this point right yep hey Katherine can you send Victoria harpool the link yep I think she's in the lobby she just needs to be promoted
or at least that's what our email says it is 9 o' central time I call this meeting to order case Casey Griffin on our staff will call the road to establish a quorum Mr Griffin Mr cin here M oberson here Mr Hulk here Mr
Gentile here Mr Jensen de I just said here I couldn't understand I'm the last one I am here Marsh Johnson Miss Johnson here miss Maxwell here M
mcar here Mr mow here Mr Wells Mr chairman here Mr chairman you have nine voting members present I declare Quorum is present and we are duly convened this
time I'll call on our general counsel Rachel supe to read the statement of necessity for an electronic meeting Miss supe good morning Rachel supe general counsel State Board of Education pursuant to Tennessee code annotated Section 8
44108 the State Board of Education submits this determination of necessity for its special called board meeting held via WebEx at 9:00 a.m. Central Time on December 18th 2024 this meeting was called to present the time sensitive consideration of
emergency rules and an accountability framework stemming from recent legislation authorizing the creation of opportunity public charter schools designed to serve atrisk students for the first time in Tennessee in addition to the emergency rules this meeting was
called to consider pressing items regarding vacant and under utilized charter school authorizer property Statewide dual credit courses and educator lure discipline matter due to the time sensitive nature of this issue
and because the state board members reside across the state it was determined that a physical Forum of the members could not be assembled in Nashville for purposes of the special called board meeting and as such this meeting should be held electronically notice of the meeting was posted on the
Stew's website along with the agenda and notice of instructions for accessing the web app I'll turn it back over to you thanks than thank you m supe this time I'd like to recognize any members who might have any opening remarks they would like to talk about some of the
activities that they've been working on or I know we've had some days in the district is there any board member who would like to speak please yes Miss Maxwell thank you chairman e just very quickly I would like to say we had a great day in waren County uh day in the
district and also just very recently uh with you with uh onata Special School District and I'm sure you'll uh speak more to that thank you any other comments from any of the other board members yes I would say that Miss
Maxwell and Mr James and I along with representative keing uh had a day in the district in Onida Special School District it was an excellent day we were hosted by District director Dr Genie Phillips also attended by Campbell
County H director Jennifer Phils and Scott County director Bill Scott had a bill Holland s had a very good discussion about a lot of things including cell phones math algebra uh interourse exams versus AC
CTS and uh it was just a real opportunity for us to uh get up to Scott County and Onida and see all the good things that are going on there so we certainly thank uh Dr Phillips and and the whole team for hosting us that day any other
comments Morrison do you have any opening remarks I do not I'll save my comments for the items it's good to see everyone thank you I just want to remind everybody that since this is an electronic meeting I would ask members to identify themselves when they make motions in
seconds also uh to please uh remember uh that roll call votes will be required on all vots as a result of TCA 84418 for electronic our board meetings policy and I also remind presenters to avoid jargon where possible uh so that
everyone listening can understand the subject matter with that uh we will begin with our first item which is our consent item adoption of agenda is there a motion to adopt the agenda
soov Vice chair cins moves toop agenda is there a second second Miss Johnson seconds any further discussion on adopting the agenda Mr Griffin will you please call the rle Mr cins hi Miss hton hi Mr Holt hi
Mr Jensen Miss Johnson hi M Maxwell hi M murf hi Mr Molen hour hi Mr chairman all
Mr chairman you have nine eyes motion pass uh next item is uh first action items on first reading Statewide dual credit course approval Dr Steven Barry Hill we'll turn it over to
you thank you good morning all uh Steven Barry Hill director of early postsecondary opportunities from T Tennessee Board of region I present to the board on first reading the revisions to the learning objectives for the Statewide dual credit introduction of plant science course uh Statewide dual
credit classes are college level courses taught at the high school level by trained High School teachers Tennessee Co annotated 4915 104 creates a Consortium on Cooperative Innovative high school programs and requires the group to create Statewide early
postsecondary opportunities through dual credit and dual enrollment uh the Tennessee Board of regions and the University of Tennessee system are responsible for convening postsecondary faculty to develop Statewide early postsecondary opportunities to high school students moreover Tennessee code
annotated 49519 creates a process to develop dual credit courses assess their effectiveness and make changes to a validation process between October 2023 and June 2024 TBR convene College faculty to review and updates Statewide
dual credit courses the review included an item analysis of student performance on The Challenge exam and feedback from a group of high school falculty falculty were given the responsibility to use the data to up the learning objectives to ensure tighter alignment to the
postsecondary course equivalent and alignment with the newly selected open educational resource text and with that happy to take any questions from the board thank you Dr bar hill before we have any discussion is there any motion to accept as uh
recommended Vice chair cins moves is there a second second Mr mullar was that you that second please since I don't have everybody on the screen when you when you uh make a motion accept or second it
please state your name first that way it makes it a little easier so uh motion has been go ahead second thank you Vice chair Vice chair cins moved and Mr mull hour second Casey U so we have a motion a second now
for discussion I did have a a couple of questions Dr bar hill and and this is not only just on this one particular course that we're talking about but uh on Statewide dual credit courses more in general can you give me an idea of the percentage of students that pass this
test my understanding is for the Statewide dual credit courses that you take an exam and uh to pass to get the credit is can you tell me anything about for this course as well as generally for General courses uh how what percent of
students into up passing the courses sure absolutely uh for this course in particular the pass rate is uh for the last three years been less than 1% typically SDC courses the pass rate is 6% last year the pass rate was a little bit lesser than that which was
4.6% uh so historically we've always had those uh low Pass rates but we have put some uh processes in place to make sure that we combat those low Pass rates and that uh those include things such as uh more teacher trainings more uh robust
information for our students and teachers to add to our already wealth of um resources that we already have posted that we make sure that we disseminate out to all there's also been um discussions about going and to deliver uh professional development trainings for our teachers so there are certain uh
things that are currently taking place to make sure that we help combat those issues with low Pass rates I appreciate that thank you AB other questions for Dr beer Miss Johnson Martian Johnson um just a quick question so it's my understanding
then that a student in high school takes a test that was on college level and if they pass the test then they are granted college credit is that correct that is correct okay is there anything else that
for the general public to understand the Dual course I not nope there's no nothing else okay so I so it's my understanding then that the numbers are quite low in regard to
across the board for State dual credit is that correct that is correct okay thank you any other questions yes Miss Maxwell hear you on mute I Maxwell uh
thank you Mr chairman um Dr Barry Hill we've had several presentations about the effectiveness of dual enrollment uh across our state and I'm wondering uh can you compare the numbers of postsecondary credits awarded to our
students through dual enrollment versus dual credit um I don't have the dual enrollment statistics on hand with me right now but I'm very confident saying that the pass rats for dual enrollment are significantly higher um and a lot of students are deciding to take advantage
of that episode U more so than Statewide dual credit uh even with introduction to plant science a lot of students have navigated to the dual enrollment plant science versus the Statewide dual credit um plant science but uh happy to report on that we have a wealth of uh data
dashboards on our tpr sites I can definitely look into some percentages and give you some of those passway from dual enrollment comparing with the Statewide dual credit thank you Dr Barry Hill that would be very help absolutely other questions I guess uh it is sort of
surprising that 1% or four or five% of all the Statewide dual credit courses are you know students are passing that and and uh compared to the dual enrollment classes uh Dr Morrison I think it would be helpful at our next board meeting if
it would work out to have a workshop on the uh Statewide dual Statewide dual credit courses versus dual enrollment I just like to understand better how that works out and we want to obviously be as effective as we can and provide
postsecondary opportunities for all of our students but we also want to be mindful of uh the expense versus the benefit of it and uh so if if everyone agrees I I would like to have a workshop on that in the future
noted yes we can certainly work with Dr Barry Hill and others of our colleagues to put that together any other questions this Larry Jensen I'm sorry I've had trouble with my connection um and I missed some of the discussion
but just for point of clarification for this meeting we're proposing or more information at a later date I'd appreciate understanding the redundancy I I think that's what's being asked but just for my own uh site are we being
redundant with the program uh and and kind of what how big that overlap is I'm I'm just not clear what seems like we're doing two things to to accomplish the same thing but again I'd love to hear more about that
and I think it's important uh in addressing that to be sure that we have in input from the districts uh so like what I'd like to see know what are passing rates uh what are the uh courses
uh that are being offered and as Mr Jensen says how does that redundant to the other courses uh but get input from the districts I mean if if this is providing a great benefit to the districts I I want to hear from the districts too so I would like to have
that other questions or comments if none we do have a motion Mr chairman yes um Victoria Harel from the Tennessee higher education commission we are happy to help with Statewide data regarding um dual enrollment so we can perhaps give
some additional information in context there for the workshop that would be great miss Haro thank you other comments or questions if none we do have a motion in a second uh uh I'll ask Casey Griffin to
call R Mr cins hi Merson hi Mr Holt hi Mr Jensen hi Miss
Johnson hi Miss Maxwell hi M Mackin Turf hi Mr Molen hour hi Mr chairman hi Mr chairman you have nine eyes motion passes thank you thank you Dr
beill next item is uh again action items on Final reading uh first item is Charter Schools rule 05201 141-05 Miss Ali re thank you good morning Ali Reed director of Engagement and
accountability at the State Board on Final reading is our Charter School rule regarding annual reporting requirements for Charter authorizers public chapter 923 of the public acts of 2024 updated the obligations of an Lea
with one or more authorized charter schools to compile and report a list of its vacant and underutilized properties this item was accepted on first reading in August and stateboard staff held a role making hearing on October 8th no
public comment was received since reviewing this item on first reading we've only made minor clerical changes including a reference to the Department's guidance and Reporting template um since first reading happy to answer any questions thank you m Reed uh before we
have any discussion is there a motion to accept Charter Schools rule 05201 41-5 this is Jordan mull Larry Jenson Mr okay Mr mull hour moves Mr Jensen seconds now open for discussion are there any questions or comments from
Mr Reed Mr chairman yes Mr melanau I just have a brief question um under o5 looks like subsection 7 72 and then uh Roman numeral 3 there's a
there's really just one edit one substantive edit since uh our previous reading uh why why the change at the end of that paragraph This is in reference to TCA 49 13136 I think that um the reason for this
change here was to just also identify that there is a reporting template and guidance that has already been developed by the department um and they're working on updating it to align with the changes in our rule here but we wanted to include a reference to it so that
authorizers are aware that they do need to complete it using that information for the purposes of the audience uh can someone read what that change was just um so at the the bottom of um that
section that Mr molhar pointed out the addition says to be calculated in accordance with the Department's guidance and Reporting template other questions Mr chairman just a quick comment yes Mr M I just wanted to
acknowledge the work that U both the legislature as well as uh our our board staff and the department have have done on this I've talked with a handful of um Charter operators and this has has been an issue that has been raised uh with coures I think a number of years and I
just want to uh thank everyone who's worked on this the goal of course is to take into account you know State and and County assets you know you know school system assets and and figure out how to best utilize those for the benefit of everyone and to make sure that we don't
have situations where some of those assets are being um harbored or hidden or used for purposes other than uh advancing as many students as possible so I just wanted to acknowledge the the work that's been done on this thank you
sir on point Thank you Mr melar any other comments or questions no other comments questions I'll ask Mr Griffin call the ro we're voting on Charter Schools rule 05201 141-05
as recommended Mr Griffin Mr cin Mr robton hi Mr Holt hi Mr Jensen hi Johnson m
Johnson hi M Maxwell hi M Mur hi Mr Mullen hour hi Mr chairman I Mr chairman you
have nine eyes the motion passes thank you m Reed next item is Charter Schools emergency Rule 05201 4-01 01.03 and 0.04 Miss Reed thank you Ali Reed director of
Engagement and accountability at the State Board on Final reading here we have three emergency charter school rules these rules are being updated to align with public chapter 1066 of the public acts of 2024 that created
opportunity Charter Schools an opportunity charter school is a public charter school designed to serve atrisk students as defined in the public chapter uh in grades 6 through 12 opportunity charge schools May begin operating in the
2627 school year and therefore can begin to submit their letter of intent and tter school application this school year while the State Board accepted proposed changes to these rules on first reading in August promulgation of an emergency
rule is needed for these rules to be in effect by the February 1st Charter application deadline upon your approval this emergency rule will go into effect immediately following the filing with the Secretary of State's office and will expire when
the permanent rule goes into effect and our stateboard staff will bring that permanent rule back before the board for final reading at our February quarterly board meeting this emergency role removes outdated language regarding be funding and specifies firste funding
requirements for an opportunity Charter School it also updates the list of enrollment preferences to prioritize atrisk students for opportunity for an opportunity Charter School outlines the process for verifying an opportunity charter schools at risk student
enrollment and provides the necessary action steps should an opportunity Charter School fail to meet the 75% at risk enrollment requirement stated in law across three consecutive years happy to answer any questions here thank you
Miss Reed we have a recommendation for Charter Emer School emergency rule 05201 401 0103 and 04 is there a motion to accept lar accept Mr Jensen moves to
accept is there a second ran H I'm move to Second and then U Mr chairman I have a proposed amendment by way of substitution that I'd be happy to walk through for the board okay we have a motion in a second and uh Mr Co we'll just turn it over to you then thank you
thank you Mr chairman um so I have no um proposed changes to the substance of of the rule um as I was reviewing the rule um there were some sections that I thought we might be able to make a little bit clearer to try to avoid any uh disputes about the meeting or issues
with with the meeting down the road um so I was working with the State Board staff on some proposed new language yes yesterday and I'm happy to walk through that um if I can share my screen I can show the proposed amendment
see while you're doing that Mr H I just want to make a couple of clarifying comments I know a lot of people when they read this and they talk about at risk uh when we talk about at risk in traditional Public Schools a lot of times we talk about students who may
qualify for free and reduced lunch or something like that the definition for at risk under this rule is totally different um and um it means a student who at the time of enrollment is a member of a family with a household income that does not exceed 400% the
federal property level and has at least one of the following criteria the student has dropped out of school without obtaining a high school diploma the student has been adjudicated as a juvenile delinquent or as awaiting disposition of charges that may result as a delinquent they have been
previously detained or incarcerated in a juvenile detention center they've been retained at least twice in any of the grades K through 8 where student is one or more years behind in obtaining the credit for promotion to the next grade they are chronically absent as Tennessee Essa plan
established perent to Essa the student is pregnant or apparent the student has documented substance abuse and the student has experienced circumstances of abuse or neglect so I think it's important that we understand when we talk about for this rule what at risk means it is not generally what
people talk about at risk go ahead Mr H I think you're ready thank you all right thank you Mr chairman and can you see my screen share on your screen okay thank you so what I have up here is the red line of the proposed final rule with the
changes that I am proposing in my amendment by substitution highlighted in yellow um and again all of these changes are intended not to affect the substance or the meaning of the rule just clarifying what that meaning is um so paragraph
14b read that an opportunity Charter School shall only assess the students at risk eligibility at the time of enrollment and the students eligibility shall be maintained throughout the students enrollment in the opportunity charter school and my concern was that
that part of the sentence that the eligibility shall be maintained throughout the student's enrollment suggested that the student would only be eligible to attend an opportunity charter school if they were at risk falling into one of those at risk um
categories that the chairman just read throughout the time of their enrollment um and if you look at the the statute it's clear that the we a student qualifies as at risk for purposes of whether a school can be an opportunity
charge school is determined only at the time of enrollment and so what I'm proposing in this uh 14b is is just to state that um which is the language you can see that's not struck through in 14b below um which reads whether a student
qualifies as at risk shall be determined by the opportunity Charter School only at the time of enrollment so that's the first of of three uh changes in my proposed amendment the second is paragraph 14
c um which had read a student shall only be required to meet one at risk eligibility category listed in TCA 491314 to enroll in an OCS and again I was concerned that that suggested that
students have to be at risk under the statute in order to enroll um when in fact they they don't have to be at risk it's just a matter of if students um for a school to qualify as an OCS 70%
of their students have to be at risk um and so I wanted to clarify that language um so that's the the highlighted in yellow proposal in 14c on the screen for a student to qualify as at risk the student shall only be required to meet
first that income requirement that um chairman eie read and then also one of the separately enumerated atrisk categories in section 1043 and just just struck that the two enroll in an OCS language at the end um so that's the second of my three proposed changes and
the third is in uh paragraph 14 C this is how um opportunity Charter Schools um confirm that they have met that 75% at risk U minimum enrollment
amount each year and it had said that the school shall submit to its authorizer a sign written verification form from a qualified third party vendor such as an appropriately licensed auditing firm um whether the school met exceeded that
75% I I wasn't sure what that referred to and what an auditing firm is and what sort of licensure might be required for them um and on discussion it sounds like it may be better just to use that same language independent accounting from a law firm that you all can see is used in
the two paragraphs above it 15a and 15D because I think the intent was just that it's an independent accounting firm a law firm and so if we mean the same thing that we should use the same language um so those are my only three
proposed changes um in the amendment by substitution scre so uh would you like to make a motion to BU substitution to for these three changes uh yes pleas I'm happy to answer
any questions about it or Mr James yeah I would like I'd like to get it on the board on the floor first and then we have discussion uh Mr James did you have a comment yes sir m m Mr H has made the motion it just needs a second to
be second okay so now we have a motion in a second so now uh questions for Mr Hol on this amendments Mr sherff yes Mr mullar first of all Ryan thank you for catching I think this is a great uh you know
great job parsing the details with respect to the first of your proposed edits uh just a point of clarification it seems like there's kind of three buckets that people could fall into one is there's the um the the validation at the at the beginning of the year and
there's not a subsequent validation of any type uh the second option would be I think what you're trying to avoid which is a continuation throughout that year that school year of you know they're they're validated initially and then they're they would be sort of
revalidated throughout the you throughout the year that's the second bucket the third bucket would be they're re-evaluated in the first year but then when the second year of enrollment comes around they need to be re revalidated
um in in your mind is is the is that does the statute I understand the statute uh we're trying to avoid that second bucket we don't think that the statute uh implicates the second of those of those three buckets but which
which of the first or the third do you think the the statute uh directs us towards or do we have both options so my understanding from reading it and then talking with um stateboard staff yesterday is that it's the first
of those so it is the time of enrollment which is when a student enrolls into the school and and that you don't reenroll every year as you continue on through the school now there is a question I think on if a student let's say enrolls in seventh grade and then stays for
seventh and eth and then leaves and then comes back in 10th grade um whether that re-enrollment would qualify I I think it probably would under my understanding of it but we don't have that level of detail currently in the rule I don't think the statute speaks to it
um I guess from a from a policy standpoint then if we have a situation where a child is enrolled for let's say four years straight um uh their their application is initially reviewed in year one let's say
that they no longer would qualify if they were to seek re-enrollment for years two three and four uh from a policy perspective I guess directed at both Ryan as well as our our staff team is is there anything that we're aware of that would suggest that the policy
intent is that we would um not not have a student who no longer qualifies contined to qualify under information that was you know potentially age by two three or four
years the one thing I can speak to on that um Jordan is that most of those at risk categories are um Perpetual in the sense that like for example one of them is have they ever been convicted of some offense or
serving the juvenile justice system if if you were when you were in sixth grade then that that still is the case that's happened to you in your life when you're in 10th Grade there are a few categories that are not that way such as being chronically absent in the in the year preceding enrollment um the income
threshold I suppose would be another one um as a policy matter I don't know what if there's anything that speaks to what the general assembly's intent was on this um or if anyone else um you know the legal team at either the state board
or the department have any thoughts on that I think Miss Reynolds commissioner Reynolds would like to speak yeah so um this is a very complex issue um and you know our staff has not seen this so we
were not given a heads up um until just now um so the emergency rule won't be in effect by the time any of these processes occur so we are going to we would like to request and again it's up to you guys um that the board vote on
the emergency rule is our staff members had agreed to it jointly and then revisit this as a team prior to the permanent rule so that we can take into account all the potential ramifications of these changes so this is a a this was
a little bit of a surprise to us so other comment so Mr Holt uh let me ask this question as I read it your changes don't affect what was being proposed it
further clarifies so if we pass the emergency rule as commissioner Reynolds recommends as it was and then come back with your Amendment later do you see any negative impact in that
I don't I mean I don't seems to me like and I'm certain that's fine that's that for folks to have time to review it but um you know that things like clarifying that the qualified third party vendor such as
appropriate license auditing firm when I don't believe that exists that's swapping the language out there I I don't think that's controversial um the same with trying to make the language mirror the statute in 14b and 14 C um but I you know appreciate the fact that
folks might want to have some time to look at it um so no I don't I don't think there's a reason why we wouldn't make those changes in the final rule um if folks are not comfortable with with reading
the language and making the changes today um I do think that you know just looking at it it's pretty cut and dry but you know I can appreciate that controver I I don't disagree with what you're
saying Mr H but I think just as we want somebody needs to mute just as we want getting a lot feedback other people are uh just as we want uh information
from tdoe plenty of time for us to review and ask questions I do think that the request for TD to be able to review changes of this rule which they have had so much impact to is uh is a reasonable request so if it doesn't make any
changes by approving what we have then every board member can vote the way they want to vote but I I would vote to uh basically stand down on your uh Amendment at this point in time and vote on the primary Amendment primary motion
and then come back with Amendment and give TD time to review that's my comment other people have comments Dr Morrison just want to Echo that I I take responsibility this was late breaking yesterday and I should have ensured as a team that we made sure the department had a chance to see this
I really do apologize that's not our typical process there's a lot happening yesterday that's not an excuse but I just want my team at the department my colleagues to know this was not an intentional uh a lack of collaboration it was truly late breaking we thought
not subsi totally get it if we want to roll it I think that would be very fair and appropriate so just want to Echo that [Music] chairman i e that point as well yet Mr H go ahead then then Mr
Jensen yeah thank you no I I um you know these were made available to me I I reviewed it I saw ambiguities I think we can work out if folks think there's better ways to phrase the language um wanted to share those and um then we we
revised this yesterday evening and here we are this morning so I've certainly no intention of of surprising anybody with this uh proposed clarifying language is trying to make sure that we have clear language for everybody but happy to work with anybody if they have questions after the day thank you Mr help Mr
Jensen just a clarification for me so if we pass the resolution without Mr H's changes that makes February 1st effective for what we're trying to do correct so that the the purpose is not
wored by any means on February 1st my understanding that's and then we would come back with an amendment down the road what and we're passing final here and
what's going to bring it back for consideration of what Mr H has proposed just to as an action that's at a later date just point a clarification well we can change rules anytime right Mr James we just have to go through the process which would be a
first and a final yeah this is we're on the emergency rule right now right so uh right he could he could certainly bring an identical Amendment for for the permanent rule um and uh the question
before the body is does the language difference that that um Mr Hol points out is it uh significant enough that it it needs to be in effect during the pency of the emergency Ru um right rather than the perent rule and
I think our general counsel also has some remark miss miss miss thank you um I I did want to see if there was um any appetite to at least bring the third proposed change in this emergency rule just clarifying that
instead of a thirdparty vendor um such as an auditing firm which uh Ryan helped us see is could be clearer um would would tdoe uh be open to changing that language alone to accounting firm or law
firm in the emergency Rule and then holding off on on the other two proposed recommendations just for the sake of having Clarity by February 1 Mr r i me yeah Rachel I mean again I I would ask that you know in in in the spirit of collaboration and keeping
communication that um we we put this off until the team can look at it um just to make sure there's no unintended consequences again this we don't we don't consider this controversial at all it's just we want to make sure you know we work together to make sure that you
know there might be other tweaks that need to happen so now that um um um Ryan has put this up um board member Holz sorry I was like trying to figure out the proper uh title um brought this up that way we can all be on the same page
so we would really appreciate that thank you thank you other questions Mr Hull the easiest thing might be if you would withdraw your motion if Mr molau as a second would agree to have it withdrawn uh and to be
brought back uh later after TD has a chance to uh remove that then we would vote on the original motion would you be willing to do that I would be happy to withdraw my motion and hereby withdraw it and you have no objection Mr mullinar
no objection and Brian thanks for putting it on the table in the first place great great job paying attention to details absolutely I think uh it does do a better job of clarifying and avoiding some issues down the road but I totally agree with what commissioner Reynold says we really want to work
closely and no surprises here and as we talk about who else needs to know that's something that we need to continue to ask ourselves before we bring it no other questions let's go back to the original motion uh is there any further discussion on the original
motion no question Mr chair yeah last comments for the Department um so in my conversations with uh some Charter operators who are on the working group and and other
Advocates first question is with first year Reve from a through F accountability um went into the one year and would it would it um it will be
plausible to make it two years instead of one and the concern there is that um way it's structured now there's some concern that it might deter some
potential uh just know some have the opinion that um there's a high likelihood that these operators will be in the dnf category sooner rather than later and a potential longer
R let me ask you a question I may be wrong but I think you're talking about uh the next item which is the uh framework of accountability is there something within this okay yeah I maybe on the wrong thing
okay no problem Miss supe did you have another comment want me to hold off yes hold off till we get to the next item yeah no I was just going to clarify that the rule and accountability framework are are listed as two separate agenda items um so thank you for fling
thats on the original motion for the charter schools emergency rule 05 20114 01.01 03 and 04 are there any qu further questions if no further questions then I'll ask Mr Griffin to call the rooll
this is the vote on the Charter School's emergency Rule and as proposed originally and recognizing that we will come back later working with tdoe uh with amendments uh like what Mr hold is presented all in
favor the uh Mr Griffin please call the RO Mr cins hi M auberon hi Mr Holt hi Mr Jensen hi Miss Johnson hi
I miss Maxwell I miss mcinturf I Mr mullenhour I Mr chairman I Mr chairman you have nine eyes that motion passes thank you very much and Mr H we do look forward to
working with DD on this on your suggested changes and any others that might be required next item is opportunity public charter schools accountability framework Dr David Le good morning chairman e and members of the board I Am David Blair assistant commissioner for assessment
accountability and research and I am here to present an item related to the opportunity Public Charter School accountability framework chapter 1066 of the public acts of 2024 established the creation of opportunity public charter schools uh which are public charter
schools serving at least 75% at risk students in grades 6 through 12 as defined in uh pc166 and as summarized by chairman EB in the prior item um oportunity public charter schools may be uh open beginning in the 26 27 school
year pc166 requires the Department of Education to propose and the State Board of Education to adopt an accountability framework for opportunity public charter schools that includes multiple measures and includes performance metrics and targets that ensure students are prepared for post High School Success
pc166 also requires the department to consult within accountability working group and developing the framework in September and October of 2024 the department held two meetings with the opportunity Public Charter School accountability working group to discuss and review the proposed framework multiple stakeholders participated in
the working group including Representatives at State Board of Education Tennessee Charter School Center Tennessee Public Charter School commission Tennessee can Tennessee for Student Success the state collaborative for reforming education score and the charter school and Charter School
operators in the state based on stakeholder feedback the department is proposing an a Toof School letter grade formula that will be applicable only to opportunity public charter schools this school letter grade framework accounts for The Unique student population opportunity public charter schools will serve while
ensuring these schools are held to high expectations for improving student outcomes the full summary of the framework is included in the accompanying document to this item and a workshop presentation um for this framework was um held during the last session um a very high level the core
components of the framework include deferring the accountability determination in the first year um a rebalancing of the relative weight of the calculation between achievement um and slightly emphasizing growth uh factoring in a continuous enrollment provision and multiple indicators in the
framework uh an alternative growth measure um and an alternative method for evaluating act performance in the College and Career ready indicator the department recommends approval of this item on First and Fin reading the State Board staff concurs with this
recommendation and I'm happy to take any additional questions thank you Mr Dr lar uh we have a mo a proposal for opportunity Public Charter School accountability framework for first and final reading is there a motion to accept as
proposed some was that you Bo your Comins I didn't see and Jordan Mr melow seconds we have a motion in a second uh questions now uh Vice chair cins you can talk about what
you want talk all right um so we got a little bit of flavor for where my question U centered on the one year um deferred accountability on the a through
F in the concern of some that there might need to be a little bit more of a Runway to make sure that we are entering into this work with um the best level of confidence that we can that this is an
appropriate um method for accountability for these schools that we know are taking on just on the one years or any number of years to get um to get them up and
running and get their feet under Mr chair just a second uh I think Mr lar was goingon to respond to the question um you know the department has I think cobbled together our our best recommendation here I don't think we're
going to take necessarily a position on specific adjustments um but just for the awareness of the group um it is something that we did pay attention to in the development of the model The Continuous enrollment provision um that
gives schools essentially a greater weight and a variety of calculations is based on either two or three years of enrollment that was part of the reason why we also liked the idea of delaying um the attribution of that official letter GED because it gave a chance for that to kick in um delaying an
additional two years would actually allow that to take even greater effect at the start uh and I think you know we understand where the question is probably coming from from um and so I think we recognize the need to discuss it but you know the department is I think comfortable with what we're
proposed uh but certainly we can understand the uh where the question arises or where the recommendation arises Mr melow thank you Mr chair I think Dr lar U answered my question I was gonna first
start by just acknowledging the amount of work that uh the department and I know our state board staff has put into this uh in the intro to this item it was referenced that there were two uh two accountability working group meetings back in September and October there were
a number of um uh of stakeholders that were referenced uh as participating in those working groups uh so my my assumption Dr L is that this is in fact something that your team has considered debated uh gotten input on from other uh
from other stakeholders and was just curious as to why uh why you landed where you did and and whether or not uh and to what extent some of those stakeholders that you've talked with have have also concluded that one year is appropriate so can you speak now now you sort of already responded to half my
question uh can you speak to how many of the stakeholders that you spoke with who participated in the accounting accountability working groups how many of those stakeholders uh were concerned with the oneye with where we landed at one year thanks Mr are happy to try to speak
to that to the extent that I can but I'll also make sure I create space for other members of the department to chime in here because I'm I'm sure I haven't been privy to all of the conversations and all the stakeholder engagement that may have occurred on this topic um regarding the one year um I think it's
something that I would characterize as as being favorably respond the response to that provision has been favorable I think generally certainly at no point in time has anyone I think ever disputed the inclusion of the onee um I'm not
aware of anybody previously suggesting that should be two years certainly in none of the conversations none of the official working group meetings that I was a part of do I remember and again if my please feel free to correct me I don't remember a prior recommendation for that second year I know we
considered it only because we were looking at the potential impact of that um continuous enrollment provision so it was something that the department was internally considering uh but nothing that we specifically heard feedback on on until now thank you
sir other questions or comments uh question Mr chairman Larry Jens yes Mr Jensen do we have a sense of what the legislative in yet was in in related to the that time frame or or was it left
open U just curious so I would I would defer that question to my colleague if they that are a little bit more in contact Mr Powers is raising his hand so Mr Powers thank you chairman e um board member
Jensen the the legislation doesn't actually contemplate a time period for any sort of pause on the uh the assignment of a letter grade um it simply says that we have to propose an accountability framework for these opportunity public
charter schools so it's silent on um on that piece I will say this of the comments that I've received uh some of the comments are asking for uh I won't say more lenient but the
accountability framework uh moving One Direction While others are advocating the accountability framework being stronger in some respects so I think what's being proposed here is a reasonable balance of what the comments
that I have received uh across the state another question Mr uh chairman so does this go back to the legislature or their final review or the in in the process um Mr James this is
not a rule so um it's first and final reading I don't think it does does it as rules go back policies we uh submit a report on at the end of the year but um no this wouldn't wouldn't go back back to the
legislature okay thank you other questions or comments again better um so concerns that I've heard is that the accountability framework and the
weights um don't fully reflect the challenge that is um in front of the potential operators of these school and that there could be more uh weight given to growth
uh more weight given to Career Readiness especially in high school and we know that students will soon be entering into the the world um and so one one particular operator uh
suggested that it would essentially be no different than uh the ASD when it was set up in terms of accountability and that's a concern of theirs and so that's why I asked the question about the two-year possible twoyear Runway
is could that be a way for us to evaluate over a more extended period of time to make make sure that we get as much data as much in
from The Operators to understand make sure the metrics for accountability and that we're starting out on the right foot and not um not hamstringing these folks who are trying to do this important work uh too soon uh
in the process so that is um concerns that I have and potential um advat and operators Mr poers thank you chairman I do want to just and I appreciate those comments
Vice uh Vice chair cins um I do want to just kind of speak to the I want to draw out some of the really Stark differences between the concept we're talking about here with opportunity public charter schools and in the ASD um and then I would certainly defer to um my colleague
David L and others but you know the ASD was is currently in statute an option that that the commissioner must exercise for a priority school so it is it is not something that Lea's volunteer into or the schools volunteer into um that's in
pretty stark contrast to this what we're discussing which is which is something that a a charter operator would seek to start these opportunity public charter schools so they're voluntary um they're targeted again a different definition of at risk students
than the ones that are um Public Schools might think of and certainly the ones that uh it's a different set of definitions than what we use to to Define who a priority school is um the the other thing I would just call out related to the accountability piece is um it's important to keep in mind we
didn't have a through F letter grades um when we were assigning schools into the ASD um and so well I certainly kind of understand the the feedback about giving the two-year Runway versus the one I just wanted to kind of speak to those differences and I think that you know
David made this point um but I'll I'll emphasize it we we've tried to be really open about our intent to come back and revisit this after we get the kind of the dry run if you will what these scores look like in the first year I think the two-year Runway might kind of complicate that um I think it might not
create kind of the urgency to re-evaluate this once we actually know what they're going to look like so that's that's the other point that I wanted to raise and with that I'll defer to any of my colleagues who may have comments as well thank Mr Powers that was one thing that I was going to point that I was
going to raise too is that my understanding is the one year one run gives us the data and we can come back and look at it after one year and and continue to move from there on what we need to do do you agree commissioner other questions or sorry I
should have stated that publicly I just give you a thumbs up yes I do agree thank you question on that Point does that does that Oney year checkpoint U include the possibility
of if if found necessary to extend the deference of the accountability metric if you see that that's warranted is that something that would be on the table potentially I don't think and please
I'll defer to my colleagues if I'm if I'm getting this wrong but I don't think there's any piece of this that we would say is entirely off the table for a discussion once we actually see the results I think the Department's position is that we're we're open-minded about what this needs to become when we have better estimates of schols actually
serve and even the programs that they're offering okay so how do we make sure that everything you all have just said about this um particularly related to my questions in Mr Mullen hours how do we
make sure that applicants are aware of the potential reevaluation and um and not being um not being labeled or stigmatized after year one with
um with a letter grade that might prove to be um um injur to injur to them how do we make the that
is do we communicate it to the to the Lea so they can communicate it is it included in the application I think it's important that when we do this that it be done very carefully because I don't want to set an expectation uh that they say oh okay
well we're just going to wait a year and then we'll you know I mean I I think Craig I'm wrong but I think what's being presented here is what is the expectation of what would happen but that doesn't mean that things can't change down the road do you agree with that uh Mr pow
yes yeah thank you chairman eie one thing I can chime in and and and promise you uh um Vice chair cins is you know we have the stakeholder group that we were required statutorily to convene um to weigh in here there's nothing that
prevents us from keeping that group together and and even adding folks to it I think um you know letters of intent were due I believe that the first of December someone please correct me if I got my dates wrong there um but that means we'll know pretty soon that the
folks that that intend to open these schools um and I don't think it's out of the question to uh involve them moving forward in that same kind of working group especially now that we're going to know who actually is opening these schools and I would say that's probably
one of the forums we can use um to present the what the letter grades would have looked like had we made them public in that first year right I mean that that would be one of the things that we can bring back to the group and so um assuming we're able to involve the folks that do seek to open these schools in
that working group and in that conversation I think that's one way we could make sure that they're involved in that conversation that it's that these are are viewed as as helpful tools and certainly not um harmful in an unintended way to these
operators chairman yes Mr hope um one one um point and one question so I was able to correspond with uh I understand that the letters of intent have been submitted and I think there were three of them um I was able
to correspond with the leader of one of those three um potential schools who I believe was supportive of this framework and and so I was glad to hear that at least supportive of it um in the near term as we start to see what these schools look like um and then my
question was I know back at the workshop last month um uh Dr lard I had asked about whether you all would be able to go and check the data to see for uh all schools in the state of Tennessee that
would qualify for this specific definition of that risk for opportunity Charter Schools above I think we had talked about maybe above 50% but looking at a higher threshold like 70ish per um I don't know if you had the opportunity
to to go back and look at that to see what if we use those schools as as an example of of how those schools would Faire in the this proposed a Toof system how how they would have fa Mr thank you chairman eeve U we
appreciate the question um we did have an opportunity to do that work um in our initial approach to trying to estimate the impact used a rule well let me just say the only data we have available to identify these schools as chronic
absenteeism within our existing data store which is just one of multiple criteria for getting students in and so there really is a giant caveat on our modeling here only because we're using just one very narrow pathway for
identifying schools our initial modeling um we were trying to ensure enough schools to say something that would be mathematically meaningful and so we started with a rule of 50% and higher chronic absenteeism going back and using
the 2223 data which is what we had final available at the time we started this we found 26 schools um that met that criteria that were regular public schools in Tennessee uh and we did see when we apply our new proposed framework we do see movement of those schools some
of them in fact earn bees in our accountability system so the department does feel comfortable based on our best available data that that sample does see movement when we bump that threshold up to 75% the numbers of schools that are left
for us to model out it goes down to four um based on part just the way the distribution of chronic ente ISM looks but some of the schools that would be at that threshold are so small that we would have suppressed their data for accountability determination we're only
left with four schools above 75% and two of them are actually alternative schools already uh and they would not have received an accountability determination those students would have been M back to their original sunding school um but just in full transparency for those four
schools their lever grade did not uh when we proposed the model uh or when we applied the new model but again it's four very small schools two of them being alternative schools and again we're just using chronic absenteeism
very like that 75% threshold is not going to be necessary or I think it's reasonable to assume that hitting that Target is not going to be necessary for a school to become an opportunity Charter School just because of all of the other Pathways for identifying students as at
risk thank you other questions and chairman even if I can make just one more comment U just in the um you know one thing to I I appreciate Vice chairman coin's position on this and the department just wants to be as
as clear as humanly possible in the spirit of transparency um a lot of the Department's orientation but a lot of the feedback that we've received is based on our overall intent for how we're approaching this exercise the law implies that these are a different version of regular
schools a lot of the accountability suggestions that have come to us through the working group or based on alternative school accountability Frameworks from other states not recommendations based on the accountability systems that they apply to their regular schools and so that's
the department sort of fundamental starting position for this we started with something that looked like our traditional Adra letter grade system and we tried to figure out what are appropriate um adjustments to that system as opposed to an approach to Alternative School specifically and so
the department is I think very sincere in our willingness to consider adjustments to this but we're at adjusting around our traditional accountability School framework and so it would be a question of degree and kind and I certainly think an additional
second year is within that sphere of consideration uh but I also just want to you know as long as we're using something that is vaguely similar to our existing letter grade system a lot of those concerns about a potential sealing effect for how far those kids can rise a
lot of that is predicated upon this system will continue to lean heavily into End of Line outcomes right kids actually have to become College and Career ready or they actually have to meet expectations on the tests in order for that to show up and for us to say this is a good school and so there
there's only going to be so much wiggle room in that space and I just want to make sure that we're very clear and transparent about that expectation okay other questions or comments J um go ahead Larry um
I guess I'm struggling a little bit as Vice chairman Goin say on this time frame I don't know you we characterize this as experimental in a way uh that we're trying something that uh is U that
requires some flexibility and I guess I'm a little concerned that we're building in something that becomes interpreted down the road uh differently I hear uh Dr lair's comments and I appreciate those about you know we're
we're flexible so on and so on but I just I get a look think we lost you Mr Jensen let's go to uh uh Mr mull hour thank you Mr Sher I I just wanted to go back to um acknowledging the work that the department has done on this
specifically and I will say that I I and I'm sure others have received letters and proposals and reports and memorandums from a variety of different organizations uh interestingly some of whom uh are not named as having participated in the working group uh and
I would I would further say that some of the memos and some of the the data I'll use that term very Loosely that was offered uh as I further researched it was not really an Apples to Apples comparison I would say if anything it was a bit of a red hearing so some of the information that is circulating on
this topic is really not accurate it's it's not appropriate to compare this program with a program in some other state that's just structured very differently uh I think that to use the concept of hey this is this is an experiment we're going to work at this
we're going to modify and adapt as we go forward as an appropriate sort of attitude or posture to take and I would just say if there are outside interests or groups that would like to have their voice heard I think it would be most appropriate to participate in those working groups and uh I would say you
know bring your data and your reports and your memorandums and your comparisons to that working group so that be evaluated in the context of a robust discussion instead of peppering it across all board members and creating a lot of confusion thank you Mr merinar I'll also
say that the intent of this is to provide the opportunity for all students who might not have had the opportunity to to graduate from high school and have a career path success that's what the intent of these opportunity charter schools are and as long as we keep our focus on the students we'll make the
right decisions Mr P you had something to say uh thank you Mr chairman and thank you Mr mhow um we we had I I do want to take a moment just to call out um our kind of collaboration and conversations with the Tennessee Charter School Center on this topic I think um
you know they were included in the working group and one of the things we tried to do is include them um and they they act it for a lot of the I think external groups and and that was intentional in our end to make sure that um they were
there and could participate as a way to kind of express some of those um viewpoints and I I've met with several of the stakeholders that you're referring to as well and seeing some of the same briefs and data um and so also just wanted to say appre apprciate your
comments just about how it is really difficult when you look at this this particular statute and then the meta analyses of every of all 50 states and and what they call their equivalent you do realize quite quickly a lot of them are actually looking at what we consider to be alternative schools here which are
statutorily different and have different rules around accountability associated with them so I just want to say thank you for kind of making that distinction other comments is Mr Jensen back yes I'm back I'm sorry did you have any other comments Mr
jensson no I'm not I assume I finished yeah I think I think we got any further comments or questions Dr Morrison super quick and at the conclusion of sort of the conversation about the accountability framework which
I know is what's before the board today I just want to say again like I said at the workshop that I am excited also so to see the performance framework the model performance framework that the department is working to produce because I think when we talk about accountability for these schools it's not only the public reporting through the letter grades that they'll receive
but it's really the contract that will be binding with authorizing District authorizer as to whether or not these schools can stay open so I think that will also just require some time and attention to get that right um as well as the application itself in terms of how authorizers are reviewing these
applicants because again we hope we see some really Innovative models come through but we want to make sure that we've got the right parameters for the application and for the model performance framework which will ultimately determine whether they open and whether they stay open very good comment any further
comments or questions no comments or questions we have a recommendation for first and final reading on opportunity public charter schools accountability framework Mr Griffin please call the RO Mr C
Miss auberson hi Mr Holt hi Mr Jensen hi Miss Johnson hi Miss Maxwell hi Miss mcinturf hi Mr Molen
hour hi Mr chairman hi Mr chairman you have nine eyes motion passes thank you very good discussion next item is teacher ler discipline actions Mr Todd Madison actually Mr chairman uh Ryan
shanan associate council state board of education I'll be dentling this matter today okay Mr shanan thank thank you Mr chairman this matter was presented for approval at the November 22nd 2024 board meeting no comments or discussion was had prior to approving the recommendation an
inadvertent Omission was noted that does not substantively change the recommendation the language in paragraph 2 Under the findings of fact that once read responded engagement in appropriate physical contact with special education students on multiple occasions now reads
respondent engaged in inappropriate physical contact with special education students on multiple occasions by using improper restraints by way of some additional information and context uh to why it happened the attorney represented the educate educator and I exchanged
many emails about this matter as is generally customary most recent version of the consent order and the version agreed to by the educator was inadvertently excluded from the materials presented in November the Educator's attorney caught the admission of the agreed to language and notified
me when I looked into the matter I determined that it was a clerical mistake when items were prepared for the November 22nd 2024 board meeting board staff and the ELD team specifically will continue to Endeavor to perform our work at the highest level we will be asking attorneys with whom we deal to send the
entire and most recent version of signed consent orders to us instead of Simply uh providing signature pages in some instances the State Board staff recommends approval of this corrected consent order with that I am happy to answer any questions you
have thank you Mr Shanahan we have a recommendation for the teacher Li discipline action is there a motion to accept as recommended Mr chair this is Jordan moves moves is there a second lry J
second motion is second are there any questions or discussions no questions or discussions uh Mr Griffin please call the RO Mr cins hi Miss oberson hi Mr Hol hi Mr
Jensen hi Miss Johnson hi Miss Maxwell hi Miss mcinturf hi Mr Mullen hour hi Mr chairman hi Mr chairman you have nine
eyes motion passes that completes the items that we had on the agenda uh any final comments Dr MO no just happy holidays to all of you and thanks for being together this morning um working through those things and um appreciate everyone's time and attention
on this Mr James has a comment Mr chairman uh being that it's an electronic meeting we actually need to take a roll call vote on excusing Mr Wills uh Mr Griffin will you please uh do we need a motion to that effect Mr
James it you you could you could simply ask unanimous consent but the only way to obtain unanimous consent and an electronic meeting is through call of the role you could simply say uh okay I got it Mr Griffin Would you please call the role we be voting on whether to
excuse Mr Wells from this meeting all in favor a yes vote will be to excuse him Mr Griffin Mr cins yes I Miss Roberson hi Mr Holt hi Mr
Jensen hi Miss Johnson hi Miss Maxwell hi Miss mcinturf hi Mr Molen hour hi Mr chairman hi Mr chairman you have
nine eyes Mr Wills Is excuse from this meeting any further comment from any board member if no comments too I would wish like to wish everyone a Merry Christmas happy holidays and happy New Year I appreciate the uh uh collaboration and
working together that we have with tdoe and with higher ed and being a part of it look forward to the new year and legislation will be back legislators will be back in session in January and I'm sure it'll be a busy year thank you all the meeting is adjourned