED STATEWIDE WHERE THEY ARE-- BUT THE SCHOOLS HAVE THESE MONTHS IN ADVANCE SO THAT THEY CAN LOOK AT THESE OVER THE SUMMER, LOOK AT WHERE THEY ARE, PUT PLANS TOGETHER FOR THE NEW SCHOOL YEAR. PARTICULARLY FOR THE SO-CALLED BOTTOM 5%, PRIORITY SCHOOLS. SO THEY'VE HAD THESE FOR A FEW MONTHS. THE REASON IT TAKES US A WHILE IS THAT APPEALS COME IN AND YOU REALLY CAN'T FINISH THAT COUPLE THOUSAND LIST UNTIL APPEALS ARE DONE. SO THIS ISN'T A NEW-FANGLED METRIC, THIS WAS JUST A WAY TO TRY AND SAY-- THIS PRESIDENT EVEN SAID TO ME, "EVEN IF YOU MAYBE DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO LOOK AT THE ACADEMICS ON IT, IT'S HELPED ME THINK ABOUT WHAT MY PORTFOLIO IS LIKE." SO HERE'S WHAT I THINK IS A VERY IMPORTANT POINT, IT WAS IN THE PRESS RELEASE, I THINK IT WAS SKIRTED OVER IN SOME OF THE PRESS CONFERENCE ACROSS THE STREET APPARENTLY AT 9:00 TODAY-- AND THAT IS THAT WE ARE GETTING THE AUTHORIZERS BACK IN TO HELP US PERFECT THAT METRIC AND GIVE CREDIT FOR IMPROVEMENT. IN OTHER WORDS, I DON'T KNOW THIS, BUT I SUSPECT THAT THERE WILL SOME OF THESE THAT-- [ PHONE RINGS ] SORRY ABOUT THAT. THAT THERE WILL BE SOME OF THESE THAT-- THANKS, MERTZ. THROW THAT IN THE WASTE BASKET. [ LAUGHTER ] >> DUNK IT IN WATER. >> THAT'S A REPORTER CALLING. [ LAUGHTER ] >> SO WHAT I THINK WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN, WHEN WE WORK WITH AN AUTHORIZER ON A METRIC, I'LL BE VERY DIRECT: I MAYBE DISAGREE, IN HOUSE WE HAD SOME DISAGREEMENT, BUT MY FINAL CALL WAS THAT SOME OF THESE SCHOOLS ARE GOING INTO AREAS THAT HAVE THE GREATEST CHALLENGES, AND IF THEY ACTUALLY ARE MAKING A DIFFERENCE AND IMPROVING, THAT SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. BUT IF YOU'RE AN AUTHORIZER AND YOU HAVE SCHOOLS IN AN AREA THAT ARE VERY CHALLENGING, AND THEY GET WORSE UNDER YOUR WATCH, AS STATE SUPERINTENDENT, WITH MY LIMITED AUTHORITY-- IT'S VERY LIMITED AUTHORITY-- THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT. SO, WE DID, WE ARE, WE THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE. I THINK YOU'LL SEE A LOT OF THESE FOLKS REMEDIATE ISSUES THAT THEY CAN, WE'VE GIVEN THEM A HEAD START, TO SAY THE LEAST. THAT METRIC ISSUE WILL BE IMPORTANT AND IT DESERVED IN THIS DISCUSSION TO SAY, "YEAH, WE'RE IN THE BOTTOM 10%, BUT LOOK AT THE IMPROVEMENT WE'VE BEEN MAKING," OR "WE'VE BEEN IN THE BOTTOM 10% FOR THREE YEARS AND THESE HAVE BEEN GOING THIS WAY." IF I COULD JUST BE DIRECT, I'M NOT GOING TO CALL OUT THE INDIVIDUAL COLLEGES ON THIS, BUT IT'S A LITTLE BIT DISCONCERTING FOR ME AND MY ROLE AS STATE SUPERINTENDENT TO SEE ONE AUTHORIZER SAY THAT "THERE'S TWO SCHOOLS THAT WE ARE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH ANY MORE AND WE ARE CLOSING," AND THEN ANOTHER AUTHORIZER PICKS THEM UP. IT'S NOT FOR ME TO SAY THEY CAN'T DO THAT, IT'S NOT WITHIN MY AUTHORITY, BUT THAT SCHOOL THAT PICKED THEM UP SHOULD UNDERSTAND WHERE THEY ARE IN TERMS OF THEIR PROFICIENCY. IF FOR SOME REASON I'M WRONG, AND THE ASSOCIATIONS-- AND IN FAIRNESS, I THINK THEY JUST NEED TO TAKE A DEEP BREATH FOR A MINUTE. YOU KNOW, IF WE ACTUALLY SUSPENDED YESTERDAY, MAYBE THERE WOULD BE A LITTLE MORE CAUSE, BUT TAKE A DEEP BREATH. WE'RE STILL GOING TO WORK WITH YOU ON IMPROVEMENT FACTORS. IT IS SERIOUS-- I WOULD NOT PRETEND IT'S NOT SERIOUS. AND ONE OTHER THING: THERE'S SOME DISCUSSION THAT, "WE WERE GREAT LAST YEAR ACCORDING TO YOU-- WHAT HAPPENED THIS YEAR?" YOU ADDED SCHOOLS, YOU ADDED SOME SCHOOLS AND IT CHANGED THE NATURE OF YOUR PORTFOLIO. IN ONE CASE THEY ADDED A SCHOOL WITH 4,000 KIDS. SO THAT CAN SKEW THE SAME METRIC. WE DIDN'T CHANGE THE METRIC. THESE ARE THE TOP TO BOTTOM METRICS. IF ANYTHING, AS I SAID, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THE TOP TO BOTTOM, MAJORITY HAS SOME FACTOR IN IT FOR IMPROVEMENT, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO ADD ANOTHER FACTOR THAT YOUR PORTFOLIO IS GOING TO CONTINUE TO IMPROVE, AND THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO MEET WITH THE AUTHORIZERS ON. SO, YOU KNOW, ALL I CAN SAY, WITH THE OFFICIAL STATEMENTS OF THE ORGANIZATIONS, "WE WOULD HAVE APPRECIATED TRANSPARENCY." THE TRANSPARENCY IS THERE, THESE ARE THE TOP TO BOTTOM SCHOOLS, THEY'VE KNOWN SINCE JUNE. I WOULD SAY IN FAIRNESS, VERY MUCH TO THE POINT OF THE PRESIDENT WHO CALLED ME THAT THEY WEREN'T THINKING ABOUT THAT, AT LEAST THIS PARTICULAR INSTITUTION, AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY WOULD WANT TO KNOW. IF I'M PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY, I WOULD WANT TO KNOW WHERE THAT IS, SO I'M HAPPY IF THAT'S TAKING PLACE. EXCUSE ME FOR ONE MINUTE HERE. NOW I KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN WHEN YOU SAY YOU CAN'T READ MY WRITING, KAREN. [ LAUGHTER ] >> FROM TOP TO BOTTOM, I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO ADD THAT TO THEIR PROCESS. MANY HAVE ALREADY RESPONDED. WE ARE NOT CONDUCTING PUBLIC POLICY BY PRESS RELEASE. THIS IS AT RISK, THAT'S ALL I CAN SAY FOR NOW-- MORE TO COME. SO I DON'T JUDGE THE SPIRIT BEHIND THE ANXIETY, AND I HOPE THEY TAKE US UP ON OUR INVITATION, I BELIEVE THEY WILL, TO COME IN AND WORK ON A METRIC THAT ADDS IMPROVEMENT FACTOR. WE TAKE VERY SERIOUSLY THE OTHER PIECES, WHICH HAVE KIND OF GOTTEN SKIRTED OVER. THE LAW IS CLEAR VERY ABOUT TRANSPARENCY, FOR INSTANCE, SO WE HAVEN'T OBLIGED OURSELVES YET TO DEAL WITH WHAT IS ALMOST A SECOND PHASE, BUT AT LEAST WE'VE TRIED TO SAY, OF THE THINGS THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN THE LAW-- FOR EXAMPLE, IF PART OF TRANSPARENCY IN THE REVISED LAW, WHICH BY THE WAY, THERE WERE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE REVISED LAW, WHICH I THINK IS WORTH NOTING, WHICH PEOPLE HAVE REMINDED ME OF AND APPROPRIATELY. BUT AS AN EXAMPLE, THE BUDGETS NEED TO BE POSTED ONLINE, AND MANY ARE NOT. NOW, AN AUTHORIZER MIGHT SAY, "WELL, THAT'S THE SCHOOL'S PROBLEM," AND ALL I CAN SAY IS I HAVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE AUTHORIZER-- YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE YOU HAVE A PROCESS IN PLACE WHERE YOUR SCHOOLS ARE DOING THAT. I MEAN, I HAD THAT RESPONSIBILITY AS A LOCAL SUPERINTENDENT FOR MY 35 SCHOOLS. I KNOW THAT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT-- I INADVERTENTLY CONFUSED THAT-- I JUST THINK AN AUTHORIZER WOULD WANT TO MAKE SURE THEY HAVE A PROCESS IN PLACE WHERE THOSE THINGS ARE BEING FOLLOWED BY THEIR PORTFOLIO OF SCHOOLS. AND BY THE WAY, I THINK THAT'S VERY CORRECTABLE, VERY REMEDIABLE BETWEEN NOW AND OCTOBER 22nd. THAT'S ANOTHER REASON NOT TO JUST TODAY HAVE A GOTCHA AND CLOSE DOWN THEIR OPPORTUNITY. SOME OF THESE ARE-- I'D WANT IT CALLED-- IF I WERE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY, I'D WANT IT CALLED TO MY ATTENTION AND HAVE SOME TIME-- OR AN INTERMEDIATE DISTRICT OR OTHERS WHO WERE DEALT WITH HERE. I'M COMING TO AN END HERE. ON TWITTER FEEDS LAST NIGHT, MY WIFE SAID-- THEY'RE PRETTY HATEFUL BY THE WAY, THEY REALLY ARE. JUST ANYONE IN A POSITION OF VISIBILITY-- YOU KNOW, I USUALLY DON'T READ THE COMMENTS IN AN ARTICLE, AND STUPIDLY LOOK AT THE NOTIFICATIONS. THE IRONY IS WE MAYBE HIT THE SWEET SPOT, TEAM, BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WHO I'M GENERALLY CATEGORIZING AS PRO-CHARTERS, SOME PRETTY MEAN STUFF. AND ANTI-CHARTERS, SOME PRETTY MEAN STUFF. SO IF YOU'RE HATED BY ALL OF THE ABOVE, WE'RE PROBABLY HITTING ABOUT THE RIGHT THING. AND YOU KNOW, JUST A FEW MORE POINTS-- ONE IS THAT THIS WAS NOT DONE ON THE BACK OF A NAPKIN, AS ONE OF THE ASSOCIATIONS SAID. THE BOTTOM LINE IS THE METRIC IS THE METRIC THAT WE'VE HAD IN PLACE FOR YEARS. ADMITTEDLY, WE'RE LOOKING AT IT IN A DIFFERENT WAY, AS AN OVERALL PORTFOLIO. AND I'VE ASKED DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT KEESLER TO MEET WITH THE AUTHORIZERS ON THAT ADDITIONAL METRIC THAT WE'RE GOING TO WORK ON TOGETHER, AND IT'S OUR CALL ON WHAT THAT SHOULD BE, BUT I'VE BEEN OPEN ABOUT EVERYTHING ELSE. AND I WANT TO SAY THIS: I'M APPRECIATIVE OF ANY SCHOOL, TRADITIONAL OR CHARTER, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY GO IN TO A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S BEEN CHALLENGED FOR YEARS IN EDUCATING OUR KIDS AND TRYING TO MAKE THAT A BETTER PLACE FOR OUR KIDS. AND WE'VE HAD SUCCESS BOTH IN THE CHARTER WORLD AND THE TRADITIONAL WORLD, AND WE SHOULD NOT LET THAT GET CARRIED AWAY HERE WITH SOME OF THESE DISCUSSIONS. THERE ARE MANY BEATING THE ODDS SCHOOLS FROM BOTH THE CHARTER ARENA AND THE TRADITIONAL ARENA. SO I HOPE THAT CLARIFIES SOME OF THAT-- JOHN? >> CAN I JUST NOTE, WE ARE NOT GOING TO EXTEND THIS DISCUSSION NOW, BUT WE ARE GOING TO COME BACK AS PART OF OUR DISCUSSION ON RECOMMENDATIONS ON WHAT ELSE WE NEED TO DO ABOUT CHARTERS, SO FOR THOSE WHO ARE HERE, IF YOU'RE CHARTER INTERESTED, COME BACK AND WE'LL HAVE SOME MORE DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT, AND WHAT WE ALL WANT THERE. >> THANKS JOHN. AND WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT. I THINK IT'S AN APPROPRIATE ROLE FOR THE STATE BOARD AND I APPRECIATE YOU WEIGHING IN ON THESE ISSUES-- AND MINE IS, AS I SAID, NOT AS BROAD AS THE STATE BOARD'S IS. IT'S MORE LIMITED. OKAY. I'M DONE WITH THAT FOR NOW. SO THE FIRST ITEM ON TODAY'S OFFICIAL AGENDA IS COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE-- IT'S A PRESENTATION ON THE MICHIGAN CORE KNOWLEDGE AND CORE COMPETENCIES FOR THE EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION WORKFORCE. THE MICHIGAN CORE KNOWLEDGE-- WHAT I JUST SAID-- PROVIDES SPECIFICITY AND CLARITY FOR WHAT EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATORS SHOULD KNOW AND BE ABLE TO DO IN THEIR ROLE WITH CHILDREN UNDER FIVE AND THEIR FAMILIES-- NO, THAT'S MINE NOW... [ LAUGHTER ] >> THIS IS AN UPDATED 2003 DOCUMENT, AND I APPRECIATE THE LEADERSHIP OF SUSAN BROMAN, AND CERTAINLY LISA BREWER WALRAVEN HAVE BROUGHT TO THIS, AND THEY'RE GOING TO REPORT TO THE BOARD ON THIS. THE NEXT STEP IS THERE WILL BE PUBLIC COMMENT FOR A PERIOD NOW, AND THEN THE BOARD, WE'LL ASK FOR YOUR APPROVAL AT THE NOVEMBER BOARD MEETING. SUSAN. >> THANK YOU, MIKE. WITH THE CREATION OF THE OFFICE OF GREAT START AND THE IMPLEMENTATION THE TIERED QUALITY RATING SYSTEM, MICHIGAN IS MAKING IMPORTANT IMPROVEMENTS IN THE QUALITY OF EARLY CHILDHOOD SERVICES. THE NEXT STEP IN THIS PROCESS IS THE REVISIONS UPDATE OF THE-- AND YOU HEARD MIKE RIGHT-- THE 2003 CORE KNOWLEDGE AND CORE COMPETENCIES FOR EARLY CHILDHOOD CARE AND EDUCATION PROFESSIONALS. AS SUPERINTENDENT FLANAGAN NOTED, THESE STANDARDS PROVIDE A FRAMEWORK FOR WHAT EARLY CHILDHOOD EXPERTS SHOULD KNOW AND BE ABLE TO DO IN THE ROLES WORKING WITH CHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES, IN PARTICULAR CHILDREN BIRTH THROUGH FIVE. THE REVIEW PROCESS HAS ALLOWED VARIOUS STAKEHOLDERS TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK AND COMMENTS. IT HAS INCLUDED A DEDICATED WORK GROUP THAT OVERSAW THIS ENTIRE PROCESS-- FOCUS GROUPS, REVIEW OF OTHERS STATE'S WORK, AS WELL AS A REVIEW BY THE NATIONAL CENTER ON CHILD CARE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SYSTEMS AND WORK FORCE INITIATIVES-- THAT'S A MOUTHFUL-- TO ENSURE THAT IT FOLLOWS RECOGNIZED BEST PRACTICES. IN ADDITION, THE OFFICE OF GREAT START HAS HELD A NUMBER OF BRIEFINGS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE TO LOOK AT THE WORK AND PROVIDE COMMENT. AGAIN, IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS, WE WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE TO PROVIDE COMMENTS ON THIS BODY OF WORK. BEFORE TURNING THIS PRESENTATION OVER TO LISA BREWER WALRAVEN, THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND CARE, I WOULD LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE TWO INDIVIDUALS THAT DID WHAT I CALL THE HEAVY LIFTING ON THIS WORK. FIRST, ROBIN ZEITER-- PEASE STAND-- FROM THE OFFICE OF GREAT START, WHO IS THE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST-- SHE HAS BEEN THE PRIMARY PERSON WHO HAS OVERSEEN ALL OF THIS WORK, INCLUDING THE REVISIONS AND THE STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT. SECOND IS LAURIE NIXON, WHO WORKS BOTH AT THE MICHIGAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE EDUCATION OF YOUNG CHILDREN, AND THE OFFICE OF GREAT START. LAURIE HAS SERVED AS THE CHAIR FOR THIS ENTIRE PROCESS AND THE CHAIR OF THE WORK GROUP OVERSEEING ALL OF THIS WORK. WOULD YOU PLEASE JOIN ME IN GIVING THEM A ROUND OF APPLAUSE FOR THEIR WORK? [ APPLAUSE ] >> LISA. >> AS WE THINK ABOUT THE CORE KNOWLEDGE AND CORE COMPETENCY, IT HAS SUCH A LONG TITLE THAT WE ABBREVIATED IT CKCC, SO YOU'LL SEE THAT FREQUENTLY THROUGHOUT THIS PRESENTATION. THIS REALLY DOES PROVIDE A FRAMEWORK FOR WHAT THE EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION WORK FORCE SHOULD KNOW AND BE ABLE TO DO IN WORKING IN THEIR ROLES WORKING WITH, OR ON THE BEHALF OF CHILDREN BIRTH TO FIVE AND THEIR FAMILIES. THEY ARE PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS THAT GUIDE THEIR WORK AND THEY ARE A ROAD MAP FOR HIGH QUALITY PRACTICES. THIS IS A CRITICAL PIECE IN OUR PUZZLE, AS SUSAN WAS MENTIONING, IN PROMOTING CHILDREN'S LEARNING AND THEIR DEVELOPMENT AND IN HELPING THEM ACHIEVE OUTCOMES. IT ALSO IS A MECHANISM TO CREATE AN ENHANCED SYSTEM OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE FIELD, SO IT HAS MULTIPLE PURPOSES. TEACHERS WHO HAVE SPECIFIC PREPARATION, KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS IN CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION ARE MORE LIKELY TO PROVIDE POSITIVE INTERACTIONS, RICHER LANGUAGE EXPERIENCES AND QUALITY LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE WORKING FOR. THIS VISUAL I'M GOING TO BRING UP REALLY GIVES YOU A SENSE OF WHO THIS DOCUMENT IS TARGETED FOR. IN THE LEFT CIRCLE, YOU CAN SEE THE DIRECT SERVICE INDIVIDUALS WHO WORK ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS WITH CHILDREN, WHETHER IT'S IN A CHILD CARE SETTING, WHETHER IT'S IN A GREAT START READINESS PROGRAM. THE VARIETY OF POSITIONS THAT ARE HAPPENING IN THAT SETTING: ASSISTANT TEACHER, TEACHER, DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATOR. IN THE RIGHT CIRCLE, THE NON-DIRECT SERVICE. THIS APPLIES TO THOSE WHO ARE IN THE HIGHER EDUCATION, BECAUSE FACULTY USE THIS DOCUMENT. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROVIDERS WHO ARE IN THE FIELD PROVIDING OPPORTUNITIES, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDERS, ET CETERA. THIS REALLY HELPS, THIS VISUAL REALLY HELPS REINFORCE THAT THIS IS A DOCUMENT THAT CROSSES ACROSS SETTINGS AND SECTORS, IT'S NOT FOCUSED IN ONE AREA, AND IT IS USED BY MULTIPLE INDIVIDUALS, REGARDLESS OF WHERE THEY'RE WORKING, OR HOW THEY'RE SUPPORTING CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, AND THE EARLY CARE IN EDUCATION STAFF WHO ARE WORKING WITH THEM. IT ALSO GIVES THOSE INDIVIDUALS SPECIFICITY FOR WHAT THEY SHOULD BE DOING IN THEIR ROLES. SO THIS WAS ALREADY MENTIONED, BUT I'M GOING TO TAKE YOU THROUGH IN A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL IN HOW THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN EVOLVING. IN 2003, THERE WAS A COMMITTEE THAT WAS FUNDED BY THE FRY FOUNDATION TO CREATE THE ORIGINAL CORE KNOWLEDGE AND CORE COMPETENCY DOCUMENT FOR MICHIGAN. THAT DOCUMENT WAS FINALIZED BUT NEVER REALLY GOT OFF THE GROUND IN TERMS OF PEOPLE PICKING IT UP AND UTILIZING IT IN THEIR WORK. IN 2009, WE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY WITH THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT, OR THE ARRA DOLLARS, THAT WERE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE STATE FOR ONE-TIME FUNDING TO IMPROVE OR INCREASE THE EARLY LEARNING SYSTEM SO THAT CHILDREN WERE BETTER PREPARED FOR SCHOOL. WE TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THOSE DOLLARS, AND IN 2013, A CONTRACTOR WAS HIRED, EARLY CHILDHOOD ASSOCIATES, TO HELP US REVISE AND UPDATE THE 2003 DOCUMENT. THE EARLY CHILDHOOD ASSOCIATES CONTRACTOR WORKED EXTENSIVELY WITH STAKEHOLDERS, INCLUDING WITH THE WORK GROUP THAT SUSAN MENTIONED AS WELL AS OTHERS. IN 2013 AND 2014, THAT WORK GROUP CONTINUED THEIR TIRELESS EFFORTS TO UPDATE THIS DOCUMENT, AND THE 14 MEMBERS OF THAT GROUP WENT THROUGH EACH OF THE COMPETENCIES AND EACH OF ELEMENTS TO ENSURE THAT THEY WERE INCLUSIVE ACROSS ALL OF THE AREAS THAT WE LOOKED AT. THE REVISION AND REVIEW PROCESS UTILIZED FEEDBACK FROM A VARIETY OF STAKEHOLDERS-- THOSE STAKEHOLDERS WHO PARTICIPATE IN OUR WORK STREAM, AND OUR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT STAKEHOLDER GROUP ALSO SHARED THIS WITH THEIR CONSTITUENTS, THEIR MEMBERS, HELPING US MAKE SURE THAT WE HAD A LARGE REACH. ONE THING THAT WE LEARNED THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS WAS THAT THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT THAT WAS CREATED IN 2003 WAS NOT APPEALING TO PEOPLE. IT KIND OF LOOKED LIKE A TYPE-SET DOCUMENT IF I'M BEING HONEST. SO ONE OF THE THINGS WE DID WAS INCREASE THE VISUAL APPEAL, SO IT'S NOW COLOR CODED, IT HAS A BETTER DESIGN, IT INCLUDES PHOTOGRAPHS, HOPING THAT WE MAKE THIS A MUCH MORE USER FRIENDLY DOCUMENT FOR EVERYONE. WE ALSO DID A VIEW OF OTHER STATES' CORE KNOWLEDGE AND CORE COMPETENCY DOCUMENTS. WE LOOKED AT FIVE OTHER STATES TO SEE HOW THEIR DOCUMENTS WERE ORGANIZED, WHAT THEY CONTAINED, AND HOW THEY WERE BEING UTILIZED. AND THERE WERE SIX FOCUS GROUPS THAT CENTERED ON BRINGING IN PEOPLE FROM HIGHER EDUCATION, FROM TWO-YEAR SCHOOLS AND FOUR-YEARS SCHOOLS, TO LOOK AT THE DOCUMENT AND GIVE FEEDBACK. WE BROUGHT IN TRAINERS AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROVIDERS TO DO THE SAME, AND THEN OF COURSE, WE BROUGHT IN PROVIDERS THEMSELVES. WE BROUGHT IN THOSE PROVIDERS WHO WERE WORKING IN FAMILY HOMES, GROUP HOMES AND CENTER SETTINGS TO GIVE US THEIR FEEDBACK. ANOTHER BIG ELEMENT OF REVISING THIS DOCUMENT WAS MAKING SURE WE WERE ALIGNING THIS DOCUMENT WITH STATE AND NATIONAL STANDARDS, AND WE'RE GOING TO TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT IN JUST A MINUTE, BUT WHAT WE LEARNED WAS PEOPLE DIDN'T WANT ANOTHER DOCUMENT THAT THEY HAD TO FOLLOW RULES FOR, THEY WANTED IT TO ENCOMPASS AND BRING TOGETHER EVERYTHING. IN ADDITION TO ALL OF THIS WORK THAT WAS FACILITATED BY EARLY CHILDHOOD ASSOCIATES, THE WORK GROUP THEN TOOK THAT REVISION AND SPENT MORE TIME, AGAIN, REALLY MAKING SURE THAT WE GOT THE FEEDBACK OF THE WORK GROUP, FEEDBACK OF OTHER INDIVIDUALS IN THE FIELD, AND THE NATIONAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CENTER, WHO REALLY TOLD US THAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS ON PAR WITH THE CONTENT AREAS THAT THEY RECOMMEND FOR THIS TYPE OF WORK. BACK TO THE ALIGNMENT PIECE FOR JUST A MINUTE-- IF YOU THINK BACK TO THE EARLIER VISUAL WHERE WE HAD THE PEOPLE WHO WERE ACTUALLY WORKING IN THE FIELD AND THOSE PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT THEM, ONE OF THE FIRST CROSS WALKS IN ALIGNMENT THAT WAS DONE FOCUSED REALLY ON THOSE PROFESSIONALS WHO WERE WORKING IN THE FIELD TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS WAS BRINGING TOGETHER ALL THE STANDARDS, WHETHER THEY WERE LICENSING STANDARDS, WHETHER THEY WERE STANDARDS FROM OUR QUALITY RATING IMPROVEMENT SYSTEM, WHETHER THEY WERE STANDARDS FOR QUALITY THAT WE USE FOR PROGRAMS, OR WHETHER THEY WERE RELATED TO EARLY LEARNING EXPECTATIONS, THEN CROSS WALKING THOSE AND BRINGING THEM TOGETHER. FOR THE PROFESSIONALS WHO ARE SUPPORTING THOSE INDIVIDUALS, THERE WAS ALSO CROSS WALKS COMPLETED-- YOU CAN SEE THE FOUR DOCUMENTS THAT WERE USED FOR THAT CROSS WALK TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE INCORPORATING STATE AND NATIONAL LEVEL OF STANDARDS FOR EDUCATOR PREPARATION. NOW A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT ORGANIZATION THAT I MENTIONED ABOUT MAKING THIS DOCUMENT USER FRIENDLY. THE DOCUMENT IS ORGANIZED INTO EIGHT CORE KNOWLEDGE AND COMPETENCY AREAS-- YOU CAN SEE THOSE LISTED HERE, ABOUT HOW THE CHILDREN ARE DEVELOPING THROUGH HOW INTERACTIONS ARE HAPPENING WITH CHILDREN, TO HOW WE ARE OBSERVING AND DOCUMENTING CHILDREN'S GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT, HEALTH AND SAFETY, HOW WE'RE WORKING WITH FAMILIES, AND HOW WE'RE ACTING AS PROFESSIONALS. EACH OF THOSE COMPETENCY AREAS ARE THEN ORGANIZED INTO COMPETENCY STATEMENTS, AGAIN, MAKING SURE THAT EACH INDIVIDUAL KNOWS WHAT THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO IN EACH OF THOSE AREAS. EACH COMPETENCY STATEMENT IS THEN BROKEN INTO THREE INDICATORS. THOSE INDICATORS ARE DEVELOPING, ACHIEVING AND EXTENDING. THOSE WERE REALLY DERIVED FROM BLOOM'S TAXONOMY, HIS FIVE LEVELS, AND WE THOUGHT THOSE WERE IMPORTANT BECAUSE FOR THOSE WHO ARE JUST ENTERING THE FIELD AND THOSE WHO ARE GENERALLY WORKING DIRECTLY WITH CHILDREN EVERY DAY, THEY'RE PROBABLY IN THAT DEVELOPING AND ACHIEVING AND WORKING THEIR WAY THROUGH THOSE COMPETENCIES. AND FOR THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN IN THE FIELD AND WHO ARE SUPPORTING THOSE EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION PROVIDERS, THEY ARE AT THE EXTENDING LEVEL. THEY'RE REALLY WORKING WITH INDIVIDUALS TO EXTEND THEIR USE OF THESE STANDARDS AND FRAMEWORK. WE COULD PROBABLY GO ON AND ON ABOUT WHO SHOULD USE THIS DOCUMENT AND WHY THEY SHOULD USE IT. WE'VE LIMITED THE LIST TO THOSE THAT YOU SEE HERE. AGAIN, FOR THOSE THAT ARE WORKING IN THE CLASSROOM WITH CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, THIS IS A WAY TO HAVE A PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TO TRACK THEIR PROFESSIONAL GROWTH AS THEY GROW AND MOVE IN THE FIELD. FOR DIRECTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS OR SUPERVISORS, THIS HELPS THEM DEVELOP POSITION DESCRIPTIONS FOR THEIR PROGRAMS, HELPS THEM EVALUATE STAFF AND CREATE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS. FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROVIDERS, IT REALLY HELPS THEM ASSESS THEIR CONTENT AND AVAILABILITY AND MAKES SURE THAT THEY ARE EVALUATING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES THAT ARE BEING OFFERED. MENTORS, COACHES AND CONSULTANTS, AGAIN HELPS WITH PLANNING FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT, HELPS THEM GUIDE A REFLECTION ON WHAT IS HAPPENING, AND THEN FOR THE PREPARATION PROGRAMS AND INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION, HELPS THEM WITH THEIR COURSE DEVELOPMENT, MAKES SURE THAT AS THEIR COURSES ARE BEING DEVELOPED, THAT INDIVIDUALS BEING TRAINED TO ENTER THE FIELD HAVE APPROPRIATE SKILLS AND INFORMATION. IT ALSO HELPS WITH ARTICULATION: WHEN PEOPLE ARE TAKING COURSES AND TRAINING, THEY ARE ABLE TO MOVE FROM ONE AREA TO ANOTHER. THE BENEFITS OF THE CORE KNOWLEDGE AND CORE COMPETENCY, AGAIN, REALLY IS A FOUNDATIONAL SYSTEM THAT CREATES A FRAMEWORK FOR THOSE WHO ARE WORKING IN THE FIELD, AND ALLOWS THEM CONTINUAL GROWTH AS THEY BETTER SUPPORT CHILDREN AND FAMILIES. IT ALSO HELPS INFORM THE DEVELOPMENT AND REVISIONS OF TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE THAT ARE OFFERED TO THOSE INDIVIDUALS. IT ALSO HELPS WITH CURRICULUM OR INSTRUCTION THAT IS DEVELOPED FROM HIGH SCHOOL THROUGH THE COLLEGE LEVEL IN THIS FIELD. AGAIN, I MENTIONED ARTICULATION, DEFINITELY A BENEFIT, BECAUSE IT LETS THEM TRANSFER THEIR LEARNING FROM ONE OPPORTUNITY TO ANOTHER AND INCREASES STAFF QUALIFICATIONS AS THEY MOVE DOWN A CAREER PATH OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT. SO I'M HOPING WITH THIS BRIEF INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF THIS DOCUMENT THAT YOU CAN SEE THAT THROUGH HAVING THIS FRAMEWORK FOR THE EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION PROVIDERS WORKING WITH CHILDREN BIRTH TO FIVE, THAT IT SUPPORTS INCREASING THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN IN APPROPRIATE, HIGH QUALITY EARLY LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS, THAT IT ENSURES THAT ALL CHILDREN, BIRTH TO EIGHT, ESPECIALLY THOSE IN THE HIGHEST NEED, HAVE ACCESS TO HIGH QUALITY EARLY LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS AND THEY ENTER KINDERGARTEN PREPARED FOR SUCCESS. IT ALIGNS WITH GOALS THAT YOU ALL HAVE FOR YOUNG CHILDREN, AS WELL AS THE GOALS THAT THE OFFICE OF GREAT START HAS FOR YOUNG CHILDREN. YOU ALSO HEARD A LITTLE ABOUT THIS, BUT TO REITERATE, WE WILL CONTINUE TO GATHER INFORMATION FROM STAKEHOLDERS FROM ACROSS THE STATE TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS AWARENESS ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT AND TO DISCUSS WAYS TO DISSEMINATE THIS INFORMATION SO THAT IT CAN BE USED BY THOSE WORKING IN THE FIELD. WE HAVE A TEMPLATE UP ON THE WEBSITE WHERE WE ARE GATHERING FEEDBACK AND INFORMATION THAT WILL GO TO THE WORK STREAM, WHO WILL REVIEW THAT INFORMATION AND INCORPORATE IT WITH US, WHO WILL BRING IT BACK TO YOU IN NOVEMBER FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND APPROVAL. >> THANK YOU, LISA. MIKE? >> THANK YOU, LISA, SUSAN. SO, THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE TIME FOR ANY COMMENT THAT MIGHT HELP US MODIFY OR SHAPE THIS. YOU HAVE THE FINAL SAY, OBVIOUSLY, AT THE NOVEMBER MEETING, BUT IF SOMETHING SEEMED KIND OF IN THE WRONG DIRECTION, WE WOULD WANT TO MODIFY THAT NOW BEFORE PUBLIC COMMENT. >> I DON'T HAVE ANY SUGGESTIONS BUT I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL AND REALLY UNDERSCORE THE REAL IMPORTANCE OF THIS WORK. THERE IS A LOT OF MOMENTUM AND BROAD SUPPORT FOR EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION, IT'S A GREAT INVESTMENT AND HAS BETTER OUTCOMES FOR KIDS AT LESS COST TO SOCIETY, FRANKLY. IF THERE IS ANY DEBATE-- SOMETIMES WE HAVE A LITTLE DEBATE ABOUT WHAT THE RESEARCH SAYS ABOUT EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION. IT SEEMS TO CLEARLY SAY THAT HIGH QUALITY EARLY CHILDHOOD REALLY WORKS AND GETS THAT INVESTMENT, AND POOR QUALITY DOES NOT, SO THIS IS A WAY THAT WE HELP ENSURE THAT WE'RE DELIVERING HIGH QUALITY, BY GIVING EDUCATORS THE TOOLS TO MAKE SURE IT WORKS. IT'S SO IMPORTANT TO THIS BROADLY SHARED AGENDA THAT I WANTED TO SHARE THAT AND THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR HARD WORK TO MAKE THIS REAL. >> THANK YOU, JOHN. OTHER-- DAN. >> LET ME ADD MY THANKS. CRITICALLY IMPORTANT WORK AND WORK THAT I'M INTERESTED IN. SO, TWO SUBJECTS OF INQUIRY, ONE IS YOU ALLUDED TO THE FACT THAT YOU DID RESEARCH AS TO WHAT OTHER STATES HAVE DONE. I'M CURIOUS WHAT THE FIVE STATES ARE AND WHY YOU CHOSE THEM, A-- THAT'S PROBABLY JUST IDLE CURIOSITY, BUT THERE MAY BE SOMETHING FOR US TO LEARN. AND SECOND, I'M REALLY-- SO THIS IS LIKE B UNDER QUESTION ONE. I ALSO WONDER WHAT KIND OF MOMENTUM YOU SEE ACROSS THE COUNTRY FOR SOMETHING LIKE THE COMMON CORE STANDARDS FOR THE EARLY CHILDHOOD SPACE. WHAT LEVEL OF ORGANIZATION ARE YOU SEEING OR SENSING IN MULTIPLE STATES THAT ACTUALLY BRINGS BEST THINKING FROM 40 OR 50 STATES TOGETHER TO PUT STANDARDS TOGETHER? >> I CAN ANSWER THE FIVE STATES AND WHY WE CHOSE THEM. EARLY CHILDHOOD ASSOCIATES RECOMMENDED THOSE FIVE STATES BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT ONE, THEY WERE SIMILAR TO MICHIGAN, AND TWO, THEY HAD A HISTORY OF HAVING A CORE KNOWLEDGE AND CORE COMPETENCY DOCUMENT THAT WAS UTILIZED IN THEIR STATE. THEY WERE OHIO, COLORADO, NEW YORK, MONTANA AND WASHINGTON. >> SIMILAR TO MICHIGAN IN DEMOGRAPHICS, OR SIMILAR TO MICHIGAN HOW? >> SIMILAR IN REGARDS TO SOME OF OUR PROVIDER POPULATIONS AND PROGRAMS THAT WE OFFER FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES. >> WHAT WAS THE LAST ONE? >> WASHINGTON. >> THANK YOU. >> SORRY, GIVE ME THOSE ONE MORE TIME-- NEW YORK, COLORADO-- >> OHIO, MONTANA, WASHINGTON. >> JUST TO BE TRANSPARENT, MY HOPE IS TO GO LOOK AT SOME OF THEIR WORK. >> SURE. >> AND, ANY MOMENTUM AROUND COMMON CORE STANDARDS IN THE EARLY CHILDHOOD SPACE? >> WELL, IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, THE STANDARDS THAT YOU APPROVED A FEW MONTHS AGO ARE IN ALIGNMENT WITH COMMON CORE STANDARDS. >> AGREED, BUT... >> I WOULD SAY THAT ONE OF THE INTERESTING AND POSITIVE PIECES OF HAVING THE OFFICE OF GREAT START LOCATED IN THE MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION IS THAT THERE IS THAT IMMEDIATE LINK IN UNDERSTANDING HOW IMPORTANT THAT CONTINUITY NEEDS TO BE. IN OTHER STATES WHERE THERE IS A FREESTANDING OFFICE SIMILAR TO GREAT START, YOU'RE NOT SEEING THAT LEVEL OF ALIGNMENT. >> SO IN THOSE STATES THEY'RE NOT ALIGNING THEIR EARLY CHILDHOOD STANDARDS WITH-- >> THEY MAY BE, BUT NOT AS WHAT I WOULD CALL A BASIC UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THIS ALL WORKS TOGETHER. IT'S HARD TO WORK WHEN IT'S BEING DONE OUTSIDE THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. >> SO I'M INTERPRETING YOUR REMARKS TO MEAN THAT YOU AREN'T SEEING MUCH MOMENTUM AROUND THE COUNTRY TO SAY, "HEY, LET'S ALIGN ALL OF OUR STANDARDS TO COMMON CORE STANDARDS." >> I WOULD SAY THAT THERE IS MOMENTUM, BUT AGAIN, IT'S SIMILAR TO LOOKING AT WHAT WE WERE JUST LOOKING AT IN THAT NOT ALL STATES ARE AT THE SAME POINT IN THEIR EVOLUTION OF EARLY CHILDHOOD WORK. MICHIGAN IS SYSTEMATICALLY MOVING THROUGH THE PACES, BUT NOT ALL STATES ARE THERE. I'D SAY THAT MOVEMENT IS IN THAT DIRECTION, BUT WE'RE FURTHER AHEAD THAN A LOT OF OTHER STATES. >> SECOND, WHAT PENALTY OR INCENTIVES ARE TIED TO THE USE OF THESE STANDARDS? SO HOW DO THESE-- I MEAN, I GET THAT THEY ALIGN WITH-- SO-- YOU GUYS HAVE DONE ALL THE WORK TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE USED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, OR ALIGNED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE WITH THE QRIS STANDARDS, OR WITH TEACHER CERTIFICATION EXAMS, AND SO ON. BUT IN PRACTICE WHAT KIND OF TEETH DO THESE HAVE? ARE YOU NOT ALLOWED TO GET YOUR LICENSE FOR EARLY CHILDHOOD CARE BECAUSE YOU DON'T MEET THESE STANDARDS? WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS, IF ANYTHING? >> CURRENTLY THEY ARE VOLUNTARY, BUT I CAN GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT SUSAN BROMAN WAS ALLUDING TO, AS WE PUSH FORWARD. EACH CORE KNOWLEDGE AND CORE COMPETENCY WOULD BE USED BY EVERYONE ACROSS THE STATE TO APPROVE TRAINING THAT WOULD BE OFFERED TO EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION PROVIDERS. YOU WOULD HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE WHICH COMPETENCIES YOUR TRAINING MET TO HAVE AN APPROVED TRAINING FOR PROVIDERS TO TAKE. SOME OF THOSE KINDS OF EXAMPLES ARE THE NEXT STEP IN GETTING OTHERS TO EMBRACE THIS. >> IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENED THIS LAST YEAR WITH THE GREAT START READINESS PROGRAM, TYING IT TO A MINIMUM THREE STAR ON THE QUALITY RATING SYSTEM, WHICH OF COURSE WOULD INCLUDE LOOKING AT THE COMPETENCY OF THE PROFESSIONALS, YOU SEE WHAT I CALL A DIRECT TIE, AS WELL AS THIS YEAR'S CHILD CARE FUNDING BEING INDEXED TO A TIERED REIMBURSEMENT WAY THREE-, FOUR-, AND FIVE-STAR, SO THAT THEY ARE IN FACT RECEIVING ADDITIONAL REIMBURSEMENT PER HOUR BASED ON THE QUALITY OF THEIR PROGRAM, WHICH AGAIN RELATES TO THE QUALITY OF THE STAFF. SO THE PIECES ARE STARTING TO-- THERE ARE FINANCIAL INCENTIVES TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF THE STAFF. IT IS NOT MANDATORY. >> RIGHT, RIGHT. AND THAT INDEXING BEGINS WITH THIS FISCAL YEAR IN OCTOBER? >> NO, IT ALREADY BEGAN. >> IT ALREADY BEGAN? >> YES, THE TWO YEAR GRADING SYSTEM BEGAN. >> WELL, THE RATING SYSTEM DID, DID THE TIERED REIMBURSEMENT? >> YES, THE TIERED REIMBURSEMENT BEGAN AT THE END OF AUGUST. >> OKAY, RIGHT. >> YES, THE END OF AUGUST. WE HAD A LITTLE DELAY IN THE QUICKNESS OF DHS BEING ABLE TO IMPLEMENT THE CHANGES IN SOFTWARE. BUT THAT ALSO INCLUDED THE CHANGE FROM 80 TO 90 HOURS REIMBURSEMENT PER PAY PERIOD FOR EARLY CHILDHOOD CARE, WHICH ALSO BEGAN AT THE SAME POINT IN TIME. >> IF THERE'S NOT ANYONE ELSE IN THE QUEUE, ONE OTHER QUICK FOLLOW UP. >> I HAVE A QUESTION. >> OH, WELL, THEN-- >> I WAS GOING TO FOLLOW YOU UP, SO GO AHEAD. [ LAUGHTER ] >> A QUICK FOLLOW UP: IS THERE ANY FEEDBACK ON THAT SO FAR? >> IT'S KIND OF EARLY. >> OKAY. >> I'LL COME BACK TO THAT ONE. >> THANK YOU, DAN. KATHLEEN, THEN MICHELLE. >> THANK YOU. WELL, I WANTED TO FOLLOW UP, BUT YOU REALLY ASKED THE QUESTION. I WAS CONCERNED THAT WHEN WE DO THESE STANDARDS, HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THEY'RE BEING IMPLEMENTED? THAT'S TRUE OF ALL THE STANDARDS WE DO-- HOW ARE THEY BEING IMPLEMENTED? I GOT SOME OF THE ANSWERS FROM DAN'S AND YOUR ANSWERS, SO I DON'T-- BUT I THINK THE IDEA THAT WE TRAIN THE PROVIDERS AND STAFF PEOPLE IS THE WAY TO GO. >> THANK YOU. IT'S NICE TO BE ABLE TO CONCENTRATE ON THE PEOPLE WHO WILL BE PROVIDING THE SERVICE, BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, THAT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT VARIABLE. [ OVERLAPPING CHATTER ] >> I JUST WANT TO MENTION I WAS ASKED TO DO AN INTERVIEW FOR NASBE, YOU KNOW, FOR THEIR PUBLICATION, ON THE STANDARDS WE HAVE FOR AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS. AFTER EXPLAINING THE HISTORY, THEY ASKED, "ARE THEY BEING IMPLEMENTED? HOW ARE THEY BEING IMPLEMENTED? HOW DO YOU KNOW THEY ARE BEING IMPLEMENTED?" SO IT'S ON MY MIND. >> THANK YOU, KATHY. MICHELLE, THEN DAN. >> I APPRECIATE THE REPORTS YOU DO AND I LIKE THAT YOU ALWAYS TAKE BROAD AND DIVERSE OPINIONS, AND VERY COMPREHENSIVE IN YOUR APPROACH, AND I ALWAYS APPRECIATE THAT. IT SEEMS REALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE WORK YOU DO. I WAS LOOKING AT, WHEN YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE ALIGNMENT, FOR EARLY EDUCATOR PREPARATION, I WAS GLAD TO SEE AN INCLUSION FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION AND THAT THAT AREA WAS TOUCHED. MY QUESTION IS RELATED TO THAT. WHEN SOMEONE IN THIS AGE RANGE, INFANT TO FIVE-- A LOT OF DISABILITIES ARISE IN THIS TIME. WHAT RESOURCES, OR WHAT APPROACH-- ARE THERE CHANGES IN THE APPROACH, AND WHAT ARE THEY? HOW ARE THESE CHILDREN PROVIDED SERVICES OR WHEN SERIOUS DISABILITIES ARE IDENTIFIED? >> THIS DOCUMENT-- AND CERTAINLY WE CAN DO SOME FOLLOW UP TO POINT TO SOME SPECIFIC INSTANCES, BUT I THINK REALLY HELPS PROVIDERS REALIZE THAT THERE ARE A MULTITUDE OF INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE WORKING TO SUPPORT CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, AND GIVES THEM THE ABILITY TO REACH OUT AND ACCESS THOSE RESOURCES. IT MAY BE EARLY ON, ZERO TO THREE. IT MAY BE PARTNERING WITH THEIR ISD FOR A CHILD WHO IS OLDER TO MAKE SURE THEY CAN CONNECT THOSE FAMILIES AND CHILDREN WITH SUPPORT. MANY OF THOSE SERVICES WILL COME INTO THE EARLY CHILDHOOD SETTING AND WORK WITH THAT PROVIDER SO THAT THEY'RE COORDINATING AND MAKING IT EASIER FOR THE CHILD AND FAMILY. SUSAN MAY WANT TO ADD TO THAT. >> IS THERE ANY ISSUES WITH FINANCING THOSE TYPES OF SERVICES? >> YES, THERE ARE. [ LAUGHTER ] >> IN PARTICULAR, FOR EARLY ON. >> YEAH, THERE MIGHT BE NEED IN SOME AREAS THAT DON'T GET SERVED BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE FINANCIAL... >> THE ENTIRE STATE. >> THE ENTIRE STATE. [ LAUGHTER ] >> DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEAS HOW TO ADDRESS THAT, OR RECOMMENDATIONS HOW TO ADDRESS THAT? [ OVERLAPPING CHATTER ] >> THEY SHOULD BE ALLOTTED MORE MONEY. >> MAY I? >> I THINK YOU'RE UP. >> ALL RIGHT. YOU KNOW, I HAD A THOUGHT TO SHARE, BUT I'M ACTUALLY GOING TO GO IN A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT DIRECTION, AND THAT IS TO ENCOURAGE THIS BOARD TO SPEND MORE TIME AND ENERGY ON THIS ISSUE. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A ROBUST CONVERSATION, I'M SURE, ABOUT STATE POLICY WITH REGARDS TO CHARTER SCHOOLS. THAT'S AN IMPORTANT THING TO BE SURE. MY GUT TELLS ME, THOUGH, THAT... HAVING A ROBUST CONVERSATION WITH REGARDS TO EARLY CHILDHOOD IS AT LEAST AS IMPORTANT AS HAVING A DISCUSSION ABOUT CHARTER SCHOOLS. IF WE REALLY WANT TO... TRANSFORM OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM AND OUTCOMES FOR KIDS, PARTICULARLY OUTCOMES FOR KIDS OF COLOR AND KIDS OF LOW INCOME THROUGHOUT THE STATE, THE DATA ALL SUGGESTS THAT THE LONG TERM IMPACT OF QUALITY EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION IS SIMPLY THE BEST INVESTMENT THAT YOU CAN MAKE TO IMPROVE OUTCOMES FOR KIDS GROWING UP IN POVERTY, AND I JUST DON'T THINK WE SPEND ENOUGH TIME ON IT. AND I GET THAT FOLKS, EVERYONE FEELS GOOD ABOUT EARLY CHILDHOOD, BUT OUR ACTIONS SPEAK VOLUMES IN TERMS OF THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE THAT WE THINK IT PLAYS. SO I JUST WANT TO CHALLENGE ALL OF US TO BE MUCH MORE DILIGENT AND MUCH MORE ENERGETIC ABOUT PUTTING THIS FRONT AND CENTER ON OUR AGENDA. >> FIRST OF ALL, DAN, THANK YOU FOR THAT. WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS HELP US IN AGENDA PLANNING. THOSE ARE OPPORTUNITIES FOR US TO BE MORE THOUGHTFUL ABOUT WHAT WOULD BE A GOOD PUBLIC DISCUSSION ON POLICY, AND WE WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. AND WE PROBABLY HAVE MORE INSIDE WORK ON THAT THAN THE BOARD KNOWS, BUT IT WOULD HELP US. I'D SAY THAT YOU SAW WILL, OUR GRANDSON, IN THE BEGINNING. IT BOTHERS ME THAT KIDS IN POVERTY DO NOT HAVE THE SAME OPPORTUNITY THAT HE DOES. MY DAUGHTER SHOWED ME THIS WEEKEND: THEY GET A DAILY, ONLINE UPDATE AT THE END OF THE DAY-- HIS PROGRESS ON GOALS. AND WHEN HE PEED TOO. AND THERE'S A QUICK VIDEO OF WATCHING HIM DO SOMETHING, AND I'M THINKING, "THIS IS GOLD," AND I'M HAPPY MY PRE-SCHOOL GRAND-KIDS GET THIS, BUT I'M THINKING, "HOW DOES EVERYONE NOT HAVE THIS," AND THEN WE EXPECT THE STARTING LINE TO BE THE SAME BY KINDERGARTEN. IT'S NOT. IT'S A QUALITY ISSUE YOU MENTIONED AND THE WAY SOME OF THESE PROVIDERS ARE INNOVATING WITH TECHNOLOGY JUST BLEW ME AWAY. AND THEN WITH A LITTLE GUILT, IT MADE ME THINK, "WHAT CAN WE DO TO MAKE SURE EVERY K-12 KID HAS SOME KIND OF FEEDBACK ALONG THE WAY?" WE WOULD LOVE TO DO THAT-- I THINK IT WAS RICHARD AND THEN JOHN? >> WELL, I GUESS I WOULD URGE THE BOARD TO LEARN FROM EXPERIENCE. THE HIGH SCOPE STUDY WHICH CLAIMED TO BE THE SOURCE OF THIS DOCTRINE OF INVESTMENT IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION IS WHAT PROMPTED US TO INVEST A WHOLE GENERATION IN HEAD START. AND NOW PEOPLE ARE TALKING AS IF WE HAVE NO HISTORY OF EARLY CHILDHOOD INVESTMENT, AS IF THERE IS NO RECORD OF THE RETURNS AND IF THOSE WHO REFUSE TO LEARN FROM HISTORY ARE BOUND TO REPEAT IT AGAIN. AND ONE OF THE CORE ISSUES HERE IS ARE WE SUPPLEMENTING PARENTAL GUIDANCE OF CHILDREN, AND WE ALL KNOW THE HOME IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN EVEN POVERTY-- MEASURED IN TERMS OF INCOME-- ON THE CHILD'S INFLUENCE. IF WE ARE ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO PUT THEIR CONFIDENCE IN AN INSTITUTION RATHER THAN PARENTHOOD THEN WE ARE SUPPLANTING RATHER THAN SUPPLEMENTING THE ESSENTIAL NEEDS OF CHILDREN. >> JOHN, THEN KATH, THEN DAN. >> I DON'T WANT TO HAVE A DEBATE ABOUT WHAT THE RESEARCH SAYS ABOUT EARLY CHILDHOOD OVER THE POWER OF THIS OR THAT-- I THINK THAT IS THOUGH AN IMPORTANT DISCUSSION, WHERE DO WE PUT OUR PRIORITIES, WHAT DO WE DO TO MOVE THE NEEDLE ON ACHIEVEMENT AND OUTCOMES, PARTICULARLY FOR POOR AND MINORITY CHILDREN WHO HAVE THE FURTHEST TO TRAVEL? I JUST WANTED TO RESPOND: MY RESEARCH FRIENDS-- BECAUSE I'VE ASKED THAT SAME QUESTION, "WHAT'S THE MOST POWERFUL?" DAN, I APPLAUD YOUR SUGGESTION TO HAVE MORE ROBUST DISCUSSION. I BELIEVE THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR TO MOVE THE NEEDLE IS TEACHER QUALITY NUMBER ONE, AND THEN EARLY CHILDHOOD NUMBER TWO, SO AS WE PRIORITIZE WAYS TO IMPROVE EDUCATION, WHERE DO WE PUT OUR EFFORTS, WHAT'S THE BEST BANG FOR ANY INVESTMENT OR POLICY BUCK? WE'RE NOT GOING TO RESOLVE THE DEBATE NOW, BUT THAT'S A GOOD SUGGESTION BY DAN, BUT I COULDN'T LET IT GO UNCHALLENGED, WHAT IS THE MOST POWERFUL? I BELIEVE TEACHER QUALITY IS NUMBER ONE, EARLY CHILDHOOD NUMBER TWO, AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS THIRD FOURTH OR FIFTH. >> THANKS, JOHN. KATHLEEN THEN DAN. >> WELL, I HAVE SEVERAL POINTS I'D LIKE TO MAKE. FIRST OF ALL, THE HIGH SCOPE STUDY WAS ABOUT HIGH QUALITY THAT INVOLVES INCLUDING THE PARENTS IN THE EDUCATION, WHICH IS THE POINT I THINK YOU'RE MAKING HERE THAT TRAINING THE PEOPLE WILL MAKE IT HIGH QUALITY. HEAD START WAS NOT ALWAYS HIGH QUALITY, IT WAS MORE LIKE CHILD CARE, IT WAS NOT UNIFORMLY HIGH QUALITY. WE'RE TRYING TO MOVE THE NEEDLE, IF YOU WANT TO CALL IT THAT, TO HAVE HIGH QUALITY, BUT THAT INCLUDES EDUCATING THE PARENTS, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> YES, YES. >> SO WE'RE TALKING APPLES AND ORANGES, AND WE ALL AGREE THAT EARLY CHILDHOOD IS CRITICAL. A FEW YEARS AGO WE HAVE FIVE TASK FORCES FOR THINGS THAT WERE CRITICAL. THE FIRST WAS EARLY CHILDHOOD, THE SECOND WAS TEACHER QUALITY, THE THIRD WAS ADMINISTRATOR OR PRINCIPAL QUALITY, THE FOURTH WAS TECHNOLOGY, THE FIFTH WAS INTEGRATING THE COMMUNITY AND GETTING THEM INVOLVED. ALL OF THOSE ARE STILL CRITICAL. I DON'T KNOW HOW WE PRIORITIZE ONE OVER THE OTHER-- WE NEED THE WHOLE PACKAGE. WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW, BUT I JUST HAD TO SAY THAT. THERE WERE FIVE AREAS, AND THERE STILL ARE FIVE AREAS. >> AND THERE WILL ALWAYS BE. >> I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT WE WANT EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION THAT IS HIGH QUALITY, NOT JUST DAY CARE. >> OR BABYSITTING. >> OR BABYSITTING, RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT I WAS DESCRIBING AS DAY CARE. >> I THINK IT'S HEALTHY TO CHALLENGE EACH OTHER, SO I APPRECIATE THAT DISCUSSION VERY MUCH. DAN, YOU MAY WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT. >> INDEED. CERTAINLY. I CAN'T LEAVE A SUGGESTION BY MY ESTEEMED COLLEAGUE LIE. >> WHICH ONE IS ESTEEMED? [ LAUGHTER ] >> ALL OF YOU ARE ESTEEMED. >> THE ONE THAT STEAMED HIM. [ LAUGHTER ] >> ALL OF YOU ARE ESTEEMED. BUT INDEED, I WAS STEAMED BY DR. ZEILE'S REMARKS. SO I DON'T THINK ANYONE IS MAKING AN ARGUMENT FOR MANDATORY EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION, LIKE YOU HAVE TO ENROLL YOUR CHILD HERE IN THIS INSTITUTION LIKE WE DO IN K-12, SO I WOULD PUSH BACK ON THE NOTION THAT WE'RE SUPPLANTING FAMILY CARE FOR INSTITUTIONAL CARE. EVERY FAMILY GETS A CHOICE TO MAKE, AND IF YOU ARE ABLE TO PROVIDE A HIGH QUALITY ENVIRONMENT FOR YOUR TODDLER OR CHILD, FEEL FREE TO DO SO. SADLY, REGRETTABLY, THERE ARE MANY FAMILIES WHO FIND THAT VERY CHALLENGING DUE TO ECONOMICS, DUE TO FAMILY CIRCUMSTANCE FOR OTHER REASONS. IN THOSE CASES, AS A COMMUNITY, WE HAVE DECIDED TO CARE FOR THOSE CHILDREN, AND WHEN WE DO SPEND THAT MONEY, WE SHOULD DO SO IN WAYS THAT ARE SMART. GETTING TO THE SECOND POINT, THE SUGGESTION THAT EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION IS NOT A SMART INVESTMENT BASED ON THE DATA. I COULDN'T DISAGREE MORE. YOU KEEP REFERENCING ONE STUDY, FRANKLY, AND THERE ARE MANY, MANY OTHER STUDIES WHICH SUGGEST QUITE THE OPPOSITE. IN FACT, THE STUDY YOU CITE SAYS THAT WASHOUT OCCURS BY 3rd GRADE, SO YOU DON'T SEE THE RESULTS OF EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION IN ELEMENTARY OR MIDDLE SCHOOL, BUT YOU DO IT SEE IT LONG TERM. WE DON'T KNOW WHY, AND HEAVEN FORBID WE DON'T KNOW WHY THAT HAPPENS, BUT THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS THAT HIGH QUALITY EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION, WHEN YOU REACH ADULTHOOD, HAS ALL SORTS OF POSITIVE OUTCOMES INCLUDING HIGHER GRADUATION RATES, HIGHER INCOME RATES AND LOWER INCARCERATION RATES FOR THOSE ADULTS. SO, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO CHECK THE DATA, AS YOU SUGGESTED, AND LET'S NOT BE DOOMED TO REPEAT MISTAKES IN POLICY THAT ARE BASED ON IDEOLOGICAL NOTION, LET'S ACTUALLY CHECK THE DATA AND MAKE GOOD POLICY-- IN THIS CASE, EXPAND HIGH QUALITY EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION, PARTICULARLY FOR THE KIDS WHO BENEFIT MOST FROM IT, SO THAT WE ARE NOT PAYING EXORBITANT COSTS DOWN THE ROAD AS A RESULT OF POOR POLICY DECISIONS WE MADE ON BEHALF OF YOUNG CHILDREN. >> RICHARD, AND THEN I'D ASK THAT WE WRAP IT UP AND GET TO THE NEXT ITEM. >> I WOULD JUST POINT OUT THAT HEAD START, WHICH WAS SOLD UNDER THE ENTHUSIASM FOR THE HIGH SCOPES STUDY INCLUDED THE PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT COMPONENT, AND ALL THE THINGS WE CLAIM WE'RE GOING TO GET RIGHT THIS TIME AROUND. THE CURRENT GENERATION OF SCHOOL-TO-PRISON GRADUATES HAVE BENEFITED FROM THIS GENERATION OF HEAD START PROGRAMS. THESE ARE FACTS, AND I HOPE WE CAN PROCEED WITH OUR EYES WIDE OPEN, AND NOT FOLLOW THE SAME PATH FOLKS DID A GENERATION AGO, POURING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS INTO INEFFECTIVE PROGRAMS. >> WELL, MAYBE ONE THING TO GET AT THESE POINTS, IF YOU THINK SO, IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO HAVE A PRESENTATION ABOUT RESEARCH, AND WHAT'S THERE AND FOLLOW THIS UP. THIS IS IMPORTANT, AND WE SHOULD CHALLENGE EACH OTHER. MAYBE WE BRING THOSE AND TAKE SUGGESTIONS FROM THE BOARD ABOUT WHAT-- BECAUSE WE SHOULD LOOK AT THAT IN ORDER TO MAKE OUR POLICY DECISION. THAT'S A THOUGHT WE CAN TALK ABOUT AT AGENDA PLANNING. >> WE DO AGREE ON THAT AT LEAST. >> SO WE'RE GOOD ON THAT FOR NOW? THANKS. AND WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ONTO THE PRESENTATION OF, JOHN'S POINT, ON HIS NUMBER ONE WHICH HE WASN'T SURE-- THE PRESENTATION OF THE 2014 EDUCATOR PREPARATION INSTITUTION PERFORMANCE SCORE. WE DO THIS EVERY YEAR, AS YOU KNOW. LET ME GIVE JOSEPH, FLORA AND LEAH A MOMENT TO COME ON DOWN AND OUR BOARD MEMBERS TO-- SINCE THIS IS JOHN'S NUMBER ONE, I'M GOING TO GIVE HIM JUST A MOMENT TO COME BACK. >> JOHN, SINCE IT'S YOUR NUMBER ONE, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE-- HERE'S THE DEAL, A YEAR AGO IN 2013, WE PROMISED TO BRING THIS BACK TO YOU NOW. THIS IS THE TIME A YEAR AGO THAT WE PRESENTED TO THE STATE BOARD THE REVISIONS TO THE EPI PERFORMANCE SCORE METRIC. SO I DON'T THINK I DO AS GOOD A JOB SOMETIMES OF HELPING FOLKS TO UNDERSTAND-- WE DO PROMISE THESE IN ADVANCE, THEY DO COME, WE'RE I THINK PRETTY RELIGIOUS ABOUT THAT, AND THEN IT WAS AGREED UPON AT AGENDA PLANNING. SO IT'S NOT A SURPRISE. THOSE REVISIONS WERE IMPLEMENTED OVER THE PAST YEAR AND THE RESULTS ARE THESE FINAL PERFORMANCE SCORES THAT WE'LL PRESENT TO YOU TODAY. WE'VE WORKED ON THEM A LOT, PARTICULARLY THESE FOLKS AND THEIR TEAM. WE ALSO REVIEWED IT AT LENGTH AT SUPS GROUP MEETINGS. THE NEXT STEPS BY THE WAY IS WE'LL REPORT THESE EPIs, IDENTIFY AS HIGH RISK OR LOW PERFORMING TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF ED, AND THAT'S PER THE HIGHER ED ACT REQUIREMENT. SO WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO THE TEAM. >> THANK YOU. WE'RE GLAD TO BE BACK WITH THIS, WE APPRECIATED YOUR FEEDBACK I THINK BACK IN MAY. WE-- I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO THE TEAM. OPPS STAFF HAVE DONE A FANTASTIC JOB WITH THIS. THIS HAS BEEN A HEAVY LIFT. THE REVISIONS WERE DONE VERY QUICKLY, BUT DONE WITH VERY HIGH QUALITY. I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT. IT SPEAKS WELL TO THE QUALITY OF STAFF THAT WE HAVE AT OPPS. WITH THAT I'LL TURN IT OVER. >> THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE AGAIN TO PRESENT THIS INFORMATION TO YOU AND ALSO TO RECOGNIZE THE TEAM, AS JOSEPH HAS MENTIONED, FOR THE WORK THAT'S GONE INTO THIS. IT'S VERY THOUGHTFUL-- THEY WORKED WITH OUR EPI COLLEAGUES IN TERMS OF HAVING THEM COME TOGETHER TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT WE'RE DOING, AND WE HAVE BEEN BRINGING THIS TO YOU SINCE 2007. WE'RE VERY HAPPY ABOUT THE REVISIONS-- WE THINK IT'S A MUCH IMPROVED SYSTEM OF TAKING A LOOK AT OUR INSTITUTIONS AND HOLDING THEM ACCOUNTABLE FOR PRODUCING QUALITY EDUCATORS. I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO LEAH, BECAUSE SHE HAS THE POWERPOINT FOR THE PRESENTATION. >> I DREW THE SHORT STRAW FOR THE PRESENTATION. OKAY, AS MIKE MENTIONED, THIS IS A REQUIREMENT OF TITLE II. WE ARE REQUIRED AS A STATE AGENCY TO IDENTIFY AND ASSIST PREPARATORY PROGRAMS THAT ARE NOT PERFORMING AT A SATISFACTORY LEVEL. WE CREATE A LIST ANNUALLY THAT IDENTIFIES LOW PERFORMING AND AT RISK OF LOW PERFORMING INSTITUTIONS. ALL OF THE OTHER INSTITUTIONS ARE SATISFACTORY BY DEFAULT. ALSO, I'D LIKE TO MENTION WE BROUGHT THIS BACK IN AUGUST OF 2013, AND AT THAT TIME, WE TALKED ABOUT WHY WE WANTED TO REVISE THE PREPARATION SCORE, AND I'M JUST GOING TO RUN THROUGH THOSE REASONS TO REMIND YOU. WE WANTED TO PRESERVE AND STRENGTHEN MULTIPLE MEASURE METHODOLOGY. WE ALSO WANTED TO ALIGN OUR SCORE WITH CURRENT PRIORITIES AND POLICY DIRECTION. IT NEEDED UPDATING, AND WE HADN'T DONE THAT IN SOME TIME. WE WANTED TO CONSIDER THE ONGOING FEEDBACK WE'VE HEARD FROM OUR STAKEHOLDERS, BOTH FROM K-12 AND OUR EDUCATOR PREPARATION INSTITUTIONS ABOUT OTHER MEASURES THAT THEY'D LIKE TO SEE INCLUDED IN THE SCORE. AND WE WANTED TO LEVERAGE NEW WAYS TO GATHER DATA BECAUSE WE HAVE NEW DATA, AND ONE OF THOSE COMPONENTS YOU'LL SEE HERE ARE THE EFFECTIVENESS RATINGS FOR THE K-12 SCHOOLS. WHEN WE BROUGHT YOU THIS INFORMATION BACK IN AUGUST, WE FOCUSED ON THREE GOAL AREAS: CONTENT AND PEDAGOGY, CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT WITH REGARDS SPECIFIC TO MDE PRIORITIES AND EFFECTIVENESS IN THE CLASSROOM. THIS IS KIND OF THE DEFAULT WEIGHTING FOR THESE THREE CATEGORIES. WE DID APPLY KIND OF A SCALE LATER BASED ON SIZE OF THE INSTITUTIONS, BUT THIS-- IT STARTS WITH 50 AND 20 AND 30 FOR EACH OF THE CATEGORIES. THESE THREE GOALS WERE MEASURED, FOR THIS SCORE, USING THREE DATA SOURCES. WE USED MTTC ASSESSMENT DATA, AND WITH THAT ASSESSMENT DATA WE USED A THREE YEAR AGGREGATE PASS RATE WITHIN THE CONTENT AREAS ONLY, AND IT IS THE TEST TAKER'S BEST ATTEMPT. FOR SURVEY DATA, WE LOOKED AT SURVEY DATA FROM BOTH TEACHER CANDIDATES AND THE CANDIDATES' SUPERVISORS FROM THE INSTITUTION. THEN WE LOOKED AT EDUCATOR EVALUATION DATA. SO JUST A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT WE SAW FROM THE DATA SOURCES BEFORE WE ACTUALLY LOOK AT THIS YEAR'S PERFORMANCE SCORE. IN THE EPI SUPERVISORS SURVEY, WE LOOKED AT FOUR MAIN AREAS. FOR THIS YEAR, WE TOOK THE OLD SURVEY AND KIND OF MATCHED IT TO OUR NEW GOALS-- THIS YEAR WE'LL BE DEPLOYING AN ENTIRELY NEW SURVEY FOR INSTITUTIONS AND CANDIDATES. AND RIGHT HERE, THE EPI SUPERVISORS WERE PRETTY SATISFIED OVERALL WITH HOW CANDIDATES WERE PREPARED. THE LOWEST IN THIS SECTION WAS IN TECHNOLOGY, 80%, AND THE HIGHEST 100%. THERE IS A LITTLE VARIATION IN BETWEEN THERE, WITH DIVERSE LEARNERS AT 88% AND LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS AND DATA USE AT 86%. NOW, WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT EPI SUPERVISORS, ON AVERAGE, FELT THAT 96% OF THEIR CANDIDATES WERE PREPARED IN ALL OF THESE AREAS. WHY THAT IS INTERESTING IS BECAUSE THEN WE LOOK AT THE CANDIDATE RESULTS. I SEE A PRETTY BIG DISCREPANCY IN HOW THE CANDIDATES FELT THEY WERE PREPARED IN SOME OF THESE AREAS, SPECIFICALLY IN TECHNOLOGY AND DIVERSE LEARNERS. YOU'LL NOTICE THERE ARE A COUPLE OF ADDITIONAL CATEGORIES ON THIS ONE AS WELL-- WE WEREN'T ABLE TO MEASURE THOSE ON THE EPI SURVEY, SO THE LAST TWO, REAL WORLD PROBLEMS AND HIGH QUALITY LEARNING EXPERIENCES, WE COULD ONLY GATHER FROM THE CANDIDATE SURVEYS. THE NEXT SET OF SURVEYS WILL INCLUDE THOSE FOR THE SUPERVISORS AS WELL. >> REAL QUICK CLARIFICATION, YOUR SAYING LOWEST AND HIGHEST BY EPI, SO THE HIGHEST EPI WAS 100%, THE LOWEST GOT THE BAR? >> CORRECT. >> OKAY. >> THIS IS INTERESTING. >> VERY INTERESTING. >> THE EDUCATOR EVALUATION RESULTS WERE PRETTY HARD TO PUT ON A GRAPH, SO I JUST WANTED TO BRING A FEW OF THESE MAIN POINTS. OVERALL, EDUCATORS WERE, ON AVERAGE, 94% EFFECTIVE WHEN WE SORTED THEM BY INSTITUTION. THE N SIZE, WHEN WE TRY AND ATTRIBUTE THE TEACHERS IN THE FIRST THREE YEARS OF TEACHING BACK TO AN INSTITUTION IS ANYWHERE FROM 2 TO 1,555. SO IT'S VERY HARD TO COMPARE THE EFFICACY OF AN INSTITUTION THAT HAD 2 OF THESE TO ONE THAT HAD 1,555 OF THESE. SO I DIDN'T PUT THEM ON A GRAPH-- IT'S NOT REALLY A FAIR COMPARISON, BUT IT IS INCLUDED IN THEIR PERFORMANCE SCORE: WE DO LOOK AT 2, AND WE LOOK AT 1,555. WE TRY TO FIGURE OUT SOME WAY TO ACCOMMODATE AND THAT'S WHERE THE WAITING COMES INTO PLAY FOR THIS PARTICULAR COMPONENT. THE RANGE OF EFFECTIVENESS IS ATTRIBUTED TO THE INSTITUTIONS WAS BETWEEN 76% EFFECTIVE AND 100% EFFECTIVE. INSTITUTIONS FALL WITHIN THAT RANGE. WHEN WE LOOK AT THE MTTC RESULTS BY CONTENT AREAS, WHEN WE LOOK AT BEST ATTEMPT AND THREE YEAR AGGREGATE BY CANDIDATES, THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE FOR OUR HIGH PERFORMING CONTENT AREAS, AND WE DREW THE LINE AT 80%, SO ANYTHING AT 80% OR ABOVE IS CONSIDERED HIGH PERFORMING. AND AS YOU CAN SEE WE HAVE A LOT IN THIS RANGE-- YOU'LL HAVE TO EXCUSE ALL THE ACRONYMS ON THERE, BUT IN ORDER TO SQUEEZE THEM ALL ON TO ONE CHART I HAD TO DO SOME ABBREVIATING. SPEECH AND MUSIC ARE AT THE TOP AND READING SPECIALIST IS AT THE BOTTOM AT 80%. >> THOSE CRITICAL ONES, THE READING-- WITH THE MUSIC, THEY MIGHT HAVE THREE TEACHERS AND THEY'RE ALL GOOD. >> THIS IS ACTUALLY THE CANDIDATES' RESULTS, SO THESE ARE TEACHER PREPARATION STUDENTS IN THE PROGRAM-- AS THEY EXIT THE PROGRAM THEY TAKE CONTENT EXAMS, AND THESE ARE THE RESULTS OF THREE YEARS OF THOSE EXAMS. >> AND THESE ARE BEST OF SCORES? >> BEST OF SCORES. WE ONLY LOOKED AT PROGRAMS THAT HAD A SIZE OF 200 OR GREATER, SO ANYTHING, THE TINY, TINY PROGRAMS WE DIDN'T PUT ON HERE. YES? >> IF YOU COULD GIVE ME, GIVE US SOME OF THE ACRONYMS, WHAT IS ECE? >> EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION. >> OKAY, SO THEN SO EL ED, ASD, LD, LEARNING DISABLED. MATH HIGH SCHOOL? >> MMM-HMM. >> OKAY. ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE-- CI? >> COGNITIVELY IMPAIRED. >> MATH ELEMENTARY, GC... OH, GOOD-- I ACTUALLY HAVE A COMPANION TO THIS. >> OH. >> OKAY, MOVING ON. [ LAUGHTER ] >> ZS? >> THAT IS A NEW EARLY CHILDHOOD ENDORSEMENT COMBINED WITH SPECIAL EDUCATION CONTENT. >> OKAY. AND PS? >> PHYSICAL SCIENCE. >> AND EI? >> EMOTIONALLY IMPAIRED. >> THANKS. >> I'M PRETTY HAPPY I GOT ALMOST ALL OF THEM. [ LAUGHTER ] >> ALL RIGHT, WANT TO GET STARTED? SO HERE WE HAVE-- AND REMEMBER WE ONLY TOOK THE ONES WITH 200 STUDENTS OR ABOVE IN A THREE YEAR PERIOD, SO OUR BIGGER PROGRAMS, LOW PERFORMING CONTENT AREAS. AS YOU CAN SEE, THEY ARE NOT DRASTICALLY LOW, BUT THEY ARE BELOW THE 80%. THE LOW IS IN QUOTES, BELOW 80, BUT NOT NECESSARILY OF GREAT CONCERN. >> AND EL HERE IS? >> ELEMENTARY. >> AND THE LAST ONE, WHAT IS INT? >> INTEGRATED SCIENCE ELEMENTARY ED. >> AND THIS, OH, MATH ELEMENTARY, OKAY. OH NO, THAT'S NOT MATH. >> INTEGRATED SCIENCE IS THE LOWEST PERFORMING CONTENT AREA? >> IN ELEMENTARY, ABOVE 200, YES. ALL RIGHT, SO NOW I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE 2014 PERFORMANCE SCORES. SO THAT GAVE YOU A LITTLE GLIMPSE OF THE DATA THAT WE USED WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT THE SCORE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO PUT ALL OF THAT TOGETHER TO DETERMINE HOW EFFECTIVELY INSTITUTIONS WERE PREPARING OUR STUDENTS. WHAT WE DID THEN IS WE TOOK ALL OF THAT DATA, WE TOOK A GROUP OF K-12 EDUCATORS AND EDUCATION PREPARATION INSTITUTION REPRESENTATIVES AND WE CONDUCTED A STANDARD SETTING PROCESS. WE DID A DATA REVIEW OF ALL THIS, WE DID OUR BEST TO MASK THE INSTITUTIONS' IDENTITIES BY PUTTING SOME DUMMY INSTITUTIONS AND DUMMY DATA IN THERE, SO THEY WOULDN'T BE RECOGNIZED. AND WE WENT THROUGH A PROCESS OF STANDARD SETTING TO COME UP WITH A CUT SCORE FOR THIS YEAR FOR AT RISK AND LOW PERFORMING. IN YOUR BOARD PACKET YOU HAD OUR TECHNICAL MANUAL-- FINGERS CROSSED THAT THAT WOULD WORK AND IT DID-- IT LOOKS LIKE THIS, YOU'LL RECOGNIZE IT LATER, YOU MAY HAVE ALREADY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK THROUGH IT-- IT IS 56 PAGES AND IT DESCRIBES HOW THE STANDARD SETTING OCCURRED IF YOU'D LIKE TO HEAR THAT A LITTLE MORE IN DEPTH. IT TALKS ABOUT ALL THE DIFFERENT SCORE COMPONENTS AND HOW THEY WERE CALCULATED AND HOW WE ADDED THEM ALL TOGETHER TO GET THE FINAL SCORE. WE'LL GO THROUGH A LITTLE BIT OF THAT, BUT REALLY THIS DOCUMENT WILL ANSWER ALL OF THOSE QUESTIONS IN DEPTH. AND IF YOU HAVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS I'LL DO MY BEST TO ANSWER THEM TODAY, BUT I MIGHT NEED THE HELP OF THE TECHNICAL MANUAL. SO AT THE STANDARD SETTING-- LET ME CATCH UP HERE. THE STAKEHOLDER TEAM IDENTIFIED THREE INSTITUTIONS WHOSE DATA FELL BELOW THE CUT FOR AT RISK. AND THOSE THREE ARE IDENTIFIED RIGHT THERE: CONCORDIA, MARYGROVE AND ROCHESTER. >> JUST TO CALL ATTENTION TO THIS, THIS IS PART OF OUR STANDARD PRACTICES ACROSS THE BOARD TO CATEGORIZE THINGS AS AT RISK. IT'S NOT MEANT TO BE MORE THAN THAT. >> THE TEAM DID NOT-- I'M SORRY, MIKE. >> INCLUDING TODAY'S ISSUE IF I WASN'T SUBTLE ENOUGH. [ LAUGHTER ] >> THE STANDARD SETTING TEAM DID NOT IDENTIFY ANY INSTITUTION AS LOW PERFORMING BASED ON THE DATA THAT THEY WERE PROVIDED FOR THIS YEAR'S SCORE. OKAY? THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS NEW AND THAT ACTUALLY CHANGED THE WAY WE DID BUSINESS MOVING FORWARD. AND I'LL TALK ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT. FIRST I WANT TO LOOK AT, AND ALSO IN YOUR BOARD PACKET YOU RECEIVED, YOU HAVE AN APPENDIX B, AND THIS IS EACH INSTITUTION'S INDIVIDUALIZED SCORE REPORT WHICH IS ALSO SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE NOT DONE AND BROUGHT TO THE BOARD BEFORE, AND IT'S BEAUTIFUL. PHIL CHASE AND HIS TEAM DID A LOT OF WORK ON THIS EDUCATOR PREPARATION INSTITUTION PERFORMANCE SCORE, AND WE HAD SOME HELP FROM OUR COMPOSITION TEAM THAT DOES OUR ASSESSMENTS TO HELP US MAKE THESE VERY NICE REPORTS FOR OUR INSTITUTIONS. I'M PRETTY EXCITED THAT THEY GET TO SEE THINGS IN A WAY THAT THEY NEVER HAVE BEEN ABLE TO BEFORE. UP HERE I HAVE ADRIAN'S SCORE REPORT AND WE'RE JUST GOING TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT A LITTLE BIT SO WHEN YOU LOOK THROUGH EACH OF THE INSTITUTIONS LATER YOU'LL BE ABLE TO RECOGNIZE THE KEY COMPONENTS. UP HERE AT THE TOP WE HAVE THE DATE, WHICH IS IMPORTANT, SO NEXT YEAR IF IT LOOKS VERY SIMILAR, WE'LL KNOW WHOSE WE'RE LOOKING AT, WE HAVE ADRIAN COLLEGE FOR THE INSTITUTION NAME. WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF NARRATIVE HERE THAT EXPLAINS THIS REPORT. AND THEN OVER HERE YOU HAVE THE MTTC SCORE, THEIR SURVEY SCORE AND THEIR EDUCATOR EVAL SCORE WHICH IS ABBREVIATED AS EFF FOR EFFECTIVENESS. IF YOU CARRY THOSE RAW SCORES DOWN, ALTHOUGH THEY'RE NOT REALLY RAW FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS REPORT, YOU CARRY THEM THROUGH AND YOU'LL SEE DOWN HERE THE NEW SCORES BY GOAL AREA. REMEMBER WE'RE MEASURING THREE GOALS: CONTENT AND PEDAGOGY, MDE PRIORITIES AND EDUCATOR ASSESSMENT. SO YOU'LL SEE THAT 70% OF THE GOAL ONE SCORE IS COMPRISED OF MTTC DATA AND 30% IS COMPRISED OF SURVEY DATA. ALL RIGHT, SO WE HAVE MULTIPLE MEASURES IN THESE GOAL AREAS WHERE WE CAN. GOAL TWO, 100% OF THAT IS FROM SURVEY DATA THIS YEAR, AND FOR GOAL THREE, 100% IS FROM ED EVAL DATA. RIGHT BELOW THAT YOU CAN SEE THE WEIGHTING THAT WAS GIVEN TO THIS, AND I'M GOING TO TRY AND MAKE THIS BIGGER. RIGHT DOWN HERE YOU'LL SEE THE WEIGHTING THAT WAS APPLIED. THE WEIGHTING VARIES BY THE SIZE OF THE INSTITUTION, AND BY SIZE WE USED THE NUMBER OF TEACHERS THAT THEY HAD EFFECTIVENESS LABELS FOR-- SO REMEMBER I SAID THAT WAS 2 TO 1,555. THAT'S OUR BIGGEST SPREAD, SO WE LOWERED THE WEIGHTING FOR INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE SMALLER. ON PAGE TWO OF THIS REPORT IT WILL SHOW YOU THE DIFFERENT WEIGHTING SCHEMES WE USED. SO FOR THIS INSTITUTION WE USED THE 50/20/30. FOR TINY INSTITUTIONS THAT HAD VERY FEW EDUCATORS WE WENT AS LOW AS 0% WEIGHTING. >> I DO WANT TO CLARIFY IT'S NOT TINY INSTITUTIONS, IT'S INSTITUTIONS THAT HAVE A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THEIR CANDIDATES AFFECTING THEIR SCORE. >> YES. >> A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THEIR...? >> A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THEIR CANDIDATES, WHO WERE IN THEIR FIRST THREE YEARS OF TEACHING WHO GOT AN EFFECTIVENESS SCORE. IF IT WAS A VERY SMALL PROPORTION OF THE CANDIDATES THAT INSTITUTION THAT HAD EFFECTIVENESS LABELS THAT WE COULD TIE BACK TO THEM, WE FELT WE NEEDED TO DOWN WEIGHT THAT BECAUSE OF THE INABILITY TO DRAW SOUND CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE SMALL SAMPLE. >> AND WE ARE LOOKING FOR WAYS TO STRENGTHEN THAT SO THAT WE CAN GET AS MANY EDUCATORS IN THAT GROUP AS POSSIBLE. SO AS THE WEIGHTING IS APPLIED YOU GET AN OVERALL SCORE OVER HERE. SO ADRIAN GOT AN OVERALL SCORE THIS YEAR OF 88. AND IF YOU LOOK ON EACH OF THE STEMS YOU CAN SEE THE-- I'LL MAKE THIS A BIT SMALLER-- AND RIGHT HERE IS YOUR KEY. THE HIGHEST SCORE, ON EACH STEM, BY ANY INSTITUTION, SO IN THIS CASE IT WAS 93.5. THE MEAN SCORE WAS 87.8 AND THE LOWEST SCORE FOR THIS YEAR WAS 81.1. OKAY, SO YOU CAN SEE WHERE ON THE RANGE THE INSTITUTION FALLS ON EACH OF THESE STEMS, WHICH IS A NICE TOUCH. OVER HERE YOU SEE THAT IN 2013 ADRIAN HAD A SATISFACTORY RATING. IN 2014 THEY MET THE CUT SCORE, WHICH RESULTED IN A SATISFACTORY RATING FOR THIS YEAR. AND I ALSO WANT YOU TO NOTICE THESE LITTLE BUBBLES RIGHT HERE. LET ME MAKE THOSE LITTLE BUBBLES BIGGER FOR YOU. GREEN IS GOOD, AND THAT NUMBER ZERO IS GOING TO BE IMPORTANT WHEN I SHOW YOU THE NEXT CHART. SO LAST YEAR THEY WERE A GREEN ZERO, AND THIS YEAR THEY ARE ALSO A GREEN ZERO BECAUSE THEY MET THE CUT SCORE. OKAY, AND WE REPEAT THAT 33 TIMES FOR THE OTHER INSTITUTIONS. >> WHILE YOU'RE PAUSING, POTENTIAL CANDIDATES LOOKING AT THIS JOB FOR NEXT YEAR, HERE IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE. I MEAN I HAD A GUY SAY TO ME, "IT'S LIKE A CEREMONIAL JOB, RIGHT?" [ LAUGHTER ] >> NOT REALLY. THESE REALLY ARE ISSUES THAT I'M GLAD THE BOARD SEES BECAUSE IT IS WORK THAT WE DO ALL THE TIME THAT IS SOMETIME INVISIBLE. >> SO TWO SLIDES AGO, I SAID THAT ONE CUT SCORE GAVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT. AND THIS IS WHERE I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT. WE REALLY WANTED TO, ASSOCIATED WITH EACH INSTITUTION'S STATUS, WE HAVE A SERIES OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE THAT WE PROVIDE AND CORRECTIVE ACTION THAT THE INSTITUTIONS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR. WHAT WE HAVE SEEN IN PREVIOUS YEARS IS THAT BY EVERY YEAR, GIVING THEM SATISFACTORY, AT RISK OR LOW PERFORMING STATUS BASED ON A CUT SCORE, IT MAKES THAT VERY VOLATILE. SO ONE YEAR THEY WERE SATISFACTORY, THE NEXT THEY WERE AT RISK. THE FOLLOWING YEAR THEY WERE SATISFACTORY, THEN THEY WERE LOW PERFORMING. IT MADE IT VERY DIFFICULT TO PROVIDE SUPPORT TO THE INSTITUTION AND VERY HARD FOR THEM TO MAKE CHANGES TO THEIR PROGRAM THAT WOULD HAVE LONG TERM EFFECTS, WITH THEM MOVING IN AND OUT OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS. SO WHAT WE WERE ABLE TO DO THIS YEAR WITH ONE CUT SCORE, WHERE NOBODY WAS IDENTIFIED AS LOW PERFORMING AND VERY FEW INSTITUTIONS WERE CATEGORIZED AS AT RISK WAS MOVE TO A CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEM THAT WAS PROGRESSIVE OVER TIME. THIS IS ALSO IN YOUR PACKETS, AND I'M GOING TO FLIP OVER TO WHAT YOU WILL SEE, AND WHAT YOU'VE ALREADY SEEN IN APPENDIX C. THIS EXPLAINS THE PROGRESSION OF OUR INSTITUTIONS. SO REMEMBER I SAID THAT ZERO GREEN BUBBLE WAS GOING TO BE IMPORTANT? HERE IS WHERE YOU ARE IF YOU HAVE A ZERO GREEN BUBBLE IN THE SYSTEM: YOU ARE SATISFACTORY, YOU HAVE NO YEARS OF FALLING BELOW THAT CUT SCORE IS WHAT THAT MEANS. EVERY YEAR THAT YOU DON'T MEET THE CUT SCORE, YOU WILL MOVE THROUGH THE SYSTEM. YOU'LL GO TO SATISFACTORY ONE, WHICH IS A WARNING, YOU'LL GO TO AT RISK TWO, THEN AT RISK THREE, LOW PERFORMING FOUR, AND SO ON. YOU MOVE, YOU PROGRESS THROUGH THE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS. EVERY YEAR THAT YOU HAVE POSITIVE DATA, YOU ARE ABOVE THE CUT SCORE ESTABLISHED BY THE STANDARDS COMMITTEE, YOU WILL PROGRESS BACK, POSITIVELY IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION-- AT RISK THREE TO TWO, AT RISK TWO TO SATISFACTORY ONE, AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. THIS WAY, WHEN WE PUT IN SOME SUPPORTS WHEN THE INSTITUTION IS AT RISK THAT FIRST YEAR, WE CAN KEEP THOSE SUPPORTS FOR AT LEAST TWO YEARS. OVER HERE IT EXPLAINS THAT. THAT IS THE DEFAULT. ONE STIPULATION THAT WE HAVE PUT FORWARD IS THAT IF WE HAVE AN INSTITUTION THAT IS, LET'S SAY, WAY OVER HERE IN THEIR FIFTH YEAR, LOW PERFORMING FIVE, WE MAY NOT REQUIRE THEM TO COMPLETE ALL THESE SUCCESSIVE YEARS IN THE SYSTEM. OH NO-- DON'T RESTART. [ LAUGHTER ] >> THEN I'D BE HOLDING THINGS UP AND POINTING TO THIS. SO WHAT WE'VE DONE IS BASICALLY RESERVED THE RIGHT TO SAY, "IT MAY TAKE YOU SEVERAL YEARS TO GET DOWN TO THE AREA OF LOW PERFORMING-- IT MAY NOT TAKE YOU AS MANY YEARS TO GET OUT IF YOU'RE MAKING SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS," OKAY? AND EACH OF THESE NARRATIVES TALKS A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT MAY HAPPEN IN THESE PHASES. IT USED TO BE VERY PRESCRIPTIVE-- WE'RE ALSO MOVING TOWARDS A KIND OF VERY UNIQUE SYSTEM, THERE ARE ONLY 34 OF THEM, WE CAN LOOK AT THEM PRETTY DISCRETELY AND OFFER THEM THE TECHNICAL SUPPORT AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS THAT ARE SPECIFIC TO THE REASON WHY THEY'RE IDENTIFIED RATHER THAN WHAT USED TO BE A VERY PRESCRIBED SET OF ACTIONS. OKAY. SO, FOR THIS YEAR, HERE IS KIND OF A GLIMPSE OF THE STATUS OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS FOR INSTITUTIONS. IN YOUR PACKET, THIS IS APPENDIX D, AND YOU HAVE ALL OF THE INSTITUTIONS. ON THIS PARTICULAR SLIDE WE ONLY INCLUDED THE ONES THAT CHANGED STATUS-- EVERYBODY ELSE IS GREEN ZERO AND HAS BEEN GREEN ZERO, SO THESE ARE THE RELEVANT ONES FOR TODAY'S CONVERSATION. YOU'LL SEE BAKER LAST YEAR WAS AT RISK LEVEL TWO, THIS YEAR BECAUSE THEY WERE ABOVE THE CUT SCORE THEY ARE IN SATISFACTORY ONE. I'LL GIVE YOU A SECOND TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE CHANGE IN STATUS. WE GAVE YOU 11 AND 12 FOR HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE-- WE ACTUALLY ONLY USED 13 AND 14 TO DETERMINE THIS YEAR'S STATUS. >> I FEEL, I THINK THE IMPORTANT THING HERE IS THAT WE REALLY HAVE BEEN THOUGHTFUL, AND THANK YOU TO OPPS STAFF FOR THIS, AROUND HOW DO WE MAKE THIS MUCH MORE OF A PREDICTABLE ENTERPRISE FOR OUR EPIs, HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ABLE TO PROVIDE THEM SUPPORTS ONGOING, BECAUSE WE DID HAVE SOME CASES WHERE PEOPLE CLOSED A LOW PERFORMING PROGRAM, BUT IT DIDN'T NECESSARILY TAKE CARE OF SYSTEMIC ISSUES, BUT THEY GOT OUT OF AT RISK. THIS ALLOWS US TO CONTINUE THAT, IT ALLOWS US TO HAVE MUCH MORE STABLE RATINGS AND PROVIDE THEM THE SUPPORT, SO I THINK THAT IT SERVES BOTH THE EPIs AND THE DEPARTMENT MUCH BETTER TO GO ABOUT IT IN THIS MANNER THAN HOW WE HAVE IN THE PAST. >> AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS YEAR'S SCORE RESULTS AND SEVERAL DIFFERENT CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ON HERE, SO IN THE INSTANCE OF BAKER, THEY ACTUALLY WERE ONE STEP HIGHER BECAUSE THEY WERE ABOVE THE CUT, AND IN THE INSTANCE OF MARYGROVE, THEY WERE ONE STEP LOWER BECAUSE THEY WERE BELOW THE CUT, SO THAT'S WHERE YOU'LL SEE THE TRANSITIONS ON THE SLIDE. >> ARE WE READY TO MOVE ON? >> NO, I DIDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND THE GREEN CIRCLES FOR MARYGROVE-- IT'S LISTED AS AT RISK HERE, BUT ON THAT CHART, THEY HAVE GREENS FOR 2013 AND 2014. >> YEAH, SO, THIS IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN-- WHEN WE FIRST WENT INTO STANDARD SETTING, WE HAD THOUGHT ABOUT THIS THE SAME WAY AS WE'D DONE IT IN THE PAST, WHERE BASED ON ONE YEAR'S DATA, YOU ARE EITHER AT RISK OR LOW PERFORMING. WHEN WE SAW THAT NONE OF THOSE INSTITUTIONS WERE LOW PERFORMING, WE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO RETHINK THIS CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEM. SO NOW, FROM HERE FORWARD, WE'RE GOING TO SAY YOU MET THE CUT SCORE OR DIDN'T. ON THE DATA, JUST ONE CUT SCORE ON THE DATA. AND THEN YOU PROGRESS THROUGH A SYSTEM TO GET TO AT RISK AND LOW PERFORMING, SO THE FACT THAT WE HAVE ZERO SCHOOLS IN LOW PERFORMING KIND OF TRIGGERED OUR THINKING ON HOW WE WOULD DO THIS DIFFERENTLY, THIS PROGRESSION. SO THERE IS A DISCONNECT, A LITTLE BIT OF A DISCONNECT BETWEEN THE STANDARD SETTING PROCESS AND WHERE WE ULTIMATELY ENDED UP, BUT I THINK IT ENDED UP BEING A POSITIVE THING THAT MEANS YOU CAN'T JUMP FROM LOW PERFORMING TO SATISFACTORY IN ONE YEAR, OR FROM SATISFACTORY TO LOW PERFORMING. IT ALLOWS YOU TO PROGRESS ACROSS THAT, IT MAKES THINGS MORE STABLE FOR INSTITUTIONS. SO THAT'S THE DISCONNECT THAT YOU'RE SEEING, BUT I THINK IT WAS A FORTUITOUS DISCONNECT THAT ALLOWED US TO STABILIZE THINGS. >> ALL RIGHT, SO SPECIFICALLY IN MARYGROVE'S INSTANCE, THEY WERE SATISFACTORY LAST YEAR. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE PROGRESSION CHART, THEY WOULD BE ON THIS FIRST STEP, SATISFACTORY ZERO. THEY DID NOT MEET THE CUT SCORE, SO THEY PROGRESS ONE LEVEL, WHICH STILL PUTS THEM AT SATISFACTORY, BUT THEY'RE ONE STEP FROM AT RISK. >> CASANDRA, THEN MELODY. >> TO HIS POINT, THOUGH, ON SLIDE 12, YOU HAVE THEM LISTED AS "AT RISK." >> I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE CONFUSION IS COMING INTO PLAY. >> RIGHT, RIGHT SO THAT IS-- IN THE STANDARD SETTING, WE HAD ANTICIPATED THAT BASED ON A SINGLE YEAR'S DATA YOU WOULD BE IDENTIFIED AS "AT RISK" OR "LOW PERFORMING." SO WHEN THE STANDARD SETTING PANEL CAME THROUGH AND DID THIS, THEY IDENTIFIED THESE THREE INSTITUTIONS AS "AT RISK." WHAT WE DID IS WE LOOKED AT THAT AND SAW AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY AND STABILIZE THINGS. THE STANDARD SETTING PANEL WENT IN THIS DIRECTION AND WHAT WE SAID IS, "WE'RE JUST GOING TO TREAT IT AS ONE CUT SCORE. WE'RE NOT GOING TO CALL IT "AT RISK" OR "LOW PERFORMING" IF YOU'RE ABOVE OR BELOW THAT CUT SCORE. WE'RE JUST GOING TO SAY YOU'RE ABOVE THE CUT SCORE, YOU HAD GOOD DATA, YOU HAD POOR DATA IN A GIVEN YEAR," AND THEN THAT PROGRESSES YOU ALONG THE CONTINUUM. SO THERE IS A DISCONNECT THERE, BUT WE THINK IT WAS FORTUITOUS IN THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO, BASED A SINGLE YEAR OF DATA, MOVE YOU DIRECTLY FROM THE TOP CATEGORY TO THE BOTTOM CATEGORY OR FROM THE BOTTOM CATEGORY TO THE TOP CATEGORY. >> SO ARE THEY "SATISFACTORY" OR "AT RISK"? >> THEY DID NOT MEET THE CUT SCORE THIS YEAR, THEREFORE THEY PROGRESS ONE STEP ON THE PROGRESSION. >> BUT THEY'RE STILL "SATISFACTORY?" >> BUT THEY'RE STILL "SATISFACTORY" BECAUSE THEY'RE IN THAT FIRST STEP, AND NUMBER ONE, WE STILL CONSIDER KIND OF A WARNING-- YOU DON'T HAVE ANY CORRECTIVE ACTIONS THAT ARE REQUIRED AT THAT POINT. >> OKAY. >> YES. >> AND MARYGROVE IS THE ANOMALY HERE AND ONE OF THE AGREEMENTS THAT WE HAD MADE WITH THE INSTITUTIONS MIDSTREAM WAS THAT WE WOULD NOT PROGRESS ANYBODY NEGATIVELY IN THE SYSTEM OF CORRECTIVE ACTION BASED ON THE SCORE BECAUSE IT WAS NEW AND WE WERE PILOTING SOME OF THE DATA IN HERE. SO IT ACTUALLY WORKED THAT WHILE MARYGROVE WAS BELOW THE CUT FOR "AT RISK" WE JUST MOVED THEM THE ONE STEP AND THAT WOULD PUT THEM IN "AT RISK" IF THEY HAD ANOTHER YEAR OF DATA. >> MELODY THEN KATHLEEN THEN EILEEN. >> I ACTUALLY HAD TWO QUESTIONS. FIRST, I WAS JUST WONDERING WITH THOSE SURVEYS IF THOSE WERE TAKEN AT THE END OF A STUDENT'S COURSE WORK BEFORE THEY STUDENT-TAUGHT, OR IF IT WAS AFTER THE ENTIRE EXPERIENCE. >> SO CURRENTLY IT IS AFTER THE ENTIRE EXPERIENCE. >> AND THEN THAT LEADS TO MY SECOND QUESTION, WHICH IS, HOW MUCH SAY DOES THE STATE HAVE IN HOW LONG A STUDENT TEACHING EXPERIENCE SHOULD BE? BECAUSE I KNOW COMPARING MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY WHERE THEY HAVE A WHOLE YEAR OF STUDENT TEACHING TO OTHER INSTITUTIONS THAT MAY HAVE SHORTER AMOUNTS OF TIME, AND JUST THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT DIRECT STUDENT CONTACT AND THE EXPERIENCE OF WHAT I CALL BEING IN THE TRENCHES AND GOING THROUGH THAT, BECAUSE YOU CAN TEACH A LOT OF THEORY, BUT AS LONG AS YOU DON'T SEE IT IN PRACTICE FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME-- I FEEL THAT COULD REALLY INFLUENCE A STUDENT TEACHER'S EXPERIENCE OVERALL. SO I'VE ALWAYS WONDERED HOW IT WORKS TO KNOW THAT CERTAIN INSTITUTIONS HAVE THIS FULL YEAR WHERE THEY A SEE A SCHOOL YEAR FROM BEGINNING TO END AND GET TO SEE ALL THAT CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT PUT INTO PLACE IN THE BEGINNING, AS OPPOSED TO AN INSTITUTION WHO HAS SOMEBODY COME IN IN JANUARY AND IS DONE BY MARCH. >> RIGHT NOW, IT'S CURRENTLY A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF SIX WEEKS, BUT WE WOULD-- OH I'M SORRY. >> EXCUSE ME. >> TWELVE WEEKS. >> OKAY, 12 WEEKS. >> SORRY, TWELVE WEEKS, AND BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE THAT. THAT'S ACTUALLY ON ONE OF OUR CATEGORIES FOR EDUCATOR EFFECTIVENESS INITIATIVES OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL YEARS IS TO LENGTHEN THE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR YOUR STUDENT TEACHING EXPERIENCE AS WELL AS BROADEN IT AND DEVELOP STANDARDS FOR WHAT SHOULD OCCUR DURING THAT TIME. >> AS WE MOVE TO A MORE CLINICAL MODEL OF TEACHING, THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD HOPE TO DO. THE STUDENT TEACHING, THE LENGTH OF STUDENT TEACHING IS A MINIMUM THAT'S SET IN ADMINISTRATIVE RULE. A MINIMUM OF TWELVE WEEKS, SO INSTITUTIONS HAVE ALWAYS HAD THE OPTION OF MAKING STUDENT TEACHING A YEAR OR ANY LONGER. IT IS RIGHT NOW PRETTY MUCH A SEMESTER FOR MOST OF THE INSTITUTIONS. THERE MAY BE ONE OTHER THAT DOES IT FOR YEAR OUTSIDE OF MICHIGAN STATE, BUT MICHIGAN STATE IS THE ONE WE KNOW THAT DOES HAVE A YEAR LONG CLINICAL EXPERIENCE. >> AND WAS YOUR QUESTION ALSO ABOUT WHEN WE ACTUALLY SURVEY THE TEACHERS? >> YES, SHE DID ANSWER THAT IT'S AFTERWARDS. >> BUT OUR PLAN IS TO CHANGE THAT. >> OUR PLAN IS TO EXPAND THE SURVEYS. WE WOULD ACTUALLY LIKE TO ENSURE THAT THE K-12 CLASSROOM TEACHER COMPLETES THE SURVEY. WE WOULD LIKE TO DO A YEAR OF-- A YEAR OUT SURVEY FOR CANDIDATES THAT ARE ONE YEAR FROM THEIR EXPERIENCE TO SEE HOW THAT CHANGES HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT THEIR DEVELOPMENT. >> BECAUSE, WE ALL KNOW IT DOES. EVERYTHING'S GREAT, YOU'RE GOING TO GRADUATE, WOO-HOO, THROW YOUR THING UP IN THE AIR. AND THEN A YEAR LATER, YOU GO, "OH MY GOD," AND THAT'S WHY WE SAW SOME OF THE DIFFERENCE IN THE SURVEY RESULTS THAT THE WAY YOU PERCEIVE YOU YOURSELF AS EPI VERSUS THE WAY THE CANDIDATE PERCEIVES THEMSELF, BUT THAT'S EVEN WITHOUT THAT DELAY. SO I MEAN PART OF THIS-- NOW, THAT'S EASIER SAID THAN DONE BECAUSE THEY CAN GO ALL OVER THE WORLD. SO THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF THE CHALLENGE AROUND IT, TO JUST SUDDENLY SAY, "WHAT'S IT'S LIKE A YEAR OUT, FIVE YEARS OUT?" TO TRY TRACK BOTH. BUT THE SPIRIT BEHIND IT IS, WE REALLY NEED TO KNOW THAT, HOW ARE YOU-- I MEAN I HAVE ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE ABOUT MY OWN DAUGHTER WHO WENT THROUGH STATE ALSO AND IS A CURRENT TEACHER. I WOULD SAY, WITHOUT PUTTING WORDS IN HER MOUTH, THAT TECHNOLOGY WAS AN ISSUE, SHE FELT LIKE SHE COULD'VE BEEN BETTER PREPARED ON HOW TO INFUSE THAT IN HER INSTRUCTION. KNOWING HOW TO USE TECHNOLOGY IS DIFFERENT THAN HOW TO INCORPORATE IT IN YOUR TEACHING, AS YOU KNOW. SO I THINK THAT'S OUR GOAL. IT'S JUST NOT AS EASY AS IT MAY SOUND BECAUSE THEY'RE SUDDENLY SCATTERED AND HOW ARE WE GOING TO-- VOLUNTARY AT THAT POINT. BUT WE'RE GOING TO-- THAT'S OUR GOAL. AND I DID WANT TO ADD THAT TO IT. AND I THINK KATHLEEN WAS NEXT THEN EILEEN. >> OH, NOW I FORGOT WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY, SO GO TO SOMEBODY ELSE. >> EILEEN, PLEASE. >> LOST MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT. >> IN SLIDE 12, ACTUALLY, I'M THRILLED WITH THIS AND I HAVE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS. ONE IS ON DISSEMINATION, MAKING SURE THAT PARENTS AND CHILDREN CAN GET TO THIS INFORMATION AS THEY CHOOSE WHERE THEY MIGHT WANT TO GO TO SCHOOL. BUT ON SLIDE 12, THE INFAMOUS SLIDE 12, U OF M FLINT-- [ COMPUTER ALERT NOISE ] [ LAUGHTER ] MY QUESTION IS SPECIAL, I GOT THE JACKPOT TODAY. U OF M FLINT IS NOT IDENTIFIED ON THAT LIST, THEY'VE MOVED UP FROM "LOW PERFORMING" TO "AT RISK." CAN YOU ADDRESS YOUR THINKING ON THAT? HOW THAT WORKS INTERNALLY? AND THEN, THE SECOND QUESTION. BECAUSE THIS IS A FEDERAL MANDATE TO HAVE THIS SYSTEM, IS THERE A WAY TO REQUIRE OR URGE THE ED SCHOOLS TO HAVE THIS LINK ON THEIR WEBSITE FOR OUR WEBSITE? IS THERE A WAY TO GET THE INFORMATION TO GUIDANCE COUNSELORS? YOU KNOW, HOW CAN WE DISSEMINATE THE INFORMATION? THIS IS VERY HARD WORK, AND ANY EPI WHO IS DOING WELL WILL WANT TO PUBLICIZE IT. BUT THE HARD PART IS FOR THE EPIs THAT ARE MAKING CHANGES AND ADJUSTMENTS. AND IT SHOULD BE THAT THERE IS NO OPPORTUNITY LATER ON FOR BUYER'S REMORSE. CHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES SHOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO THINK THIS THROUGH BEFORE THEY START. TWO BIG QUESTIONS. >> OKAY. SO DISSEMINATION TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC-- IT WILL OF COURSE BE ON OUR WEBSITE. IT'S ON THE BOARD WEBSITE RIGHT NOW. IT WILL BE ON OUR OFFICE'S WEBSITE FOR CONSUMERS, BUT THE REAL INTENT OF THIS SCORE MOVING FORWARD, WHAT WE HOPE TO ACCOMPLISH THIS YEAR AND WE HAD TO BUMP BECAUSE DEVELOPMENT IS PRETTY TIME CONSUMING AND COSTLY, IS A DASHBOARD APPROACH WHERE IT WOULD BE VERY APPARENT AND CANDIDATE FRIENDLY AND THEY COULD CLICK IN AND THEY COULD LOOK AT ASSESSMENT DATA, THEY COULD LOOK AT ALL OF THIS DATA IN A WAY THAT WAS MORE USER FRIENDLY THAN I THINK EVEN THE REPORTS THAT WE'VE PUBLISHED FOR THE INSTITUTIONS. SO LONG TERM APPROACH, WE'D LIKE TO DO THAT, SHORT TERM APPROACH, IT IS AVAILABLE ONLINE, AND CERTAINLY WE'D ENCOURAGE ANYBODY WE SPOKE TO TO GO LOOK AT THE INDIVIDUAL PROGRAM DATA WHEN THEY'RE TRYING TO DECIDE PROGRAMS. THEY DON'T OFTEN CALL US FOR THAT KIND OF ADVICE. WE CAN-- >> IDEAS, EILEEN? ANY IDEAS ALONG THOSE LINES THAT YOU HAVE? >> WELL, I'M THINKING OF THE CHANNELS THAT WE'VE GOT TO GET THE WORD OUT AND I WOULD, IF I WERE TRYING TO BECOME AN URBAN EDUCATOR AND I KNEW THAT THERE WAS A PROGRAM THAT SPECIALIZED IN THAT BUT THAT IT WAS STRUGGLING, I'D BE ASKING, "HOW IS IT MAKING IMPROVEMENTS? IS IT GOING TO END UP BEING THE TOP PROGRAM AS I ENTER IT?" BECAUSE THAT COULD BE, YOU KNOW, WITH THINGS THAT WE ARE LEARNING RIGHT NOW. I'M TRYING TO MAKE MORE SOPHISTICATED TEACHER CONSUMERS OUT OF THIS, WHICH IS UNFAIR OF ME, BUT I KNOW HOW MANY OF THEM AREN'T BEING EMPLOYED IN MICHIGAN AND I'D LOVE TO HAVE OUR ED SCHOOLS BE THE ABSOLUTE TOPS. SO BEING URGED TO DO THAT BY KIDS COMING TO COLLEGE IS AS EFFECTIVE OR BETTER THAN ANYTHING WE CAN DO IN A REGULATORY WAY. I WISH I KNEW THE GUIDANCE COUNSELOR'S ORGANIZATION-- ANYTHING THAT WE COULD DO TO GET THE WORD OUT MAKES SENSE TO ME. >> THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. >> WE CAN GET THAT OUT TO THEM. YOU DID HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT U OF M FLINT. >> YES. >> THEY MET THE CUT SCORE. >> OKAY. >> THEREFORE, THEY GET A MINUS ONE ON THEIR PHASE, SO THEY WENT UP THE PROGRESSION, SO THEY WERE "AT RISK." >> NO, THEY WEREN'T. THEY WERE AT "LOW PERFORMING." >> THEY WERE AT LOW PERFORMING, NOW THEY'RE AT RISK BECAUSE THEY PROGRESSED UP BECAUSE THEY MET THE CUT SCORE THIS YEAR. >> BUT THEY'RE NOT ON THIS PARTICULAR SLIDE BECAUSE THIS IS THE ONLY THE THREE INSTITUTIONS THAT WERE BELOW THE CUT AS OF THE STANDARDS SETTING, SO IT IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN THE ACTUAL END RESULT, WHICH WAS HERE. >> SO I HEAR YOU ON THIS. THE CUT SCORE WAS THE DETERMINING FACTOR, BUT FOR ME, AS A CONSUMER, I'D WANT TO KNOW IF THE SCHOOL THAT I WAS GOING TO HAD BEEN CLIMBING, STATIC, AND WHETHER THEY WERE STILL AT LOWER LEVEL THAN I WOULD LIKE. >> MMM-HMM. >> YOU KNOW, KIDS DON'T ACTUALLY ENTER TEACHER PREP, EDUCATOR PREP PROGRAMS FOR THE FIRST TWO YEARS, YOU KNOW. IT TAKES UNTIL YEAR THREE, SO THERE IS PLENTY OF TIME FOR SOMEBODY TO ADJUST, AND IF THEY'RE LOOKING AT, FOR EXAMPLE, WAYNE STATE IN A SPECIFIC AREA THAT THEY'RE NOT STRONG IN OR THAT THEY ARE STRONG IN AND THEY LIVE IN DETROIT, THEN THAT'S GOING TO BE THEIR CHOICE. BUT IF THEY GOT A SCHOLARSHIP TO SOME PLACE THAT WAS REALLY EXCELLING AT SOMETHING THAT WAS OUTSIDE THE GEOGRAPHIC AREA, THEN THEY SHOULD KNOW THAT. >> AND THAT'S WHAT WE HOPE TO DO WITH THIS CHART, WHICH I THINK IS THE BEST ONE, FROM AN EASIEST TO READ FROM A STUDENT PERSPECTIVE. AND IF YOU HAVE SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT, WE'D LOVE THAT. >> I LIKE THAT. I JUST WAS LOOKING AT THE-- >> AND WE PUT IN MULTIPLE YEARS SO WE COULD SHOW THAT EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE GREEN OVER HERE THAT THERE WAS SOME HISTORY IN THEIR PERFORMANCE. >> CRAIG AND THEN KATHLEEN AND THEN DAN. >> DID YOU CONSIDER THE FACTOR OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT? >> AS A FACTOR OF WHAT? >> STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT. >> THE K-12 STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IS BUILT INTO THEIR EDUCATOR EVALUATION. >> IT IS? >> YES. >> SO WHAT DO YOU USE? MEAP? >> THAT'S ACTUALLY A DIFFICULT QUESTION BECAUSE IT VARIES FROM DISTRICT TO DISTRICT. RIGHT NOW WE DON'T HAVE A VERY-- WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING THAT IS STANDARDIZED IN ANY WAY, REALLY, AROUND EDUCATOR EVALUATIONS. THAT IT WILL BE CHANGING WITH THE PASSAGE OF SOME BILLS THAT WE HOPE WILL PASS LATER ON. THERE WILL BE MORE DEFINITION AROUND HOW MUCH HAS BE BASED ON STUDENT GROWTH. AND WE ACTUALLY MADE THE DECISION NOT TO TIE STUDENT GROWTH DIRECTLY TO AN INSTITUTION, BUT TO HOLD THE INSTITUTIONS ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE SAME THINGS THAT THEIR CANDIDATES ARE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR WHEN THEY LEAVE, WHICH IS THE OVERALL EVALUATION, KIND OF THE WHOLE OF TEACHING, THE CLASSROOM PRACTICE, THE GROWTH THAT THEY EXPERIENCE IN THE CLASSROOM. SO WE TIED IT TO THE EVALUATIONS THAT THE TEACHERS RECEIVE ONCE THEY LEAVE RATHER THAN THE INDIVIDUAL STUDENT GROWTH BECAUSE THAT'S INCLUDED IN THERE, BUT IT IS MORE OF A HOLISTIC APPROACH TOWARD INCORPORATING STUDENT GROWTH AND THE REST OF TEACHING PRACTICE INTO THE EVALUATIONS THAT THESE EPIs RECEIVE. >> SO BASED ON THE LABELS THAT ARE IN THE LAW. >> RIGHT. >> AND CRAIG, AS YOU KNOW, THAT GOT PUNTED FOR ONE YEAR IN TERMS OF THE LEGISLATION, BUT AS THAT STABILIZES AS THINGS LIKE SPRING TESTING AND ALL THESE OTHER THINGS KIND OF FINALLY COME TO PASS AND CONNECT THE DOTS, THEN YOU CAN SEE WHERE WE DIDN'T WANT TO TAKE THE POSITION THAT IT WASN'T ALREADY RESPECTFULLY DONE IN THE LAW TO GIVE A PERCENTAGE ON GROWTH AND THEN ANOTHER PERCENTAGE ON ACTUAL OTHER THINGS THAT THE PRINCIPAL AND OTHERS THOUGHT WERE IMPORTANT. AND THAT WAS THE POINT-- IT INCORPORATES IT BUT ALIGNS IT WITH WHATEVER LAW ENDS UP DETERMINING WHEN THIS THING IS FINALIZED ON WHAT THOSE PERCENTAGES ARE. SO I MEAN WOULDN'T IT-- MAYBE YOU COULD JUST SPEAK IF YOU WOULD A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE PRACTICALITY OF THAT THIS YEAR. >> THE PRACTICALITY OF THAT THIS YEAR IS THAT WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE PERCENTAGE THAT EACH INDIVIDUAL DISTRICT REQUIRES TO BE BASED ON STUDENT GROWTH, IT IS PRETTY VARIABLE ACROSS THE DISTRICTS. WE DO GET A SURVEY EVERY YEAR FROM EVERY DISTRICT TALKING ABOUT THE PERCENTAGE OF THE DIFFERENT FACTORS THAT GO INTO EVALUATIONS, AND IT IS VARIABLE, BUT IT IS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN IT HAS BEEN IN THE PAST. SO IN ALMOST EVERY DISTRICT THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF STUDENT GROWTH THAT GOES INTO THE EDUCATOR EVALUATIONS. SO WE DO HAVE A SENSE THAT THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF STUDENT GROWTH THAT GOES INTO THIS EPI PERFORMANCE SCORE THAT WE'VE PUT OUT. >> THAT WILL BE STATE WIDE AT SOME POINT. >> YEP. >> BECAUSE OTHERWISE, YOU HAVE THE KIND OF THE DISADVANTAGE FROM EPI'S POINT OF VIEW OF WHERE YOUR CANDIDATES HAPPEN TO BE IF IT IS NOT FINALLY STABILIZED IN ONE WAY, 40%, WHATEVER THE THING WORKS OUT TO BE. SO ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE IN CONJUNCTION, I WOULD SAY IT'S FAIR TO SAY, WITH AN EPI GROUP THAT'S FINDING THIS HELPFUL TO MOVE IN THIS DIRECTION ON A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT YOU MENTIONED TODAY. NOT AT ODDS. I THINK CRAIG WAS THERE, KATHLEEN AND THEN MICHELLE, AND I'M SORRY DAN. KATHLEEN, YES MA'AM. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. I WONDERED IF SINCE THIS IS A NATIONAL FEDERAL REQUIREMENT, HAVE YOU LOOKED AT WHERE--HOW OTHER STATES SET UP THEIR SYSTEMS? AND HOW DOES THIS COMPARE TO OTHER STATES? >> I AM HAPPY TO REPORT THAT WE APPEAR TO BE ON THE FOREFRONT OF WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH SOME OF OUR PIECES OF OUR THE SCORE AND THE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS AND THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE THAT SUPPORT IT. >> SO YOU HAVE LOOKED AT OTHER STATES TO SEE WHAT THEY ARE DOING? >> WE HAVE. SOME DON'T APPEAR TO PUBLISH IT AT ALL, SOME HAVE-- THERE IS A LOT OF, I GUESS, A BROAD RANGE FROM ACROSS THE 50 STATES, AND WE HAVEN'T LOOKED AT ALL OF THEM, BUT WE'VE TRIED TO LOOK AT THE ONES THAT REALLY SEEM TO HAVE MADE PROGRESS ON THIS, AND I THINK WE ARE ONE OF THE FIRST TO USE THE EDUCATOR EVALUATION DATA IN OUR PERFORMANCE SCORE AND TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THE MEASURES THAT WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO IN THE FUTURE TO ADD THE PERFORMANCE SCORE. >> LET ME ADD THAT LOUISIANA WAS ONE OF THE STATES THAT WAS KIND OF LIKE OUT ON THE FOREFRONT OF DOING THIS. AND THEN THERE WERE-- THERE WAS A GROUP OF SOUTHERN STATES, AND I THINK IT INCLUDED GEORGIA AND ALABAMA AND A COUPLE OTHERS, THAT WERE DOING SOME THINGS WHERE THEY LOOKED AT MULTIPLE MEASURES. NOT IN THIS WAY, SO THERE WERE SOME OTHER STATES THAT WHEN WE INITIALLY DID THIS, WE KIND OF TOOK SOME OF THAT INFORMATION AND METHODOLOGY FOR HOW THEY WERE DOING IT, BUT NONE OF THEM ARE DOING ANYTHING LIKE THIS. >> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE ARE DOING THAT'S UNIQUE THAT I THINK ALSO IS IMPORTANT IS THAT WE PRIORITIZED WHAT OUR GOALS WERE AND THEN ALIGNED THE DATA TO THOSE GOALS RATHER THAN JUST LOOKING AT DATA SETS TO DETERMINE EFFECTIVENESS. >> IT CERTAINLY SEEMS LIKE IT'S A STEP FORWARD FROM OUR PREVIOUS SYSTEM. DID I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY THAT YOU HAVE WORKED WITH THE EPIs ON THIS? >> MMM-HMM. >> DID THEY FEEL THAT THIS IS A FAIR SYSTEM, OR DID THEY THINK IT'S TOO OPPRESSIVE? >> WELL, SO IN THE BEGINNING WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT REVISION OF THE SCORE, WE HAD MANY, MANY FOCUS GROUPS. WE HAD A LARGE GROUP, WE HAD SMALL GROUP, WE HAD A LOT OF FEEDBACK ON WHAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED, WHAT SHOULDN'T BE INCLUDED. THEY ARE HAPPIER ABOUT SOME COMPONENTS THAN THEY ARE ABOUT OTHERS, AND I'LL USE THE EDUCATOR EVALUATIONS AS AN EXAMPLE. THERE IS SUCH A BROAD RANGE OF WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE K-12 INSTITUTIONS, THEY'RE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THAT IN A SENSE OF PREPARATION RIGHT NOW. AND MOST OF THEM ARE-- WE'RE ACTUALLY HOPING TO GET THEM ON BOARD TO HELP US ADVOCATE FOR KIND OF A STATE LEVEL SET OF REQUIREMENTS, SO WE'LL EVEN OUT THAT COMPONENT OF THE SCORE. NOT A LOT OF COMPLAINT ABOUT SURVEY DATA, ALTHOUGH WITH THE YEAR OUT SURVEY, THERE IS SOME CONCERN THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO GARNER ENOUGH CANDIDATES TO GIVE US GOOD FEEDBACK BECAUSE THEY'RE GONE NOW, AND SO IT'S KIND OF HARD TO GET THEM TO RESPOND BACK, SO WE'RE WORKING ON THAT. AND MTTC DATA REMAINED PRETTY STATIC, SO THEY ARE-- WERE USED TO THAT COMPONENT. I THINK THERE IS ALWAYS ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT. WE ALWAYS VALUE THEIR FEEDBACK. WE'RE ALWAYS GOING TO HAVE A WIDE VARIETY OF RESPONSES. CHANGE IS HARD. >> AND DO KNOW THE YIN AND YANG OF THIS. I MEAN ON THE ONE HAND, IT'S HUMAN NATURE. IT'S NOT LIKE WE WAKE UP IN THE MORNING AND SAY, "OOH, FIND NEW WAYS TO HOLD ME ACCOUNTABLE." SO THEY'RE GOING TO ALWAYS KIND OF BE THERE. THE LOCAL DISTRICTS ARE-- WANT PRESSURE ON THEM BECAUSE THEY FEEL THAT THEY'RE GETTING TEACHERS THAT ARE NOT PREPARED. NOW IT'S SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN THERE. I MEAN YOUR EXCUSE AS A LOCAL DISTRICT CAN'T BE, "WELL, IF THEY WERE JUST PREPARED BETTER." I MEAN WHAT WE FIND IN SOME OF OUR WORK WITH BOTH GROUPS IS THERE IS REALLY TRUTH TO THIS CYCLE, THAT IS, THAT IF TEACHERS WERE PREPARED BETTER, THEN STUDENTS WOULD LEARN MORE BY THE TIME THEY GOT TO THE TEACHER PREP INSTITUTION. SO YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN, THERE THIS THING ABOUT, "SO IF WE HAD THEM BETTER PREPARED WHEN YOU BROUGHT THEM IN FROM K-12--" WELL, THE LOCALS WOULD SAY, "IF YOU ACTUALLY PRODUCED BETTER TEACHERS, WE'D BE ABLE TO PRODUCE BETTER RESULTS BY THE END OF K-12." AND IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF BOTH. >> JUST WONDERED IF THEY THINK THIS IS WAY FOR THEM TO IMPROVE THEIR PRACTICES, IF THEY SEE THIS AS A HELPFUL GUIDEPOST FOR THEM. >> I THINK SOME OF THE TECHNICAL SUPPORT WE HAVE PROVIDED IN THE END HAS RESULTED IN SOME POSITIVE CHANGE IN THEIR INSTITUTIONS. >> WELL, FOR INSTANCE MARYGROVE WAS ON THE UNSATISFACTORY LIST FOR A WHILE. THEY CAME IN AND THEY TOLD US HOW THEY CORRECTED EVERYTHING AND THEY WERE OFF, THEY WERE OKAY. AND I RAN INTO PRESIDENT NOT TOO LONG AGO AND HE WAS VERY PROUD OF WHAT THEY HAD DONE. AND NOW I SEE THIS AND IT'S "AT RISK" AGAIN. SO WHAT, YOU KNOW-- IS IT THE SYSTEM OR IS IT SOMETHING THAT THEY DID DIFFERENTLY? WHAT HAPPENED? >> I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT OVER THE NEXT YEAR WE'LL WORK WITH THE INSTITUTION TO SEE WHERE THE AREAS OF SUPPORT ARE AND THEN WHAT OUR TEAM DOES AS WE GO OUT AND HELP THEM FIND MENTORS AND PROVIDE THE ASSISTANCE OURSELF TO DEVELOP A LONG TERM PLAN. AND SINCE IT IS A PROGRESSION NOW, THEY SHOULD STAY A LITTLE BIT LONGER IN AN AREA WHERE WE CAN PROVIDE THOSE SUPPORTS. >> OKAY. >> MICHELLE, THEN DAN, THEN EILEEN. >> COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. SO LET'S SAY AN INSTITUTION IS VERY GOOD IN, LET'S SAY, A PHYS ED OR ART THERAPY PROGRAM OR MAYBE NOT SO WELL IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE. THERE'S A RANGE. HOW DO YOU DISTINGUISH, "MY DAUGHTER WANTS TO BE A PHYS ED TEACHER, SO WHERE SHOULD SHE GO TO SCHOOL?" IT MIGHT NOT BE SOMEONE HAS AN AGGREGATE SCORE THAT'S HIGHER. IS THERE A WAY IN THIS TO DISTINGUISH WHICH PROGRAMS MIGHT BE STRONG? >> SO THIS PARTICULAR-- THE SET OF REPORTS WE GAVE YOU TODAY, NOT SO MUCH. BUT EVERY YEAR WE PUBLISH A REPORT OF EACH OF THE PROGRAMS AND THEIR PASS RATES, AND THAT COMES TO THE BOARD. THAT'S THE NEXT ONE THAT YOU'LL GET, AND THAT'S WHERE YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THOSE SMALL PROGRAMS AS WELL AS THE LARGE PROGRAMS. >> OKAY, AND I JUST HAVE ONE LITTLE QUESTION. SO IN THE-- IS IT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT-- I ACTUALLY HAVE A VARIETY OF QUESTIONS. ONE IS IS ANYTHING LOOKED AT THAT COULD BE DETERMINED TO WEIGHT THE DIVERSITY OF THE TEACHERS THAT ARE COMING OUT OF THE PROGRAM? SO SOMEONE WOULD BE REWARDED FOR RECRUITING AND GETTING THROUGH CANDIDATES TO PROVIDE A DIVERSITY OF TEACHERS. SO MORE BLACK MALE TEACHERS OR WHATEVER THE GROUP IS THAT MIGHT BE UNDERREPRESENTED IN THE PROFESSION. HAS THAT EVER BEEN CONSIDERED? I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS SOMETHING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT LOOKS AT. AND THEN-- SORRY, THIS WILL BE THE LAST ONE. >> IT'S ONE THAT WE USED HAVE. >> YEAH. >> IT'S IN HERE. >> IT'S IN HERE? >> DON'T APOLOGIZE. ASK AS MANY-- >> OKAY. >> TAKE IT FROM DAN. [ LAUGHTER ] >> LAYING THE GROUNDWORK FOR HIM. >> NO, I DON'T, JUST ONE. SO I'M LOOKING AT LIKE-- YOU KNOW I'M NEAR AND DEAR TO WAYNE STATE WHERE I WORK AND WHERE A LOT OF CANDIDATES ARE, YOU KNOW-- THEY DO CONSIDER DIVERSITY AND THEY DO TRY TO CREATE TEACHERS TO FEED INTO URBAN DISTRICTS. AND OFTENTIMES THEY'RE BEING FED INTO DISTRICTS WHERE THE TEST SCORES-- AND THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER ISSUES GOING ON THAT ARE DIFFERENT FROM MAYBE OTHER PARTS OF THE STATE. A LOT OF TURNOVER AND CHANGES HAPPENING. I DON'T KNOW THAT IT CAN BE, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THESE SCORES, IF THERE ARE WAYS TO TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT. AND I'M ALSO VERY LEERY ABOUT USING STANDARDIZED TEST SCORES THAT OFTEN WOULD CORRELATE TO ISSUES OF POVERTY, THEN-- AND USING THAT AGAINST TEACHERS WHO DECIDE TO TEACH IN HIGH POVERTY DISTRICTS. AND IF THAT'S-- WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE MEAP SCORES OR WHATEVER IT IS THAT SOMEHOW TEACHERS WILL BE IN SOME WAYS PUNISHED BECAUSE THEY DECIDED TO DEDICATE THEMSELVES TO WORKING IN A HIGH POVERTY AREA. >> I'LL TAKE THE FIRST ONE ON THE STANDARDIZED TEST SCORES CORRELATING TO POVERTY. I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS THAT THE EDUCATOR EVALUATIONS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE KEEPING GROWTH, BECAUSE THERE IS ALMOST ZERO CORRELATION BETWEEN DEMOGRAPHICS AND GROWTH, WHEREAS THERE IS VERY STRONG CORRELATION BETWEEN STATUS AND POVERTY, STATUS AND DEMOGRAPHICS. IT'S STILL THERE, BUT IT'S PRETTY MINOR, SO IT AMELIORATES AN AWFUL LOT OF THAT WHEN YOU USE THE STUDENT GROWTH AS THE FACTOR IN THE EDUCATOR EVALUATIONS. AND I THINK THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS PEOPLE WANT TO GO THERE IS BECAUSE THERE IS VERY LITTLE CORRELATION BETWEEN THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF THE STUDENTS THAT ARE SERVED AND THE OUTCOME. >> THE ISSUE OF DIVERSITY? >> THE OTHER COMPONENT, YOU ACTUALLY TOUCHED ON DIVERSITY RECRUITMENT AND PLACEMENT KIND OF IN A TRIFECTA THERE, AND THOSE ARE THREE ADDITIONAL COMPONENTS WE'RE LOOKING AT FOR NEXT YEAR'S SCORE, AND THAT WOULD DEPEND UPON THE LAST SET OF SLIDES THERE. BUT WE'RE TRYING TO BE THOUGHTFUL ABOUT EXPANDING WHAT WE CONSIDER TRADITIONAL DIVERSITY, AND IT'S ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT FOR OUR NORTHERN SCHOOLS THAT MAY HAVE A LOT OF STUDENTS FROM THEIR LOCAL TRIBES. AND WE DID NOT COUNT THAT AS DIVERSITY BEFORE AND WE SHOULD HAVE, BECAUSE IT'S JUST AS IMPORTANT A COMPONENT. SO WE'RE LOOKING AT IT, WE'RE REEVALUATING WHAT WE WERE DOING FOR DIVERSITY, TRYING TO GIVE CREDIT WITHOUT CAUSING TOO MUCH STRAIN ON SOME OF OUR NORTHERN INSTITUTIONS THAT REALLY STRUGGLE IN RECRUITING DIVERSE CANDIDATES AND BE THOUGHTFUL ABOUT IT FOR NEXT YEAR'S SCORE. >> GOOD QUESTIONS. DAN, THEN EILEEN, AND THEN I'M GOING TO NOT CUT ANY BOARD MEMBER OFF IF THEY WANT TO CONTINUE, BUT I WANT TO TRY TO GET TO ITEM C ALSO SO THAT WE HAVE TIME IN THE AFTERNOON FOR YOUR DISCUSSIONS ON THE OTHER ISSUES. >> YOU MAY NEED TO RE-QUEUE ME UP. THREE COMMENTS AND THREE QUESTIONS. AND MY APOLOGIES. BUT THEY'RE QUICK, I THINK. THREE QUICK COMMENTS-- ONE IS I JUST WANT TO PUBLICLY CONGRATULATE-- SO IT'S PHIL CHASE, IS THAT YOUR NAME? YEAH? SO THOSE ARE BEAUTIFUL REPORTS. THE ACCESSIBILITY OF THE REPORT MAKES A TON OF DIFFERENCE SO REALLY GOOD JOB ON THAT. SECOND, JUST WANT TO CONGRATULATE THE TEAM. I FEEL LIKE THIS HAS BEEN ONE OF THE-- I HAVEN'T BEEN REALLY INTERESTED IN THIS FOR THE LAST FOUR YEARS, I'M NOT SURE WHY. BUT JUST LOVE THE PROGRESS THAT HAS BEEN MADE IN THE PAST FOUR YEARS AROUND EVALUATING EPIs AND ON WORKING WITH THE EPIs TO JOINTLY COME UP WITH WHAT THAT IMPROVEMENT WOULD LOOK LIKE. LASTLY, LAST COMMENT. REALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THE YEAR OUT SURVEY. SO I HOPE WE CAN GET SIZABLE SAMPLE NUMBERS, BECAUSE I THINK THAT THE EXPERIENCE OF A TEACHER A YEAR OUT AFTER HAVING TAUGHT FOR A YEAR IS PROBABLY VERY-- AND THEIR ASSESSMENT OF HOW WELL THEY'RE PREPARED IS PROBABLY VERY DIFFERENT THAN IT IS ON GRADUATION DAY. SO QUESTION. I'LL JUST ASK ONE AND THEN YOU CAN RE-QUEUE ME. SO MAYBE THIS ONE FIRST: ROCHESTER-- SO THE-- IF WE LOOK AT THE CUT SCORE, SO ROCHESTER DID NOT MAKE THE CUT SCORE, BUT THEY'VE SEEMED TO IMPROVE FROM RED TO YELLOW. SO THAT WAS THE ONE THAT LEFT ME LIKE, "SO WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?" >> SO REMEMBER, THEY WERE "LOW PERFORMING" LAST YEAR AND THIS CUT SCORE DETERMINED THEM TO BE "AT RISK" AND NOT "LOW PERFORMING" BECAUSE WHEN THE REFERENT GROUP SET THE CUTS, THEY COULD CHOOSE "AT RISK" OR "LOW PERFORMING." THEY DETERMINE "AT RISK," SO IT ACTUALLY MOVED ROCHESTER UP A STATUS INTO "AT RISK" FROM "LOW PERFORMING." >> OKAY. >> EILEEN AND BACK TO DAN FOR RE-QUEUING. >> THIS REALLY PROBABLY GOES WITHOUT SAYING, BUT I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE STUDENT SURVEYS, THE TEACHER SURVEYS ARE ONLY IN MICHIGAN, CORRECT? YOU DON'T FOLLOW ANY GRADUATE TO A JOB OUT OF STATE? >> EVEN SMALLER THAN THAT, MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. >> AND WHY ONLY MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS? >> THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT-- SORRY, I'M SORRY, THE SURVEYS ARE ANY GRADUATE OF THE INSTITUTIONS BECAUSE THE INSTITUTIONS HAVE THAT INFORMATION. THE ED EVAL DATA ARE ONLY MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ONLY ONES THAT ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT IT. >> IT'S INTERESTING THOUGH BECAUSE THEY GET MIGHT A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PICTURE IF THESE STUDENTS ARE GOING TO EITHER PRIVATE SCHOOLS IN MICHIGAN-- IT MIGHT BE BETTER, IT MIGHT BE WORSE. BUT I WOULD ALSO THINK THAT MICHIGAN-- THE STATE'S GRADUATES, EPI GRADUATES WHO ARE SOUGHT BY OTHER STATES, AND THEN MAYBE THAT THEY WOULD GET STELLAR REPORTS FROM OTHER STATES. WE WOULDN'T HAVE ANY WAY OF-- THEY'D HAVE TO DISAGGREGATE IT TO TRY AND MAKE SURE, BECAUSE THE STANDARDS WOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE THE SAME. >> UNTIL WE GET OTHER STATES ON BOARD AND GET SOME KIND OF NATIONAL DATA SHARING, YOU CAN'T DO IT. >> I THINK THAT IS ALSO ONE OF THE REASONS THAT WE REALLY REDUCE THE WEIGHT OF THE-- IF YOU'RE SENDING A LARGE NUMBER TO PRIVATE SCHOOLS OR TO OTHER STATES, YOU HAVE A SMALL SAMPLE. WE'VE REDUCED THE WEIGHT OF THAT EFFECTIVENESS RATING THAT GOES INTO YOUR SCORE. >> AND THEN THE ONLY QUESTION I WOULD ASK IS DO YOU SURVEY STUDENTS WHO HAVEN'T GOTTEN JOBS? >> THAT WILL BE PART OF THE YEAR OUT SURVEY, AND WE INTEND ON DOING THE EMPLOYED AND THE NOT EMPLOYED, BECAUSE WE THINK THAT DATA IS JUST AS VALUABLE IN LOOKING AT THAT INFORMATION. >> OKAY, THANKS. GREAT JOB. >> AND THIS, EILEEN, ESPECIALLY IN THE SPIRIT THAT YOU'RE THAT YOU ARE ABLY GETTING ON THE TABLE ABOUT KIND OF CONSUMER INFORMATION, THIS ANOTHER ONE WHERE SO MANY KIDS, THEY'RE JUST NOT LOOKING AT THE SUPPLY AND DEMAND STUFF ON THE DISCIPLINES THAT CAN GET JOBS. SO THIS WILL HELP KIND OF-- IF YOU NOTICE WHAT WE TRY TO DO IN THE DEPARTMENT IS USE LEVERAGE POINTS THAT WE HAVE AUTHORITY ON-- EARLIER THIS MORNING WE USED ONE-- THAT CAN PRODUCE SOME CHANGE, AND ONE OF THEM IS TO GET FOLKS UNDERSTANDING. BECAUSE, REMEMBER, I MIGHT HAVE REPORTED OUT, I DID REPORT OUT 5, 6, 7 YEARS AGO THAT IN FAIRNESS TO THE INSTITUTIONS, WHEN I BROUGHT UP THE SUPPLY AND DEMAND ISSUE, THEY SAID, "WE CAN'T MAKE A KID WANT TO BE A MATH TEACHER IF THEY LOVE POETRY AND WANT TEACH THAT." WE CAN'T, BUT THEY SHOULD AT LEAST KNOW YOU'RE NOT LIKELY TO GET A JOB HERE, YOU'RE VERY LIKELY TO GET A JOB HERE. AND THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE, NOT THAT YOU CAN MAKE THEM. WE'RE HEADED THAT WAY, THE TEAM, APPRECIATE DAN'S CITING SOME OF PEOPLE LIKE PHIL AND OTHERS THAT HAVE REALLY PULLED SOME GREAT THINGS OFF. YES, SIR. >> OKAY, THE TWO OTHER QUESTIONS. SO I'M ASSUMING YOU THOUGHT ABOUT USING LIKE A THREE YEAR AVERAGE OR SOMETHING INSTEAD OF THE ANNUAL PROGRESSION. IS THERE A REASON WHY, JUST FOR THE DATA GEEKS HERE? I MAY BE THE ONLY ONE. WHY YOU DIDN'T GO WITH A LIKE THREE YEAR AVERAGE INSTEAD OF THE CUT SCORE MOVING IT THROUGH THIS PROGRESSION OVER TIME? >> SO THE CUT SCORE-- THE SCORES ACTUALLY DO CONTAIN MULTIPLE YEARS OF DATA. SO THERE ARE MULTIPLE YEARS OF DATA IN THERE HELP TO STABILIZE THINGS AND THAT PARTICULARLY HELPS WITH SOME OF THE SMALLER INSTITUTIONS. YOU CAN STILL HAVE A SIGNIFICANT SWING JUST DEPENDING ON HAVING A COHORT THAT IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM ONE YEAR TO THE NEXT, EVEN IN SOMETHING THAT HAS THE MULTIPLE YEAR AVERAGING. SO THE PROGRESSION ALLOWS US EVEN-- ALLOWS US TO MITIGATE EVEN MORE SOME OF THAT VOLATILITY. SO WE DO HAVE-- WE ARE MITIGATING VOLATILITY BY HAVING MULTIPLE YEARS OF DATA IN THE SCORE ITSELF AND THEN MULTIPLE YEARS OF SCORE TO DEFINE THE PROGRESSION. >> OKAY. LAST QUESTION, THEN: PHILOSOPHICALLY, I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAVE A REALLY STRONG OPINION ON THIS RIGHT NOW, BUT I'M JUST CURIOUS AND I'M SURE YOU ALL HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THIS. SO PHILOSOPHICALLY, YOU COULD-- AND THIS IS PIGGYBACKING OFF OF MICHELLE'S GREAT QUESTION ABOUT HOW THIS ALL TIES TO DIVERSITY IN THE PROFESSION. PHILOSOPHICALLY, YOU COULD THROW OPEN THE DOORS AND SAY, "WE WANT EVERYBODY IN THE SCHOOL AS A CANDIDATE," RIGHT? "BUT NOT ALL OF YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE IT OUT, NOT ALL OF YOU ARE GOING TO PASS THE EXAM AT THE END OF THE PROCESS." OR YOU COULD GO ABOUT THE PROCESS OF RECRUITING AND BEING REALLY EXCLUSIVE AT THE FRONT END BUT RECRUITING REALLY HARD TO TRY AND GET A CLASS THAT'S REPRESENTATIVE OF A LARGER DEMOGRAPHIC STUDENT BODY, WHATEVER IT IS YOU'RE GOING TO BE TEACHING DOWN THE ROAD. DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION ABOUT WHICH OF THOSE KIND OF IS-- WE SHOULD BE ENCOURAGING AS A POLICY MATTER, IF EITHER, OR DO WE CARE? JUST WHAT'S YOUR THOUGHTS PHILOSOPHICALLY ABOUT THE TWO AVAILABLE PATHS? >> SO ACCREDITATION-- WE HAVE REQUIRED THEM NOW TO GO ALL THROUGH NATIONAL ACCREDITATION, AND THAT PROGRAM IS GOING TO REQUIRE THEM TO START GETTING THEIR CANDIDATE POOL FROM THE TOP OF THE K-12 POOL. SO THERE ARE GOING TO BE SOME REQUIREMENTS IN THERE THAT THEY'RE MOVING TOWARD TO INCREASE THE PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS THAT ARE ACTUALLY COMING OUT OF THE TOP 30% OF THEIR GRADUATING CLASS MOVING FORWARD. SO THAT'S ESTABLISHED. WE DON'T NECESSARILY DISAGREE WITH THAT. IT DOES POSE CHALLENGES FOR OUR UNIVERSITIES THAT HAVE MISSION STATEMENTS OF RECRUITING CANDIDATES THAT ARE NOT IN THAT POOL AND REALLY PROVIDING REMEDIATION. SO WE'RE GOING TO THINK CREATIVELY ABOUT HOW WE CAN MITIGATE THAT. CAN A CERTAIN NUMBER OF THEM COME AND YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SUPPORT? BUT IT'S GOING TO REQUIRE SOME THOUGHT WITH THE INSTITUTIONS I THINK FOR THAT. I'D SAY WE BELIEVE IN MULTIPLE DATES. IN ADDITION TO THAT, YOU NEED TO HAVE OPPORTUNITIES THROUGHOUT YOUR PROGRAM TO IDENTIFY CANDIDATES THAT ARE OR ARE NOT GOING TO BE SUCCESSFUL. AND IF YOU CAN'T PROVIDE THEM THE SUPPORT, GIVE THEM EARLY EXIT SO THEY DON'T GET TO THE END AND THEY'RE NOT MEETING THE EXPECTATIONS. >> AND I WOULD ADD TO THAT, DAN-- KIND OF A SIMILAR STORY WHERE JUST THIS IS TRUE BUT A LITTLE ANTIDOTAL IN A SENSE THAT SUPERINTENDENTS OFTEN SAY TO ME, "WELL IT'S A GOOD THING YOU GUYS ARE GOING AFTER THE HIGHER ED, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, WE SAW HOW FEW PASSED TESTS, BOY IT'S GOOD THAT YOU'RE LOCKING THAT." AND I SAID, "THAT'S ON US, THAT'S ON YOU AND ME". THE BASIC-- THAT I ALWAYS DRAW A BLANK ON THE NAME OF THE-- >> THE PROFESSIONAL READINESS TEST. >> THE PROFESSIONAL TEST IS WHAT YOU SHOULD HAVE FOR GRADUATION FROM HIGH SCHOOL. AND IF THEY'RE NOT EVEN DOING THAT BY SOPHOMORE YEAR, THAT'S ON US. SO I MEAN THE CATCH-22 HERE IS WHERE ARE THESE KIND OF BALANCING PRESSURES TO-- WE SHOULD HAVE MANY, MANY, MANY MORE KIDS OF ALL KINDS OF BACKGROUNDS IN THIS SO CALLED TOP 30%, AND THEN IT WOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM. AND IF WE'RE NOT, WHAT ARE WE DOING EARLY CHILDHOOD? WHAT ARE WE DOING K-12? I MEAN THAT'S WHY THIS IS THIS CYCLE, THIS CIRCLE, REALLY, OF TRYING TO REMEDY THIS AT BOTH ENDS. THAT'S THE ULTIMATE SOLUTION OBVIOUSLY IS HAVING ENOUGH KIDS PREPARED SO IT TAKES CARE OF ITSELF-- PREPARED IN K-12, NOT HAVING TO HAVE A REMEDIATION. BUT IN FAIRNESS, IT'S THAT SAME THING. IT'S VERY DIFFICULT IF YOU ARE A TEACHER THAT HASN'T BEEN PREPARED AS WELL AS YOU WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE BEEN PREPARED IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO HELP THESE KIDS GET TO THAT LEVEL. SO THIS IS ENOUGH-- I DON'T WANT TO CALL IT BLAME-- ENOUGH... >> CHALLENGE. >> CHALLENGES FOR ALL OF US AT EACH END, AND I'M TRYING, IF ANYTHING, TO REDUCE SOME OF THE-- THIS GOING ON RIGHT NOW. THERE IS A FAIR AMOUNT OF THIS GOING ON K-12 AND HIGHER ED, IT'S-- WE'RE BOTH IN THIS. ARE WE GOOD? THANK YOU GUYS. THIS IS EXCELLENT, AND I TALKED TO JOHN AS PRESIDENT A LITTLE BIT. WERE GOING TO TRY TO PUSH THROUGH C SO THAT THERE IS ENOUGH TIME FOR DISCUSSION THIS AFTERNOON. >> WELL, IF THERE'S AN IMPORTANT DISCUSSION THIS AFTERNOON, SHOULD WE JUST SKIP IT? >> I'M SORRY, MA'AM? >> I WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE ENOUGH TIME FOR OUR DISCUSSION. >> THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING, SO WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO PUSH THROUGH THIS ITEM THIS MORNING AS WE PLAN, SO THAT THERE IS PLENTY OF TIME THIS AFTERNOON. >> SHE'S SUGGESTING SKIPPING C. >> OH. >> HOW ABOUT I JUST TRY NOT TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS? [ OVERLAPPING CHATTER ] >> YEAH, WE CAN DO IT. >> THIS IS PART OF AN ONGOING-- THE BOARD REQUESTS AN ONGOING THING ON SCIENCE. THIS ISN'T A CULMINATING PRESENTATION TODAY. AND I GAVE OUR GUYS A LITTLE BIT OF A HEADS UP AND SAID TWENTY MINUTES AGO, "TRY TO--" BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, RESPECT THE WORK DONE, AND I THINK JOHN IS SAYING WE'D SHOOT FOR 12:15, SO BETWEEN THE PRESENTATION-- BECAUSE I'M EXACTLY WITH YOU, KATH. THAT'S EXACTLY WHY WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO MOVE THROUGH THIS. SO PLEASE, TEAM. VANESSA, YOU MAY START IT. I WON'T EVEN DO MY PIECE, YOU CUT RIGHT INTO IT. >> GOOD MORNING EVERYONE, AND IT IS STILL MORNING FOR FIVE MORE MINUTES, SO-- THIS IS THE SECOND IN A SERIES OF PRESENTATIONS WE'VE BEEN DOING ABOUT SCIENCE EDUCATION, AND JUST TO KIND OF REMIND EVERYBODY, AS WE BEGAN TALKING ABOUT THE FUTURE OF SCIENCE EDUCATION IN MICHIGAN ABOUT A YEAR AGO, IT WAS A WHILE AGO, ONE OF THE THAT THINGS THE BOARD SAID IS WE WANTED TO HAVE MORE KIND OF ONGOING DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THIS. SO WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO BRING PIECES OF THIS BACK TO YOU OVER TIME. SO TODAY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ASSESSING THE TEACHING AND LEARNING OF SCIENCE. SO OUR FOCUS IS MORE ON ASSESSMENT, KNOWING THAT THERE'S A LOT OF QUESTIONS AND ALSO IT IS A LONG PROCESS TO GET TO THAT. BUT WE DID WANT TO TURN OUR ATTENTION TO THAT AT LEAST FOR TWENTY MINUTES IF WE CAN DO BY 12:15, SO WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO LINDA. >> THANK YOU. JUST AS A REMINDER FROM WHERE WE WERE LAST MONTH-- TWO MONTHS AGO-- BRING YOU UP TO DATE. WERE LOOKING AT HOW DO WE GET TO QUALITY SCIENCE INSTRUCTION IN THE STATE. AND TODAY WE'RE GOING TO BE TAKING A LOOK AT ALIGNED ASSESSMENTS. WE'RE GOING TO SPEND A LITTLE TIME WITH SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT, SCIENCE INSTRUCTION SUPPORT, AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT. BUT OUR BIGGEST FOCUS TODAY IS ON ALIGNED ASSESSMENTS. AND OUR OBJECTIVES FOR TODAY ARE TO GET AN INSIGHT INTO ASSESSMENT CONSIDERATIONS THAT WE WILL NEED, NOT JUST AT THE STATE LEVEL, BUT ACROSS THE CLASSROOMS AND REGIONALLY AND SOME OF THE OTHER INFORMATION THAT'S COMING FORWARD THROUGH SOME OF THE OTHER WORK THAT WE'RE DOING WITH ONLINE ASSESSMENTS. WE ALSO WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT THIS MIGHT MEAN FOR THINGS LIKE EDUCATOR EFFECTIVENESS, SCHOOL RANKINGS, AND OTHER ISSUES IF WE WERE GOING TO PUT IN PLACE A QUALITY SCIENCE ASSESSMENT ALIGNED TO SOME OF OUR VISION FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION. AND WE ALSO WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THE STRATEGIES THAT WILL AID US IN MAKING THAT TRANSITION TO MORE APPROPRIATE OUTCOMES FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION. SO JUST A REMINDER WHERE WE ARE TODAY, SCIENCE IN MICHIGAN AND THE ASSESSMENTS, 5th, 8th, AND 11th GRADE ASSESSMENTS, YOU WILL NOTE THAT THERE IS A SLIGHT TICK UP, BUT NOT ENOUGH THAT WE WOULD WANT TO DO THE HAPPY DANCE YET. WE DON'T HAVE THE 11th GRADE DATA YET SO THAT IS WHY IT IS NOT REPRESENTED HERE. BUT YOU'LL NOTICE THAT WE ARE DOWN IN THE LOWER PERCENTILES ACROSS THE BOARD, AND THIS DOES NOT REFLECT WELL WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THE KINDS OF JOBS THAT ARE AVAILABLE IN MICHIGAN THAT ARE GOING UNANSWERED AND THE KINDS OF SKILLS THAT OUR KIDS NEED IN ORDER TO DO THOSE JOBS WELL. SO WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO ANDY, WHO IS GOING TO TALK A LITTLE ABOUT STATE ASSESSMENTS AND SOME CONSIDERATIONS THERE. >> I'LL JUST GIVE A BRIEF SNAPSHOT OF WHAT STATE ASSESSMENTS LOOK LIKE IN MICHIGAN FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF A SUMMATIVE NATURE. SO WE'RE TALKING WHAT WE'VE KNOWN AS THE MEAP AND THE MEAP SCIENCE PIECES. MOVING FORWARD STARTING WITH SPRING OF 2015, ASSESSMENTS FOR SCIENCE ARE GOING TO BE IN GRADES 4, 7 AND 11. THOSE GRADES ARE SHIFTING FROM 5 TO 8 DOWN TO 4 TO 7 BECAUSE WE'RE MOVING TO SPRING ASSESSMENTS IN MICHIGAN, SO THAT'S THE NEED OF WHEN THOSE SCIENCE ASSESSMENTS WILL OCCUR. AND WE'RE ALSO MOVING TO ONLINE ASSESSMENTS STARTING THE SPRING OF 2015. SO ASSESSMENTS IN MICHIGAN WOULD BE AGAIN LOOKING AT WINDOWS OF TIME FOR ADMINISTRATION, NOT NECESSARILY WHAT WE'VE BEEN USED TO WITH EXACT DAYS OR HALF DAYS OF ADMINISTRATION WHEN WE WERE PAPER BASED. AND MOVING TO NEW STATE ASSESSMENTS, IF NEW STANDARDS-- >> AND WHAT ARE THOSE? >> --ADOPTED DOWN THE ROAD-- >> AND WHAT ARE THOSE? >> THE NEW MEAP. >> I'M SORRY. >> YES. SO IF MOVING TO NEW STATE ASSESSMENTS BASED ON ANY NEW SCIENCE STANDARDS, AGAIN, AS WE'VE SEEN WITH THE TRANSITION WITH NEW MEAP OR NEW MATH AND ELA STANDARDS, IT'S GOING TO BE AN OVERHAUL, AND YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. IT'S GOING TO BE AN OVERHAUL COMPLETELY FROM THE GROUND UP IN WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. WE'RE LOOKING AT ONLINE ASSESSMENT. THERE IS GOING TO BE NEW ITEM TYPES. ANY NEW SCIENCE STANDARDS WILL INVOLVE CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS. A LOT OF THE SAME THINGS WE LOOKED AT WITH OUR NEW MATH AND ELA STANDARDS MOVING FORWARD. SO IN BRIEF, A TIMELINE WE'RE LOOKING AT, ON THE TOP YOU CAN SEE-- THAT'S THE JOURNEY WE'RE ON WITH THE NEW RFP WE'RE WORKING ON THAT WE'RE GOING TO PUT OUT BY SEPTEMBER 1st. DOWN BELOW IS WHAT WILL SCIENCE LOOK LIKE. SOME NEW STANDARDS ARE ADOPTED AT SOME POINT. IT'S GOING TO BE THREE, FOUR, FIVE YEAR PROCESS TO REALLY OPEN UP THE HOOD AND REBUILD FROM THE GROUND UP WHAT SCIENCE ASSESSMENTS LOOK LIKE WITH NEW ITEM TYPES AND THINGS MOVING FORWARD, AND THAT WILL START WITH COLLABORATION WITH LINDA'S OFFICE. AND THE BUILDING OF NEW ITEMS THAT WILL NEED TO GET FIELD TESTED OVER TIME SO WE CAN GET THEM EXPOSED BEFORE WE CAN MOVE TO A FULL OPERATIONAL ASSESSMENT FOR THIS NEW SCIENCE. PROBABLY IN 2018-2019 SCHOOL YEAR, AND THAT'S AN OPTIMISTIC TIMELINE AT THIS POINT. SO, STEVE. >> I'LL BE AT THAT MEETING, BY THE WAY. I'M THE GUY IN SHORTS AND SUNGLASSES IN THE BACK OF THE ROOM. >> YOUR BOOK TOUR? >> EXACTLY. [ LAUGHTER ] >> WELL, WITH RESPECT TO THOSE ASSESSMENTS, THEN PART OF WHAT WE DID WANT TO LOOK AT IS, KNOWING THAT WE'VE GOT THIS LENGTH OF TIMELINE IN TERMS OF ANY TRANSITION, WE WANT TO LOOK AT WHAT THE ACTUAL IMPACT IS REALLY GOING TO BE ON SCHOOLS AS WELL AS ALL THOSE OTHER STAKEHOLDERS IN THE PROCESS. AND THEN WHAT SOME OF THE OTHER STRATEGIES THAT MAY BE USED TO TRY AND REMEDIATE THAT DURING THAT TIMELINE LAG THAT WE HAVE. WHEN WE LOOK AT STATEWIDE ASSESSMENTS IN TERMS OF SOME OF THE DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS FOR THEM, THERE ARE A WIDE RANGE OF CONSIDERATIONS, AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, RANGING FROM THOSE THAT ARE MORE IMMEDIATE IN NATURE ADDRESSING MULTIPLE DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS. SO FOR INSTANCE, FROM A STATE LEVEL, WE LOOK AT THESE FOR ACCOUNTABILITY PURPOSES, WHEREAS INDIVIDUAL DISTRICTS AND EDUCATORS MAY LOOK AT THIS IN TERMS OF PROGRAMMING FOR PROFESSIONAL LEARNING FOR TEACHERS FOR THE SUMMER AND UPCOMING YEAR TO SEE WHAT KINDS OF THINGS THEY WANT TO FOCUS ON. AS WE EXPAND THIS OUT MORE BROADLY AND LOOK AT DATA OVER TIME, THOUGH, YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE SOME DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS THAT COME UP HERE AS WELL. EDUCATOR EFFECTIVENESS BEING ONE, FOR INSTANCE, THAT HAS A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON INDIVIDUAL DISTRICTS AND EDUCATORS, BECAUSE THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT DATA OVER TIME TO SEE WHAT'S GOING TO BE HAPPENING WITH GROWTH. ISDs OR MATH SCIENCE CENTERS OR SOME OF THE OTHER SUPPORTS, MEANWHILE, ARE LOOKING AT THESE SAME KINDS OF CONSIDERATIONS TO FIGURE OUT, FOR THE BODY OF TEACHERS THAT THEY SUPPORT, WHAT KINDS OF PROGRAMMING DO THEY NEED TO PUT IN PLACE TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE MOST APPROPRIATE PROFESSIONAL LEARNING SUPPORT FOR SCHOOLS OR OTHER SUPPORTS AROUND CURRICULUM ISSUES AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS. AND THEN, AS YOU CAN SEE FOR LONG TERM CONSIDERATIONS, THERE ARE OTHER THINGS AS WELL THAT EFFECT US HERE AT THE STATE LEVEL, SUCH AS POLICY OUTCOMES, HOW IT IMPACTS THE STATE CURRICULUM, AND SO ON. IN ORDER TO TRY TO REMEDIATE SOME OF THESE ISSUES, THERE ARE SOME STRATEGIES THAT WE CAN LOOK AT THAT CAN TAKE PLACE. SOME ARE TAKING PLACE NOW, AND SO WE WANTED TO PULL OUT ONE EXAMPLE OF THESE, FOR INSTANCE, THAT'S TAKING PLACE AT A REGIONAL LEVEL. LOCAL AND REGIONAL ASSESSMENTS FOR SCIENCE CAN BE DONE WHERE PRE- AND POST-ASSESSMENTS OR INTERIM ASSESSMENTS ARE PROVIDED TO STUDENTS ALONG THE WAY, SINCE WE DO NOT HAVE STATEWIDE ASSESSMENTS BY GRADE LEVEL FOR THESE TOPICS. THIS IS BEING DONE IN PARTICULAR-- THIS EXAMPLE IS FROM WORK THAT'S TAKING PLACE IN THE EASTERN UPPER PENINSULA ISD. THIS IS AN ISD THAT SUPPORTS 19 DIFFERENT SCHOOLS OR SCHOOL DISTRICTS OVER A RANGE OF 4,400 SQUARE MILES. IT'S THE LARGEST COVERAGE AREA FOR AN ISD THAT WE HAVE. SO PART OF THE MECHANISM THEY SET UP TO TRY TO WORK WITH THEIR EDUCATORS WAS TO SET UP THESE PRE-, POST-, AND INTERIM ASSESSMENTS DONE AT EVERY GRADE LEVEL IN SCIENCE. THEY COULD NOT ONLY USE THESE TO SUPPORT INDIVIDUAL TEACHERS, BUT THESE ALSO THEN BECAME THE BASIS FOR WHAT HAPPENS IN TERMS OF SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT, SO THAT THEY CAN SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING IN AN INDIVIDUAL SCHOOL AND WHERE A FOCUS MIGHT BE. THEY CAN LOOK AT THIS FOR PROFESSIONAL LEARNING NEEDS, AND THEY THEN, AS AN ISD AND MATH SCIENCE CENTER, FIGURE OUT WHAT SOME OF THE DIFFERENT SUPPORTS AND RESOURCES MAY NEED TO BE. THEY'RE DOING THIS WHERE THE ASSESSMENTS ARE PROVIDED AT LEAST ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. SOME TEACHERS HAVE ELECTED TO CREATE SOME OF THEIR OWN ASSESSMENTS THAT THEY'RE ENGAGING IN ON A UNIT-BY-UNIT BASIS, SO EVERY 4 TO 6 WEEKS DOING THESE KINDS OF ASSESSMENTS. AND THIS IS GROUPS OF TEACHERS WHO HAVE COLLABORATED TOGETHER ON THIS WITHIN THE ISD. SO THEY'VE ALSO MADE THIS A PART OF THEIR OWN PROFESSIONAL LEARNING EFFORTS GOING ON IN THAT REGION AS WELL. IN TERMS OF HOW THIS THEN PLAYS OUT FOR THE DISTRICT AND FOR THAT REGION, THEY'RE GENERATING REPORTS OF INDIVIDUAL STUDENT GROWTH ON THESE ASSESSMENTS SO THAT TEACHERS CAN LOOK AT WHAT'S HAPPENING OVER THE COURSE OF THE SCHOOL YEAR, SEE WHERE STUDENTS MIGHT BE DEFICIENT IN CERTAIN AREAS, AND BE ABLE TO RESPOND TO THAT. LIKEWISE, THE ISD IS ABLE TO LOOK AT THESE SAME THINGS ON A BROADER LEVEL, LOOKING AT ALL OF THE SCHOOLS WITHIN THE REGION TO SEE-- ARE THERE SPECIFIC TOPICS OR ISSUES THAT NEED PARTICULAR ATTENTION AND ARE BEING CALLED OUT IN THE EARLIER INTERIM ASSESSMENTS. THIS IS REALLY, IF YOU THINK OF THIS, A SCIENCE SPECIFIC VERSION OF MULTI-TIERED SYSTEMS OF SUPPORT SO THAT YOU CAN DO THIS KIND OF ANALYSIS ON A STUDENT-BY-STUDENT BASIS. ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT THEY'RE DOING AGAIN IN SAULT SAINT MARIE FOR THIS GROUP OF SCHOOLS IS THEY RECOGNIZE THAT INDIVIDUAL SCHOOLS ARE LOOKING AT DIFFERENT KINDS OF ASSESSMENTS THAT THEY MAY HAVE PURCHASED FOR USE ALONG THE WAY. SO THEY'RE DOING CROSS-WALKED ANALYSES OF THESE DIFFERENT ASSESSMENTS. WHEN TEACHERS IN THE 8th GRADE ARE LOOKING AT MEAP RESULTS THAT THEY'VE HAD SO FAR AND THEN RECOGNIZE THAT THEY CAN USE THE EXPLORER TEST AS WELL, PART OF WHAT THEY'VE BEEN ABLE TO DO WITH THIS IS THEY'VE BEEN ABLE TO CROSSWALK THESE TWO ASSESSMENTS SO THAT THEY CAN NOT ONLY SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING IN TERMS OF SCIENCE CONTENT AND PRACTICES THAT ARE BEING ASSESSED, BUT THEN HOW IS THIS BEING REFLECTED IN TERMS OF THEIR STUDENT BODY AND POPULATION? HOW ARE STUDENTS DOING AS THEY WALK THROUGH THESE DIFFERENT ASSESSMENTS TO SEE WHAT KIND OF CORRELATION THEY'RE GETTING BETWEEN THESE DIFFERENT TOOLS THAT THEY USE? THEY'RE ALSO APPLYING SOME OF THESE THINGS TO FOCUS ON VERY INDIVIDUALIZED RESPONSES TO STUDENT NEEDS. THIS IS A TABLE THAT WAS GENERATED BY AN ASSESSMENT CREATED BY A TEACHER, WHERE THE TEACHER COULD HAVE STUDENTS GO THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT AND WITHIN FIVE MINUTES COULD LOOK AT THE SUMMARY OF DATA HERE TO SEE ON A STUDENT-BY-STUDENT BASIS WHICH STUDENTS WERE HAVING PROBLEMS WITH PARTICULAR AREAS OF CONTENT, WHAT MISCONCEPTIONS MIGHT THEY HAVE ABOUT THESE THINGS SO THAT THEY COULD PROVIDE DIRECT RESPONSE TO STUDENT NEEDS THAT VERY DAY OR THAT VERY HOUR IN THE CLASSROOM. THIS IS REALLY A FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT PROCESS THAT'S TAKING PLACE ON A REGIONAL LEVEL, AGAIN USING THAT NOTION OF MULTI-TIERED SYSTEMS OF SUPPORT. WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT THIS PRESENTATION NOT JUST ADDRESSING THE NEEDS OF LEARNING, BUT THE NEEDS OF TEACHING AS WELL, AND OTHER ASSESSMENTS THAT ARE DONE AT A REGIONAL LEVEL INCLUDE THE SURVEYS OF AN ACTIVE CURRICULA. WHAT THIS KIND OF ANALYSIS CAN DO IS IT PROVIDES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR SCHOOLS TO LOOK AT THE COVERAGE BEING REPORTED BY INDIVIDUAL TEACHERS ON INDIVIDUAL TOPICS BY GRADE LEVEL, AND TO CORRELATE THAT WITH THE EXISTING STANDARDS WE HAVE IN MICHIGAN AROUND WHAT AMOUNT OF TIME THAT SHOULD BE SPENT ON THESE. YOU CAN LOOK AT THIS PARTICULAR GRAPH AND SEE-- THIS IS A HEAT MAP KIND OF GRAPH OR ELEVATION KIND OF GRAPH HERE, THAT THE TEACHER IN THIS EXAMPLE IS PROVIDING BROAD COVERAGE ON A FEW AREAS WHERE THEY SHOULD BE FOCUSING, IF WE LOOK AT THE GRAPH ON THE LEFT, A GREAT DEAL OF TIME AND ENERGY ON THESE PARTICULAR TOPICS, AND ADDING IN SOME OTHER TOPICS THAT WEREN'T BEING COVERED BY THIS PARTICULAR TEACHER. SO THESE KINDS OF ASSESSMENT TOOLS BEING USED AT A REGIONAL LEVEL CAN REALLY POINT TO THE PROFESSIONAL LEARNING NEEDS. IT CAN POINT TO CURRICULUM ALIGNMENT ISSUES AND OTHER ISSUES OF SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT THAT TAKE PLACE. WE CAN ALSO LOOK NOT ONLY AT THE REGIONAL OR DISTRICT LEVEL, BUT AT THE CLASSROOM AND SCHOOL LEVEL FOR ASSESSMENTS. THIS PARTICULAR ASSESSMENT IS ONE THAT YOU SAW BACK IN MAY WHEN WE LOOKED AT AN EXAMPLE OF A VISION FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION. PART OF WHAT WE CAN DO IS ESTABLISH DIFFERENT TOOLS SUCH AS RUBRICS TO GUIDE EDUCATORS THROUGH MORE IN-DEPTH KINDS OF ASSESSMENTS. HERE, YOU SEE THIS PARTICULAR STUDENT AND SAMPLES OF HER WORK AS WELL HER WRITING. THIS KIND-- OR HAVING TOOLS SUCH AS RUBRICS FOR MORE IN DEPTH ANALYSES LIKE WE HAVE HERE OF CLAIM EVIDENCE AND REASONING WOULD ALLOW THE TEACHER TO RESPOND TO THIS STUDENT, CHARLOTTE, TO BE ABLE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT PARTICULAR ISSUES SHE MAY BE HAVING AND BE ABLE TO TAILOR A RESPONSE TO HER INDIVIDUALIZED NEEDS. WE CAN ALSO SEE-- IF WE HAVE RUBRICS FOR THIS KIND OF WORK, THIS GETS WELL BEYOND THE MULTIPLE CHOICE KIND OF ANALYSIS THAT WE MAY BE USED TO SEEING IN CLASSROOMS. THIS IS GETTING TO GREATER DEPTH OF UNDERSTANDING FOR THESE STUDENTS. AT THE CLASSROOM AND SCHOOL LEVEL, WE ARE USED TO SOME OF THE KINDS OF ASSESSMENTS WE'VE SEEN AS COMMON LOCAL ASSESSMENTS, WHETHER THEY ARE MEAP ASSESSMENTS OR THOSE CREATED THAT I JUST DEMONSTRATED FROM THE EASTERN U.P. EARLIER. BUT THERE ARE SOME OTHER TOOLS AS WELL THAT CAN USED TO MOVE THE INSTRUCTION THAT WE TALKED ABOUT IN THOSE STUDENT OUTCOMES THAT WE SAW ON THE VISION SLIDE. THE USE ARTIFACTS OR ANALYSIS OF ARTIFACTS IS ONE EXAMPLE OF THIS. THIS IS A GREAT EXAMPLE WHERE WE CAN USE THE PROCESS OF EXAMINING STUDENT WORK TO SEE WHAT IS REALLY TAKING PLACE IN A SCHOOL. A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THE VARIATION YOU CAN SEE IN THIS IS-- I'LL USE THE EXAMPLE OF WALKING THROUGH KEITH ELEMENTARY WHEN MEETING OUR TEACHER OF THE YEAR, WHERE YOU COULD LOOK IN CLASSROOMS THERE AND SEE ALL SORTS OF DIFFERENT KINDS OF WORK IN THE CLASSROOM. EACH STUDENT REPRESENTED THE WORK IN THEIR OWN UNIQUE WAY, WHEREAS IN OTHER SCHOOLS, LOOKING AT SAME KINDS OF EXAMPLES OF THIS, YOU MIGHT SEE POSTERS THAT ALL LOOK THE SAME. TWENTY-SIX POSTERS THAT LOOK LIKE THEY'RE MORE LESS COPIES-- INDIVIDUALIZED COPIES OF THE SAME CONTENT. WHAT THAT GUIDES YOU TO IN TERMS OF STUDENT IMPROVEMENT OR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT IS THAT THE KIND OF INSTRUCTION GOING ON THERE IS NOT FOCUSING ON INDIVIDUALIZED STUDENT RESPONSES, BUT RATHER EVERYONE JUST GETTING THE PIECES TOGETHER FOR THE SAME RESPONSE, WHERE YOU REALLY DON'T HAVE DEPTH OF UNDERSTANDING. THIS CAN BUILD TO OTHER KINDS OF ASSESSMENT, AND PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT IS ONE THAT REALLY IS A KEY FOR SCIENCE INSTRUCTION IN PARTICULAR. NOT ALL SCIENCE INSTRUCTION CAN BE EASILY CAPTURED IN A WRITTEN FORMAT. SOMETIMES YOU NEED TO SEE THE STUDENT PERFORMING AN EXPERIMENT, AS WE SEE IN THE PICTURE HERE OF A WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS THAT'S TAKING PLACE IN A LOCAL RIVER. THESE KINDS OF ASSESSMENTS AND THEN THE RUBRICS THAT TEACHERS MAY HAVE TO BETTER EVALUATE THIS ARE THE KINDS OF TOOLS THAT ARE GOING TO MOVE THIS INSTRUCTION FORWARD AS WE WORK ON A PROCESS TOWARDS THE EVENTUAL TIMELINE FOR STATEWIDE ASSESSMENTS. WE ALSO HAVE SOME SIMILAR OUTCOMES TO WHAT WE'VE SEEN FOR THIS BEFORE. IN PARTICULAR, WHAT WE SEE FOR THESE KINDS OF ASSESSMENTS IS THEY HAVE FAR MORE SIGNIFICANT FOCUS ON IMMEDIATE OUTCOMES. WE CAN SEE WHAT THE MISUNDERSTANDINGS ARE AT THE TIME THAT THEY'RE HAPPENING AND THE TEACHER BE ABLE TO RESPOND TO THESE THINGS IMMEDIATELY. SIMILARLY, WE CAN SEE THIS WITH OTHER KINDS OF ASSESSMENTS, LIKE ANALYSIS OF STUDENT ARTIFACTS OR PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT. AND ALL OF THESE THINGS CAN THEN FACTOR IN SOME OF THE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS WE HAVE, SUCH AS TEACHER EVALUATION. FOR INSTANCE, OTHER STATES ARE USING THIS PROCESS OF STUDENT LEARNING OBJECTIVES AS A MEANS OF EVALUATING STUDENT GROWTH FOR TEACHER EVALUATION PROCESSES. THAT CAN MORE EASILY BE DONE NOT JUST FROM A SET OF COMMON ASSESSMENTS, BUT IDEALLY, FROM ANALYSIS OF STUDENT ARTIFACTS AND PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENTS THAT WE MAY SEE. THIS BRINGS US BACK TO VISION. >> AND WE ARE WORKING NOW TO ACHIEVE THIS VISION AND WE LOOKED TODAY AT ALIGNED ASSESSMENTS AND SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT. GOING FORWARD WE'RE GOING TO BE TAKING A LOOK AT THE INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT, THE INFRASTRUCTURES NECESSARY THERE, RESEARCH AND HIGH LEARNING PROJECTS, AND SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT YOU'D LIKE TO SEE IN INSTRUCTION. AND THAT WILL BE THE IMPACT, THE PIECE WE'LL BE LOOKING AT FOR OUR NEXT PRESENTATION WITH YOU IN THIS SERIES. >> GREAT, THANK YOU. BOARD COMMENTS? QUESTIONS? MORE TO COME. YES? >> I'M GLAD TO SEE WE'RE MOVING TOWARDS ASSESSMENTS THAT ARE ACTUALLY-- WE USED TO THINK WE HAD THE ASSESSMENTS FOR DIAGNOSTIC PURPOSES BECAUSE, AS YOU PUT IT AT THE BEGINNING, THE STATE HAS ACCOUNTABILITY AND A LOCAL DISTRICT HAS EVALUATION. THERE ARE ALL KINDS OF PURPOSES FOR THE TESTS EXCEPT WHAT IT WAS ORIGINALLY CREATED FOR, WITH THE DIAGNOSTIC PURPOSES. >> EXACTLY. AND THAT'S ONE OF THE MOST CRITICAL ONES WE UNDERSTAND FOR SCIENCE AS WELL, BECAUSE YOU SO OFTEN BRING OUT THE SPECIFIC MISCONCEPTIONS THAT STUDENTS HAVE THROUGH THOSE KIND OF DIAGNOSTIC PIECES SO THE TEACHER CAN MORE ADEQUATELY RESPOND. >> GOOD POINT. >> SO THIS BRINGS UP ANOTHER QUESTION: WHEN ARE WE GOING TO ADOPT OR APPROVE THE SCIENCE STANDARDS? >> GOOD QUESTION. >> WELL, THE STRATEGY THE BOARD ASKED US TO LOOK AT WAS HAVE A NUMBER OF THESE PRESENTATIONS THAT WE'RE-- STILL ON THE HORIZON. AND THEN IT WOULD BE FOR YOU TO DETERMINE WHEN YOU'D LIKE US TO BRING THAT TO YOU IN AGENDA PLANNING. SO WE'RE OPEN TO THAT THINKING AS YOU SEE FIT. EILEEN, PLEASE. >> I WOULD JUST POINT OUT THAT THE BOARD AND THE STAFF HAVE NOT YET HAD THE DISCUSSION ABOUT ADOPTION OF NEXT GEN SCIENCE STANDARDS AND IT WOULD BE SENSIBLE TO PUT IN STEM OR NEW STEM STANDARDS. BECAUSE WE ALL AGREE THAT WE NEED THEM AND THAT IT'S AN URGENT SITUATION. WE JUST HAVEN'T DETERMINED WHAT. >> GOOD CATCH. >> AND I WOULD LIKE TO COMMEND YOU FOR THE WORK, BECAUSE I LOVE SCIENCE. I SHOULDN'T-- I'M A MUSICIAN AND I'M NOT SUPPOSED TO GO THERE, BUT THIS SORT OF THING WHICH BRINGS SCIENCE TO LIFE AND MAKES IT EXCITING IN THE CLASSROOM, I THINK EVERY-- WE'VE BEEN HEARING OVER AND OVER AGAIN FROM SCIENCE TEACHERS IN MICHIGAN THAT THEY'RE READY FOR THIS, THEY WANT IT. AND TO SEE THIS ASSESSMENT START TO BREATHE LIFE IS VERY, VERY EXCITING. >> THANK YOU, EILEEN. YES, MA'AM. >> IT DOES LOOK WONDERFUL. IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. A CONCERN THAT I HAD WAS THE DISTRICTS THAT ARE SO STRAPPED FOR MONEY RIGHT NOW, FINANCIALLY, IT LOOKS LIKE AN EXPENSIVE THING TO DO. TO TAKE FIELD TRIPS, TO HAVE MONEY FOR LABS, AND IS THERE ANY PLAN OR ANY-- MAYBE THAT'S OUR ROLE TO TRY TO DO IT, TO MAKE SURE THEY SEE GRANT OPPORTUNITIES COMING DOWN SO THAT THIS TYPE OF EDUCATION CAN BE FOR ALL CHILDREN? >> IF YOU CAN BEAR WITH US, NEXT MONTH'S PRESENTATION, WE'VE GOT IT PLANNED OUT, WILL BE ABOUT INSTRUCTION AND SOME OF THE COSTS AND SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT ARISE FROM THAT. >> OKAY. >> WHICH MAY BRING THAT INTO A CRISPER VIEW. >> OKAY. >> IF I CAN ADD A QUICK POINT TO THAT. THE MICHIGAN SCIENCE CENTER IS WAITING TO FIND OUT WHAT'S GOING TO BE HAPPENING, AND I KNOW OF COURSE THAT THE EXISTING MICHIGAN MATH AND SCIENCE CENTERS HAVE KIDS. THERE ARE MANY THINGS THAT ARE BEING PUT IN PLACE TO TRY AND MAKE SURE THAT THERE ARE LOW COST ALTERNATIVES FOR THE PRICIER STUFF. >> OKAY. GREAT, THANK YOU GUYS. GOOD WORK, AS ALWAYS. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> WE'D BE EXACTLY ON TIME IF YOU WANT ADDRESS D QUICKLY, LIKE WE SAID, BY 12:20. ARE THERE ANY DISCUSSIONS REGARDING THE CRITERIA FOR THE GRANT IN D? IF YOU'D LIKE TO-- THIS IS THE ONE-- OTHERWISE IT WOULD BE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. >> IN HONOR OF NANCY DANHOF ITEM. THE NANCY DANHOF. >> THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE CALLED IT YESTERDAY. [ LAUGHTER ] >> AND REMEMBERING NANCY, WE MISS HER. [ OVERLAPPING CHATTER ] >> I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE-- >> YES, SURE. >> IS THE FIDUCIARY PART OF THE CRITERIA, OR IS THAT-- BECAUSE AT ONE POINT, IT SAID WE'LL CONSIDER FIDUCIARY SEPARATELY, AND THEN IT'S LISTED HERE. AND IF THAT'S OCCURRING, THERE ARE SOME DISTRICTS THAT SEEM TO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH HOW THEY MANAGE ALL THESE GRANTS AND EVERYTHING. AND THAT WOULD EXCLUDE THEM, AND THEY NEED THE HELP, THEY NEED A LOT OF HELP. SO IS IT POSSIBLE, DOES THIS EXCLUDE A LOT OF DISTRICTS? >> THAT THE CRITERIA WOULD? >> YEAH. >> NO. >> THE DISTRICTS THAT NEED A LOT OF HELP. >> THESE GRANT CRITERIA ARE FOR OUR FISCAL AGENT WHO HELPS US OR WHO WE USE TO ADMINISTER OUR STATEWIDE SYSTEMS SUPPORTS. LINDA CAN TALK MORE ABOUT IT, BUT NO DISTRICTS ARE NOT GETTING SOMETHING. >> IT'S NOT A DISTRICT ISSUE. IT'S A FISCAL AGENT ISSUE. IT'S NOT A DISTRICT ISSUE. IT'S A PHYSICAL AGENT ISSUE-- WHO IS GOING TO BE THE FISCAL AGENT. >> OH, WHO WILL BE THE FISCAL AGENT, THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO KNOW-- WAS THIS FOR ALL DISTRICTS? >> TO FIND A FISCAL AGENT TO SERVE US SO WE CAN GET ALL OF THE SERVICES OUT TO THE SCHOOLS THAT NEED THEM. >> OH-- OKAY, SO IT'S--OKAY, THAT'S REALLY THE QUESTION I HAD. THANK YOU. >> AND THIS IS MOVING IT UP FROM WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE END OF THE YEAR TO MID-YEAR IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO. >> I DON'T THINK IT WAS QUITE CLEAR FROM THIS THAT THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE ASKING FOR. MAYBE YOU COULD CLARIFY IT, THAT IT'S A FISCAL AGENT, NOT JUST FOR EVERYBODY. IT'S A CRITERIA FOR THE FISCAL AGENT. >> CRITERIA FOR THE GRANT TO ALLOW THE FISCAL AGENT-- TO PUT THE FISCAL AGENT IN PLACE. WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT IT. >> YEAH. >> AND UNDER KIND OF THE NEW RULES, MAISA WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR THIS. SO THAT'S ONE REASON WE WANTED TO NOT WAIT UNTIL THE END OF YEAR, LET'S REESTABLISH THAT MID-YEAR AND MOVE ON. >> YEAH. OKAY, THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, GUYS. SO WE'RE GOOD. WE'RE ACTUALLY-- MERTZ, YOU'RE A GENIUS. YOU'VE GOT THIS DOWN, 12:20 YOU SAID POSSIBLY WE WOULD GET THIS DONE AND JOHN, THANK YOU. WHAT DO YOU THINK? TIME BACK AT TEN AFTER ONE? OKAY. THANK YOU ALL.

Contents

History

SsmADS was established in November 1958 assuming control of former ADC Central Air Defense Force units in Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. The organization provided command and control over several aircraft and radar squadrons.

On 15 June 1960, the new Semi Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE) Direction Center (DC-14) became operational. 46°20′47″N 087°23′00″W / 46.34639°N 87.38333°W / 46.34639; -87.38333 (SsmADS-SAGE DC-14) DC-14 was equipped with dual AN/FSQ-7 Computers. The day-to-day operations of the command was to train and maintain tactical flying units flying jet interceptor aircraft (F-94 Starfire; F-102 Delta Dagger; F-106 Delta Dart) in a state of readiness with training missions and series of exercises with SAC and other units simulating interceptions of incoming enemy aircraft.

The Sector was inactivated on 1 April 1966 as part of an ADC consolidation and reorganization; and its units were reassigned to the 28th and 29th Air Divisions.

Lineage

  • Established as Sault Sainte Marie Air Defense Sector on 8 November 1958
Inactivated on 15 December 1963

Assignments

Stations

Components

Wings

K. I. Sawyer AFB, Michigan, 1 February 1961-1 October 1963
Kincheloe AFB, Michigan, 1 February 1961-1 October 1963

Groups

K. I. Sawyer AFB, Michigan, 1 April 1960-1 February 1961
Kincheloe AFB, Michigan, 1 April 1960-1 February 1961

Interceptor squadron

Wurtsmith AFB, Michigan, 1 April 1960-15 July 1963

Missile squadron

Kincheloe AFB, Michigan, 1 April 1960-1 October 1963

Radar squadrons

See also

References

 This article incorporates public domain material from the Air Force Historical Research Agency website http://www.afhra.af.mil/.

  • A Handbook of Aerospace Defense Organization 1946 - 1980, by Lloyd H. Cornett and Mildred W. Johnson, Office of History, Aerospace Defense Center, Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado
  • Winkler, David F. (1997), Searching the skies: the legacy of the United States Cold War defense radar program. Prepared for United States Air Force Headquarters Air Combat Command.
  • Maurer, Maurer (1983). Air Force Combat Units Of World War II. Maxwell AFB, Alabama: Office of Air Force History. ISBN 0-89201-092-4.
  • Ravenstein, Charles A. (1984). Air Force Combat Wings Lineage and Honors Histories 1947–1977. Maxwell AFB, Alabama: Office of Air Force History. ISBN 0-912799-12-9.
  • Radomes.org Sault Sainte Marie Air Defense Sector
External image
SAGE facilities
This page was last edited on 20 March 2018, at 00:50.
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.