ation education finance committee. I call this meeting to order. May I have the roll call, please? >> Mr. Mr. Pale, Mr. Mel's present. Dr. Armstrong, Dr. Armstrong, present. Mr. Berkin >> here. >> Mr. Berkin present. Mr. Castile Castile
present. Miss Shan >> here. Mr. Palm present. Dr. Clark. >> Dr. Clark is present. Mr. Harris. Mr. Harris present. Mr. Hollis. Mr. Hollis not present. Miss Holloway. I know she is here down there. Miss Melerine. She's Yeah, Miss Melerine is present.
Mr. Morris here. >> M. Morris is present. You have a quarrel. >> Thank you. Uh, first item, please. >> The consent agenda is ready for approval adding items 4.1, 6.1, and 6.2. >> Um, motion, please. Mr. um uh Harris and
Mr. Appel. Uh any discussion? Any disagreement? All in. Um so that motion carries. Sorry. >> Next item, please. >> Your first item is on page 72, item 4.2,
consideration of RSD contracts over 50,000. The recommendation is to approve. >> Have a motion, please. Miss Shine. Dr. Um, Dr. Clark, any discussion?
Any What is the word I'm looking for? >> Any oppose? >> Any opposed? Saying none, that motion carries. Next item, please. >> Your next item is on page 75, item 4.3, consideration of LDOE contracts over
50,000. The recommendation is to approve. >> A motion, please. Miss Shampine, Miss Holloway second. >> Okay, this 4.3. Any discussion? Any dissension? We do have uh one person
would like to um public comment. Danny Garrett from LSBA. >> Good afternoon. This time, uh Danny Garrett, u council, Louisiana School Board Association. In regard to one of the items in this in
regard to one of the items in this I believe it's the extension of the DRC contract if I'm not correct if I'm correct. I know there's a whole bunch of items on that contracts over 50,000. Um, one, we weren't really able to tell how much was being added and how much was
being extended because the way it's written, it just gives what the new total term would be. And I think the total term from when y'all originally issued is now 140 months. Um, but we came across something uh earlier this month on August 8th. the state of
Oklahoma, the superintendent issued a press release that essentially stated that the state of Oklahoma was doing away with their annual end of the year assessment and supplanting that with the
way they phrased it. uh districts would use approved benchmarks assessments in place of the end of the year test as a way to judge their uh student academic achievement. What the LSBA would like this committee
to do is to recommend to Bessie that they defer action on the extension of the DRC contract. One of the things that the Oklahoma superintendent cited is that when they did a survey and they said they surveyed almost 23,000
parents, 81% of them thought that this was a good idea, which is why they moved forward with. And so we would like y'all to look at checking with parents and seeing whether we should continue to expend the money that it takes to do the annual
assessment and consider these interim assessments during the school year. so that you don't have that big sort of high stakes high pressure sort of one-sizefits-all test at the end of the year. And so to consider looking at that and and again this would just we would just ask
that you would defer approving the extension of that contract until you can get some more information some feedback from parents. And I know the LSBA has for several years asked to significantly reduce testing. And one of the things that uh has been sort of push the push
back is that well you can't do that. ESSA doesn't allow it. So, I I I would say to that then let's call Oklahoma and figure out how they're doing it. Um because they've announced that it's for this school year. >> Um and again, I don't work in Oklahoma.
I've not have a conversation with that superintendent. I have read a couple of articles talking. We I had gotten a copy of the press release issued on August 8th. uh because this contract is a substantial contract and I know that we took some steps last year that in a couple of years we're going to to reduce
the amount of annual testing on on grades three to eight by by sort of alternating years of science and social studies. And since we're already started looking at opportunities to reduce the burden on kids at that end of the year testing
that we might want to take some time and look at this other option. If Oklahoma can do it, we should be able to do it and I think it's something that this committee can recommend to the full board that they at least defer action on approving the extension of that confidence. Thank you. >> Yeah, Mr. Morris.
>> Yeah, I just had a question for Mr. G. Mr. Where is Oklahoma ranked nationally? >> I don't know. Um I we looked I don't I don't know where their ranking is nationally because I don't think this has anything to do with the curriculum and the education being pro provided. I
think it has to do with the manner in which you choose to test them. And I think look, this state appears to have recognized that we were overtesting kids. That thus the announcement just a few months ago that we're we're going to move to a less stressful circumstance so
that we don't take third, fourth, fifth graders and make them have to take as many tests as we currently make them test. >> I I would just be careful. >> I would I would just be careful, you know, before we start thinking about, you know, this board modeling what other states are doing. Um Oklahoma's ranked 50th in the country. We're 32nd. you
know, we obviously want to keep progressing in that direction, not the other direction. So, I would just uh you know, encourage our board just to be careful of, you know, what we're using for a model. So, something to think about. >> Well, and I guess my response would be I'm not asking you to adopt their content standards. I'm not asking you to
adopt the curriculum that they're using, but I am saying it does make sense to survey parents and find out whether parents think it'd be better for the well-being of their children if they had these sort of less stressful interim
assessments throughout the year rather than this big massive test at the end of the year. And and again, we've already taken a step in the direction of we're not going to test as much. And I presume that means because we realized we were testing too much. Um there's there's
somebody that I know, an older person who who told me one time, you know, it doesn't, you know, measuring the pig more often does not make it fatter. And I think it's not about the education. I think we're we are making strides there. I think it's it's the stress we put on
kids at the end of the year at that one big oneizefits-all test. I mean in fact when we shifted to the new voucher program from the prior voucher program one of the hallmarks of it was we took the oblig that burden off them of taking the leap and I think that's a model for
what we need to consider for the 600,000 plus public school student >> um uh Mr. Jared, as you're aware, just in response, you know, we have shortened the LEAP test for this particular year in science. Um, I mean, I'm sorry, in in
reading and in math. Um, we had previously announced to our board we were going to do the reductions in social studies. Uh, worked with, uh, the legislature on the reductions in science. Um, I have some plans that I intend to share with this board probably
at our next meeting regarding some additional reductions. So, I I agree. I happen to agree with you that we needed to make some um smart decisions there, but at the same time make sure that we're getting accurate information so we can make instructional and finance decisions. My that's all commentary, but
my my question is I which agenda which agenda item or or contract are you referencing? It's my understanding that there is a proposal to extend the DRC contract which I'm that's our leap vendor and and again it's in the giant
spreadsheet. It's kind of hard to I I don't know the line number. Um, and it was actually when I when I first looked at it, I'm like, "Wait a minute, they're approving 140month contract." And no, it's I think it's an extension to pushing it, I believe, to June of 28. >> Um, that the contract that had
previously begun um I think in 2016, 2017, making the total term of that contract like 140 months. Again, >> we get that that attached data and it's a giant spreadsheet. We kind of look through them all. Um, and that's the one that struck us that if we're already
looking at reducing testing, does it make any sense right now to today or tomorrow for the board to extend the contract for DRC? If we're going to be reducing testing and is that extension going to incorporate those reductions in testing because if they don't have to test, for example, if
they're going to be it's a if it's a shorter test, are we paying them the same? If we're not going to test science and social studies in the same year, well then they're going to be administering a a a fewer number of tests. So it it we're just asking that pausing it and I don't think it does any
great harm to it because we've got a contract through this year. The issue is pausing it so that we can we can at least look and see if there's a better way to do that. Given that, I think we've already come to the understanding that at least for the prior decade, not
something y'all put in place, but for the prior decade, we were probably over testing kids for as as far as the number of tests we administered and certainly the amount the time. I mean, I was amazed when you look at asking a fifth grader to sit do something for 90 minutes. I've coached little league baseball. It's hard to get fifth graders
to do anything for 90 minutes. But >> I don't see a pause and not approving that contract at full Bessie meeting tomorrow. So you can, you know, defer it to your October meeting. You've already got one scheduled. That's what we're asking. >> I don't see DRC in this 4.3. >> Yeah. I
>> Well, maybe I got the wrong number. >> Yeah. So I want to um I want to all also just because I had the opportunity to share with you again like I think we've got to be smart about testing moving forward. I think we've demonstrated that that's what we want to do. I think this board has demonstrated that. I certainly want would not want to
go into some, you know, long-term contract when some of these discussions are being held. But I'm going to ask uh Mr. Bradford, our chief of staff, to maybe try to provide some clarity on Mr. Garrett's commentary or concerns. >> Yeah, Ken Bradford, chief of staff. I I
manage the contract and procurement section, and I'm I'm actually trying to find the contract that Mr. Garrett is re suggesting because I have about 15 contracts starting on page 75 item 4.3. None of these seem gerine
to the DRC contract. In fact, none of them are gerain to the DRC contract. But I'll be happy to answer any questions on the other ones greater than $50,000, but there's not a contract here uh for DRC this month for your consideration um for approval.
>> And I and I and I apologize if I cited the wrong number. Um, and again, I'm trying to get it on my phone. It won't come up. Um, and it was forwarded to me that one of the I guess this one's technically a Bessie contract, so maybe it's a different uh in and it was there
is a reference to the DRC contract. I don't can't get it to come up on my phone right this second, but and and again, I think actually I think it's glad I'm glad that we we've got some commonality of thought here. Um, but I I would hope that if y'all are going to
consider extending the DRC contract, >> okay, >> give it some some some thought because if we're going to look at maybe fundamentally making some changes that are that are that are better for the kids so they're not looking at that that that
>> if it's okay with you, why don't we follow up? >> Okay. >> After this to try and understand exactly where that is. >> And I'll get it and I I'll email you the information I got. >> Yeah. Great. Thanks, Dan. >> Thank you. So, any objections on 4.3?
Seeing none, that motion carries. Next, please. Your next item is on page 117, item 4.4, consideration of federal state grants and allocations to LEAs, type two charters, type five charters, approved nonpublic schools, and community-based
organizations, competitive and other. The recommendation is to approve. >> You have the a motion, Dr. Armstrong second Mr. Castile or Miss Champine any discussion any objections
that motion carries next please. >> Your next item is on page 145 item 5.1 consideration of 8G funding cycle activities approval of 8G statewide programs for 2025 2026. The
recommendation is to approve. I have a motion. Miss Millerin, Dr. Clark, any discussion? Any objections? Hearing none, that motion carries next. >> That concludes your agenda.
>> All right, we're concluded. We now need to