Okay, good morning. It's 9:00 a.m. and I will now call this meeting to order. As is customary for this board, we will begin our our meeting with a moment of silence followed by the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. This morning, I'll note that I've approved the remote participation of IDA McFersonson under the board's bylaws and the provisions of the Freedom of
Information Act. Miss McFersonson is participating remotely under 2.2-3708.3 B4 of the Code of Virginia because she's currently in California visiting with family. Um, as we move forward, is there a motion to
approve the agenda as presented? >> So, move >> Hold on. Hold on. >> Um, pause for a second. Um, okay. I'm sorry, Dr. Acriman. Is there a motion to approve the agenda as presented? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Second. >> Dr. Acriman.
>> I. >> Mr. Green. >> I. >> Dr. Northern. >> I. >> Miss McFersonson. >> Could you hear us? No, we'll skip. Miss Kilgore. >> I.
>> And chair votes I. All right. Staff has provided the members of the board with draft minutes before the meeting. Is there a motion to approve the m uh meeting minutes as presented to the board? >> So move. >> Second. >> Uh Dr. Arian >> I. >> Mr. Green. >> Hi. >> Dr. Northern
>> I. >> Um Miss Kilgore >> I. >> And chair votes I. >> Okay. Um, as we have done for past couple of years, the board appreciates being able to feature our wonderful arts
programs from across the Commonwealth by having students perform at the beginning of our meetings. This morning, we have Atley High School's dissonance choir as an award-winning soprano alto ensemble under the direction of Mr. Nathan Baron.
Is that how you say it? Good. Close enough. Participants range from freshman to seniors. Dissonance choir has successfully competed for over a decade, winning state level competitions in both classical and jazz music. Also in
attendance to support Atly High School's choir is principal John Wheeler and Hannover County Superintendent Dr. Lisa Pennicuff. So we would like to welcome you all this morning and um if you all want to come up forward, the board will
come down and so that we can see you. Morning ladies and gentlemen. My name is Sam and this is the dissident choir under the direction of Mr. Natan Barstein. We have two selections for you this morning. We will start with deto composed by Claude
dei with poetry written by Theodore Deando. I will now read for you the translation. Starry night under your veils under your breeze in your perfume. A sad liar that sigh I dream of love lapsed. A serene
melancholy unfurs in the pit of my heart. And I hear the soul of my beloved trembling in the dream like wood. I see again in our fountain. Your eyes blue like the skies. This rose it's your breath and these stars are your eyes.
Our second selection is a famous jazz standard Moonglow composed by Irving Mills with poetry written by Eddie Dylan. Weather sed. Water Who are they
trees? Sher sher They won't be a tra Ter share us and Most dead s on a We thank our brer.
Peace to be shall some more day. It must have been moonow up in the blue. It must have been moon glow
that led me straight to you. I still hold me and I started praying. Oh Lord, please let this last fall through the air.
Heavenly song coming from everywhere and they're singing to you. And now when there's more we always
gave me you gave me you. that gave me you know I'm talking about you know I can't stop
talking about that it's got me thinking all the you don't need to be on my As long as we've got to guide us, we'll
be here to say, don't you know that right through the air just of the air. Heavenly song coming from everywhere to you. And now when there's moon
gave me you that gave me you. Oh, gave me you. Okay. Um we are back uh and we will
proceed with recognition. So for our recognition this morning, Dr. Northern will do the introduction of our guests. Here we go. Uh, today we are honored to recognize extraordinary world language educators. The following educators, Dr.
Mao Fining, Jennifer Carson, and Lisa for were recently recognized by the foreign language association of Virginia or Flava for their contributions to teaching and learning in the area of world languages. Flava serves as an organization of professionals in
education and business to promote and enhance student teaching and learning and appreciation of foreign language cultures and literatures. Dr. Lisa Harris, world languages coordinator in the office of humanities, recently presented the resolutions that we will share with you today at the foreign
language association of Virginia annual fall conference awards ceremony. Dr. Dr. Mao Finn Singh, professor of Chinese and inaugural director of the Institute of World Languages at the University of Virginia, was named the Foreign Language Association of Virginia as the recipient
of the 2025 Marshall Brandon Flava Award for Excellence in World Language Teaching and has been named as the 2025 Virginia Postsecary World Language Teacher of the Year. This award honors one post-secary world language educ educator each year who has made
outstanding contributions in the profession. Dr. Singh was selected for this honor due to her extensive leadership in the field. She has served in multiple key leadership roles including founder and president of the Chinese language teachers association of Virginia, consultant for the college
board's AP Chinese program and mentor for the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Language. Further, she's recognized as a national leader and has significantly impacted K12 education due to her leadership in Virginia's Star Talk Chinese Teacher and Studentmies,
which provide immersive professional learning for K12 students and educators. Dr. Singh is unfortunately unable to join us today. However, she will receive her resolution by our department staff. We thank her for her service to the field as the 2025 Virginia Postsecary
World Language Teacher of the Year. Next, Miss Jennifer Carson. We come on up. Jennifer, you come up this way. Okay, you have to uh Jennifer Carson is a nationally respected leader in world language
education. She was named by the Foreign Language Association of Virginia as a recipient of the 2025 Helen Waror Burke Flava Distinguished Service Award. Today we are pleased to recognize Miss Carson as the 2025 Virginia Distinguished
Service Award for World Language Honore. This award honors one language professional teacher every year who has made outstanding contributions to the profession. Miss Carson was selected for this honor as her career has been marked by exceptional service to students and
educators across the Commonwealth. She has advanced world language instruction and policy including serving on the world language standards of learning and the Virginia seal of bil biliteracy committees. Congratulations, Miss Carson, on your recognition as the 2025
Distinguished Service Award for World Language recipient. And now I will read part of the resolution. There are three, six, maybe six bullet points. I'm going to read I'm going to read the highlights. Um, Virginia Board of Education resolution of recognition
presented to Jennifer Carson, 2025 Distinguished Service Award recipient. Whereas Jennifer Carson, a nationally respected leader in World Language Education, was named by the Foreign Language Association of Virginia as the recipient of the 2025 Helen Waror Burke
Flava Distinguished Service Award. And whereas this award honors one world language professional each year who has made outstanding contributions to the profession. Now therefore, be it resolved that the members of the board of education express to Jennifer Carson
their sincere congratulations upon her recognition of as Virginia's 2025 Helen Warner Burke Flava Distinguished Service Award repres recipient and extend their heartfelt appreciation for her devoted service and exceptional leadership.
Thank you. All right, next up we have Lisa for Miss Lisa for serves as a Spanish teacher at Abington High School in Washington County, Virginia. She was named by the foreign language association of Virginia as a recipient of the 2025 David Cox Flava Excellence
in Teaching K12 award. Today we recognize Miss for as the 2025 Virginia K12 world language teacher of the year. This award honors one teacher annually for excellence in world language education recognizing outstanding
instructional practice, leadership and student impact. Miss for was selected for this honor as she has truly transformed language learning in a rural community by creating an immersive classroom environment grounded in global citizenship and linguistic proficiency.
Her students have achieved exceptional outcomes, including earning both the Virginia and global seals of biiteracy, attaining top scores on nationally recognized language proficiency assessments, and receiving advanced placement in college credit for their
language skills. Congratulations, Miss For, on your recognition as the 2025 Virginia K12 World Language Teacher of the Year. And I will read the resolution. The Virginia Board of Education resolution of recognition of recognition
presented to Lisa for 2025 Virginia K12 World Language Teacher of the Year. Whereas Lisa for Spanish teacher at Abington High School in Washington County, Virginia, was named by the Foreign Language Association of Virginia as a recipient of the 2025 David Cox
Flava Excellence and Teaching Award. And whereas this award honors one teacher for excellence in world language education recognizing outstanding instructional practice, leadership, and student impact. Now therefore, be it resolved that the members of the board
of education express to Lisa for their sincere congratulations upon her recognition as Virginia's 2025 World Language Teacher of the Year and extend their heartfelt appreciation for her devoted service and exceptional accomplishments.
Thank you guys. Is that that concludes our >> recog? >> Thank you. Okay. Um, I think the superintendent is going to go and take pictures with our um, recognized award winners today that are present and we
will proceed. Thank you all so very much for being with us today and congratulations. As stated in the board's bylaws, it's the pleasure of the board to accept public comment on all matters related to public education in Virginia. But before we begin today, I'd like to share a few
comments in the manner in which public comment will be conducted. Um, oh, you got it. Okay, good. I ask that you model professionalism, dignity, and respect for others as you share your thoughts. Um, when you begin, please provide your name, your role or
affiliation, where you live in Virginia. All remarks must be directed to the chair and not to any other individual. Speakers will have three minutes to share their remarks. You'll notice that there is a timer over here on the computer screen. Um, as it begins, it is
green with three minutes. At one minute, the screen will turn yellow and the screen will turn red when your time is up. At that point, please close your remarks promptly. If you have any paper copies of anything that you would like to provide to the board, Mr. Joe Crook, who is raising his hand right now, is
the board's regulatory and board coordinator. And Joe will take those written comments um and provide them to the board as soon as possible. You may also email a copy of your remarks or anything uh that you would like to have
the board uh to be provided with at be.vergirginia.gov. Um and with that we will begin with Scott Braybrand followed by Kennedy Stringfield. Thank you, President Cesy, Superintendent Gullixson, and members of the Virginia
Board of Education. My name is Scott Brad. I'm executive director for VAS. I live in Lynchburg, Virginia. On behalf of Virginia School Division Superintendent, we respectfully submit the following feedback around the so proficiency implementation plan. We
strongly support a designation of the 2526 school year as a planning year with no proficiency changes. While the VDOE and school divisions develop meaningful stakeholder communication, provide essential professional learning and identify essential funding streams and
resources. We strongly support your four to fiveyear phase in approach to ensure intentional transition planning and allow for further modeling of metrics by VDOE and divisions. We respectfully urge the board to extend the existing proficiency in graduation
requirements for all students, not just seniors who are already enrolled in high school. According to state code 8VAC 20-132-51, requirements for graduation cannot be changed during a student cohort's four years. The requirements in place when
students enter 9th grade must be honored through graduation. This should include changes to cut scores that directly impact students ability to pass the required EOCC assessments for graduation. We also want to continue to work with you around concerns regarding
advanced math pathways, the new growth metric that will replace Vivos, expedited retesting and alternative credits, double jeopardy due to federal identification, and performance category rounding. Finally, we want to partner with you more deeply around your
communications and supports as we move the so proficiency plan forward. Schools need divisionready communication tools, including infographic, parent letters, talking points, and training modules to help teachers and school boards and students and families understand the new
scale and its imple implications with the focus on raising expectations through a phased approach. Consistent statewide communication will build trust and understanding during this transition. We ask that these communication plans be available for stakeholder review by your December 11th
board meeting. The new cut scores will also require extensive student interventions and sufficient staff to design and deliver indiv individualized plans to students. Without substantial state investment to fund it and qualified to fund and
provide qualified intervention for personnel and resources, successful implementation will be impacted. As always, we look forward to continued partnership with you on this important work for the Commonwealth. Thank you very much and have a nice day. Kennedy Stringfield followed by Jim
Cowan. Okay, Kennedy Stringfield's not here. Jim Cowan. Okay. Uh Kathy Halverson followed by Alexander Halverson. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. Welcome to the Library of
Virginia. I'm Alex Anderson. Today we have something to tell you. Palatine held me for three and a half years. Palentine kept me in a dark closet. They will stand there. Now there was a light.
Mommy saved me and then I got a little bit scared. Mommy takes me home but mommy cannot find me. That way he will find me. So, Power 10 didn't pay and the code is
20-81-150. Well, we have another thing for you. Ephesians 4:3, get rid of all hard feelings, anger, and rage. Stop all fighting and lying. Put away every form of hatred. Forgive
another justice gone. Forgive him of what Christ has done. Now here's another one. Father, if you are possessing, take this cup of suffering away from me. But do what you want, not what I want. Now,
here's a free poem that I want to write. I was 10 and all I wanted was to learn. School was my favorite place until that day. They grabbed me, said nothing, and shoved me in the closet. It was dark. It
was cold. I was alone. I didn't even know what I did wrong. My mom came, but they couldn't find me because I was just a kid hidden in the dark. Now I still sleep for because darkness still feels
like fear. Now L did pay for and then we're teaching better. Now they were helping us to enjoy themselves. There must be something wrong with power tan. They didn't pay. They didn't go.
They didn't go good. We have a better thing to learn about. Thank you so much for the poem. Thank you. Thank you. Hello, I'm Kathy Halverson from Powatan. I don't know what else to say after
that. Um, three and a half years has been torture. We uh went to federal court. Federal court judge said to send them to private placement. Um, they didn't abide. They were threatening another Chins on my husband and I. They
filed a Chins back in 2022 out of retaliation. Had to hire an attorney. Um, we fought and fought and fought and I was not willing for them to tried to take my child. We waited a very long
time for this child and he's a blessing. Um, so we started looking around and found Liberty University online and the teachers have been amazing. He's been able to get his voice. He's able to interact where he wasn't able to do that
in Powatan because they just threw him restrained him until he started turning blue. What type of education system is this? I've asked for accountability, justice. Nothing is being done. Nothing. the
principal, nothing. All these teachers, they still have their licenses. You heard him. Straight from the mouths of babes. How is this happening in our school systems? Three and a half years. They received
federal funding to educate him. He received zero. Zero. They're supposed to document restraint seclusion. December one count. Nothing's being documented. You know why? because it would be considered an unsafe
location. He was constantly be being thrown into a dark room to where he's scared. He has to sleep with the lights on because he's scared of the dark. We go on vacation, we have to have a light.
Is that fair to him? This isn't the only child they restrain. It's on the first grade hallway on the right hand side. They do that. I saw the principal dragging another child into that room by theirel. What are we doing with special
education? Nothing. Until we get rid of Samantha Hollands, nothing's going to be done. And y'all start taking accountability and getting rid of these people that are causing harm. This child has PTSD.
They allowed him to hit his head on the cinder block wall 48 times. 48 times. Why? To get data. As a parent, would you let your child hit their head on a cinder block wall
without intervention? Zero. He had zero behavior intervention plan. He had nothing. Nothing. If his behavior was so bad, why wasn't there something done? We spent thousands,
probably 200,000 in legal fees only for me to have to educate him with Liberty right now while they received the money. >> Thank you. Thank you so much. >> Dan Zacharias, followed by Wendy Little. Thank you, Madame President, members of
the board. I'm Dan Zacharias, director of the Old Dominion Association of Church Schools. Live in the beautiful Shannondoa Valley, where right now it's autumn, my favorite season of the year. And uh the comments I'm going to share, I've shared before,
but I thought it'd be good to share them again because we have some new board members who uh haven't had the opportunity to hear me say these things. And I want to propose to you uh a hypothetical, an imaginary policy, which I hope will sound absurd to you when I
say it. Imagine that in private kindergarten through 12th grade schools in Virginia and even religious kindergarten through 12 schools, the Department of Ed were directly
subsidizing those schools in some cases to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars annually in exchange for requiring that they align their curricula with the standards of learning.
and also sending licensing inspectors into the K to2 schools to aggressively inspect those schools and sometimes overreach their authority under the pretext of child safety.
Okay K private and religious K to2 hopefully that sounds nonsensical to you. Um I believe that in both private and public sectors such an idea is contrary to rational thought.
However, if you just substitute prek for K to2 suddenly it makes sense to a lot of people and that's exactly what is happening. bad actors are being sub subsidized by the department of ed and uh those with religious exemptions
that are safe are being aggressively inspected. So we have a dilemma in our schools very often where we have the K5 and the K4 class side by side and the licensing inspector has purview over the over the younger class but not over the
older class. We had a recent example where an inspector openly bemoaned the fact that she and actually insisted on uh inspecting the entire school prek to 12 and and um threatened to call the
police. Fortunately, the administrator stood his ground and that overreach did not occur in that instance. But what does it portend? And none of this is making a single child safer. And uh the question is how long can
these contradictory models of policy between pre private prek and K12 coexist under this department in this commonwealth? We're very concerned about it and we appreciate uh your time and listening to our concerns. Have a good
day. >> Wendy Little followed by Yianice Jackson. Thank you. Greetings, Board of Virginia. My name is Wendy Little and my son is Aaron Little. Did Miss Gilixen falsify to the public
that there's nothing wrong with your grants? Because I beg to differ with you. Um, I want a state complaint in 2023 about Chesterfield County Public Schools refusing to educate my child and couldn't figure out how to get him out
of a private day school, just into the public home zone school. I won the appeal. This was 2023. For the prior year, Chesterfield did not comply. Samantha Hollands did not out of her department, nor Patricia Hayes. Nobody enforced it. You have to enforce that by
law. That's your job. You enforce corrective actions that you issue yourself. Those are federal orders of education for compensatory education. It was never done. So instead, the school division sued me with an unlicensed un
not unlicensed but un no an unprocured law firm and it's been sitting there for two years. So all kinds of other stuff in between happened but nothing for Aaron and this is his senior year I mind you. He is to wear a graduation cap
this spring. He has been left without an appropriate eighth grade education. Still, this is three and a half years we're talking about. When people come up here and they testify and they give you receipts, you figure it out and you find
out what's wrong. So, after last time I was here, Senator Favola said, "Holy cow, this kid's been out of school for three years." Yeah. They're citing, they're claiming it's in litigation. We can't do anything. That is pendency. You were there at Commission on Youth on
July 7th when I argued and screamed that at the top of my lungs. You cannot excuse state complaint, due process, or any educational litigation to keep him without school. And then y'all are hemorrhaging a quarter of a million dollars out of the OAG's office to
continue to keep him out. It's called pendency. You cannot keep a child without public school forever. Also, you are in violation, and this has been stated before, when the school division doesn't educate the child, the VDOE and VBOE must. Did y'all know I
filed due process on y'all twice and the VDOE once? Probably not. I got a determination that's going to put your statement from yesterday. And your your response to Favola, oh, it's in litigation. All these places have been supporting the family. False.
Completely false. If you going to still excuse litigation, you just admitted your grants are fraud. Fraudulent. Y'all have admitted it many times. So, stop with the Samantha Holland is hiding information. She hold she withheld Favola's letter. And you're
also in violation of C 34 CFR 30600. You must ensure compliance is corrected in no later than one year. No excuses. 34 CFR 300.149. Responsibility for general supervision. 34 CFR 30227 direct services. >> Thank you.
>> They've been read before. >> Thank you very >> Aaron will graduate and somebody's gonna be accountable and you're going to respond to my phone calls. >> Thank you. Yanice Jackson followed by Lwanda Travis. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of
the board. My name is Janice Walker Jackson and I stand before you today not just as a mother but as an advocate and civil rights defender fighting systematic injustice uh in the Virginia special education system. Uh, since December 2023, I have filed and
documented over 30 IDEIDA due process complaints, 10 notices of intent to sue, multiple insurance and misconduct claims, uh, altogether exceeding roughly over $27 million in documented uh, damages. Uh, each filing exposes one
truth. Families are being retaliated against, silenced, and denied their legal rights under IDA and FAPE. Okay. My son, a bright ninth grader scholar, was illegally unenrolled from Northstar Academy on September the 9th. Since that
day, he has received no education, no services, and no lawful notice. A direct violation of IDA Part B and Virginia accreditation standards. Therefore, I address you directly, Miss Crees. As executive director and head of Virginia
public uh I'm sorry, and head of Virginia private schools, I urge you to immediately suspend or revoke Northstars Academyy's accreditations and license until they are back in full compliance with federal and state law and until my
son is properly reenrolled in his private day placement at the expense of Colonial Heights Public Schools as required by IDA. This is not personal. It is lawful accountability. Every complaint, every document, every claim I've submitted
forms a clear record that the system is on notice. Parents like me will not be silenced. I call on the Virginia Department of Education to enforce compliance, restore advocacy rights, and protect every child from retaliation and
neglect. And to that, I say, you have been served. Thank you. Good morning, President Cesy and VDOE board members. I will say I'm a little dismayed this morning because what just came before me was
something dear to my heart. Um, and I'll put this out there. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that who shall ever believe in him shall not perish but have everlasting life. As an educator, as a
parent, as a community member, and just as a citizen, if you take the oath of being a teacher or anybody serving in the public realm, your love is to keep your child, yourself, and everybody safe.
That is our duty as teachers and public servants and especially as children of God. Again, like I said, I will be here every month talking about my school system that I graduated from because there's no transparency. Children's rights are being violated as
well as parents and safety has gone out the door. We had a meeting last night that was uh videotaped on YouTube, but my constituents, which is my community, cannot see it. I want to say that
between the VDOE, the VSBA, and the organizations that are school related, you all put out good examples of what a board meeting should look like. But do our localities and schools follow it? No.
The community is being left in the dark with a lot of things that pertain to the education of their children and we are afforded a free or paid for education that is good for everybody.
Um I got told last night at public comment that when we asked questions that I wouldn't get a question unless I emailed them the question and they emailed me directly. but it's in a public forum. This these are questions that the public
are getting together and trying to get answers to and and then I was told it's my responsibility to put it out to the public. At some point we have to hold these school boards accountable and we are looking for your help with that. And as
a military member I do have to ask this question. If there is an exit interview for the teachers, which I thought it was, or any staff, is that in the rules where they have to continue that so we can better our school systems and get
qualified teachers? Thank you. Elizabeth Schultz, followed by Rodney Jordan. >> Good morning. Good morning. Um, I'm here I've had uh many roles in which I could stand to this microphone. um an elected
official to the 10th largest school board in the nation in Fairfax County for eight years. I'm a former US Department of Education official. Um I'm the prior assistant state superintendent for the Virginia Department of Education, but I come here
today wearing um the most important role and label that I can, which is as a mother. um a mother of four sons who have been through or are currently in the Virginia public school system and as
a parent um God has directed me and my husband as the primary educators of our children. Um so I come to speak to you about these proficiency cut scores. Uh, I know for posterity sake sometimes we talk about stuff in jargon in a way that
um the public doesn't necessarily get. So I'm just going to say that the current cut scores reflect proficiency expectations. Um, and we have really outdated ones for the 2016 mathematics and 2017 English standard um, English
standards. The cut scores define the minimum score a student must achieve to reach a performance level on a test. And currently that student performance is a zero to 600 with proficiency that label proficiency at 400. More often than we
want to admit, the focus in schools is to get students to clear that bar and achieve a proficient score on their so. Very simply, the lower the cut score, the easier it is for a student to clear it
and to clear it the first time to be deemed to be meeting that moniker proficient. Yet, how often do parents find their students who achieve that label later lacking or struggling in their successive years to maintain or demonstrate proficiency in essential
knowledge and skills to provide parents and teachers with greater understanding on how a student is tracking and to assist in raising expectations for their student. Higher cut scores provide a more accurate picture of where students are. They help the parents and the
teachers better target support and allows for authentically celebrating a student's progress. Raising the proficiency cut scores allows the student to acquire the skills and knowledge they need to be competitive, successful, and to
individually thrive after graduation. Whether they are headed to a four-year institution, a two-year secondary post-secary education, into the trades, or directly into the workforce, the need to acquire critical thinking and problem
solving skills so that they may be fulfilled in the real world is essential in the K12 experience. >> Thank you. >> Changes the meaning of proficiency from beyond. Raising the cut scores changes the meaning of proficiency.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. Yes. >> Um, thank you. Please raise the expectations for yourselves. Raise these cut scores. Our students desperately need it. >> Rodney Jordan, followed by Candace Lucas. >> Good morning, President Cesy, members of
the Virginia Board of Education, Superintendent Gson. My name is Rodney Jordan. I'm here representing Virginia School Boards Association. I live in Norolk. the recommendations from Superintendent Booker Dwire and her team regarding proficiency imple implementation, namely treating school
year 2526 as a zero year, continuing communication with division administrators, leaders, and staff, and implementing a clear and effective public communication plan in collaboration with local school divisions aligns with the feedback received during the VSBA listening
session coordinated with the video VDOE team. As shared previously, VSBA member school board share with you the goal of setting high expectations for students while providing the supports and resources to undergur every learner to
meet those expectations. Local school boards in representing the vision and values of their communities collaborate with their division superintendent to set meaningful student achievement goals informed by data and driven by quality instruction. Our member school boards
take the responsibility of local control seriously and the accountability that comes with it. Our members understand the critical importance of flexibility, full funding of public education needs and effective partnerships in pursuit of continuous improvement growth in what
Virginia students know and are able to do. Speaking to effective collaborative partnerships, we want to thank Dr. required for our immediate willingness to engage with VSBA at our department. Superintendent Guggles, we thank you for
your continually making yourself available to inform us and to include VSBA voice in your strategic efforts and President Cesy, VSBA task forces look forward to your return visit as our special guest and the same invitation
extends and exists for each member of the board. In conclusion, please allow me to restate that VSBA places excellence in public education with a focus on student achievement at the center of our work. Our goals include
leadership, advocacy, and support. And we appreciate your leadership and look forward to the collaboration ahead. Thank you, >> Candace Lucas, followed by Bikura Shabbaz. >> Thank you.
Can you turn the C time toward me so I can see it? Thank you. Good morning, board members. My name is Dr. Candace Lucas. I'm a licensed educator as well as a licensed special education administrator. I'm also an IDA enforcer
and we're addressing the fact that the board of education and the Virginia Department of Education are basically dead B parents. And when I state that, I mean that you have a legal, ethical, administerial responsibility to ensure that IDA, which is a civil rights law,
IDA, which is a civil rights law, IDA, which is a civil rights law, IDA, which is a civil rights law, is enforced. It is not optional. The Virginia Department of Education has completed its IDA part B flowthrough application with the US
Department of Education where you stated that you would enforce the IDA and you took the money the grant money and you haven't done you haven't enforced it. That might be why Ken Dicki left the country since he was over there. You know, he's the one who signed the document. He left the country and went
to Italy where you can't be deported. But my issue is that you sit here every month and hear children being trafficked out of the public school system regarding special education. I just
handed you uh a document in which hearing officers are being bribed, paid bribes by Fairfax County public schools and Samantha Holland and Pat Haynes are signing off on it. They call them incentives with IDA part B money. I gave
you the account number. That's from a foyer request. We're We're in a cartel. And I dare not mention our little boy Carter Gun who was traffick investigation for embezzling SSI funds from him.
So this level of special education trafficking of our students goes to the highest levels and it's for money. It's all for money. If the BDOE and the board of education did what your oath said you were supposed to do, we wouldn't have to file
due process complaints. Okay? We wouldn't have to go to court. You're not doing your job to protect children. And Emily, I told you, you can speak out about Charlie Kirk. I need you to speak out about Carter Gun. I need you to
speak out about Croy Gun. I need you to speak out about Aaron Little. I need you to speak out about uh uh Zerk Jackson. Those are real children who need advocates. And this board has a ministerial duty. And if you do not, you
will be held accountable personally. No immunity, none. The hearing officers must be removed per the Merced report as of July 7th, 2025. Remove them. Remove them. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Shabbaz followed by Mike Khalan. Mike Khalan, you can come up to the microphone, please. Followed by Cheryl Brinkley.
Good morning, Madame President, members of the board and superintendent. My name is Mike Callen Ken >> and I serve as a member of the school board in the city of Virginia Beach. I want to note at the outset that I am speaking today solely as a board member
individually and not as a representative of my full board. I appreciate the Virginia Board of Education's thoughtful review of the standards of learning proficiency cut scores. From my perspective, raising these benchmarks is a positive and
appropriate step toward ensuring that the proficient level truly represents a student's readiness for college, career, and civic life. Higher expectations send an important message that we believe
every Virginia student is capable of achieving at a high level when given the right opportunities and support. In Virginia Beach, we serve approximately 65,000 students across 86 schools.
We are proud of our division's consistent academic success, but we also recognize that excellence is not a fixed point. It's a continual process of both reflection and growth. Setting higher proficiency standards allows with our
longstanding commitment to continuous improvement and it strengthens the credibility of our assessment system statewide. At the same time, I urge that these changes be implemented with care and consideration in mind. Raising
proficiency cut scores will have real instructional and operational implications at the division level. It'll be essential for the Virginia Department of Education to provide divisions with the necessary supports, including professional development,
access to highquality instructional materials, and timely data tools so that teachers can effectively adjust instruction, and students can meet these higher expectations. Communication will also be vital.
Families and community members need clear, consistent messaging that higher cut scores do not indicate a decline in student performance, but rather a recalibration of what proficiency means in today's academic environment.
That understanding will help maintain public trust and reinforce the shared goal of preparing every student for long-term success. I want to commend the board for approaching this issue with diligence, thoughtfulness, and transparency.
If we move forward prudently, with strong collaboration between the department, local divisions, and our educators, I believe these higher standards can both raise expectations and improve outcomes for all of our
students across the Commonwealth. As an aside, all that I have seen and read about this process reassures me that these concerns have been and are being addressed. >> I'd like to thank you for your time and your continued leadership in advancing
educational excellence. >> Thank you. >> Um, Cheryl Brinkley. >> Okay. Um, I'll go back to the ones who are at the top of the list. Kennedy Stringfield,
Jim Cowan, Bakura Shabbaz. Okay. Anyone else who would like to speak during public comment, please come to the microphone. Good morning, Chairman Cesy, Superintendent Gillixen, and members of
the board. My name is Christa Arnold and I'm the executive director of the Virginia Association of Elementary School Principles. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today regarding the proposed implementation of raise proficiency scores for our
students. First, I'd like to extend my thanks to Tiara Booker Dwire for reaching out to the VAESP to organize a feedback session on this important topic. On October 8th and 9th, VAESP hosted sessions with more
than 200 participants. Given the short notice that the level of participation speaks volumes about the deep interest and concern surrounding this issue, I'd like to share a brief summary of the feedback provided during
those sessions. At the time, most principles had not yet received their growth scores, which left many feeling frustrated about being instructional leaders without having all the data needed to make informed decisions.
In addition, principles expressed that the performance and support framework implemented this past year still needs refine refinement and clarity. They are concerned that a quarter of the way through the school year and without the full results from last spring's
assessments, the proficiency targets appear to be a moving goalpost. There were also significant concerns about the expanding number of tier three students who will require intensive support under the new scoring standards.
Many principles are already struggling to find qualified teachers and tutors to meet the current level of student need. Furthermore, the Virginia Literacy Act requires a reading plan for every student who does not pass the third or
fourth grade so principles noted that the time spent writing and managing those plans takes away from the time that could be spent directly supporting students in improving their reading skills. the number of plans needed will greatly
increase based on the new proficiency scores. Principles were also concerned among the 200 member expert committee responsible for these decisions that not one principal was included. The absence of a school-based leadership
voice in such critical decisions and discussions is concerning. Finally, principles highlighted that the NAPE is only about 80% aligned with SOS, raising questions about the fairness of directly tying proficiency standards to
that measure. They also noted that last year's fifth graders, whose scores qualified them for advanced math, would now be considered failing under the proposed new benchmarks. Virginia principles care deeply about our students and their success. We
support high standards and share your commitment to continuous improvement. However, we do believe in the importance of intentional, wellthoughtout plan. Please consider this feedback. >> Um, slightly different than my submitted comments, but good morning,
Superintendent Gol Golixen and members of the board. My name is Todd Truit, and I'm the parent of two public school students in Arlington. I'm here to speak in strong opposition to pausing any cut score raises this school year. Per the US Department of Education, we have the lowest cut scores in the country. The
plan to raise the cut scores was first announced in a widely publicized report in May 2022. Since then, you've had a very public process for almost three and a half years. The board voted in March 2025 to formalize the last steps of that process and the standard setting
committees met over this summer. The state superintendent presented on the cut score process at the superintendent's lobbying organization spring convention in April. Presumably other lobbying organizations were aware and with a small rise this school year as set forth in the phase in models. The
SC cut scores would likely only increase to the level they were in at in 2013. Still some of the lowest cut scores in the country. Further, the precedent is that these cut score changes are made mid school year. The math cut scores
were lowered in March 2019, two months before tests were administered. The reading cut scores were going to be approved in March 2020 with the same short testing buffer. Then CO occurred, delaying that process to the approval in the middle of another school year.
Notably, the field's powerful lobbyists were nowhere to be found in public comment in the minutes of those three board meetings in 2019 and 2020. is the principle of the Fields lobbyists that cut scores can be immediately lowered in the middle to even late school year, but
not slightly raised from the lowest level in the nation in the first semester of a school year with six months of advanced notice. Quite frankly, it appears that many of the the lobbyists preferred timing for any cut score raises never. I asked the field's
powerful lobbyists here today to ask your members, why are so many principles and teachers and families just finding out that cut scores will be increased? Why are so many divisions not telling principles, teachers, and families that we have the lowest cut scores in the
country? Most importantly, whose interests are being served by divisions omitting this material information? The public school system's purpose in the Virginia Constitution is to provide a highquality education to the children. It's not to employ adults or to cater to
the feelings of their powerful lobbyists. Virginia parents and students should not pay the price for divisions who make a conscious choice to drag their feet and misinform teachers and fa families. Enough is enough. Start the cut score races this year. Virginia
parents and students deserve better. Thank you. Okay. Is there anybody else who would like to speak during public comment? Okay. If not, the board will proceed and I'll close the public comment period. Um,
and so we will proceed with items A through C on the consent agenda. Is there a motion to wave first review and approve the items on the consent agenda? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Dr. Aerman. >> I. >> Mr. Green. >> Hi, >> Dr. Northern.
>> Hi, >> Miss Kilgore. >> Hi, >> Mr. Monk. >> I >> and chair votes I. >> Okay. All right. Moving to item D. Um, I would
like to entertain a motion to move that particular item to the November agenda. >> Madam President, uh, move to amend the agenda by removing item D to the November meeting. >> Second. Is there any discussion on this >> December meeting? Excuse me. >> November.
>> November. Yes. >> Yeah. >> November. Dr. Northern. >> Yeah. Just to clarify, this is to continue talking to principles over the next few weeks and correct make sure that they understand. >> That's correct. So, um although maybe Miss Arnold hadn't heard from all of the
principles in her association, we have talked to many of them. Um the department has in several of our listening sessions that have been conducted over the last few weeks since the last board meeting. Um but we feel it necessary to ensure that we have the most depth and breadth of voices
participating in this conversation and therefore um as mentioned yesterday during our work session we will be continuing um to keep the portal for public comment open through November 6th at noon. The public comment portal will
remain open through November 6th at noon. Um, and we will continue to do listening sessions. And so with that being said, we would like to ensure that we've collected as many voices as possible on this and move this to the November 13th agenda. I would just like
to remind everyone that we come back in just about two and a half short weeks. So, um, thank you. >> Uhhuh. Any other questions on this item? or this motion, excuse me. >> Dr. Arian, >> I
>> Mr. Green, >> I >> Dr. Northern I, >> Miss Kilgore, >> I, >> Mr. Monk, >> I >> and chair votes I. Thank you. Okay. Item E, Mr. Gillstrap.
>> Good morning, President Greasie. Superintendent Gullixson and members of the board, I'm coming back to you from our September 1st review. Today will be our final review for um the advisory board um recommendation for new endorsements. We do have 25 new
endorsements that are on the docket for this year. Um I've already presented those to you last month, but I'm open for any questions you might have about this, but we do ask that you approve those today. >> Are there any questions on this item? Before I ask my question,
uh, Mr. Gillstrap, would you provide us a little bit of information about sort of some more alternative options that we have to what we would consider the traditional routes to many of our licensing programs? What are the options that are out there um that are different
than having to go physically sit in a in a classroom? Okay. So, uh, our alternate route programs, which is what we would be referring to, include I teach, which we've discussed here before the board. I Teach takes a, uh, person that already has a bachelor's degree, not necessarily
in the subject area that they wanting to teach, but has also passed the practice exams, um, for that subject area. And then it applies uh instruction through asynchronous learning for the professional practices, the teacher
skills. And then with that program, there's also internship time where you work with a mentor teacher in a school division and you're allowed to work under a provisional, we call it a provisional I teach license because it's slightly different than our other provisional license. Um and then once
you've completed that experience, you're eligible for a full license. Uh, another program we have is the career switcher program. Career switchers in some ways are similar to I teach in the sense that you already have a degree, you've already worked in a field that's outside of education, and you go back and take
professional practices courses through a university and you work as an intern within a school division for a year under a career switcher license. Uh, additionally, there would also be teachers for America. Uh, Teachers for America is a independent program outside
of our state. It's a nationally recognized program in which your experiences as a classroom teacher in a school substitute for some of your um coursework that you would have taken as a teacher uh in teacher preparation programs. Um, those are our three
primary areas that we do that. But an alternate route is simply anything outside of the norm. And so we do also have universities that provide opportunities for teachers to take just the courses that they need to complete their um lensure requirements. They may
have a degree and not go through a formalized alternate program and just take coursework to fill in those gaps and work within a school division for their one year of experience. >> But none of these new endorsement programs are alternative. No, these are
all just subject area endorsements at the university level through our education preparation programs. >> Okay. Are there there any other questions for Mr. Gilstrap here? >> Mr. Monk, >> we've talked about um highquality
teacher prep programs being one of the uh focuses of of how we can move the the ball. um understanding of you know I know the application process but any uh indication of the rigor of some of these
programs to ensure that the quality of teacher prep is there and and continues and can you speak to that a little >> absolutely the the item you have before you right now is a process where the university has to submit their syllabus
their uh how it aligns with our standards um their student teaching activities that they would have to do within these uh areas. And so we do evaluate that. But later today, you'll have a report from us that is the evaluation of all the programs, not just
the new ones. And we do that annually. We also receive a lot of feedback from the universities where they do surveys from employers, from the actual people who graduate and from uh the university to provide information on the quality that the students are shown once they get out into the field. Um we also get
data on how they do on their practice test compared to people that don't go through a university process. So uh those would be the examples that we have on the rigor uh whether or not the programs that we currently have and that's an annual report. Um that information which you'll you'll receive
later today goes into a build- a table for the department of education and that within that build-a- table you can compare across universities and across years to see if uh there's a increase of enrollment increase of graduation increase of employment how the employers
are feeling about um different graduates from different programs. So we get we get the information that way primarily. >> You're welcome. Are there any other questions for Mr. Gilstrap? >> Okay, hearing none, is there a motion to
approve the advisory board on teacher education and lensures recommendation to approve the new education endorsement programs? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Is there any are there any questions on this or are there any comments on the
motion? >> Dr. Arian, >> Mr. Green, >> I. >> Dr. Northern >> I >> Miss Kilgore >> I Mr. Monk >> I >> and chair votes I thank you Mr. Gilstrap Dr. Wallace we have first review of VA
intervention instruction program guides Is she serious? Good morning, President Cesy, Superintendent Gullixson, and members of the board of education. Today, I have with me Annne Eaton. She is the lead reviewer with our esteemed partners at UVA and the Virginia Literacy
Partnerships. Ann and her team of educators spend countless hours reviewing submitted curriculum documents for recommendations for approval to the board. I bring to you this morning the first review of additional supplemental and intervention materials to support
the implementation of the Virginia Literacy Act as embodied by the standard of standards of quality. To support school divisions in meeting this requirement, the VA requires that the Department of Education develop a list of core literacy curricula for students
in K through grade 5 and supplemental and instructional practices programs and interventions for students in kindergarten through grade 8. Intervention programs provide systematic, explicit, evidence-based instruction for students who persistently struggle to master literacy
skills, including phonics and word knowledge, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Supplemental programs for grades K through eight, provide additional practice and/or instruction to supplement the divisions adopted core program. VA requires all divisions to
use core instructional K5 materials, supplemental materials in K8, and intervention programs in K8 that are aligned with science-based reading research as set out in their division's literacy plan. Previously, the board has approved core
literacy curriculum in July and December of 2023 and instructional and supplemental program guides in April of 24, September of 24, and March of 25. These programs were evaluated on the components for which they applied as
well as criteria for the instructional design and usability. The review includes a crosswalk of content aligned to the English standards of learning. You'll find in your attachments one through four the guides that are being recommended for approval.
In the boilerplate on page three, you will see a snip of what the divisions are provided with regarding the alignment to the program components. And so for example uh the first example you see is an intervention example and the program provider name of the program
and recommended use are outlined for the divisions and then you'll see a graphic that describes where the program met the expectations highlighted there by that blue dark circle. The supplemental program example is on page four and
demonstrates a program that meets some criteria but not all criteria in this division. A division who selects to adopt a program such as this will only be able to use the program for that specific criteria for which it met. It is still a recommendation as it meets
the criteria and may provide supplemental services for a gap that that division needs to meet based on their program in the core. So for this program, you can see um on that page four that writing is where it
would be approved for use in the school division and that program would only be approved for writing use not other uses. And so um I have with me Annne Eaton if you have any questions but we are recommending that you uh review receive
this for first review based on the superintendent's recommendation. Are there any questions for um Dr. Wallace or Miss Eden? Dr. Northern. >> Yeah, just a couple quick things. Um
first of all, I was pretty excited to see Chesapeake public schools uh you know, submit their own um I guess curriculum for morphology. I noticed that it said um it's accessible only via Google Drive. So, I just want to make
sure that other divisions had access to it. Um and and I just wanted to hear a little bit of of the story behind this because I don't believe we've seen yet a division submit and that's was kind of exciting to me. >> Yes, it was definitely exciting for us as well. Um other divisions have
submitted but uh Chesapeake is the first to be recommended for use. They have a morphology for grades six through eight supplemental program that is being recommended. Initially it was just for their own use. It was going to be something that was approved in Chesapeake. But when we spoke to them
recently they have put together a pricing guide so that it will be available for use and in if it is approved after that the pricing guide will be available for other divisions to use as well. >> Okay. So the Google drive is after they pay the price and they'll have access to it on the Google Drive.
>> That's correct. Um, and my second quick question I think is I keep hearing across the country that states get a little confused when one curricula gets approved in one state and it doesn't in another state. And so I think just going forward if we could and maybe that's
part of your due diligence already. If you know like okay this has been approved in like 12 other states and not here then or vice versa, right? Um I just think that that should be a flag. Um because I think the curriculum community is starting to get it that
states are getting a little annoyed like you know why is this you know the the publishers are obviously getting annoyed because they don't understand the criteria and presumably we should start having some similarities in these criterias across state if we have a common definition of high quality and I believe we're getting closer to that.
Um, so I guess I just asking for your uh feedback on whether that's one of the criterias that you look into if another state is approved or not and and how you think about that in terms of trying to be consistent across states. >> Sure. So part of our developments when the rubrics were developed um in 2022 is
that we worked with other states. So, our uh rubrics are based on Louisiana and Colorado in particular, but then because we are we live in Virginia and we have the Virginia Standards of Learning, our rubrics are not the same. So, our rubrics in Virginia are aligned
to both the Virginia Literacy Act and to the Virginia Standards of Learning. Uh, one of the big pieces that remains consistent among many of these um, states that are doing similar work to ours is that we are looking at um, science-based reading research and
evidence-based literacy instruction. So, that is a common theme, but I do think that one of the things that you are hearing and seeing is that our rubrics are aligned to Virginia standards of learning. When you look at some other states and how they report out, many of them use Common Core, which we do not.
And so that is also one of those differences. >> There any other questions here? Okay, then we thank you and we will accept this item for first review and see you back in November. >> Thank you very much.
>> Um Okay, that moves us G and H just for >> right for um Oh, I thought it was a written report. >> Okay, Dr. Allins. This is Sorry, I'm just checking to see if our
PowerPoint is right. You guys can see the PowerPoint, correct? >> Okay. >> All right. We'll go ahead and get started. Dr. Murray. >> All right. Good morning, President um Gretky and members of the board and Superintendent Galiski.
Gixon, sorry. >> Okay. Sorry. >> That'd be great. Thank you so much. We're gonna go ahead and get started. If y'all can just follow along with the report, we'll make sure that the slides are up. >> Good morning again. Um, just as an
introduction, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of um 2004 requires states to have an advisory panel. The SEAK advises the Department of Education and the Board of Education. And I want to um state that the majority of our members are individuals with
disabilities or parents. Um and then code 300 167 um states um the Virginia State Special Education Advisory is established in accordance to public law 108446
um under the Individuals of Disability Education Act, the Virginia Conflict of Interest Act um in the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and the requirements governing special education programs for students with disabilities in Virginia. So, our SEAK meets four times a year as
a full committee. Um, we meet quarterly. We met in July of 2024, September of 2024, December of 2024, and then again in March of 2025. We have two executive committee meetings each year. Um, that
are the day before our SEAK meeting. Our subcommittees meet during each session to discuss issues that are going on that we're concerned about. and our meetings are open to the public. We have standing committees. We have the executive committee, the nominating committee, we
have a policy and regulation subcommittee, student achievement and outcomes subcommittee, and a family engagement and community outreach subcommittee. And our members of the SEAK um each serve on one of those subcommittees. During our meetings, we have
presentations and these presentations come from the discussions of the subcommittees. um that drives what we ask to have our pres uh presentations on. So we had our annual pro uh plan review finance meeting. Um we had an onbudsman report. We look at state
indicator data, vocational and educational transition services, project hope, parent educational advocacy and training, our annual report um dis dispute resolutions. We looked at the V Virginia literacy act as well as
fostered care services. this last year. One of the things that our constituents are responsible for is to bring constituency reports to each of our meetings. We all represent a uh various constituents across the state. Some of these concerns that were brought forward
this year was concerns about school safety, staffing shortages, general education teacher reluctance. So really thinking about the general education teachers teaching our students with disabilities and the knowledge that they have in their training programs. Um
bullying concerns, behavioral health resources, high absentee rate um for our students, um language barriers and translation services. We also talk about parents lack of understanding about special education
process and how do we help our parents know more about what to do and then diversifying teacher recruitment um lensure um accredititation concerns um so those are just some of the topics that we've talked about some of the concerns that constituents have across
the state um in our subcommittees we really talked about teacher shortages transition services par profofessional development making sure our pair profession professionals really know how to help our teachers in educating our students. Um, cell phone
accommodations was a big one with the change in cell phone um, usage in schools and how that impacts our students with IEPs. Um, and then local special education advisory committees um, just not all divisions, even though they're all supposed to have special ed um,
committees um, are reflecting or have active um, committees. and that can then impact our students. So a concern for that we talk about our rec recognitions and commendations for people and for the
work that has been happening. One of the thing those is our recognition of our members who have served on our board. Um we really commend the department of education and the board for their support. We really thank you for that ongoing support. Um updating eligibility
documents and making them familyfriendly. We really want our resources to be familyfriendly. Um, and that's a really big concern, you know, concern and consideration that we want to make sure that is happening for um, that partnership, that true partnership to happen between um, professionals and
families. And then we talk about partnerships and initiatives. And there's lots of numerous partnerships and initiatives that are supported by um, the board and VDOE. We want to thank you for that. And some of those include our grow your own programs where we're really working to have pair professionals obtain their associate or
their bachelor's degree so that they can go on become teachers um because we believe that they're going to stay in the divisions where they are located. Um the continued use of gov delivery in order to get information out um we have this you guys support the aspiring
special education leaders um academy and that's a great thing. One of the initiatives that's uh or opportunities that's out there that we are really excited about is a new I'm determined center that's housed at JMU and then just the ongoing partnerships that are out there between um us and the board
and the department of ed with CEC center for family engagement, the autism center for excellence. Again, we're about wanting to help our students and improve their outcomes. Um each of our subcommittees came up with some recommendations. One of those is regarding teachers. We looked at like
some themes for you all in thinking about standardizing teacher pay. We're seeing a lot of teachers jump from division division because they get signing bonuses and that's not helping um the divisions where teachers are leaving. So that was one of the considerations that we had. The other
was a special education pay scale that would be differentiated again for the work and recognizing the work our special educators do to improve the outcomes for our students with disabilities. um expanding professional development for educators and then
streamlining lensure processes. It seems like lensure is taking a long time to happen um and recognizing that. So just some streamlining of that process. Um recommendations for student and parents um gathering classroom age data. Um the
age range of students in self-contained classrooms sometimes can be large and we would just want to ensure that our students are getting the best opportunities and the best education they can and they're being served appropriately. One of the things we've really talked about is adding a QR code to Virginia IEP at the end for parents
to understand about the state CK um so that they can get involved and their voice can be heard. Um along with that is updating the VDOE website to make it easier for parents to find information about the SEAK. If you search SEAK, it doesn't come up um easily. And so make
we making it easier for our parents. We want them to be able to get engaged. Um providing um transition reports uh sorry having in uh transition school representatives involved in our IEPs is really important. We really need to talk
about those transition services for our students. So we make sure that we are implementing things that they need moving forward. And then improving um progress monitoring reporting. We want the progress monitoring to be more meaningful. Right now um the progress monitoring for our students with
disabilities says sufficient progress and there's really no quantifiable measure on that can be very subjective. So having it more meaningful um like we do for our general education students with measured percentages. Um, in conclusion,
um, students with disabilities need to be prioritized. The SEAK recommendations are guides to the board of education and we encourage public participation and transparency. And I just wanted to take a moment um, the SEAK at our last meeting talked a
lot about the cut score. So, we appreciate the time um that you're taking to listen to stakeholders input um on that um as we think about our students with disabilities with those raise cut scores. Thank you. Any questions? >> Are there any questions here? Dr.
Northern and then Dr. Ari >> or vice versa? >> Yeah, either way. Um you mentioned that the local special education committees are aren't meeting on a regular basis, but I'm not quite sure I saw that in the recommendations. Is there a recommendation on I don't know if that could tie into some of the accreditation
talk that we're having. Um or >> Sure. Thank you so much Dr. Aman. I really appreciate Dr. Murray's presentation. You heard her note that one of the concerns of the state CAK has been helping to support local CAKs. And so in partnership with the state special education advisory committee, we've also
instituted some professional development and technical assistance to school divisions including an online ondemand course for local CX and we also have staff boots on the ground that are available to train on site u for those committees to come together. So I think the biggest thing is just an increased
focus and communication of that need um to school division leadership in particular and keeping u maintaining the resources of the department to help support that. >> Okay, great. I just want to jump in and say I think just making sure we get that information to parents. I think that that's sort of
sometimes this the gap we created um postcards in our division um to give out at IEP meetings and I asked a parent who came one time and they're like, "Oh, we just got this." And I'm like, "You just got this?" And the child had been involved in special education, but it was like three years after we had done
the postcard. So really just making sure everybody's talking and telling parents about the importance of them being involved in their local CX. >> Okay. Yeah. And I think as we talk about accreditation, maybe there's some some things we can do here to help. But I also want to and and this isn't really a question. It's it's just to give more
support on that provisional license issue. I'm not even sure, you know, this I'm probably should have raised this to y'all, not necessarily right now, but that issue is so critical for some programs and schools that it actually can hold student receiving services. So
um I know for example in some of the private day type facilities you have to have a certain amount of teachers that are licensed to accept new students. So as we have submitted provisional paperwork and it can take three sometimes three to six months to get that back we can have students
waiting waiting for services for 3 to six months. So if there's something we can do to kind of elevate provisional license, I mean not that all lure is important but but to elevate it above uh the standard license that are maybe coming from colleges and they might not even have the jobs yet but elevate those
teachers that are in the classroom waiting for those license um I think could be something to consider. But to streamline that process um is is critically important I think for our field. >> Absolutely. And the state CACK has heard a lot of comments on that. We also have
a private school provider who sits on the state advisory committee. So you've heard superintendent Gullixson talk quite passionately about updating the technology and infrastructure at the department to support that. But we also stand ready in the department of special ed and special populations to help support our private school providers and
streamline those candidates for lensure as well. >> That's all I had for now. I might have more after your comments. Back to northern. Um, so I am all about this second recommendation from the teachers about special education pay scale having
that differentiated. I think that a lot of folks understand that um offering higher pay in high need schools or with teachers who are uh teaching our students with disabilities, you know, those can be tough jobs. Um, so I'm wondering if there is a division across
the state that may be an exemplar that's already doing this, that's doing it really well. I mean, these are the types of policies and practices we like to hold up and say, "Okay, what can you learn about this? Do you see an impact relative to your retention or recruitment of highquality um special
education teachers?" >> Dr. Northern, great question. The state also has a representative of a local superintendent and special ed director um currently that the special ed director is from Stafford County and Bouch and they they do have some great examples. There are regional folks who are working to pull together. You heard
Dr. Marie mentioned the um grow your own projects and programs across the state. So it's part of our job at those regional sped directors meetings to make sure that those connections are being made and those practices that are really helping to improve hiring and recruitment and retention can be shared and mirrored across local school
divisions particularly on a regional basis. >> Okay. Yeah. I mean if there's a particular one I know sometimes we hear from divisions we know and we want to hear what good things are happening across the state. um if we've you know got a particular division that that uh warrants uh coming to us and telling us
how they got that done and how it's been working uh that'd be great. So thank you. >> Other comments or questions here? So, one of the things that I would like to add is maybe some more understanding
of um who can be participants in both the state and the local SEAK committees because I do think that I mean I've seen my own divisions SEAK application that's
gone out and it is very specific that you must either be a teacher in the division or a parent with spe a child with special education needs. While I think that's important and those are the
populations that we are serving and teachers certainly need to be in involved, I do think that we need to start taking a bigger broader look from a community aspect at that. Um, you know, I I think community members being
able to be a part of that committee to um it just brings a different perspective perhaps and and oftentimes maybe that community member is a parent of a former special education student in
that division. um and and maybe some broader understand. There's been quite a bit of constrnation in my local school division over um particularly how those SEAK members are chosen specifically by
one central office employee and so I think there needs to be a little bit better communication. So maybe something about that that you all can can be the liaison for would really be helpful. Um I don't know if you want to speak to that now or but but I just I did want to
bring that to your attention because there's quite a bit of constrnation in my school division about that. >> Yeah, I think that's great feedback and I'll let Dr. Murray weigh in, but something that you know under her leadership of the state CK, we've also enlarged our participants on the state committee to include military connected families. You heard me mention private
providers, higher ed faculty members obviously with Dr. Murray herself. So we see the importance of that at the state level. So I think it'd be a great topic for us to take back to the group to discuss further as well. >> Yeah. And I would um just want to echo that I you know agree like more involvement in my local SEAK. I sit on
it as a higher ed representative as well at the local level. Um and we have individuals from some of our community agencies who are part of that. So I think it really depends on the local area. But again, keeping that uh word the uh messaging out there, right? So that people understand that it's not
just parents and teachers. The primary people do need to be our parents as we're representing them. But again, getting that input from other agencies that support our students. >> Yeah. And I do think it's important for the community to be a part of it also because they they will likely be
employing those students. And so that understanding and that collaboration is really of highest priority. So thank you. I appreciate that. >> Thank you. >> Are there any other comments here? >> Okay. Thank you all so much for being a
part of the meeting today. Um and then Mr. Gilstra, are you coming back up for us? Hello again. Um I did mention this report in my previous presentation. Uh just to clarify a few things about it. Uh there are uh in your in your uh
boilerplate you have a list of the types of information that is asked. It's a it's a long list. I won't read the list to you. You don't need me to do that. Um, and we also did have 100% of our EPS complete and participate in this process, which is not always the case.
Uh, but we did a were able to get 100% participation. Um, once this is received, uh, by the board, it'll go into our build a table. All the data that you see in the actual report will go into the builder table for anyone to search and manipulate however they would
like to view the information. Does anybody have questions for Mr. Gilstrap on this report? >> I do have some kind of um historical questions to ask because I think it's important despite the fact that we do
have all of these pieces that institutions of higher education have to respond to as far as their EPS. I I really would like to see trend data. Um if if we can do that where you know if a
particular EP you know five years ago had a higher um a higher um enrollment in that particular you know if we do K5 61 12
whatever in those endorsement areas I'd really like to see what that kind of trend data is looking like because I' I'd like to be able to have the board compare, you know, are we seeing a real movement away from the typical EP in,
you know, with the higher rates of provisional licenses that we're seeing, you know, is it where in in other words, are we are we getting students who may be going through an undergraduate program in something totally different
than an educator prep program and then deciding once they've graduated that they want to grab on to a provisional and go down the education route and in that case it may be cheaper or easier for them to get their lensure in via
that route. So I think some of that trend data traditional versus alternate pathway >> share a little of that with you verbally right now of course depending on how extensive you would like to go I could present that to you whenever you would like. Um I will say that it does say in
the report that we are 4% down in EPS than we were the prior year. I will also say that that is the trend across all colleges in all so in in all degree areas. It's not just uh education. But uh even if you were to go back to the Jark report a couple years ago, it did
report some of that data from uh I think it was at least 5 to 10 years before where they showed the trend of education preparation programs had a peak and then they started to come down and that coming down corresponded directly with the increase in provisional licenses and
increase enrollment in alternative programs. Uh if you were to ask me what do I think the reason for a 4% decrease beyond possibly just the general trend of people not going to college as they used to would I would say the um the
alternative route just for example we have anywhere between a thousand and 2,000 people coming through the I teach program which they would not necessarily go through an education preparation program and they they would have in the past they would have maybe had a degree in something else and then decided they wanted to be a teacher and they would
have gone back to college, got either a second degree or completed that. So, I would say that a lot of the trend is that way and we will probably see that trend continue just because that is more cost-effective for those that are attending and it's a career switching opportunity.
Yeah, I I think I would be really interested in um you know given those trends, how are how are we as a board um communicating with >> Abtel
>> that this is not, you know, 20 years ago >> educator prep program process >> that we really need to start thinking differently about the programs that we are approving or that Abtel is sending to the board. >> Um, and so I think that's a message that
we certainly need to make sure that we're communicating to them strongly from from this angle. >> President Gre, I I spoke to the um directors of education preparation programs earlier this year. And in that in that address I had to them, one of the things I made a suggestion to them
was that they learn from the models of the alternate programs that they have the ability and probably the ability to produce even higher levels of graduates through an alternate pathway if they were to go ahead and commit to that with the program that they already have. Well, I would argue that this this trend
is very similar to what we saw, you know, 25 years ago when we started seeing satellite major university programs in educator um well in licensing in general um preparation programs. So, not full ed prep programs,
but this may be that new wave. Um Dr. Northern. Yeah, I I think I'd um I I would appreciate like a presentation I think with some slides on exactly what they're reporting as I as I look through the 77
pages here. Um I do think that um what I care most about are what our teacher candidates are being taught, right? And so I know that NCTQ does a report on, you know, how what are our candidates who are going to teach elementary reading being taught? Are they actually
being taught the science of reading? Um, and similarly, I want to know that our teacher candidates are being taught to the standards of learning if they plan to stay in Virginia and and are they being prepared to teach to this higher quality of standards because we know that, you know, we've we've upped the
ante um in our expectations. So, um I don't know what that would look like, you know, whether it would look like an, um, you know, additional conversation with these folks, uh, with our teacher educator preparation programs, if it would look like, you know, them providing us with information assurance that they are actually teaching the
science of reading um, and are teaching to the Virginia standards of learning. >> We we do gather that information. That is part of what we do every year with uh, we have a cycle of evaluation of universities. Uh, Dr. Torbert, my director of teacher education. That's
what she does. She does the standards checking. She works with our instructional teams to make sure that the instruction that they provide, whether it's they provide it to us through their syllabus, course descriptions, actual observations, tape visits also provide some of that information. But we do have all that
information. Um, and and we can provide it to you in a report if that's where you'd like or a presentation whether or not, >> however you would like it. I would like to invite her to join me with that since she is the boots on the on the on the field. But uh I was with
>> Yeah. No, I'd welcome it. I think it's a conversation we're having all across the country, you know, that to to the president's point, you know, how do we better prepare um because we're in such a you know, a dire pace place in education. And so I do think that teacher education programs need to step
up and do things differently than they've done in the past. So to hear about our efforts uh in that way would be helpful to me. >> I will say Dr. Northern I'm sitting on Abtel now. >> Oh wow. >> Um and so one of the conversations in my first meeting was about a program that
the committee was not certain was aligned fully yet with the Virginia Literacy Act. And so there was a lot of conversations around that. Um I'm certain that that sense has rectified itself. Um, however, I I I'd like to
respond to your second part. I've always thought, why do we have I mean, we have law schools in the Commonwealth of Virginia and they teach Virginia law, right? We are educator prep programs in
the Commonwealth of Virginia. We should be teaching how you teach what you teach for Virginia specifically, right? I'm not saying we're teaching to, you know, teaching teachers to to go in a classroom and teach to a test, but there are things in Virginia, much like if you
go to South Carolina or New Jersey or California or wherever, that they want for their teachers to know to be able to impart on the students in their classrooms. And so I do think that you know we have to take a different approach to education particularly in
the traditional programs where we are saying you know we this is a full educator prep program. We're giving you pedagogical content. We are giving you um your curriculum type content all of those things. And we're teaching you how
to do to be a teacher in Virginia. Um, and you know, it's got to go and get a license in a different state. Once you get your license here in Virginia because you've graduated from educator prep program here and you move to a different state, will you have to apply to be get to get that license in a
different state? So, I don't I think that's another thing that we should probably take back and talk very very significantly about at the ABTEL meeting. >> Madame President, >> um, Dr. Hackerman. >> Um I'm just curious because I um do the alternative programs have these same
requirements of making sure the teachers are teaching to the SOS or that they're cape accredited or because I think that's been some of the in my background in higher ed some of that bit of attention, right? Like they don't have the same standards that we're required to meet. So it makes it harder then to
offer those alternative type pathways. So I don't know if you can speak to that now or >> I I can say something. Yeah, I don't know if I can answer it fully. I I will say that both alternative programs and education preparation programs are required to prepare the students based
on Virginia standards. Yeah, that is a requirement. That is what we measured them on. And and we've even had discussions where is it okay to do student teaching in another state if you're going to teach in Virginia? And and we have decided that that is okay as long as we are still basing everything
on our Virginia standards. So for the alternative programs, one thing you need to make sure you keep in mind is the name alternative program means that we are doing something different than what we would do in an education preparation program. We just want to make sure that that difference isn't a detriment to our
students. So there are other things that they would maybe have to do to substitute for those things. So let's say that they maybe they only do 10 weeks of student teaching in an education preparation program, but they're getting a whole lot of other things through the program. A lot of these alternative programs go a full
year of student teaching. So there's a compensation for some of the changes and those that full year is within a Virginia school. So they're al obviously exposed to Virginia standards, Virginia assessments, things like that. >> And I fully support that. I mean, especially in the field of special ed where there's so many shortage that
alternative, but it's just I know that's some of the barriers that higher ed prep has to trying to come up with alternative ideas is that they have kind of another set of standards. Um, so, uh, this is really good, helpful information. I appreciate it. Yeah. And there's some neat partnerships. I I want
to second what Dr. Northern said earlier, uh, about some of these special ed partnerships because this is when these two silos come together. Um, where I know they're doing some really neat community college partnerships for the paras. >> Um, so it' be neat to kind of hear a presentation, I think, on some of that
really innovative stuff that's happening out there. >> Mr. Green, did you have a comment? >> Okay. Mr. Monk, >> I guess two questions. One, self-reported, correct? Um because I, you know, looking through like Dr.
Northern looking at 77 pages. Some I'm assuming are doing some elaborate surveys with employers and and graduates. Others um appear maybe not so much to be doing that. It maybe seems to be more anecdotal.
What is what is the institution required to do with this information or is it just uh sumitative and >> well number one they had to present it with this report. So that's one thing they had to do. They also include that information in their cycle reviews that
they do every seven years. Right now uh EPS are on a once every seven years to decide whether or not they maintain their accreditation with the board of education. And so that is information per year and over the course of the seven years that they include with their
report. And that's also part of their cape visit. So when they maintain their cape accreditation, they also have to provide that type of information. And some of the ones where you're seeing maybe there's not as much data there. It could also be in programs that are very small and so their data set is probably
fairly small where those that have huge data sets maybe have a much more uh vast amount of information to pull on. And if I may just a follow up to that um you know some of them again everyone is the response is a little bit different based upon the narrative there but you
know I'm seeing some that say 16 20% of teachers are somewhat ready >> when you go in or when the entities go in to do those reviews um what type of um additional or changes are made to
kind of follow up on that because I think when we look at from a state perspect perspective maybe 15% of a cohort that's a few folks but when you multiply that across all PPS >> you know we've got a challenge then of are those folks in the workforce that aren't really prepared to be in the
workforce and so I know that this isn't really our purview but we want to make sure there's some this data is used in some way to further um enhance the >> it be okay if that is something we include in our >> Yeah and further on that I I I'd really
like to touch on I guess really the how we are verifying the quality of clinical placements. So our student teacher >> our student teaching
>> time is a semester long enough. >> I mean let's I I I do think that needs evaluation. >> Sure. Um and um it it I guess I we need to we need to look at what the quality
how we are verifying quality of a student teaching placement. >> Um I mean you hear stories from all over the state that people's experiences are vastly different one from another. that might have to do with the the the
quality of you know the cooperating teacher or what the placement is. Um but I do think that placements need to be evaluated and how we are how we are inter able to to gather the information about the quality of student teaching
placements. Um, so maybe add to that that we really do need some some strong information about because honestly we we are not doing a service at the state level by requiring student teaching for lensure
>> if it is not a quality and b truly preparing those students to go into that particular workforce. So uh Dr. Northern Sorry. Clearly, this has struck a chord on the board because I think all of us recognize the importance
of our teacher preparation programs and um you know in making sure our teachers are just high quality and prepared. I'll add another PS uh thinking back my own teacher prep many many years ago. Um and others may have similar stories. I mean, I wasn't taught how to, you know, uh
hold high expectations in a classroom. So, I have no idea what that meant. Um so grading assignments like how do you figure out like is this a b c d work? Um how do you um you know maintain a gradebook? How do you keep classroom management like because teachers have a
really hard time with classroom management the first year I wasn't taught the first thing about classroom management. So there's so many sort of um just nuts and bolts thing. It's yes we need to know that they know how to teach and then they need their content um you know expertise. They need to be teaching to Virginia standards. Um, but
it's also those nuts and bolts things that you really need as a teacher. So, I guess just for all of us to find out a little bit more about what our our teacher prep programs are doing. Um, and to really be able to have an opportunity to give some feedback there um because we know it's it's not an easy an easy
job. >> I mean, I really do think that we have to be looking at um student teaching in particular. I mean, I second your comments like there were so many things that you know, you either sink or swim
>> is is kind of how they tell you when you come into your first first teaching job. And we we have a wonderful >> CTE pathways program of apprenticeships and all of the things that we have set
up in that world. Those things have to mesh. Like the things that we're learning from how we are preparing kids in high schools to be able to go into the workforce. That's absolutely what we need to learn from in preparation for a
teacher to be leaving, you know, the confines of higher education and going into the workforce. I mean, one of the positives to to career switchers is that they've been in the workforce and they sort of know what workforce expectations
generally are, but nine times out of 10, we're taking kids out of EPS and they're going straight into a into their first real job as a teacher and they're not getting the same kind of supports and understanding of, you know, the real
adult workforce at the time. So I I just think that there's a different different direction that we have to take to to get um the the preparation. The the word's got to be stronger than
preparation um in order to ensure that that our students coming out of EPS feel confident in going into a classroom themselves. I wanted to add and we we had this discussion at lunch yesterday kind of on the side about about entering
the workforce and and how significant it was to not only have the hard skills but have the soft skills. And that's exactly what we're talking about with with education for teachers because while it's vitally important that they have the hard skills of what of the knowledge of what they're going to be teaching students,
>> the communication skills and all the soft skills that go with that are equally important. And I I do think looking back many moons ago, as you were alluding to, although mine's further than yours, um you know, you weren't really taught those skills.
>> You either had them naturally or you learn to develop them, but all those are equally important in the classroom. So that goes hand in hand what we were saying yesterday, >> Dr. Acriman. >> Thank you, sir. I'm like, I actually used to be on the accreditation teams for Cape and Kate. So, but those are
still required. Correct. Cape does require field experiences beginning in the freshman year. So I mean from freshman to senior they're getting a lot of experiences and I've been on a lot of committees about a full year of student teaching and that if if we ever do want to consider that which I again I've been
on some really neat conversations and see the benefit of it with the teacher shortages and the decline in people choosing that as a major. It'd be really interesting for the board to couple that with some why choose a degree in education type um
campaign. Thank you. I couldn't think of the word. Um and they did that. I think the board the the department of education did something about 20 years 20 years ago like become one. I don't know if y'all remember that around here. Um but they did a big campaign to choose education. So I think if we're going to look at the standards and kind of add
some things, we might want to do a big campaign around be a teacher and a year internship. So maybe we need some definition too around what what those programs that are Cape accredited what what they are able to
use as field experiences >> because I think that might be really super broad and I know for me my program required me to have 15 hours clinical placement in a classroom per education
course I took beginning day one, my very first one, which that was enormously helpful for me going into my student teaching. >> Um, you know, that may be something we want to look at discussing. I don't know. I just do think that it with all
of the demands, particularly, you know, a lot of our teachers talk about just the technology demands and everything else on top of the daily building of lesson plans and and teaching your content. all of the peripheral things that go to your job. Um, we really do
need to give them give our students who are even entering an EP the full view because I'd also like to see data of of students who enter an an educator prep program and don't finish
>> because, you know, maybe they get into their student teaching and get hit with a big brick wall going, "Ah, I didn't sign up for this." I don't know. I but that's data that I think would be helpful for the board as well. >> I think placement is I think placement
can make or break yeah >> that student teachers experience as as you're saying and >> if it's not a good experience they may walk away from education. >> So and I know we don't have a magic wand to create that but and I'm sure a lot of thought has already been put into it but
that is very true >> Mr. monk >> and and we know that geography plays an impact in that placement and so sometimes maybe there isn't as much uh put into that just because hey I'm near an institution of of higher ed I get
these folks every year um you know student geog all of that plays in but then the quality I would agree president cries I think that varies based upon um the ep program >> anything else here
Superintendent Gixson. >> Thank you, President Casey. I just want to acknowledge uh the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia's great work on their institutional backpacks. Um we have really tightened up our relationship. We meet in partnership
with the agency heads of uh the Virginia Community College system, um executive director Fleming, uh and then also the heads of the workforce agencies every other week. And so, um, this conversation is very timely because
they've put out some great stats on our four-year institutions across, um, program alignment, performance, retention, and so being able to bring this information back to them that we'd like to see and make sure it's very clear on our teacher prep programs, but
also our principal um, and superintendent prep program pathways as well is part of that data collection because they've really been moving towards that um ease for families and aspiring students to make sure that they
can see what is the ROI if I go a certain pathway or program at each of our public higher ed institutions. And so uh very timely and excited to help see how we can further illuminate in their existing um fact packs on ways that would make it easier for the board
to navigate as well through our already existing uhou partnership. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Gillstrap. Sorry. Sorry we uh added to your workload, but I think it'll be fun and enlightening. >> Work I like.
>> Good. Good. Good. Good. >> Okay, Mr. Jennings, you're up. Thank you for your flexibility from yesterday afternoon to today. We appreciate it. Same for Miss Velasquez who will come behind you. Appreciate it.
>> So, good morning, President Casey, Superintendent Gullixson, and board members. Uh, today I'm going to be sharing an overview of some of the potential changes to the Virginia's consolidated state plan. I will be using the presentation from that was posted to yesterday's work session. I'm going to note which slides I'm on and present and
pause as needed and take any questions. So, my name is Mark Jennings. I am the uh newly assistant superintendent, very proud of that, of accountability, assessment, and best practices. And so, uh with that, I bring sort of multiple offices and experiences to you today. Uh and so on slide two, our outline for
this presentation. I'm going to give you a background of the Every Student Succeeds Act. Uh we're going to talk about the purpose of seeking an amendment uh the overview of proposed revisions at this time and then the process and timeline for amendment nine. So this is amendment nine of our
consolidated state plan. So moving on to the next couple slides there. Slide four. Uh the background you have is the elementary and secondary education act of 1965 uh known as ESEA. It is the primary federal legislation
that governs division and school accountability and established the federal government's expanded role in public education. And since then, it's had multiple uh revisions or reauthorizations. And the latest was in 2015, the Every Student Succeeds Act known as ESSA. And that was signed again
uh bipartisan actu December 10th, 2015. And so on the next slide there you see an image of our Virginia's consolidated state plan and the number of amendments. States go through amendments as needed uh based on uh well and as you see actually at the top there the goal of
this plan is to simplify the application process. This was something that USCD received feedback from multiple states saying please uh make this process easier as you collect information on title one, title two, title three, title four, title five and title seven. And so
that's what you get in this plan. And so you make amendments based on the different titles, based on, you know, revisions to perhaps title one or title two just as needed. But as far as accountability goes, our work is very much embedded in this. This is how we uh satisfy requirements under ESSA. It's
meant to be to provide the public with quality, transparent information about how Virginia will meet the requirements of ESSA. And so for us this year, we're very proud to say we have a cohesive accountability system. uh since you know ESSA passed we had we were following the
law but we also had a state system and school systems were doing paperwork under both data collection under both reporting under both funding under both and so now with this cohesive system this plan really explains how Virginia's meeting ESSA uh and doing uh what the
law requires but also bring in extra measures the state would like to have so as we talk through accountability you'll see the bullets there on that slide we talk about what is a small group size you know what is Virginia's long-term goals in reading and mathematics and graduation. Uh we have all of our
indicators that we talk about here. Federal language uses annual meaningful differentiation. Some of this was carried over from No Child Left Behind. Uh you have the identification of schools. That's nationwide. Under this, we talk about 95% participation. Federal
law requires that each school have a minimum of 95% participation of students taking the assessment. And then we talk about and uh deputy superintendent Booker Dwire I think one of her many passions is about that school improvement p piece division improvement
uh how are we looking for schools to exit what sustainability they don't just exit but they continue showing progress so all of that is wrapped in this plan uh to meet the requirements but also gives the state flexibility and so we look to see you know the allowances that
we have uh and the recent flexibilities from the from USCD uh and so that's what you see in this plan. It is a very transparent public process. On the next slide, you'll see the indicators. So, ESSA requires that a state system have minimum indicators.
The first one's in academic achievement. We do have to report in these areas in reading, math, and science. Uh, which we do. Uh, number two is this is the wording from federal, but other academic indicators for elementary and secondary schools that are not high schools. And so what they're trying to get there too is you have a school that does not have
a graduating class, you need another academic indicator. And like many many states, Virginia chose academic growth. Uh most states that's what they chose. You could have chosen something differently, but Virginia chose academic growth and we'll continue to use that. Number three is uh graduation rates. We
do have to use a four-year adjusted cohort. Adjusted there means we're looking for students based on when they entered their high school. So that's the adjustment we're talking about. And if students leave you and go to another high school, then they wouldn't be captured in your graduation. But it has to be four years. It is based on
approved diplomas, which in Virginia are the standard and advanced. Again, the IB would be considered advanced there. Number four is we're looking at progress in achieving English language proficiency. So these are students who have been identified as English language learners. We're looking to see how much they're progressing year-over-year. We
in Virginia do that K through 12. Uh so we're looking across the entire K through2 spectrum to see how students are are progressing in their English language. And number five, uh, states are required to select another indicator or indicators. And Virginia, as you see,
these are the ones we have. Chronic absenteeism, like many states, we use that advanced coursework. We introduced last year at the middle school with mathematics. 3E readiness. Many states have some sort of post-secary. I will again highlight for you. I do presented
uh to multiple states. Uh, Virginia is a leader in this 3E work. We continue to get questions around this and they're looking to see how we're doing our 3E indicator. And then we brought in six-year federal graduation indicator with applied studies. So we're looking now at students who do not graduate in
four years, the additional two years, and then we bring in the applied studies diploma for our students with special needs. So in our next slide, slide seven, you know, why why make any changes to our plan? We've made revisions in the past. We've made these amendments. Why would we need to do this again? Well, when we
brought to the board previously the school performance and support framework, we did uh the board made notes of uh items for year two and beyond, they made notes of, you know, this is where we are now. We're going to adopt this, but we'd like to continue to have conversations. So, that is in the spirit of why to bring this amendment.
Number two is when we wrote our amendment uh seven to the consolidated state plan, we did tell the department of education that we would bring an amendment based on data from this first year that we needed to get baseline data and we would use that to uh do exit
criteria and some other measures. And so we knew this amendment was going to happen. And then thirdly, as we've continued to engage with stakeholders, we've received feedback. You know, it's the first year of uh full implementation uh after modeling. And so we want to take that feedback from our stakeholders
and, you know, be mindful of that and bring that to the board for consideration about these potential uh revisions. And so I'm going to list these for you. This today is meant to be a broad overview. Uh this is not even a first review. Um and you'll see on my last slide sort of next steps. So we're just
the goal today is just to be transparent to the public, share what the department's looking at, start doing more stakeholder engagement, bring this into the conversations that we're having. uh just so when we do come back to the board, I can bring you some more public comments and just continue for the first and final review stages. And
so the first uh proposed change we're going to look at is some calculation methodology that participation rate. There's some requirements if your school is below 95%, we're going to look at some of the requirements with that and uh really work to reduce the the requirements on schools and focus more
on support than compliance. Secondly, uh we have three performance levels at the high school or the end of course. We're going to look to adjust those calculations versus the elementary and middle schools with four performance levels. Number two, we do need a a growth metric. Uh we've used value added
uh this past year and we've discontinued that. Previously, we used what's called in the literature value tables or progress tables and you heard about that yesterday from our technical advisory council. Uh that was their recommendation to return to that for consistency. Uh and so I'll bring that
those models to you and sort of what the data shows for your conversation. We've already been engaging with the public on that and asking their input. Uh and so again, we bring that today for conversation. Number three, advanced coursework. So we signaled this in the past. We began with
mathematics and we want to bring uh some other proposals to the board uh about you know what other courses might be used at the middle school for students who are ready and then when to begin those courses. As we understand bringing high school courses will require changes in scheduling uh you know access some
other concerns and so when do you begin those so you can uh sequence properly. Number four we're looking at a new indicator in history social science uh we talked in the past about whether it's elementary middle high school two of the three all of the three sort of some feedback on that and and where those
assessments might fit. Number five on the next slide nine. Uh you heard about this yesterday. We've been doing the integrated reading and writing component. Uh it was introduced in 2023 became optional or operational
in 24 and 25. And we need to uh finish with some standard setting. What we would propose here is that in grades five and eight, it would be part of a readiness indicator. Uh and so we'll bring the percentages to you, but students are required to take this now.
um it's it's being you know they've received some information on it but they would uh now receive a score and then that score would be used in the readiness indicator for elementary and middle schools. Number six, uh there's been some conversation already but we would just again open the conversation on three
readiness. Um there all three are listed there. It doesn't mean we're changing all three just you know for the public. We're not bringing all you know all those pieces up but just looking having conversation because the goal was to balance the three of them. And so the board has signaled before it wants to have a conversation on JROTC. Many
divisions have asked us to talk about that and how that might fit in enlistment. And so we'll we'll speak specifically to that. Uh but if there's any other items on enrollment or employment, the board would want to consider. I will share we had a stakeholder group uh very uh very excited about their work uh working with
uh around employment for students with special needs. It was something we heard around uh programs that help students with special needs get into uh to be career ready and to get into programs. And so we had a committee over the summer meet and do some work. And so I'm excited to bring that to the board. Have some colleagues who did that bring that.
And something uh we'd like to share sort of the definition of those programs and the criteria and and have the board take a look at that. Number seven, English language proficiency. Uh there's a new assessment. Uh it's called the WEDA alternate access. These are for students who are duly identified, both special
needs and English language learners. And so they we need an exit criteria for this new assessment and progress levels. How do you measure that? Because these students are duly identified. Number eight is one that we've gotten quite a bit of positive feedback on. And as you look at these items, you know, the question will be these are good ideas.
When do you do this? I will tell you what I've heard for number eight is now. They the public again has been pretty uh pretty clear. They like to move on this one pretty quickly. Uh and so this is talking about our students who have recently arrived. Uh they've been in a US school uh fewer than 12 months. And
currently Virginia, like most states, does exception A. And I'll give you the details on this uh the next presentation, but the proposal is to go to exception B. And what that does is allow an extra year to measure growth for these students. And so number nine, again going back, this was one that we
needed data, but we need to determine how do our comprehensive support and improvement schools. Comprehensive means the entire school has been identified. How do they exit? What what do we measure as uh sufficient exit criteria for these schools? How do they what does progress look like? And so with our data
from the framework, we need to determine that. And then for our additional targeted support and improvement schools, the same with our data, what do we look at to be these are student groups that are severely underperforming. What does enough progress look like to exit for these schools? What does sustainability look
like? And then 10, 11, and 12, you see on slide 10 there. These get into the work of school improvement. And so, as you see the note there, school improvement is not a one-sizefits-all approach. And so, we want to look at some revisions to use data informed strategies, uh, looking at the context
of the school that leverages the full breadth of opportunity in Virginia, such as seat time flexibility, multi-divisional online providers, extended school year, and the innovative approaches to instructional delivery or school governance. And so looking at all of those and thinking about what more rigorous interventions means, what does
resource allocation review mean, what does technical assistance mean. So this is a nice time when you open up your amendment to look at it holistically and address those items. And on my final slide there, slide 11, our next step. So today's timeline was just to again continue this conversation. We've been doing
stakeholder engagement. We will continue uh we actually meet with the uh superintendent association on Monday and we'll have this conversation with them and get their feedback on some of these changes. Uh we'll continue with superintendent regional meetings. We're scheduled for conferences. We meet with organizations. Uh we have advisory
groups to the department that represent all eight regions and so they give us input on these. Uh open public comment will open by November 7th and they'll see a draft of the plan and provide some feedback. Uh that will be announced in the Virginia Education Update and it'll be on the DOE website. We'll come back
to the board November 13th to bring you a first review of the plan and proposed changes for conversation. And then we're looking for final review at this time December 11th. And then from there we submit to uh USCD uh for their approval and go through any sort of changes uh
that they request. >> Are there any questions or comments for Mr. Jennings? No, Dr. Northern, you're good. >> Okay. I mean, when you come back to us, will you have suggestions for all 12 of these? >> Yes. >> Yeah. Okay.
>> We'll give you we'll give you specifics based on the feedback from the field as we start these conversations. We'll have data for you to look at some modeling what it means and then take your conversations and that's why it's a first review and it'll still be out for public comment. We'll bring more public comment back to you. But that's why we want to come today just to put again out
there through as people think about and and I think for these the biggest concern we're going to hear is what time and for some of these it's very clear we're not saying 2526 but others they're asking please do it for this school year even though the school year started there are others are saying we would like it for this year. So we'll bring those suggestions to you about what the
field would say when to start these actions. >> I mean I think just for me I will definitely want to hear a little bit more about what our tech um thinks about value added versus student growth percentiles. Um, I mean I I feel like they're pros and cons of each. Um, so thank you for that additional
information. >> We'll do >> other questions, comments. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Jennings. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Question for the board. Do we want to take a five minute break now or push through Jay and then we'll break for
lunch? >> Okay. Um Okay. That would be you, Miss Velasquez. So, sorry that you are last again, >> but not after lunch. >> But not after lunch. So, So, still morning. Good morning,
President Cesy, members of the board, Superintendent Gullixson. I'm happy to be back with you to talk about my favorite topic of the SOQ, the fundamental foundation of public education in the Commonwealth. So, very important. So, you have the um presentation was the last presentation
on the agenda yesterday. So, I'll be going through those slides. Um, and of course, the first slide on page two is the um the slides that we build off of every um month on this presentation that outlines your statutory um references in
the SOQ should you need to consult them. So, on slide three, you know, at our last month's meeting, we rece I received some feedback from you about topics that you may want to discuss. So I did some research on many of them and tried to lay out for you what your options are
with those suggestions that you made. So the first item was a student safety issue related to background checks for um faculty and staff in public school divisions. So you know I know that it's the boring stuff that I love, but I laid
out for you the foundation statutes that are in the code of Virginia currently related to background checks. background checks are currently not in the SOQ. So moving them into into that would be a change that would require additional funding that we can talk about later.
But so I provided for you on page uh three of the presentation the statute that requires all school division employees permanent, part-time, temporary to be had receive a fingerprint background check that's run through the criminal history records
exchange in the FBI. and what the prohibitions are on who can be hired by a school division given what's in the background check. On slide three, excuse me, slide four, I laid out for you proposal options since the background checks are not currently
in the SOQ. So right now you can, you know, if your recommendation is that you do not want to move them into the SOQ, you just want to amend the existing statute, we I can draft language to put forth a legislative package that would affect that particular statute regarding
background checks to require based on your recommendation renewal of uh background invest um criminal history checks whether it's every three years, every five years upon license renewal, staggered based on date of hire. So, school divisions don't have to do their
entire uh employee population at one given time and bear that. Now, under the current statute, the expense of the background checks is borne by the school divisions and they can pass that expense on to the future employee.
So, um, if you decide that you want to recommend amending the stat existing statute, that is something for you to consider whether that would remain a an expense borne by the school division for the renewed background checks or whether you want them to be able to pass that on
to existing employees. If you decide to move it into the SOQ, then that will require additional state funding and basic aid in order to um since it would be a part of the SOQ funding model. I did not
um obtain figures on that because I first wanted to get what your recommendation was on the cost. Either way, it's going to have a fiscal impact whether it's a fiscal impact on the school division or fiscal impact on state both because obviously SOQ funding has a state component and a locality
component. Um the one thing there are background check requirements for your early learners um that that would not be in the SOQ. So I didn't add those here. But if you decide that you want to amend the existing statute rather than to move the
background checks into the um SOQ, I would then add in those components for renewed background checks for our earliest learners as well. So, um, our early learner employees already have a five-year repeat,
>> right? >> So, it would essentially be bringing our K12 employees into the same requirement, >> but you're just saying that what what would >> what that would do is we would need to do that statutoily to move K12 employees
into that same those same existing recheck requirements as as early childhood employees. Well, we wouldn't need to move that the K12 employees into the um early learning statutes. We would simply amend the the existing, but I didn't, you know, if if it's not moving
it into the SOQ, which only affects K12, then we want to make sure that they align background checks for the early learners as well as for um school division employees. And I believe there are background checks for private schools if you want all of them to align. The only question is if you know with the early learners, there's the
five-year repeat background checks. If you wanted to shorten that for the K12, then we would want to align all of them, you know, but if you wanted on a five-year cycle to be consistent, then we probably wouldn't have to amend that, propose amending that statute. So, but I do want if if you make that a change in
the timeline of that renewal, we want to make them consistent. >> So, those are the options I saw. Certainly, if you see another option, I'll be glad to um work on that research, but those were the options I saw. It's a it will have a fiscal impact. I mean, we'll have to provide
that analysis um to the general assembly should the package go forward, >> but um it's a matter of amending something existing or purposely moving it into the SOQ. >> And what would be your suggestion? >> Well, I I mean I think the statute has
existed for a number of years in in its form now and has not been part of the SOQ. So, and those background, you know, I was a former schoolboard lawyer, so the background checks take place. Um, they catch things that they need to catch. So, I wouldn't necessarily see it as a as a necessity to move it into the
SOQ since it's never been there. Um, but it's effective in what it does. Um, but we certainly could modify the existing statute, polish it. Um, if we see any other inconsistencies or any other weaknesses in it, this would be the time to fix it. Okay.
So, right now it says uh we require all school boards to require all applicants accepting employment to be fingerprinted and the fingerprints are forwarded through to the FBI to obtain a criminal record. So, remind me again what's wrong with the current process? Like where are we falling down here? Well, there's
currently no renewal of the background checks that have been employed for, you know, so you >> unless something is brought to a school division's attention either through a automatic notice from the courts, something could fall through >> um or through renewal of your license or
through changing your your employer. So, it's not just it's not just one check. If you move from school division A to school division B, they would school division B upon offering you employment would have to do that same check again. >> Correct. Any employee, you know,
employing school division has to do the check. Um, but if you're a long-term employee in a in a particular school division 15, 16 years, and something has occurred in your personal life that didn't get picked up uh on because a background check wasn't conducted um as
a renewed background check. um you know it's it's a risk um I don't know that it occurs you know exponentially but when it comes to student safety we can never do enough >> it right madam president >> Dr. But somehow schools are notified. Is it
when it's child abuse or neglect that schools are notified? Because sometimes I I do know that we get notification of of a crime. >> You get notices from the courts regarding school division employees in certain um charges and you also get notices from DSS. And if
>> um the a conviction occurs and they're required to uh register on the on god forbid on the sex offender registry, you'll get notices from the sex offender registry. But it that was the weakness in the statute that early childhood has the um
renewed uh criminal history checks and the current statute that affects background checks are not um there's not a requirement for a renewed look every so many years. >> So Dr. >> Thank you. Sorry. Um so we wouldn't be changing the fingerprint thing. We'd
just be saying every five years you have to get it done again. And it doesn't require another fingerprint because your fingerprints don't change, right? It just requires that that updated criminal history be >> right. And there's an expense associated with doing the fingerprint and expense associated with send it to criminal.
Well, and I will say there is still a difference in how the processing takes place because >> um early childhood requires what's called field print or um uh automatic fingerprint capture whereas K12 you can
still run either a physical fingerprint card or do the automatic fingerprint capture. So, we might want to we might want to also take the opportunity to >> to make them >> streamline and make that consistent as
well. Um, for that automatic capture >> um because then it's going to be f in a file so that it can easily be rerun. Whereas in a card you lose the you know you you just lose that
ability to see clearly after a certain period of time. So you would have to recapture on a card >> the the ink >> right? So, you know, I think I think that's thanks for saying that because that just jived my memory on how do we go back.
>> Paper can go missing. Paper can decay, you know. So, you want >> this is where you put your finger on a like a little screen and yeah versus having >> it's about this big >> nasty ink put on your fingers and >> Yep. Yeah. So, but that that's the
direction. If it if you decide you want fingerprinting and background checks moved into the SOQ, then I would get with the um the off finance office to see if we could estimate some costs associated with that. If you decide to amend the miss anyway, do the same thing. if you decide to um focus on
proposing amendments to the existing statute to what type of fiscal impact that may have. But like I said, the existing statute exists and it's been successful and in place for a number of years with with some modifications by the assembly over the years um for clarifications and
such, but um I say it is easier to try and amend something existing than to try and create something new elsewhere. Any other questions on this one before we Okay, thank you. >> Okay, so um progressing on to slide um
five with student safety continued. Um, the superintendent brought up with me after the meeting that there was also a question about schoolboard members and the fingerprint background check statute only applies to employees. It does not apply to um school board members. And
so, you know, most of our school boards are elected. So, I I do not profess to be an election law expert in any means. So, I had to go down that um research line. It took me quite an extensive um look at that. But, you know, usually
anybody who has had some past troubles that comes out in the election cycle through the press. However, it is an absolute it is a bar to um running for office if you've been convicted of a felony because in Virginia, you have to be qualified to vote to run for office.
In order to be qualified to vote, you have could not be convicted of a felony or if you have been, you would have had to have your rights restored by the governor. So, the felony convictions are so not so much a concern in terms of running for office. And then there are
statutes in place to require a forefeed of a felony while you are in office. So there are some protections there. Now certainly the appellet process would let have to play out most likely if someone has been charged with a felony. So there there could you know there may be issues
there. But the biggest gap is that the um forefeiter requirements do not apply if you are charged and ultimately convicted of misdemeanors. Um uh it doesn't bar you from running for office if you have a misdemeanor conviction. It does not require you to forfeit office
if you are convicted of a misdemeanor while in office. So, but those all those there is a process to remove an elected or appointed official and I've laid that out for you, but it's kind of a cumbersome complicated
process that requires a certain percentage of the voters in that area to sign off on the court petition. But there are places within the statute that allow for the removal for certain behaviors. some of those behaviors in terms of offenses that we'd be really you know very much concerned about drug
offenses um sexual battery offenses but that is not a broad capture of offenses even from child pornography to um those kind of things that would for a board me school board member would we would need a heightened awareness of. So, I I laid
that out for you in the in the um PowerPoint on on um page six. And then the problem is there's not a way for you to fix that in SOQ prescriptions. You know, it would require amendments to title 24 I think it's 24.2 of the code
election section. Um and so I I gave out some options because if you want some heightened scrutiny because in inherently board school board members are around children. You a member of a board of supervisors or so forth or city council may not have you know constant
access to children in the way schoolboard members do because just in the nature of their job. Children are attending schoolboard meetings. They're singing at events, you know, things like that. school board members attend football games and come into classrooms to read. So there's more access. And so
if you if you desire some heightened level of scrutiny that's applicable to elected and appointed schoolboard members, I I laid out some suggestions for you on how to communicate your concerns um that may, you know, bring that to the
level of people who actually can amend those statutes. Um certainly raising those concerns to the governor in a legislative package raising them to the commissioner of the department of elect elections uh the board of elections as well as the chairs of the privileges and
elections committees within the general assembly. All places and avenues that you could pursue and the secretary of of administration is over the department of elections. any or all of those could be a place to communicate the concerns that there needs to be heightened scrutiny
for schoolboard members in terms of those misdemeanor charges that could occur. So Melissa, if I'm not mistaken, schoolboard members are simply um part of the local elected official criteria within the code. Correct. They are they
are baked into that, right? So it's not there there is not a separate section that defines the requirements that you have to meet as a schoolboard member. So, okay. So, go down this path with me. Uh, are you or are you not considered a school board employee or a school
employee, schoolboard employee as a school board member? >> You are not. >> You are not. >> You're not an employee, >> but you are subject to being you you are paid by the school division for your service. Is that correct? >> You can't. Yes.
>> Okay. So is that not by nature the requirement needing to be met by the code? So the code says that full or part-time employees of a school or school division
must be fingerprint criminal background checked and child abuse neglect registry searched. Um, and those searches are against the the currently codified BA barrier crime list.
>> So, based on the full part-time, is that not does that does that not meet the criteria? >> I do not see it as meeting employment status and certainly our council of record could, you know, provide more guidance on that. I mean, it's no different than general assembly members are provided for in statute to be paid
and they're not employees either. There are statutory measures that cover payment of elected officials for the you know the governor gets a salary, school board members get a sal, but they're not employees of that body. And certainly Deb love um our assistant AG is here.
Yeah, there are a case where performance member exception and the conclusion was that's not personel.
Okay. >> Yeah. I I just I think it's slightly different for you know this particular code section. I I would be interested to see how we would come down on that. Um, but but I guess at the end of the day, what what we would have to be
essentially making a request for is a specifically new section within that um election criteria that would require them to meet because I certainly would not want for a schoolboard member being
having the ability to be alone with children in a classroom reading for one reason or the other. um for them not to have to to be under the same requirements as the classroom teacher has to meet >> him or herself, right? So, um that I
guess that's just my my comment there. Um you know, and I I wrestled with this as I was doing my research because as I thought through it, but what if there if a an official is required to have a background check? Where would that background check go?
>> Right? you know, because they're elected, you know, so there under election law, there are processes to remove them for certain behaviors, but where would that background check go? It wouldn't come to you as the board of education. Wouldn't go to the school division because they're not employees
of the school division. So, what would be the effect of that? So, that's why, you know, I explored the election law statutes to determine >> that may be the better place for some heightened level of scrutiny or standard for a um elected or appointed school
board uh member. Mr. Monk, >> appreciate it. Uh and I think to >> your point about elections bring out some of these things. Completely agree. The challenge though is in a potentially community where there's not someone's running unopposed. And so once there's
only one individual on the ballot then that that creates a >> and there may be there may be the need to further define it in such a way that says look if you've not met the criteria of the background check then you can't go into the school and do anything. You
can still sit on the school board but you cannot go into the school you know where children are present. I I don't know. I'm just kind of spitballing here, but >> yeah, I mean it's a complicated area. You want a heightened standards for individuals who have contact with children.
>> Um but we also have the election um laws in place currently and constitutional provisions >> in place. And so um it may be that further reflection needs to be on that. It may be that we have some um perhaps the superintendent has the opportunity
to speak with the um commissioner of elect uh to talk about what options are available so that we explore it um as further you know further research. Um but it may not be ready for prime time um to come back with any kind of
>> um composed letter, you know. But you know that was the thought that if you the board wanted to authorize you and the superintendent to move forward with some sort of letter to you know convey the concerns of the board that that may be the best option in terms of getting
to that before um Alex's um radar. Yeah. >> I mean without without um opposition Does anybody have opposition to us communicating concerns?
No. No. Okay. Good. And when I initially started that research, I thought to myself, I am no expert in election law. What have I gotten myself into? But >> you are now. >> It I am now. I was it was a it was a informative process of exploring those
requirements. So um well but moving on we out from student safety into to student expectations u much more pleasant topic um we currently have in our standards of learning uh excuse me in the SOQ um that
uh school divisions have educational objectives that they have to meet and one of those objectives is early identification of gifted students and the enrollment of the students in in the gifted programs and so I've walked walked you through the the statutory requirements the school boards have to
meet in terms of the gifted identifying gifted um students and included your own um board regulations related to the testing assessment and identification of gifted students on slide eight and I'm not going to to um bore you with the
statutory language but in in in standard nine uh excuse me in page nine um there's currently no mandated um measur measure of gifted potential in the primary grades. And um I know that that
is near and dear um to the heart of many of you about not just supporting our at risk learners but supporting our gifted learners. And so um I obtained some great information for um Amanda Nevetrol. She gave me the information. I
don't take credit for any of that in the slides. Um and so in terms of um of next steps for supporting our gifted learners, the idea of providing a universal screener at a certain grade level in the elementary levels um is is
a proposal to provide support in that area. And so um she provided me with great information from the forom institute on the fact that our gifted learners are suffering at um some well
as well in terms of their nape results and that um they're missing out on some of the supports uh as well. And so, um, Amanda gave me, uh, estimates on the cost, uh, that she had obtained, uh, for
a universal screener perhaps at the second grade level or third grade level. And so in the options that have been provided to you on uh slide 10, it speaks to that incorporating that actually into the SOQ
because it's already in the SOQ about the the requirement to identify the gifted um by school divisions. And so that would be an actual amendment to the SOQ. Um, and it of course would have additional funding u fiscal impact, but
those figures are laid out for you at the bottom of slide 10 in terms of an annual cost um that would go into um SOQ funding models. >> Any questions here? Any comments here? Dr. Northern.
So, remind me again what Miss Conway is using in grade two. Maybe I should I should know this. Um, but is there something that we're already implementing in grade two that could be also used as a screener?
Because I thought I had a conversation with her prior to this and she indicated that >> that might be the case, but I could have >> probably not for gifted, >> but the screener Sure. >> Um,
yeah, I'm not so sure a screener doesn't have to be tailored to giftedness. Yeah. >> So, >> I mean, from my understand and again, you know, I am a typist generally on a lot of things and not an expert. Um my understanding from Amanda Netro is that
it it would be a tailored screening to um try and get the opportunity for all kids to test because so so many times the current process um whether it's inherent bias or not that it leaves out folks that that should be tested and
aren't. And so the universal capture of screening of all kids in a tailored type of screening would be uh would potentially identify more gifted children than we're identifying now. And again, I don't want to speak for Amanda. I don't think she could be here today,
but um Dwayne McCclary is here as well as Jenna Conway, I believe, were in the other room if but if not, I can find those answers for you and give them to you. >> Yeah. And maybe other states and districts are, you know, doing it wrong. But I do know because we uh at Ford and
we collect data on district practices to identify kids for advanced services and many of them report that they use you know a standardized test that all kids take you know in second grade and it's not necessarily to um you know to ascertain
giftedness but I I'm no expert in terms of screeners for gifted. I just know that maybe some other places aren't doing the right thing. I don't know. >> Right. and I I certainly no expert um but our instructional team and uh >> it's my understanding I think that
divisions can choose which um screener they wish to use at this time and you know it might it might really truly behoove us to look at the option of having a a screener that is statewide.
And I would I would like to submit also that we not just screen at second grade, but we screen at sixth grade as well for future. I think because we've had this conversation before um you know I um I'm
still certified as a gifted instructor and was the gifted coordinator in our school division for quite a number of years. And um you know students that come into our schools with high levels of you know higher vocabulary
um maybe even reading before they come into school. They have a much greater ability to score very well on those tests. >> Um and that's not always necessarily something that continues when they get
to sixth grade. And so in many cases, you know, we're doing them a disservice by pushing them in ways that they really maybe need help in in or maybe need to be in a different level course by the time they get to sixth grade. So I think
um and and then you know we have students moving in and out of different schools around the Commonwealth and you know for one reason or the other sometimes wires get crossed and students get placed into to classes that maybe was misunderstood from a different
school division and I I had a situation like that when I was teaching gifted um and we were like where is this kid's test and so it would be very very helpful if we had um another screening opportunity in sixth grade where we
rescreened everybody that came into middle school with that identification just to ensure the the continuity of the identification. >> True. And and um from what I understand, it's not that school divisions are not screening, but it's not mandated in the
SOQ. That's the that is the difference that by putting it in the SOQ it would no longer be um purely voluntary or optional from school divisions to to screen at second grade or to screen at second and sixth grade. That would be a requirement that uh they would they
would have to meet while many school divisions are already doing it and many school divisions are doing it at multiple levels. >> Matt Madam President, Dr. Acriman >> and since some schools are already doing it I'm guessing if the state gets involved there's some money savings possibly for these schools that are
doing it right because if this cost was estimated at the state level and then there there's also sometimes I think not enough discussion or awareness of the different types of giftedness so some schools may feel that they are doing it >> but be but they could be missing some of
the other types of giftedness as well. So some oversight I think I I think this is a good idea but Now, Chief Deputy um Conway is here. I you had um um you Dr. Norm, you had a question about the um test that's used.
>> Yeah. I mean, and Jenna, you can you know, I just found the data was looking for um so we surveyed district um coordinators in in advanced education. And so 80 and asked them how they screened the kids for potential advanced
services. And and this could be totally wrong. Um 87% and this is a specific um 87% use the COG AT or the NNAT. Um 81% teacher referrals
um and 59% use MAP or I ready >> and then 58% use performance on statemandated end of grade reading, math, social studies or science test. So, I guess I'm just trying to figure out like, you know, people are using a
variety of tests across the nation to identify and most of them actually do do it in second grade. That's another data point. And I was just wondering if there's an instrument in your repertoire that you think would be valid for this or not.
>> Yeah. So, I will speak less about um uh kind of recommendation, more just uh uh where we are. So just as a reminder, the budget language uh established a VKRP13
pilot and exploration. So we saw similar data in a survey that was conducted by the University of Virginia that was looking at less of what are we using for screening for gifted but more around is there any applesto apples measure
outside of either PALS at the time or vows now that covers other areas of academic or social emotional kind of progress for kids. And so that survey basically showed in a similar way uh a
variation on what school divisions were using with some deficits in first and second grade. Right? So you go from measuring the uh the beginning and the end for VPI, the beginning kind of the middle is optional and the end for kindergarten and then there's the kind
of gap other than vows, right, which covers all the way through and then now up to eighth grade and then you have SOS. And so um while uh the system expressed some trepidation about more assessment in third grade because you have both VG the Virginia growth assessment and SOS they did note that
there was a gap of statewide consistency on either screening or assessment potentially even screening for gifted in that first and second grade. That is still a budget item and uh uh the University of Virginia in partnership with um uh Deputy Superintendent Booker
Dwire and Assistant Superintendent Wallace and myself continue to support that work. Um and we can also share the findings of that of that survey. That would not be intentional sort of focus on gifted but that is effort to say you know should the state consider a more consistent screener assessment or
something particularly for first and second grade. >> Right. Okay. And so in your opinion, Jenna, would it have to be a a COG at or could it because I mean I guess I'm just seeing other states use a standardized measure that's not necessarily created
to assess giftedness or is that do you know anything about that? >> I would not be the expert to answer that question. >> Okay, >> no worries. Thank you. >> Here's where the backup comes in. So yes. >> Um so I recently was the supervisor over advanced learning and now um our new
deputy superintendent McLarry is. So we're tag teaming on this one. >> Um so this topic has been something that we've been looking at over the last year actually and um >> you know divisions are required to do a gifted plan. It's usually for a period of two years. Um President Cesy is
correct. divisions select their process, their method and the data that was presented that you you read out loud certainly does share um the different ways that divisions are identifying gifted. I will say that most a lot of divisions I think over the last I'd say
six to eight years probably have um done something similar to what President Casy said screening them first in second grade. Um, and prior to that, if they screen like K through two, it's usually by parent recommendation. Um, it could be because the kid came in, didn't go
through public school. Um, and parents might recommend again like a third grade or a fourth grade assessment. So, based on parent recommendations, they would be screened according to the gifted plan for the local school division. Um, and so then again, they would test do kind
of, you know, for kids who have not been identified. they would re-screen students uh typically in fourth or fifth grade or in between there. Um and some do it later like in the sixth grade. So depending on kind of what their division's uh setup is for their middle schools
because some set the middle school at fifth through 8th grade and others set it sixth through >> that's not a requirement. >> That's not a requirement. No. And so um again that's a division's option of how they do that. And then again there may be some late screenings after that. Particularly you see that with students
that are coming in as a transfer student um from either another division, a private school or homeschool situation where the parent wants their child to be um screened for the giftedness. Um and so the two most popular assessments are the Kogat and the Neglari. And so, um,
you know, certainly having one of those and and really, um, looking at what the data says and deciding that for the for the state would be an advantage so that we level the playing field for all divisions. Uh, if there was funding tied to it, that certainly would save the
divisions money, but that of course would be a budget request. um because there currently is no funding that I'm aware of that goes strictly to gifted um gifted testing or gifted screening. Um and so, you know, that's something I
know Amanda Nevatrol, the director, has been um really working hard to reach out to school divisions, particularly our rural school divisions and those school divisions that don't have a regular testing process. She's just finished a series of training across um regions
eight and seven because they were um areas where she saw need for support from the agency. And so she just finished that work up about the time that the deputy came on board and I think she plans on doing that. Um we she did it in partnership with English learner as well. So those are two areas
that um we see needs. So we provided on the ground support for those divisions. Currently we she has about 14,000 students um calculated from just second grade that do not get screening right now because not having a universal screener. So about 85 district divisions
in Virginia currently have screeners and most of the others that don't are rural districts >> and and what do you think they're mostly using? >> Uh they're using the Nagaler and the >> Oh, they are at their own expense. >> Yes. >> Okay, I got you. So, >> which is why some of them may only
screen in second grade because that could be a funding >> funding issue, >> right? I mean, I guess I'm just wondering as a board whether it would make sense for I mean, it's going to take a while, right? Like if we want to try to get funding for the Nagi area or the you know, the Kogat. Yeah. Um and so
I wonder do we need like two like do we need to say okay you get flexibility use X Y or Z but this is a longer term plan. We're trying to be more consistent. >> That's what she would recommend. I think Amanda would recommend like this is the list. Um and she could do a little bit more probably exploration. She probably
already has knowing Amanda. >> Yes. >> Um on the cost of those assessments. I think she's she's done that data already. Um and and has that available. I think yeah, one thing in kind of I'm a big local control guy and so recognize
that maybe there's some districts that are are not doing it well and there's some opportunities there, but I also think there's some districts that are are doing this well. And so I I want to make sure that whatever we're talking about here at this level includes that thought process and really provides uh
pathways for them if they're already maybe doing better even than some of the things that we can prescribe, not limiting them in that. Uh but then also Dr. Northern, you know, there is some financial pieces here. So, is there something we're already doing that we can use as a screener just knowing that
um, you know, many of our students may not qualify? So, I think with limited resources we have, we want to make sure that we're using those most effectively. So, I hesitate to do just this universal mandate uh, across the board there. No, I think I think using the word universal
screener is is more not we're going to screen universally and everyone gets tested. I think it's just trying to get to more of a regulated test that is the same test that measures like like uh Jenna was saying apples to apples
instead of an apples to oranges. Um >> following you now. >> Yeah. Yeah. And so I think that's the the the purpose here. And I don't think it needs to be then everybody gets uh screened again moving into middle school years. Those that are had been
identified previously should then be resscreened before that middle school uh transition. So, so, uh, Melissa, do you want to swoop back in here and kind of like bring this one to to kind of a close at
what we want to move forward with as far as the board? Because personally, I do feel like this is something that is is good for the SOQ um to to address. Um, so how do you want
to >> I mean for the this particular item out of all of the items that we talked about last month, I think this is absolutely the most appropriate item to go into the SOQ. Um whether it's to universal screen at the second grade and then um provide
the testing uh acceptable test prescribed by the board via regulation. Um we that's the an option and then also if if there's an ideal we can because you have you have broad regulatory authority in this area under the code
already in terms of uh because you have existing regs that could be amended to prescribe the type the testing that is used at that second grade level as well as who is tested again at the uh sixth grade level. um to incorporate the
suggestions about once they had been screened and found then that they could be screened again as they transition into the middle school years. Um so it would fundamentally be a two-step process in terms of getting the SOQ statute amended and then prescriptions
of the board uh in the in the regulations. But I do think this is the most appropriate item that you uh we talked about last month for the SOQ prescriptions. um and it would have associated state and um state and local funding >> um
>> um impacts. >> Is everybody on board with adding that additional screening process in this this request to do like >> I I would definitely want some more information around it just knowing that
from a dollar perspective what the impact is there. >> Sure. Okay. So can do can we close that loop next month then? >> Yes. It may be um you know clearly the posi backup showed up uh for the lawyer in uh in distress but it may be better
to have Amanda here uh to present uh and ask those questions as this is her passion and she should have that um to speak for that passion. >> Um and you know I can write the statutory language that affects the board's will um but Amanda can be the
best advocate for that um that topic. So we can arrange for that for the November meeting. >> Okay. Perfect. >> And Madam President, >> Dr. Just for um a point of understanding on the timeline, do we need to have this
quality document revised by a certain time? >> Yeah. >> She'll have the wording and we'll still investigate it at the same time. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I think Amanda would be here to provide the deeper explanations and uh
uh advocacy on the on the um idea and I can provide you the amended statutory language to the SOQ. That um is probably the least complicated part of this is amending the statutes. Um and so but I can draft I can draft the language and that can be put before you to see if it
it provides the desires of the board in in the stat in the proposed statute. >> President Greasy. >> Anything else? >> Yeah. Oh, Dr. Northern. >> Um, I just just a broad reminder. I mean, the whole reason we do universal
screening is to cast a wider net, right? Because we think that some of the measures that we use actually don't identify kids who have a variety of talents. And so, the one thing that happens with using the, you know, the uh cog at or the NA is is that the non the
non- nagliary one, the NNAT actually is nonverbal, right? And because we do think that kids can, you know, do better on a non-verbal test. So, I just would caution us and maybe Amanda can speak to this next month, is when you say you want to standardize a test, it's
actually not going to cast as wide of a net as we think it should because it's not actually picking up on different types of giftedness as well as multiple measures do. Um, it's not to say that we don't want to go that direction, but I'm just saying that's that's part of why we're doing this, right? Is to cast a wide net. So I don't want us to be so
narrow on the standardization front, but maybe she can talk about the pros and cons and the trade-offs there next month. >> True. And your current board regs have some multiple options in terms of identification, a kind of a two of three measure. Um but uh whether the statute
would be the broad catchall to mandate the requirement that a test be um administered in the second grade and possibly again in sixth grade. and then your regulations could articulate the those kind of things that capture the needs to um provide diverse um
approaches to that identification. >> Mr. Monk, >> just quickly and this may be some information finding for the next meeting but the financial impact would that be there if it was a already available test that's provided you know thinking a
Virginia test etc. um >> it may lessen the fiscal impact, but there will be a fiscal impact to move from a an optional testing screening to a mandatory screening of students at particular grade levels. Um >> okay, thank you on that one.
>> We have pipeline. Then the the next item that was raised um at the previous meeting was um I believe by Dr. Arian about the teacher pipeline and some innovation that's occurring in a couple other states such as Arizona and North Carolina. While my
research showed the the innovation in North Carolina is modeled after what is occurring in Arizona, but the project in North Carolina is currently stalled in the in the legislature. Um but um my research on uh showed uh that there's
currently a a project with the Arizona State University um about uh teacher pipeline that has a very distinct model program uh in terms of preparing teachers and supporting teachers once they're in the classroom.
We heard you know um our board member Mrs. Kilgore speak to the fact that she wanted to stay in the classroom. and she didn't want to, you know, advance up to administration in order to advance. Um, she wanted to be that classroom teacher. And for those teachers who that want to
stay there, uh, the need to support them and let them grow and advance within their classroom, that's important. And that's what the Arizona State University model is is doing. And it's providing a a program where it's a very much a team
approach. And it that's on slide 11 for you. Kind of I you know read about the Arizona model and and how um North Carolina was also looking to that model to create its own um advantages to a team approach in the pipeline. And so
you know just as Mrs. Kilgore says she wanted to say in the classroom right now there may be too little support being provided to teachers where they don't feel compelled to have to seek and go into administration in order to advance in their career. So, the creative ways that Arizona State
um appears to have used um in terms of expanding the teacher pipeline, they they have this new next education workforce model um where they have and North Carolina created their pathways to excellence model based on the Arizona
State um uh workforce development, but it's advancing those opportunities for the teachers to stay in the classroom, work with a cadre or team approach where there are less experienced teachers working with more experienced teachers.
They're working with a set of students. For example, I think in Arizona and North Carolina, it's like a hundred students. They're in their their cohort, so to speak. And it the teachers are dividing their tasks um based on expertise and um based on things that
teach new teachers need to learn versus what experienced teachers already know. um whether it's communicating with parents, whether it's developing uh uh uh lesson plans, whether it's participating in IEP team meetings, that type of thing. So, there's this this
there's a level of support that the teachers always have access to collaboration. Um and they always are working on behalf of the same students. So, the students themselves always have someone to go to that's knowledgeable about the what the
entire team is working on. And so the compensation appears to be based on levels of experience. And that experience is going to grow in that team over their um years of participation as a team. And that compensation will grow with that um differentiation of
instruction. And I I'm I'm so glad I got that word out the first time because I stumble over that every time. But that differentiation is occurring um because all of the teachers on that team are aware of the same students and they're able to um tailor instruction to meet
the needs of that cadre of students. So um I did not come up with a specific recommendation for the SOQ because I think this program is is a bit in in its infancy it itself. um it hasn't had time for all of the data to come out on its
successfulness in terms of um uh what it's doing for the teachers and what it's doing for the students. Um so I do the recommendation here um is is more about perhaps exploration of the model program with the the true um
instructional support team who um are much better at that than I am. but exploring with Arizona State University uh what they are doing. Um uh perhaps a pilot program to stand up in the in Virginia to get it, you know, basically
make sure it's up and running and working properly and then to expand that on to uh whether it's multiple school divisions or all school divisions by incorporating it into the SOQ at some point. But um because what's going to be needed, we're going to have to have a lot of cooperation. We're going to have
because there's got to be a kind of change in the way of thinking. Um, you know, Mrs. Cesy was speaking to it's not the ed prep program of 20 years ago. It has to be the ed prep program needed for today. So, we're going to need, you know, education prep provider or providers to participate. school board
members in a school division who are willing to to let that pilot occur in their division. School division administrative support who are willing to take that their teachers and put them in a team that could be successful. Obviously, we want teachers, you know,
who want to be there in that team. Um the students that would be assigned to that team of teachers. Uh obviously, financial support would be needed both at the school division level and the state level. And then, you know, we we need to gather more information both from Arizona and North Carolina because
they're doing it. Um, and from within Virginia about how we can do it that best works for Virginia. Um so in the options proposed there you know a possible pilot program but we would either have to um on behalf of the board
submit a request to the governor for inclusion in the governor's um budget for the pilot or for even funding to explore um what's needed to stand up such a program. Um approval from the general assembly if a pilot is is where you want to go um because it will
require a budget amendment in the appropriation act. It wouldn't necessarily take a statutory amendment at this time, but a budget amendment to give you all and the department authority to move forward with that and then those coordinations with the the pipeline models like with North Carolina
and Arizona and then VDOE to stand up that process. Um uh so uh that was what best that I could find at the you know in terms of research that may work for you all to get the program in place um
and work it out the way that this board thinks works best for Virginia. Um and so it's a matter of seeking a budget amendment this year or seeking consultation and maybe presentations from the model that's being done in
Arizona right now and what North Carolina. So there's a couple avenues that you different avenues that you could pursue. >> Dr. Northern, >> so I think North Carolina's path is based on the opportunity culture which
is out of public impact. Um, so I would suggest if we can get maybe some information from opportunity culture. Um, because I'm pretty sure they were the ones behind the North Carolina model. Um, and I thought I actually had a conversation um, with Secretary Guyera
and I thought she told me we had a division in Virginia that was doing some of these opportunity culture innovations and I I could be wrong about that, but we >> we have one. >> We have one. Okay. >> This semester is their first semester. >> Oh, okay. So, they're just starting. Um,
so yeah, my point is, yeah, that maybe we can hear from some pockets of of um, you know, in our own state that are doing some innovations around pipeline as a as a way to sort of get our juices flowing. >> Dr. Acriman, >> and and I agree with that. It would be
great to hear more and maybe in partnership with our our ed prep folks. um because I suspect there's some barriers that we have um in our requirements of ed prep that um prevent some of this innovation. So I think more
information, you know, both hearing from innovative partners and um having our experts involved and what that means and some of our requirements to add other comments on this.
>> Thank you. And finally in slide 13, there were other items raised at the last month's meeting. I I believe uh Mrs. McFersonson raised um lab schools and underserved areas. Um so this um superintendent will arrange for a presentation to give you
all a status update on lab schools and the map of the existing locations and who they're serving at the November board meeting. Uh Mrs. Nick F also raised the school re renovation prioritization of school construction um issues with existing facilities versus
um building new and constructing new facilities rather renovate the existing ones and um existing communities and so um partially that was um uh addressed I think in the update to the school construction guidelines that you as a board have brought authority over
because it's it's a budget item that gives you the authority to establish the guidelines And so there was something in last month's agreed upon um uh additions to those guidelines that does provide priority to um using existing spaces
versus new spaces whether it's to allow a CT program to utilize it or to allow a charter school to utilize it um um but rather than building new um facilities. Now um when Mrs. Nick Fearson not here
today. Um I don't know if she has any comments about um whether that addressed um some of her concerns. Um but I'll be glad to you know work on that if that's a further um uh direction from the board. And then uh I believe Mr. Monk may have raised the provision of the the
timely data and our data um sources. So uh the department has uh is working on things related to data right now. Um so the superintendent is going to arrange a presentation on both CTE workforce data as well as a um assist um information
project with from our uh assistant superintendent Paul Cormal and then um of course student centered funding formula is um at the center of the department and the board's desires and administrations. Um there's I have not
seen much activity on that recently from the assembly. Um but the your once your prescription on the universal screeners transmitted and your other recommendations to the governor and the assembly that um your prescription document will include the continued
support of the board uh for a student-based funding formula model. And lastly, um my understanding is there are some desired enhancements to the school accredititation process. Um that at our last meeting were not um uh ready
for uh discussion, but um potentially today um I need additional information from the board on what direction to pursue for any enhancements for the school accreditation. Madam >> y >> um Mr. Monk and then Dr. Acriman.
>> Sure. I think um and this may be some of our conversations as well. I know on the academic side we have kind of a layout of an MLOU of of what that looks like to support um local districts. thinking to the operation side. Um don't know if
it'd be something that the board would be interested in of laying out some type of similar framework around uh what processes were uh to support local districts and their operational needs. >> Yeah. So, you know, obviously Melissa, our ourus that we currently have are
really more around student outcomes and um you know, we need to look at the holistic view of the school division itself and the school itself, not just from the student outcome perspective, but um also their operational
um effectiveness because inevitably that's that can affect student outcomes as well. So, um, can we set up a system that drives much like what M Mr. Monk is talking about? >> And are there specific examples of
operational concerns that um that you are speaking of that um would give me a starting point on on doing some research there? Yeah, I think just generally coming to mind maybe we've talked a lot about grants and and finances and there's a
lot of new money in education in Virginia. Um so ensuring there's some consistency and fidelity and reporting of information uh as well and and uh making sure that the data that we've got is accurate, timely uh and better
informs the local decisions on the academic side. But I think there's some some of those foundational operational pieces that right now aren't included in there. >> Madame President, Dr. Acriman. >> Yes. I and if if I was dreaming, I would love to see a process that's similar to what you think of when you think of
typical accreditation where it's a panel and not just self-reported panel of peers. Um, and again, ma'am, just because right why not shoot for the moon, right? Um, because I think I was I was surprised to learn that the entire process is self-reported. Um, but if you
had some and honestly the one of the neatest things about an accreditation process when it's when it's some of somewhat of a jury appears is you get to see other people's stuff which is really cool. So you get to go to other school systems and learn from them and look at how they do this that and the other um
where they you know how do they file all their fire drills for all their different schools. Um, and so there's kind of a a two-way opportunity. Um, both an accountability type opportunity for accreditation, but also an opportunity to kind of learn from each
other. But again, I if I'm dreaming, I I picture more of what you, you know, when you think accreditation, that's what you kind of think of is is a, you know, a party or a panel visiting your school. Um, and just kind of checking your self-report is essentially what it is. But I mean, that's just my two cents
worth. I'm not speaking for the entire board, I think, when I say that. But else here, Dr. Northern, >> I just want to clarify. So, because some of this stuff like I'm not sure belongs in standards of quality or not. So, like
something like, you know, innovating with teacher pipeline, I'm assuming if we wanted some new money, that's the rationale for it to go in the SOQ, right? because like I see student safety like I think of SAQs as like the bottom like the inputs that you have to have to
be a you know a safe school and you know meet um state uh requirements and all that stuff. So I guess if you can talk to me a little bit about how you see the difference of what goes into an SOQ versus not. Well, there, you know, over the years there have been a number of things put in the SOQ that from
trainings to um meeting the standards of learning when they were first p put into place under the Allen administration. The SOQ is the fundamental foundation that school divisions have to meet. So sometimes I I do think over the decades there have been things put in the SOQ
that didn't necessarily belong there, but because they were put there, they became mandates that all school divisions have to meet. Um for instance with the pipeline I don't see that as an SOQ amendment and that's why it was not proposed as an SOQ amendment was um
first we need to gather a lot more information but it would initially I think be proposed as a an appropriation act a budget item request to stand up whether it be a pilot or a full program and when things are amended in the in
place in the appropriation act they're not the language is not as specific as you'll see in a statute. Um, and giving the department and the board authority to establish those programs and guidance and guidelines and um, whether it's
through regulation, um, gives the department staff with a level of expertise in the instruction area, the gifted area for instance, um, really the ability to to hone that information rather than trying to um, delineate every aspect in a statute. a statute.
It's very difficult for you to um define every bad worst case scenario and best case scenario. It's a general applicability statute. So, the teacher pipeline I don't see as an SOQ item. I see it first as a as an an appropriation
act item to get the funding and then probably statutory amendments outside of the SOQ that may need to change things related to teacher lure um education prep programs to that regard, but an SOQ item. >> Thank you.
>> Yeah, the um you you know the gifted program is already in the SOQ. That certainly is a proper place for it. You know, a floor of requirements that school divisions have to meet in trying to recognize the talent of every student, not just particular students.
Um the the background checks that has not existed in the SOQ um at all. Um, and it's it the statute is having its intent and meaning carried out. School divisions comply with that. Um, and I don't think there's any objection to
complying with that. No, I do not think any school division would ever want to hire someone that would place their children in jeopardy. Um, so they're carrying that out. I don't think that's a necess necessity to put in the SOQ as a mandate in the SOQ. School divisions are implementing that statute. Um so but
the gifted program definitely um laboratory schools are in their own article in the code already. Um they are addressed school construction is only is in the appropriation act with a one small statute in the code. Um again not items for the SOQ. Um and by it not
being in the SOQ it also gives you greater flexibility in how it's carried out. Um, so right now some of the things that were talked about I think are excellent things to to pursue um for student safety and and um support for
our teachers. Um but they're not necessarily SOQ items. >> I hope that gives you the the explanation you need. >> Absolutely. Thank you. >> Um Miss McFersonson, if you would like to unmute and make your comments.
Uh, can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Oh, great. Great. All right. Sorry I'm not with you in person today, but I have been online the entire time. I did want to thank staff for working on the revisions to the construction provisions. I have looked at them. I
would like for us to carry them over to the next meeting because in the interim I do have some questions for staff regarding some of the recommendations. Uh, so I can be in touch that way. Also, as it relates um to the lab schools, I'm
glad that we're going to have a presentation on that. Uh I've been looking into that further. And I had one comment about the universal uh learners having standardized testing and I understand the need for
flexibility in different types of tests. But one of the things in the materials that's brought up is the fact that what we want to get away from is selective referrals by teachers and or principles or other administrators of students
which has a tendency to leave out some others that may be identified by testing. So I think we are looking for uh a system that will provide greater equality of identification while not necessarily over complicating
the testing system and allowing for more flexibility as Mr. Monk had indicated. So, I just wanted to thank the staff for what the work that they had done on construction and I'll be present next month um in
person so that we can go into greater detail. Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Anything more on your presentation? No, I will go back and and draft some language for the uh gifted program and
the um background checks and I think um you know we'll arrange for Amanda Net to be here to present on the gifted program and also I will uh work on um some more research on the pipeline but I think that that's an exploration activity more
so than a something to um prescribe at this point. Um, and I will work on the letter for to convey your desire for a funding model that is student-based to convey the um the will of the board. And if it you know once the superintendent
gives me some direction on whether to convey information to the department of elections or the other folks listed in the in the slide about your concerns on heightened standards for board school board members. >> Perfect. Anything else for Miss
Velasquez? >> Thank you so much. We appreciate you. >> Thank you. >> Um so at this time we will go um into close session for um legal advice. The board's actually going to go into the
other room so that we can eat lunch while we get our legal advice. So um if I can have a motion I think Dr. Northern, would you read our motion to convene and close the session
>> or not? Who has it? >> It's right below you. Right there. >> You're fine. >> Sorry, it's in my pile of stuff. Uh, I move that the Virginia Board of Education convene in a closed meeting for the following purposes. Consultation
with legal counsel and briefings by staff members or consultants pertaining to actual or probable litigation pursuant to section 2.2371A7 of the code of Virginia. Consultation with legal counsel employed by or retained by a public body regarding
specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice by such council pursuant to 2.23711A88 23711A88 of the code of Virginia and the legal council to Virginia Board of Education and staff whose presence will aid in the board's consideration of this matter
would participate in the closed meeting. >> Dr. Arian. >> Is there a second? Sorry. >> I second it. >> Dr. Arian, >> I. >> Mr. Green, >> I >> Dr. Northern >> I. >> Um, Miss Kilgore.
>> I >> Mr. Monk. >> Hi. and chair votes. I >> um if Miss Miss McFersonson, can you still hear me? >> Yes. >> Okay. Can you um register your >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes. I
>> thank you. Um so the board is now in close session. Thank you. I would ask Dr. Northern if she could read us back into open session, please. We convene today in a closed meeting pursuant to a recorded vote on the motion above and accordance with the
Freedom of Information Act section 2.23712 23712 of the Code of Virginia that requires that the board certify that to the best of each member's knowledge. One, only public business matters lawfully exempt from open meeting requirements under this chapter. And two, only such public
business matters as were identified in the motion by which the closed meeting was convened, were heard, discussed, or considered. Any member who believes there was a departure from these requirements shall so state prior to the vote, indicating the substance of the departure that in his or her judgment has taken place. The statement of the
departure will be recorded in the minutes. >> Dr. Arian, >> I, >> Mr. Green, >> I, >> Dr. Northern, >> I, >> Miss Kilgore, >> I, >> Mr. Monk, >> I, >> and chair votes. I,
>> um, at this time, we are going to wrap up our meeting for the day, but, uh, the superintendent has a couple of comments that she would like to make. >> Thank you, President Cesy, members of the board. Uh we had a few critical updates for the public and since not
everyone tunes into our work session uh I may sound on repeat but it's so important um that everyone in the field um hear these critical updates. So first I want to again recognize Chief Conway and our entire early childhood care and
education team for a wildly successful VQB5 roll out last week including this new honorroll list. The board had the opportunity yesterday, if you missed it, um to see the map and really where excellence is happening is everywhere in
all models that are serving our youngest learners and uh in every one of our regions across the Commonwealth. And as I noted yesterday, I had the opportunity to represent the Commonwealth of Virginia with one of our House of
Delegates members, Mike Cherry, in Atlanta to educate other states about Virginia's uh robust, highquality public private marketplace that's grounded in parent demand and focused on really delivering the gold standard of
excellence for our birth to five learners. And uh we have multiple states that are interested in coming to learn how to do this the Virginia way. It's had long bipartisan support. They had a great early childhood commission meeting
yesterday and continuing the momentum around innovating and leading the way, including on our up andcoming um digital wallet release to really help families have more access to affordable care and to give employers additional tools to support their employees in this pathway.
So once again, if you haven't checked out the latest um ratings on our portal, join the other thousands of Virginiaians who have checked that out in the last week. We also wanted to provide an update as you heard from some of the public comments today on the
accountability, school performance, and support framework roll out. Um, we are so thankful for our school divisions who have been making sure that we have all of the latest uh data from their divisions and in alignment with our data
governance best practices, the Virginia Department of Education has been finalizing an agreement with a third party um that is one of our public higher ed institutions to independently validate our accountability data and outcomes for every school and division to ensure
transparency and our highest level of integrity. Once that is complete, then all of our school division leaders will receive their division and individual school summary reports along with resources on how to communicate that with the public. And we will then have
that accountability data made public uh no less than one week after divisions have received that and had an opportunity review. This will definitely not be the last time you hear about it uh before the board. Another item that has come up in the news, so I want to
make sure you hear it live here, is around federal funding. Obviously, a time of uncertainty and so I want to re-emphasize to those of you who are not able to tune in yesterday that currently our federal funds have been delivered as expected daily and there has been no
disruption or cuts to the reimbursements for the Virginia Department of Education. And now this is true for several uh funding sources across our various federal agencies. So that includes the US Department of Education, Health and Human Services, Department of
Labor, and Department of Agriculture and not limited to that. This continued support has allowed us at the agency to maintain our planned programs, staffing, and services for students without interruption. And so we hope that our schoolboard members, our
superintendents, and others tuning in will relay that as needed uh to their constituents that we are in close communication with our federal contacts and we'll keep the Virginia board and stakeholders informed of any necessary changes.
Lastly, I am still so proud of the board of education for taking a stance uh to expect more of our public school students here in the Commonwealth. Uh since our last board meeting, two more states have taken action to actually
lower expectations for their students. And uh Virginia has been given a nod in the media for doing the opposite and really leading on our commitment that every student leave our public uh high
schools um ready for life whether it's in a career in military or service work or to succeed in college. and we have had thousands of Virginiaians uh who have joined us in listening sessions and written comments over the last three
weeks. Um looking forward to some additional sessions in the next two weeks before coming back to the board with our final um proposal for implementation. Um but really seeing great collaboration and partnership across the agency from various divisions
and offices um who are fielding questions helping to inform supports and new technical opportunities as we hear requests from educators, parents and students to be set up for success. Um and we just know that our students have
demonstrated as have our teachers that every time we raise expectations they have delivered. and we have the greatest confidence that they will do that again this time. And with that, President Cesy, I turn back to you. >> Do any other board members have items
for um discussion of current issues that we have uh section on our agenda before we adjourn today? Okay, with that, I will take a motion to adjurnn. >> So moved. >> Second.
>> And we are adjourned.