I'll call to order. You have your seats, please. >> Uh, roll call. >> Mr. Pal, Mr. Pal is present. Dr. Armstrong. Dr. Armstrong is present. Mr. Burkin, >> here. >> Mr. Berkin is present. Miss Guile. Mr.
Guile is present. Mr. Castile >> here. >> Mr. Castile is present. Miss Champine here. >> Miss Champine is present. Dr. Clark >> here. >> Dr. Clark is present. Mr. Harris here. >> Mr. Harris is present. Miss Holloway. Miss Holloway is present. Miss Meerine. >> Miss Meerine is present. Mr. Mars. Miss
Mars is present. Chair, you have a quorum. >> Uh, thank you. Uh, Miss Miller, I understand that you have a motion. You do not have a motion. All right. Great. Uh, next item, please. >> Your consent agenda is ready for approval and includes items 2.1. May I
get a motion? Dr. Armstrong moves Mr. Burkin seconds. Any objection to the motion? That motion passes. Next item. Your first item is on page 15, item 3.1, consideration of the voluntary surrender of type two charters. The recommendation
is to receive. >> All right. Uh, may I get a motion to receive? Mr. Harris moves. Uh, Dr. Armstrong seconds um the report. Any objection to uh that motion? Seeing no objections, the motion passes. Next
item, please. >> Your next item is on page 21, item 3.2, consideration of a report regarding types two, four, and five charter contracts and requests for amendments. The recommendation is to approve.
>> All right. May I get a motion to approve? Okay. I'm sorry. Um, under 3.1 which has been uh approved. I just say for the record, Miss Vander waves and we're good
to go. As it relates to 3.2, there was a motion. Did someone make that motion? >> Dr. Armstrong moved. And did we get a second? >> It was Harris and second. >> Got it. All right. Um, sir, any report
Dr. B? Um if I am following you m Mr. Castile this is simply uh a request that we are suggesting should be approved um to increase the grade served uh I believe that's correct Mr. Wilson the grade served for this particular charter
and and we we recommend it approval. >> All right. Uh I see no public comments. Are there any questions or comments from the board? Any objections? Seeing no objections, that motion passes. Next item, please.
>> Your next item is on page 26, item 4.1, consideration of an update regarding the Louisiana Educational Technology Plan. The recommendation is to receive. >> All right. I get a motion. Mr. Harris moves. Mr. Appel seconds. Um.
>> Yes, sir. >> Thank you. >> Yes, sir. Mr. Castile. So, um, a month or so ago, Mr. Morris uh asked me to uh review or asked us to review a technology plan from the state of Utah. Um and I shared with Mr. Morris that I
would have our team do a crosswalk of the uh Utah plan versus uh the Louisiana plan. And uh since then I know that he's had um an individual from Utah actually make a presentation about some of their work. But what you have uh before you um
I believe in your packet is a crosswalk between the Utah and Louisiana uh edtech. I would make a few comments on um our technology plan here in Louisiana. We are presently working um to update Louisiana's educational
technology plan. Uh a lot of that is based on the uh AI work that is happening um throughout the state. We're also um making sure that the work aligns to LDOE and Bessie priorities and we want to be really uh cautious to make
sure that we're including teacher voice uh in that plan. And so we'll be standing up um a Louisiana AI teacher workg group to help support uh the movement and and build momentum with the AI work that we are doing uh in the
state. um in particular to the crosswalk. I believe you have that uh in your in your packet, but uh you can see the differences between uh Utah and Louisiana. I would call out first that
the Utah Education and Teleaalth Network is actually a separate uh agency. Um certainly Mr. Morris, I welcome your feedback on this too because I know you've had conversations with them, but it is a separate state agency and they partner with the University of Utah uh
to do a lot of the work that they do. We have a separate office in Louisiana that handles our broadband work and that's um that's facilitated by Venegar and that is our connect Louisiana uh agency and they're the ones that uh Vene
is the one that presents regularly to this this board and and regions. You can see uh if you have the handout some of the platform applications and digital content between the two groups. So you see um Utah for instance uses Canvas as
their learning management system whereas we use Canopy um they have an online library system uh that I believe they call Pioneer. Um we if you look to Louisiana we maintain
a menu of digital learning uh resources and provide direct support upon request. But one of the the differences too in Louisiana is that several years back the Louisiana legislature passed RS 39151
which took technology services um uh and and combined them all under the office of technology services. So every agency in the state including the department of education um we don't necessarily facilitate our own technology work that happens through OTS and we have liaons
through OTS that work with us. When you look at funding and state investment of the work, it's it's fairly clear that in Utah, the state has made significant investments um in technology, some of those uh have not been made in the state
of Louisiana in necessarily the the same way. Uh I did find interesting that in Utah, some of the early AI tools that they are using align to some of the early AI tools that we are using. um would call out that our agency uh has
funded about I think about 14 uh million dollars in early AI pilots um and we have provided additional dollars through uh the federal the US department of education flexibilities. when we look at
um policy standards and uh planning, if you have that document, you can you can see some of the core differences between the the two states. Um you can see the differences with professional learning and data collection. Uh and then we provided some key takeaways from that.
Utah prioritizes really staterun infrastructure platforms and services where Louisiana does prioritize a great deal of local control with uh state guidance. Um we feel like both states have uh some robust opportunities
available and certainly we recognize that Louisiana still has work to do as technology emerges. But you should have a copy of of this crosswalk and we can make connections with our team at any point with any of you if you'd like to further discuss. >> Great. Thank you, Dr. Rumley. Any
questions or comments? Greatly appreciate the report. Um there's a motion to receive any objections to that motion. That motion passes. Uh next item, please. Your next item, >> Your next item is on page 30, item 5.1,
consideration of type two charter applications in response to the 2025 mid-year request for charter school applications as recommended by the state superintendent of education. The recommendation is to approve. >> I get a motion to approve.
Miss Champine moves. Miss Holloway uh seconds that motion. Um, I have one public comment card and we also have Miss Gillson uh at the table. Would you like to make a report? All right. Have
>> Yeah, Miss Miss Gilson. So, before she goes, I would like to just call out to the board. Um, we're excited about the process we have for this. We had um initially, Miss Dillson, we had seven seven applications. They have to go through an extensive process of board interviews, third party reviews. They
have to work uh with our agency. uh and we're to the point now where we have two of those charters that we would like to recommend to the board and Miss Gilson can give a presentation on these two. >> Thank you Dr. Brmley. As Dr. Brumley mentioned, this is your midyear process. As you know, we incorporated the midyear
process. Um actually our our normal process actually starts in February, but this menu process does allow for um those charters who did not go through the normal process or corporate charters to be able to apply. And so this serves
obviously we serve as the authorizer for two, four and five. This also presents to you the timeline. You all see this in the newsletter. Um and we provide these updates to schools as well. So, as Dr. Brumley mentioned, we started
out with seven letters of intent. We had five applications. Um, three were withdrawn during the application process. And so, we uh to actually go over the review process. The application is submitted. There is a review. We also
have an internal team. We have a third-party reviewer who actually goes over the application. And then there's a capacity interview where several questions are asked of the charter to make sure that they are fit and can actually produce and have a quality
school for students. So we're very pleased that we have two charters Baton Rouge and Bridge Academy. Both of these charters put forward very strong applications. Um these are will be type two charters located in the East
Baton Rouge Parish. They are coming to us through the pathway of a corporate partnership. Their corporate partner would be new schools Baton Rouge. And so I'll start with the first one which is Otaban Baton Rouge. Ottoan Baton Rouge intends to start their enrollment with
about 575 students and they will go up to scale at 850. They will start at a K5 and expand to K8. They intend to open during the 2627 school year.
Uh again a very strong application. They met all of the standards from the third party and also from our internal team. The second charter is Bridge Academy. Bridge Academy which is operated by third future schools. They intend to
open in East Baton Rouge Parish. They will begin with K8 starting with 500 students and then scale up to 1,000 students remaining K8. They too had perfect application third
party uh all standards met and also with our internal team. So those are the two charters and we do recommend approval. >> Great. Thank you. Uh, as I mentioned before, I have one public comment card
from Sarah Vandergri Kelly who wishes to provide information and wishes to speak also, but she waves. Um, any questions, comments from the board? Any objections to the motion?
Uh, seeing no objections, the motion passes. Next item, please. Your next item is on page 119, item 6.1, consideration of overview presentations and public input regarding Bessie authorized charter applications
proposals submitted in response to the 2025 midyear charter school request for applications. The recommendation is to receive. >> I get a motion to receive. Dr. Clark moves. Miss Champine seconds.
>> Thank you, uh, Mr. Tastile. So, um we are we are as you um know uh engaged in RSD work and we have been over the last several years to make sure that as much as possible we can have students in
higher performing seats. I'm really I'm really pleased um with the RSD work that we've done over the last few years and the way in which we've approached that work. But in order to um have a toolbox of opportunities, we do need to make
sure that we have charter operators quote on the shelf to help us and support us in that particular work. And so we have um an application that is in with us uh today um from Engaged Learningmies of Louisiana and they are
seeking to be a new operator um within our state and to potentially go quote on the shelf uh for us. So what we want to do today um uh Dr. Stoer is here if you have any questions. I don't I don't necessarily think we we have to run through the presentation, but if you
have any present questions for Dr. Schuler or myself, let us know. But we do have uh engaged learningmies of Louisiana. I'd ask them to come forward and make their presentation. Uh board members, as a reminder, this is not the
day where you ask questions of the applicant. That comes uh at a later time. This is simply the opportunity for them to present uh the model uh of their school so that you can be introduced to what they are uh submitting. And um
while they prepare, I would also share that John Aenda at the table uh and I served together along with Dr. Keenum in the back on the governor's uh task force for higher education reform. and I found
uh John to be a very uh thoughtful partner in that work of some of the reform that needs to happen within the higher ed community. So uh we have uh worked together on on that and also um you may have heard of starmies which operate in a number of schools
throughout Louisiana and so uh that is part of of John's work as well. So, John, welcome to uh Bessie uh and we look forward to hearing your remarks and um the board is is eager to learn more about your opportunity.
>> Great. Can you hear me? That working? Thank you, Dr. Brley. Uh quick way of introduction. First of all, I have Virginia Robinson who is my chief education officer of Nola Education. I am the CEO owner of Nola Education. Um and as Dr. Ber indicated, we are the
makers of the star academy program. uh of which we probably have close to 60 sites across the state as of now. Um we are here to uh present ourselves as a potential ESP for engaged learningmies.
We have a quick overview here. Um, and something that we've been doing for since our inception over 20 years ago is this mission of re-engaging and inspiring students who have fallen behind academically become disengaged.
Um, what we do that's very different from others is our curriculum. Um, we do hands-on projectbased experiences that are academically aligned to all course subjects. Very important. Um, our vision
matches engaged learning. Um, we have been doing this, like I said, for 20 years. We're in over 20 states and close to 200 sites now. We started in South Carolina very quickly as a dropout prevention acceleration program. So, kids that were off track that needed to
get back on track to our graduation, that's where we started this approach. So, our history has always been with this. at the core of Star Academy is our instructional model and if you'll see in the graphic it's a we do this as a school within a school. So we typically
will come in drop the physical space in with all the curriculum. Um as we all know STEM in is very engaging by the very nature of the hands-on um curriculum. We're basically a full immersion STEM approach program. So
although we're doing core academics, we're doing it in a way that fully immerses the kids into projectbased real world uh curricula. I do also want to say that we have as a company we have over a hundred different project modules that we then customize
to the needs of the school. not knowing exactly where this school will be placed. Um, we have the ability to customize the curriculum to match not just the academics but also the regional careers or regional workforce requirements. Uh, wherever we put the
program uh target student population. Look, this is what we do. We are doing this in virtually every site that we're in. We are serving the highly economically disadvantaged students. uh good percentage of them have disabilities.
The same model that we're looking at here in Louisiana for the demographic of the student population is what we do around the country. Um we also I do want to one of the things that makes us very attractive is how quickly we can impact and that's something that has caught a
lot of people's attention. We can go into a district and design a program and implement and have that program up and running within six weeks. So our ability to impact those kids is the first semester to some degree. Initially we
will see uh engagement in terms of attendance and reduced disciplinary infractions but within a year we're seeing academic improvements uh across the board in virtually every site that we've done like I said across the country. Uh our partnership with engaged
learningmies um has a couple other key components of what we do. First of all, uh, local on-site support. We learned long time ago that in order to make a new curriculum, especially something as immersive as project-based learning,
impactful, we have to be there to support the teachers. Uh, we have a staff nationwide that covers, we have one person for every five sites and our our people visit every site on the program. um giving just comprehensive
support to make sure that the the program is use being used properly, the teachers are are supported um and the kids are learning. The accelerated academic growth is is another point that we want to make because we are looking at students that
are behind typically uh since its inception the program was made to accelerate students two grade levels in one in growth and we've been able to replicate that over and over. That is something as an accelerated model that very few can claim but we've done it
across the nation in some of the most at risk school districts in the country. Uh personalized marketing and PR services. One of the things we also do very well is reaching out to community by the nature of our curriculum. So kids are at
in school working with different projects that reflect different careers and we get the parents involved. One of the little things we do is we give parents a student briefing, project briefing that the kids take home every day to say, "Hey, today I'm working on a science project that involves chemistry,
that involves, you know, friction acceleration, whatever it is." But the parents are engaged naturally by the way we do that because they want to know what are their kids doing in school today. Um we have open houses, we have ribbon cutings, we do a lot of community involvement to ensure the success of
these kids because they need that parental they need that that family support to make uh a drastic improvement in their grades. This is a overwhelming amount of data on this on this particular page. But let me just say this is from roughly 20 sites in
Louisiana that have been around for three years. And we see across the board with attendance going up, we see disciplinary referrals going down in the middle graph. And on the right, very importantly, is the growth. This is
academic growth on LEAP testing. So it's very specific to Louisiana. It's very specific to our kids in those schools. Um and we are showing across the board 10 to 15% growth with all the kids that are in our program regardless of how low they started. Um we've seen similar
results in other states and we have quite a bit of data to support that. Um so just in closing our expected impact here is that um these are the communities these are the academic challenges that we're used to around the country. um the acceleration of the
kids, the uh engagement of the kids. Um we have gone into districts and schools around the country as kind of a turnaround I want to say solution but prevention maybe that people don't fall to state intervention that we have done this with public schools around the
country to keep them off that list and we've seen that kind of impact. Um our local support on site is a big part of that. Um, and you know, we are just confident that we can do this uh here in Louisiana and we are very much eager to
partner with engaged learning to make that happen here. >> With that, if there any questions, we can take questions. >> Yeah, sorry we can't do questions. Uh, but thank you for your presentation. >> Thank you.
>> Anything else, Dr. Rumley? Uh, that was a motion. I imagine there are no objections to receiving that report. That motion passes. Next item. >> Your next item is on page 126, item 7.1, consideration of an update report regarding the Bessie artificial
intelligence workg groupoup. The recommendation is to receive. >> Mr. Harris moves to receive. Mr. Burken seconds that motion. Uh, Dr. Roman. >> Yes, sir. Mr. Steel, I'll ask Ashley Townsen to come to the table. she has uh
along with uh Adam who is I believe out today she's taken the lead on this particular role. >> Good afternoon department. Um so we you have in your packet a microphone on >> it is I'll pull over.
>> Great. Thank you. >> Um you have in your packet a document overviewing several AI literacy assessments. We did review um a good number more than this. didn't include all of them on your handout though because I wanted to use these to illustrate um a few different things
that we're thinking about as we consider AI literacy assessment. So um just to give you a quick little reminder, we have been working with computer science standards. We built the computer science standards to include foundational principles of artificial intelligence
that students will develop um over time throughout their experience with the computer science standards. At the time when we developed those standards, the intention was to create guidance. So more specific guidance that could be adapted every year even maybe ahead of session so that we can give professional
learning to teachers during the summer and that would allow us to respond more nimly to changes in the technology. We know that this technology changes very quickly. Our standards are housed in policy in the administrative code. It's
a lot more um of an effort to to change that. It's a it's much bigger undertaking, but what we really want is just to be able to stay flexible to the changes in the technology as they happen. So, our team has been working on creating student AI competencies, which
will take those computer science standards and flesh those out more specifically into what that looks like, what's measurable for students to know and be able to do when it comes to artificial intelligence. And then our teacher competency work group that Dr. Rumley mentioned earlier, we'll have teachers coming alongside us to develop
teacher AI competencies. So what what kinds of things teachers should be able to know and be able to do. So as you look at the ones in your packet, that first one on your list, sale for all is really interesting. So this is designed for adults. This came out of some research from Georgia Tech in 2020, and
they really framed their research as a starting point for talking about what AI literacy is, how we can measure it. um in their own words, they wanted to help frame discussions of what it means to be AI literate. And so um this really looked at um different groups of
competencies. And you'll notice the different AI literacy assessments that are out there. They all have some some um groups of skills, groups of competencies. We've got our own groups. We have our groups and our um computer science standards. And so we would want anything that would assess students to
align to those. But these had some AI competencies that it developed. And it also coupled that with intentional design. It was very important to um to these researchers that creating be part of that. They um believed strongly that
what students could do with AI was more important than just recalling facts about AI. And so that was um a noteworthy assessment that we wanted to include in the handout for you all because it represents that um focus on having core competencies, identifying
specific skills that students could do and then embedding or coupling that with practice with actually applying the skills in certain ways. Our computer science standards do have creating computational artifacts as a core practice across the standards. So we have that built into our framework as
well, but I thought that was noteworthy for you all. When you look at the second one, the meta AI literacy scale. So this is a self assessment and a lot of the products that you see out there right now really are self assessments. Somebody is interested in learning more
a about AI. Um they want to give people a way to measure where are you on that? What do you know? Where do you have room for growth? And so this is an example of that. Now, this one, as we see with several of them, extends more into psychological competencies, emotional regulation, things like that. For us in
Louisiana, we would want this to be really aligned well with our standards to be focused on those academic things that students should know and be able to do. And so, um, again, we want to, we're we're looking at lots of tools out there that measure lots of different things, but we want to make sure that we stay
laser focused on Louisiana standards and on those things that we've determined are important for Louisiana students to learn. As you look at that third one, so the developer of the Flint AI literacy certification actually was a student at Georgia Tech when those first two
researchers put out their initial report that led to that first one on your list. and he um left college ahead of time to go start a company that he then sold and so he's doing pretty well. But he developed it was really important to him to give students and teachers different ways to build AI literacy. So he created
um the the Flint literacy certification. There's this whole curriculum that goes with it. It's like five units and it's got different modules that that you can teach to students and teach them different things about AI literacy. It's got a course for teachers that teachers can take and that the students can get a certificate and the teachers can get a
certificate saying that they're AI literate, but it's aligned to that specific curriculum. And so that's something that you're seeing now too is as curricula are developed, there are assessments embedded in that. So whenever a district adopts a curriculum, it'll have assessments that go with it,
ways to measure performance, and those are aligned to what that curriculum teaches. for this one. This addresses some of the Louisiana expectations, not all of them, but it is an example of how we're seeing more curriculum embedded assessments emerge along the way that
really will be um district selected based on review knowing that they're aligned with the standards. Our computer science team is working right now to review curricula for alignment with computer science standards. And you'll see different ways to measure AI literacy that will be aligned with what the students are actually learning in
class. And then the last one on your list that we included, um, this one was developed by for for adults, but it's really interesting because there are what started as a 20 question multiple choice. Now they have new adaptations to
it where it actually changes as you go along and take this assessment. It's adaptive. It's got parts of the assessment that are open-ended and the answers are actually evaluated by AI, by a large language model. Um it's actually from a company based in Estonia, but it's just interesting because it
represents the technological advancements that are happening in assessment and the different kinds of things that might be available even as we go through the next few years. So really the there's a variety of research out there that keeps emerging about assessing AI literacy. Most of them
agree that what students can do with AI is as important, probably more important than what they just know about it. And so thinking about ways to assess that that are valid and reliable and make sense and are aligned with our Louisiana standards are really important. So we're
trying to stay laser focused on the work. Um as I mentioned right now we're working with our team and with our teacher competencies work group to develop out those specific competencies that will define what students should know and be able to do when it comes to AI. Right now it doesn't really make
sense to adopt an assessment that won't align with that work that we're doing. So, we're recommending holding on adopting um a measure of AI literacy at this time, but continuing that work that we're doing now of fleshing out those competencies, publishing guidance for teachers, continuing to offer teacher
training through our university partners, and then getting ready for that launch at teacher leader summit of those additional competencies and resources for teachers. >> Great. Uh thank you, Miss Townson. Uh any questions, comments? Uh Mr. Morris,
>> Miss Townson. So, thank thank you so much for all that. We we all appreciate this is groundbreaking work and it's very challenging and appreciate the leadership role that you're taking and um and helped to position Louisiana as a leader nationally. Um just for members
who you know haven't been able to follow the Bessie AI committee meetings um the uh the committee's interest um in this particular topic was particularly driven by um uh I think a benchmarking and uh
appreciation for benchmarking so that we know where we are right uh particularly with regard to potential um grant applications we're able to go to uh uh that process, establish a benchmark and
with our proposal uh we could u make a pitch to the vendor that we could go from say a level one to a level three in our index with with the funding that's available. Um so we recognize that as one value of of uh establishing some
sort of reference index. Um, additionally, uh, we know that with the introduction of this technology, the number quite a number of vendors that have developed product products to, uh, leverage the technology and we know that
school districts are um, you know, consumed with uh, a number of, uh, opportunities uh, with these different vendors. and and we'd like to be able to help school districts, you know, through that process as much as we can. Uh so
with the establishment of some sort of index, we're able to um identify where opportunities exist, uh where gaps may may be uh which products work better than others, uh and specific uh core
curriculum. Uh so I just want to share with members, you know, that's the reason that we've expressed the committee's expressed interest in this index. Um, and that's one of the six deliverables for the committee uh is to come back with uh a report to Bessie in
March. Um, so just want to give that provide that background uh to the board and thank you for your report. >> Great. Thank you, Miss Morris. Any other comments or questions? >> All right. Um, having seen no questions
or comments, any objection? I I I just want to mention um there have been occasion when I've watched live stream the uh AI workg groupoup meetings and so I just wanted to make sure everyone's was aware that those meetings are being live streamed. >> Great.
Excellent. Okay. Any other comments? Any any other questions? Uh that motion passes. Next item adjournment. >> That concludes the agenda. >> Ma'am, you have an announcement. Thank you. Uh just an announcement that we
begin we convene tomorrow morning at 8:30 with the swearing in of officers in Mr. Dow and then we'll proceed with our meetings right after but we at 8:30 in the morning. >> Thank you madam president. We are now adjourned.