Good morning. It is just after 9:00 a.m. We have a full house and we are going to convene our meeting. Um, as is now customary for this board, we will begin our meeting with a moment of silence followed by the pledge of allegiance.
>> Please rise if you are able. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
>> Good morning. We have a full uh standing room only in in the house today. And for those who are live stream, we want to welcome you to our board meeting. Before I begin, I first want to welcome our new board members to who are at the stage
today. First, we welcome Dr. Jam Wilson. Dr. Wilson currently serves as the dean of the University of Richmond School of Professional and Continuing Studies. Prior to her appointment as dean, Dr. Wilson served as superintendent of schools at Hanover County, Virginia from
2011 to 2015. Before her appointment as superintendent, Dr. Dr. Wilson worked in Hanover County Public Schools as a classroom teacher, a lead teacher, an assistant principal, principal, and superintendent, and everything else.
In 2015, Dr. Wilson was named region 1 superintendent of the year, having been selected for this honor by her colleagues in the region, Dr. Wilson served on the Virginia Board of Education from 2017 to 2022. Dr. Wilson earned her bachelor's of arts
in English and a masterers of teaching from the University of Virginia, a master of arts in English with a concentration in writing and rhetoric from Virginia Commonwealth University, and a doctor in educational leadership and policy with a concentration in administration and supervision, also
from the University of Virginia. Dr. Wilson has been appointed to a full term which expires on June 30th, 2029. Please welcome Dr. Wilson and some thank you. Then we also have Miss Beth Reinhardt to my left. Miss Beth
Reinhardt is the president and CEO of the Bristol Chamber of Commerce serving both Bristol, Virginia and Tennessee. Miss Reinhardt currently serves on the Virginia Promise and Action Board and is a member of the Sorenson Institute State Advisory Board. She previously served as
the chair of the Bristol, Virginia Public School Board and board member secretary for the Virginia Early Childhood Foundation and Governor McAuliff's appointee to the Commonwealth Council on Childhood Success. Most recently, Governor Yncan appointed Miss
Reinhardt to the Virginia Passenger Rail Authority in 2023. Miss Reinard earned her BS degree from Mary Washington College, Master of Art in Teaching, and Master of Science and Counseling degrees from John's Hopkins University, and an MBA from King College in Bristol,
Tennessee. In 2025, Miss Row was named the King University Distinguished Alumni Recipient at their annual Dogwood Celebration and earned the Virginia Association of Chambers of Commerce Executives Executive of the Year in 2025. Miss Reinhardt has been appointed
to an unexpired term which expires June 30th, 2028. Welcome. Would you like to say a new great um um we are excited to have all of our board members um serve. Um
apologies for Mr. Hansen not being here. Uh he's with us in spirit. And again, just want to thank all of our board members for being here um and serving on behalf of Virginia's students and families. With that, I will take a motion to approve the agenda as
presented. >> So moved. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Great. All in favor? Let's see. Miss Reinhardt. >> Yeah. I >> Dr. Bridges. >> I. >> Miss McFersonson. >> Hi. >> Dr. Northern >> I. >> Dr. Wilson. >> I. >> Mr. Robinson.
>> Hi. >> Mrs. Kilgore. I and chair votes I. Thank you. Staff have provided members of the board with draft minutes before the meeting. Is there a motion to approve the minutes as presented to the board? >> So moved.
>> Second. >> Great. I'll do a roll call. Miss Reinhardt. >> I'll abstain as I was not present. >> Thank you. Dr. Bridges. I. Miss McFersonson, >> Dr. Northern >> I >> Dr. Wilson >> abstain.
>> Mr. Robinson >> I >> Mrs. Kilgore >> I >> and chair votes I wonderful. Okay. The board appreciates being able to feature our wonderful arts program across the Commonwealth. This has been a
tradition since I have been on the board and has typically been the highlight of our times together and that is having our students perform at our meetings. I will now ask Dr. Bridges to provide us with an introduction for our guests. >> Happy to uh welcome up to the front,
please, the Prince Edward County High School Chamber Ensemble under the direction of Haley Watson. The ensemble is made up of students of all skill levels in grades 9 through 12. The students performing today make up a portion of the Prince Edward High School Concert Band, which consistently
receives high ratings of excellent and superior at Virginia Band and Orchestra Directors Association events. Attending to support the chamber ensemble is the Prince Edward Director of Curriculum and Instruction, Mrs. Janine Garrett, and Superintendent Dr. Chip Jones. The piece
they'll perform today is titled Through the Purple Mists Ascending by Ted Allen, which was inspired by the poem Prairie Dawn by Will Cather. The poem begins with a pioneer experiencing the wonder and awe of a vast sunrise on an open prairie. As the poem comes to a close,
the mood changes. See, we got to listen for this right in the music. The mood changes to a beautiful homesick melody based on a Scottish ballad. So, please enjoy the Prince Edward County High School Chamber Ensemble's performance of Through Purple Mists Ascending.
Heat. Hey, heat. Hey, heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Oh, hey. Nah. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.
Heat. Um, before we transition on, I just want to say thank you so much for that wonderful performance. Um, at my school, we typically talk about one band, one sound, and you actually modeled that today. So, thank you. It was beautiful. It's a beautiful way to start the day.
Thank you. >> Oh, yes. And please, we um after we do our celebration, we will uh exit and all take a picture. So, if the scholars will just wait momentarily, we will be right there. Um with that, Mr. Robinson, um we are now transitioned to the Virginia
Dual Language Emerging Teacher of the Year. Would you do the honor? Yes. Please come to the podium. live. >> Oh, yes, please. >> Yes, that would be great. >> Morning. It is my pleasure to introduce
Miss Nancy Dvilla, an elementary dual language immersion teacher from Prince William County Public Schools and the 2026 recipient of the Virginia Dual Language Educators Network Dual Language Immersion Teacher of the Year Award.
Thank you for being here. Miss Dvilla is a highly respected educator whose work exemplifies the very best of dual language instruction in Virginia. A model in which students learn academic content in two languages with the goals of developing bilingualism, biiteracy,
and strong cross cultural understanding. These programs provide equitable access to rigorous learning while valuing and leveraging students linguistic and cultural assets. Miss Stvilla is known for her skillful use of scaffolded engaging teaching practices, her
expertise in helping students build true biiteracy through purposeful bridging between Spanish and English, and her leadership in mentoring colleagues, supporting curriculum development, and strengthening dual language programs within her division. We are honored to
recognize Miss Dvilla today for her exceptional contributions to bilingual education and her profound impact on students, families, and the broader educational community. Please uh let's recognize Mr. Via one more time.
>> Thank you, Mr. Villa. and the faculty and staff as well as your uh family members. We know that you do not do this alone. It takes um so many people and so we want to recognize your family and staff here as well. Oops. Are we okay?
Lights. Just give us minute. Little technical light challenge. Okay. Wonderful. Now we will transition to the recognition of the 2026 principles of distinction. With that, Miss Reinhardt, would you please read
the recognition? Thank you, Madame President. Good morning, everyone. Um, it's an honor to announce this inaugural uh class of principal of distinction awardees. I will read through this and we'll announce each of the principles. Um,
we're going to do the there's a lot. So, we're going to do the recognition as uh Madame President uh mentioned outside and do a photograph with everyone. But as I call your name, you're welcome to come up to the front if you will and we'll recognize you that way.
So, in partnership with the Virginia Association of Secondary School Principles and the Virginia Association of Elementary School Principles, VDOE has launched a new program to recognize and celebrate principles of distinction. This initiative honors exemplary
leadership of Virginia principles, highlighting their significant contributions to education and inspires ed excellence within the school community. In fact, the principles of distinction represent schools that demonstrated strong results in the inaugural year of the school performance
and support framework, Virginia's federal and state accountability system. Under section 8VA C20-23-620F of the Virginia Administrative Code, the Virginia Board of Education outlines pathways for a principal to earn a
principle of distinction endorsement. Eligible building level administrators must have at least five years of experience in a public or accredited nonprofit school, non-public school, and must have completed a formal induction program as a principal or assistant
principal. The statewide principles of distinction program provides an opportunity for principles to receive recognition while engaging in meaningful professional growth experiences. VDOE opened the application period for this
inaugural cohort in December of 2024 and applications were due February 15 of 2025. Each submission required a letter of endorsement from the division superintendent. Successful candidates participated in a
professional training symposium and completed a highquality professional development capstone project at their school in January of 2026. Priority was given to applicants who demonstrated strong leadership in improving student achievement, providing
effective instructional leadership, and cultivating a school environment that reduces non-academic barriers. Emphasis was placed on evidence of impact on student outcomes. A total of 31 candidates were selected to participate
in the first class and the following 25 principles successfully completed all requirements to be recognized as the inaugural class of the principles of distinction. So, I'm going to read each of those and please give me a little grace if I mispronounce someone, but I
will do my best. If you would like to come up um and stand as we call everyone, please come forward. Megan Arthur, Rono City Public Schools. Christopher Benson, Rono County Public Schools. Kristen Bolum, York County
Public Schools. Mary Jane Boon, Rapahhanic County Public Schools. Liza Brahman Aldana, Arlington Public Schools. Micah Delo, Virginia City, Virginia Beach City Public Schools. Mary Lee
Grub, Orange County Public Schools. Heidi Hagerty Wagner, Alexandria City Public Schools. Stephanie House, Virginia Beach City Schools. Kim Hyer Smith, Rono County Public
Schools. >> Cynthia Jackson, Washington County Public Schools. Katie Johnson, Lowden County Public Schools. Michelle Lutil, Lden County Public Schools. Mark
Meovc, Virginia Beach City Public Schools. Daniel Myani, Virginia Beach Public Schools. Drew Miller, Rockingham County Public Schools. Melinda Morgan, Montgomery County. Bridget Outlaw,
Chesapeake City Schools. Angela Ramsey, Danville Public Schools. Ryan Schubert, Virginia Beach City Public Schools. Michael Sidebothan, Stafford County Public Schools.
Beverly Smith, Chesterfield County Public Schools. There's a lot of you. That's great. Paul Thson Jr., Lowden County Public Schools. Amanda Vulker, Chesterfield County Public Schools. and Shane Wolf, Fairfax
County Public Schools. Again, please give these principles, leaders, teachers, this recognition is just tremendous. I was trying to capture all the places across the state that were captured. I think every almost every part of the state is captured. You
all didn't just get recognized. you actually had to do work to do this which uh I think is incredibly important and as a principal who who I know you don't do it alone. I just want to celebrate you, celebrate your team, celebrate your families and again just give this group
a tremendous uh round of applause. Okay, with that we're going to exit to take pictures with our rec our honores today. We will take a brief break and then come back for public comment. Thank you. Great. Um, just want to again say thank
you for our teachers, our principles, and our students who performed today. Um, they are just a small representation of the excellence that is across the state of Virginia. And so for those who are watching, again, appreciating all the teachers and leaders and students
who perform. Um, we are now going to transition to public comment. As stated in the board bylaws, it is a pleasure of the board to accept public comment on all matters related to public education in Virginia. Before we begin our public
comment today, I want to share a few comments about the manner in which public comment will be conducted. I ask that you all model professionalism, dignity, respect as you share your thoughts today.
As adults, it is important that we model respectful civil public discourse for our students and children who are either in attendance today or viewing the stream now or in the future. We also appreciate the enthusiasm and
passion and commitment that everyone has for students and for the work that we are doing here at the Virginia State Board. When you begin, please provide your name, role of or affiliation, and where you live in Virginia. All remarks
must be directed to the chair, not to any individual. Speakers will have three minutes to share their remarks. You'll notice that a timer will be on the screens will begin with three minutes in green. At
one minute, the screen will turn yellow. The screen will turn red when the time is up. At that point, please close your remarks promptly. And I again apologize in advance for respect for time. I will interrupt if I have to. Speakers may
provide copies of their comments to Mrs. Joe, Mr. Joe Cook, right here in the front, the department's regulatory and board coordinator. Joe already re raised his hand. Okay. All written comments received during the public comment will be collected and
provided to the board as soon as possible after public comment. You may also email a copy of remarks to the board at BOE doe virginia.gov. With that, I have a list of uh
individuals who have signed up. I would ask that you come to the podium. Uh and as mentioned, state your name and where you're from. I first have Scott Rayban. Is that right? Did I say that right? And next up is Lwanda Travis. And next up is
Neil Mintton. Good morning. >> Good morning, President Ashton, Superintendent Conway, and members of the Virginia Board of Education. My name is Scott Braybrand. I'm executive director for the Virginia Association of School Superintendent. I live in Lynchburg, Virginia. I want to welcome all of our new Board of Education
members, and I want to thank all of you for your dedicated service to the Commonwealth of Virginia. On behalf of Virginia School Division superintendent, we respectfully submit the following feedback around today's agenda. First, the return to separating first review
from final review. We strongly appreciate the return to separating first review from final review on key educational items before the board. This additional time allows for thoughtful feedback from stakeholders across the Commonwealth. We also appreciate the posting of key board meeting documents
the week before your meeting so that we can provide the informed public comment at your meetings. That is truly appreciated. We also strongly support the simplification and streamlining of the yearly accreditation report that's before you today. We look forward to
continuing to work with you to refine and simplify reporting requirements for all of our school divisions in Virginia. In regards to the school performance and support framework updates, VAS appreciates the use of value tables to
measure growth and their transparency and ease of use for both ease of use for both students, teachers, and parents. We also appreciate the update around the exit criteria for students who are English learners with the most significant intellectual disabilities
that are taking the alternate access test. We will provide any additional feedback to VDOE on these updates as needed before your next meeting. And then finally, we also appreciate the revisions to the school construction
assistance program that is now going to provide even greater flexibility to school divisions to access these important state funds for school construction. Thank you for your engagement with us and with so many others, and we look forward to continued partnership with you in the year ahead.
Thank you. Thank you. Is it Miss Lwanda Travis? Are you present? No. Uh Neilie Minton, present. Thanks.
Next up will be Miss Tia Shaw. Oh, just wait till the green. If not, where's my Okay, there you go. Okay. Good morning, Superintendent Conway, President Ashton, and members of
the board, and welcome to the new board members. My name is Neilie Minton, and I'm speaking today as president of the Virginia Social Studies Leaders Consortium. First, I want to extend sincere appreciation to the VDOE and board for your recent engagement with
the field. Thank you for not including social studies in the proposed ESSA amendment today. That decision reflects a clear understanding of both the intent of recent legislation and the importance of preserving space for highquality locally driven performance assessment
systems as outlined in Virginia code. We support accountability, but it must be based on the right measure. Thank you for conducting a comprehensive listening tour. That process has mattered. It has reestablished trust with educators across the Commonwealth and signaled
that practitioner voice is not only welcomed but valued. And thank you for your intentional inclusion of VSSslc members in both the local alternative assessment committee and the innovative assessment committee. Those partnerships are critical as we work together to
ensure strong implementation moving forward. At VSSSLC, we are excited to continue and build upon Virginia's robust inquirybased performance assessment system. We believe deeply in a simple principle. Good assessment leads to good instruction. In classrooms
across the Commonwealth, assessment is not separate from learning. It is learning across the Commonwealth. Through local alternative assessments, students at all grade levels are engaging with compelling authentic questions such as how have Jamestown and wherewome changed from long ago to today
in first grade? Why do we need government which aligns with the civic strand of the third grade SOS? How did all American civilians on the home front help the soldiers on the warfront in middle school US history too? Why is the
consent of the governed essential to democracy in 12th grade government? To answer questions like these, students work with contentrich primary sources. They build knowledge of important historical, geographic, and economic content while applying critical thinking
skills to analyze, evaluate, and synthesize that information into evidence-based claims. Facts absolutely matter, but they matter most when students use them to make meaning, draw connections, and support their reasoning. This is rigorous, engaging, and it's the kind of work that prepares
students for civic life. This is the system we are committed to strengthening. VSSSLC stands ready to continue partnering with the VDOE to support school divisions across Virginia in implementing this work with fidelity. Thank you for your leadership, your willingness to listen, and your
commitment to getting this right for students and teachers across the Commonwealth. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. Okay, Tia Shaw. Did I pronounce that correctly? >> Tia Shaw. >> Tia Shaw. Thank you. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning, Superintendent
Conway, President Ashton, and members of the board. My name is Tia Shaw, and I'm honored to serve as the president-elect for the Virginia Social Studies Leadership Consortium. First, I want to extend my sincere appreciation to the Virginia Department of Education and the board for your recent decisions and your
engagement with the field of history and social sciences. Thank you for your decision not to include social studies in the proposed ESSA amendment. That action reflects a strong understanding of the intent behind SB 200 and HB 299
and protects the space for Virginia's locally developed performance-based assessment system to continue to grow. I also want to acknowledge the work of the local alternative assessment committee including VSSSLC members ensures that the perspectives of practitioners remain
central as this work moves forward. That connection is critical to getting implementation right. While we support accountability, we will continue to advocate for local alternative assessments because of what they produce in our classrooms. The priority is not just measurement. It is ensuring that
assessment drives strong, meaningful instruction. At VSSSLC, we are actively building that accountability through the development of highquality performance assessments. Through our grant work with the Library of Congress, we are creating and sharing tasks grounded in rich primary sources and aligned to
Virginia's standards. This work not only strengthens classroom practice but also has a potential to serve as a model and resource for divisions across the state. That is a system we are committed to strengthening not just in theory but in practice and c in classrooms across Virginia. BSSLC stands ready to continue
to uh partnering with the Virginia Department of Education to support school divisions in implementing this work with integrity. That means ongoing collaboration, clear guidance, strong exemplars, and sustained investment in teacher capacity. Thank you for your
leadership, your willingness to listen, and your commitment to getting this right for students and teachers across the Commonwealth. I look forward to the work ahead. >> Thank you, Tia Shaw. Not thank you. Um, next up we have um, Miss Wendy Little, Rodney Jordan.
Greetings, Virginia Board of Education. Miss Ashton, I realize you have masters in special education. Congratulations. Thank you to the rest of the board. There's many things that you are unaware of because you're new and there are some who are very aware. So, I am here to
deliver an oral color of law notice to the entire board and superintendent uh Miss Conway. Um, the Jay Jones determination was uh written for my son. There is a state complaint. The board of education determined that Chesterfield
County Public Schools was non-compliant with special education requirements in 2023 with letter of findings 717203. Chesterfield County Public Schools had one administrative appeal and lost appeal uh by Cecil Cesy Jr. end of story
compensatory education services and related services to get him back on track instead with in what is supposed to have been if none of this and another prior private day school had not given him elementary school work at 8th grade he'd be graduating this year and I fully
expect that every single one of you is going to make sure that happens on May 21st as was his trajectory with his peers had none of this ever happened. So, I'm also here to say that as you consider your IDEIDA part B um application as well as others that it is
non-compliant because compensatory education has never been made available, provided nor delivered to Aaron Little from the 2223 school year. When I filed due process on the board of education, I had to do it twice because of complete sabotage. Then I turned around and filed it on the Department of Education. Um,
and PO Prince determined yes indeed, my son has not received educational supports and services since the 2122 school year. That was last summer. Somebody buried that. That is a public document that's supposed to be on your website for review and available to SEAK
to consider whether to recommend that you apply for IDEA part B funds. So I have some information. Here is a letter that was also buried because Sam Holland goes um uh as we discussed and I had to file the due processes last summer based
on that. Senator Vavvola said board of education, Department of Education, you work with Chesterfield and resolve this by and report on it publicly July 2025. that was already one year past your final deadline of July 2024 to comply
with enforce this your own department of education state complaint and appeal July 2024. This is unconscionable. Somebody's going to fix this because he will not die under my watch because of a complete failure of the board of
education's failure of over sight and multiple superintendants protecting all the stuff. And many of you have had detailed information before. This is not the department of murdering children instead of public education in a public
school building. We This needs to be corrected and it will be corrected because my son is not going to die under my watch by allow by this continuing to allow to go on. He will graduate May 21st with everything he should have had.
>> Thank you, Miss Little. Rodney Jordan, please come to the podium. >> I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Good morning, uh, President Ashton, members of the board, and Superintendent Conway. My name is Rodney Jordan from Northolk City. I bring you greetings on
behalf of President Jenny Nichols, executive director Gina Patterson, and the entire board of directors of the Virginia School Boards Association. To the newly appointed members of the Virginia State Board, welcome. Your willingness to serve in this capacity is
both meaningful and necessary, and we appreciate your commitment to the students, families, and communities across the Commonwealth. The work before you can carry great responsibility. The decisions made at this level shape not only policy, but also the conditions
that allow student achievement to take root and grow in every division across Virginia. At VSBA, we rem we remain firmly focused on supporting that work from the local governance perspective. ensuring that school boards are equipped, informed, and aligned in their
efforts to serve students well. We value the long-standing relationship with the state board of education and BS VSBA and look forward to continuing that partnership with each of you. Strong alignment between state leadership and local governance is essential if we are
to see meaningful and sustained progress in student outcomes. Our goal is to be a resource to you whether through feedback from the field, collaboration on key initiatives, or simply serving as a conduit to the experiences and perspectives of local school boards. To
that end, we consider it an honor uh we consider it an honor and demonstration of meaningful collaboration that the past board of education presidents and members accepted invitations to speak directly at VSBA board of director meetings and
task force meetings. We extend that invitation to each of you today. On a personal note, it is an honor to stand before you today. Having had the privilege of serving as president of VSBA and now continuing my work as a consultant, I have seen firsthand the
impact that thoughtful collaboration can have on strengthening public education across our state. Before I close, I'd like to take a moment to introduce a new member of our VSBA team who will play an important role in the collaboration moving forward. We are pleased to welcome Sophia Panetta as our new
governmental relations staff person. If she would please stand up. And Sophia will be working closely with the general assembly and partners like you to ensure strong communication, coordination, and advocacy on behalf of public education in Virginia. We are glad to have her on
board and look forward to the contributions she will make in strengthening our collective work. Again, congratulations to each of you. We look forward to working alongside you in service of our shared priority, supporting strong schools, and advancing student achievement across the
Commonwealth. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Jordan. Um, Miss Candace Lucas. And if there are other members who would like to provide public comment, please uh come to the front. Hold just one second. Miss Mus.
>> Dr. Lucas. >> Sorry. Thank you. Dr. Lucas, you may begin. Good morning board members. My name is Candace uh Dr. Candace Lucas. Um my doctorate is in from Liberty University Law School in Education regarding special education law. My dissertation
centered around the uh school to prison pipeline and how the Virginia Department of Education rapes black mothers of their humanity, dignity, and their overall opportunity to educate their children. Today I'm here again. I've been coming
here for about 15 years. Actually, tomorrow will be my 57th birthday and I'm celebrating it protesting outside of your office, Jenna. Okay. Because Jenna, you made the comment that every child >> deserves to enter. Would you please
direct your comments towards >> You didn't stop him from addressing her, the previous person. >> Thank you. >> But you didn't stop the previous week. Stop my time. Stop my time. >> You may continue. >> Stop my time. >> We'll make sure you have the appropriate. >> Thank you. Go ahead. And if you're gonna correct one person, you need to correct everyone because he welcomed her and you
didn't stop him. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you. Every child deserves to enter school to enter school ready. Every child deserves to leave school life ready. That is not happening. That
is not happening. The Epstein files have nothing on the VDOE files. The truth be told, the fact that our children are dying, specifically our black and brown children and children with disabilities are being funneled into the school to
prison pipeline, and every month we come back here, parents like Mrs. Little come here and tell you, and you do nothing. You are co-conspirators with the death and the murder and the mass execution of millions of children.
Under oppressive systems without the respect chair, civility, respect, dignity, and professionalism are out the door. I'm going to fight like hell to protect my children. I don't even have a child
with a disability, but every child in the Commonwealth is my child who has to fight for their right to be educated, and you have failed them. Under Virginia Code 22.1-214, it states verbatim, "The board of
education shall prepare and supervise the implementation shall prepare and supervise the implementation by each school division of a program of special education designed to educate and train children with disabilities. That means
that is your responsibility under the constitution. you have failed us repeatedly. The second issue is that the Virginia Constitution gives the parent the right to direct
direct the educational upbringing of their children. That means Sans Anderson law firm can't do it. That means you can't do it. That means the school division can't do it. That means the superintendent association can't do it. The parents direct it. The parents have
been relegated to secondclass citizens by state acting oppressors. So no, we will not be civil. We will not be respectful when you're killing our children. It is time for it to end.
I'm giving you notice that every parent that I'm associated with will file a lawsuit against this board to hold you personally and professionally accountable. You have no immunity because you violated the Constitution. You have no immunity.
You have none. Our children are in a crisis and you are sitting here as though this is a Sunday brunch and we're having tea. No, it ends now. >> Thank you, Dr. Lucas. >> And oh, I mean giving these out these
Minister Cheryl S. Can you take these hands out? Prayed over this oil. Please take it and anoint your heads and your hearts. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Lucas. Is there anyone else who would like to provide public comment today? >> Okay. Thank you. That ends our public
comment session. We will now return to the agenda. Thank you. We are going to uh focus on our consent agenda. Ascent consent agenda. We have uh first up final review uh to certify a
list of qualified persons for the office of the division superintendence of schools and then we have a final review of the financial report on literacy fund and updates to the first priority waiting list. Is there a motion to wave first review and approve these items on
the consent agenda? >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Great. I'll do roll call. Miss Reinhardt, >> I. >> Dr. Bridges, >> I. >> Miss McFersonen. >> Hi, >> Dr. Northern. >> I, >> Dr. Wilson, >> I.
>> Mr. Robinson, >> I, >> Mrs. Kilgore, >> I, >> and chair votes. I, thank you. All right. We have our action items up for discussion. First, oh, sorry, final review of the regulatory action in align
with item 130H of chapter 2 of the acts of the assembly 2022 special session. Mr. Chapman, >> thank you, President Ashton, members of the board, Superintendent Conway. Um, I have no additional comments from the presentation that occurred last month
other than to note that we have received no comments on this item since that uh that presentation. And also to make uh sure for the new members, this item has been in the works for quite some time. Um this particular phase of the action since 2024, but before that um started
as a fasttrack action back in 2022. The same text has come before the board. This is the the sixth time. We have never received any comments on this text. Um and the recommendation for the the superintendent is this get approved at the final stage. >> Great. Is there a motion to approve the
final stage of the reg regulatory action as presented to the board? So >> may second. >> Great. Um, Miss Reinhardt >> I >> Dr. Bridges >> I >> Mrs. McFersonson >> I >> Dr. Northern >> I >> Dr. Wilson
>> I >> Mr. Robinson >> I >> Mrs. Kilgore >> I >> and chair votes eye. Thank you. >> Right Mr. Champion you're up again. >> Yes. >> Thank you President Ashton. Uh item D similarly up for final review. Um this is a legislatively directed change. Um
and this uh action the the changes to the regulatory text in this case in order to account for an alternative to cape accreditation for these uh these two programs related to counseling is very narrow. It comes right from the statute. Um we the recommendation from the superintendent
this also be be approved on final review. >> Great. Thank you Mr. Chapman. Is there a motion to approve the regulatory action as presented to the board? >> So moved. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Miss Reinhardt >> I.
>> Dr. Bridges. >> I. >> Mrs. McFersonson. >> I. >> Dr. Northern >> I. >> Dr. Wilson. >> I. >> Mr. Robinson. >> I. >> Mrs. Kilgore. >> I. >> And chair votes I. Thank you, Mr. Chapman.
>> Okay. We have um mi Miss Michelle Wallace, assistant superintendent of instruction for the second review of the Virginia textbook and high quality instructional materials process. Good morning. >> Good morning, President Ashton, superintendent Conway, members of the board of education. Welcome to our new
members. I am Michelle Wallace, the instru the uh assistant superintendent of instruction for the department. It is my pleasure to bring to you the second review of the Virginia textbook and highquality instructional materials process. We commonly refer to that as HQIM. So that's what I what I will be
saying. Uh in 2025, the general assembly enacted chapters 680 and 683, commonly referred to as House Bill 2777, which made changes to the textbook and other highquality instructional materials process that are being used by
school divisions as the basis for local curriculum of classroom instruction in English 6 through 12, mathematics K through2, science K through2, and history K through2. The changes require that each local school board adopt and
implement textbooks and other HQIM in these areas and that each education prep preparation program that provides training of individuals seeking initial lensure include a program of coursework and clinical experience in identifying and implementing textbooks and other
HQIM. These changes do not impact the existing requirements for required core instructional materials in English K5 and supplemental intervention materials in K8 English as required by the 2022 Virginia Literacy Act. In your
materials, you have links to the current 2011 process, which is the last time that the process was approved by this board, as well as a redlinined version showing the changes. And then there is a what we call a clean version, but you will notice that it does have some
changes in it as some updates have been made as uh Superintendent Conway and I reviewed this again since the last board meeting. While it looks like a lot of changes in that red line, actually the process is very uh very very similar. Um but what
we are changing is the definitions for textbooks and HQIM, the supports offered to school divisions and other stakeholders prior to and during the process of an adoption process. The rubric that assesses alignment to the
standards and to the definition of textbooks and HQIM and then f finally the support that follows that process that will be provided to school divisions. Next slide. We will start with the importance of HQIM followed by a synopsis of how the
textbook and HQIM law changed in 2025, stakeholder engagement, and an overview of the changes to the process. Next slide. And again, high quality instructional materials are some of the most powerful levers to
improving student outcomes at scale, particularly when there are new teachers in classrooms, including those who have gone through a non-traditional pathway to lensure. HQIM ensure that every student has access to evidence-based standards aligned content to support
mastery. In 2025, Virginia law passed or Virginia passed legislation to define textbooks as textbooks in HQIM and requires divisions to select such materials to align with this rigorous expectation.
Additionally, this effort aligns with priority one of the board which um includes uh that helping to set every learner up to meet high expectations. Next slide.
So the research on HQIM is presented in this slide and you you can click into that link to uh link out to some of that research. Uh but curriculum can have an immense impact on student learning. And so these are just some of the studies that we pulled forward as we have been training and working with school
divisions on HQIM implementation. And so you can see uh that implementing the HQIM leads to improvement in student outcomes comparable to more than a half a school year of additional learning. Next slide.
Next slide. Now we'll talk about the new law and the implications. So this slide kind of outlines and some of these are already existing. So not everything on this slide is new. Okay. Uh some of this already exists. Um but basically it outlines the responsibilities of the
board of education, the uh department of education, the school divisions and our educator prep programs. Of course, you the board of education approve the revised uh process that we will use. Uh you'll also approve textbooks and HQIM as they come forward for first and final
review. And then with this legislation, there is a requirement to approve a list of vendors of uh curriculum- based professional learning to support the professional learning of school divisions and teachers around implementing high quality instructional materials in the classroom. The
department of education, which is the staff within the instruction on the instruction team, uh we take the the lead in reviewing and updating that textbook review process for your consideration. We then also review and recommend to you textbooks and
high-quality instructional materials for those content areas that you see. Uh develop and adopt and publish that list of vendors for professional learning. We annually will publish a list of textbooks and HQIM and professional learning resources adopted and procured
by each local schoolboard. This is a new requirement and something that um currently we do collect information on textbooks but we don't collect exactly what they have adopted except in our K5 English literacy uh realm and also uh we
will provide support to to HQIM liaison. Let me get back to my slides. Did I knock something? Thank you. And uh we will also conduct HQIM review and monitor implementation for schools
identified in need of improvement. So uh that means that we'll be working with our office of school improvement to ensure that schools that have been identified uh in certain areas will be implementing curriculum that are from the approved uh list and provide support
to them. And that also is new with the legislation. Uh, school divisions are uh required to adopt and implement HQIM in English language arts for grades 6 through 12, mathematics, science, and history and social science for for
grades kindergarten through 12. Uh, from the list approved by the board or a local adoption process that incorporates board requirements in accordance with board regulations. So the first part of that is a little bit new. Um the requirement that they shall adopt is new
in the legislation. However, the local adoption process that incorporates requirements that follows the process this board adopts is already in effect and will remain in effect with this legislation. Uh they will have to annually review their professional development that
actually is already in the standards of quality and is not new. Uh and they should provide that professional development around HQIM. Now that's the new part. ensure that divisionwide comprehensive plans include support for student achievement through HQIM. Divisions already have comprehensive
plans. Uh those plans should now include uh how they plan to support student achievement with the adoption and implementation of HQIM. Uh they have to designate a faculty member to serve as the HQIM liaison and that has already occurred. We had them identify an HQI
le liaison this school year and then report to the department through our SOQ reporting process which textbooks have been adopted. Again, this is semi- new. They have um just indicated on the current report if they have adopted textbooks that you guys have approved.
Now, they will have to name which uh materials they've adopted. So, a little little new nuance there. The part for educator prep programs is completely new and that is that the educator prep programs include a program of coursework and clinical experience and require that
those students uh in those programs demonstrate mastery in identifying and implementing textbooks in HQIM and support the identification and implementation of HQIM as a strategy to support uh student learning. And so that part is actually we've already started
working with our educator prep programs uh on this particular component of the legislation. Next slide. So what really changed with the definition of textbooks is the incorporation of HQIM and uh really
looking at the adequate content and materials for student mastery of the corresponding standards defining instructional practices that are aligned with general and discipline specific research evidence. So we know that what you do in a science classroom might very well differ from what you do in an
English classroom. So that's what that means there assessments to monitor student mastery of curriculum content. So those assessments should be built into that HQIM so that teachers can monitor student mastery ongoing rather than at the end of a se end of a semester end of a nineweek period. Um
this assessment these assessments typically go on almost in a daily fashion. guidance for meeting student needs including enrichment above grade level uh students and for the intensification for students who are at risk for not mastering curriculum content. This includes our English
language learners and students with disabilities as well. And then resources for our teachers and this is really to give teachers that support to develop their own knowledge about the curriculum. Uh we know that teachers are not content experts in every single content area particularly at the elementary level. These materials give
them that support so that they know the content and can instruct on that content and that the content is reliable, trustworthy and valid. Next slide. So where are we currently? Um currently the textbook review process
was last adopted in 2011. Um so it it's a little bit out ofd um not just with the HQIM and the trends in education right now uh but just some other nuances that uh had to be updated throughout the plan. Um John's Hopkins
also conducted a study in the fall of 2024. So that's almost been two years ago. And so some of you were on the board when John's Hopkins came and did a synopsis of that study. And you heard that 63% of English teachers reported
using HQIM most frequently and approximately 37% of teachers reported using materials that did not meet an ED reports alignment or usability standards. In in mathematics you see the numbers are drastically lower. Um and so uh that
was only 10% in that remember this is 2024 uh reported using HQIM most frequently and approximately 80% reported using materials that did not meet um ED reports alignment and usability standards. Next slide.
with the Virginia Literacy Act. Um we of 2022, it actually went into effect in the fall of 2024 where teachers were using core instructional programs for the very very very first time. So every student uh must be receiving core
literacy instruction from an evidence-based literacy curriculum for the entire literacy block and that is done through the K5 core literacy programs. Additionally, uh the law calls for K5 and K8 or sorry, six through
eight supplemental and intervention programs. And several times if you've been on this board um or if you've watched meetings, you've seen many uh items come before the board for review and approval uh by the board. And we will have some for this board to adopt later this year. So, you'll get to
experience that pro that process if you haven't already. Uh some of the lessons learned are kind of informing our process moving forward. Uh we realize that implementing HQIM requires significant effort at all levels and involvement of division leaders and superintendent. So with the ELA
implementation uh at the K5 level, we did a whole series of implementation of on HQIM. We have already started that series with our division leaders um knowing that this legislation and that this process is coming into effect very soon. And um then with the uh since the
2024 study of John's Hopkins, we now do have 100% of our schools using or that have adopted core programs uh and as well as those instructional intervention programs in K8. Uh all divisions have division literacy programs that outline
that curriculum adoption and therefore the department does know what divisions are using for their um curricula, their core instructional program. Next slide. This is just an implementation timeline to give you an overview of what we have done since
actually 2023 with the adoption of uh where we began our evidence-based adoption for K5 as early as 2023. We have new standards in English. We have new standards in mathematics. We have adopted textbooks in uh both English 6
through 12 as well as mathematics. when those textbooks were adopted, of course, this legislation was not in effect, but we did um look for the tenants of HQIM because uh we did have some flexibility in that second part of the rubric that allowed us to do that. So, we did go
ahead and start applying HQIM, not necessarily by the definition of this legislation, but certainly for the tenants of HQIM that are being used nationally. Um and then we um are anticipating board action for final review on this process in June. We
anticipate some uh additional summer training for our EPS. Um actually we have that planned out and then um we will be bringing to you also this summer a process uh timeline for the processes of science and history adoptions. And
then um we anticipate additional training on this process because that is part of what the feedback from stakeholders. They wanted more input. They want on the front end and they wanted more stakeholder um support on the back end.
Next slide. And again. So as I said this process, this legislation had us convene a group that looked at our current textbook process. Um we used those individuals who have been through recent textbook processes for English and mathematics um because
they could provide some great insights into the actual process for the from the 2011 process. Uh we also engaged with others who had gone through previous processes and those who have not been through any textbook or processes at all. And so from all of that feedback um
you know the overwhelmingly the feedback was the process is a good process. What needed to change though were some tenants the definition of textbooks and HQIM and then what we look for in the process and then again those additional supports to make sure that we are implementing the textbook process with
fidelity. Um textbook vendors also provided uh feedback on the process as well. And then uh next slide. Our stakeholder proc or stakeholder feedback again like I said primarily favorable in support of the current process. Um instructional
support for special populations was identified as a critical need. And so that'll be built into the process where we're getting uh making sure that those student groups are represented on our textbook adoption committees. And then alignment to the standards was um highly
regarded as a a priority and should remain a priority since uh we are teaching the standards of learning, testing on the standards of learning. Our textbooks should be aligned to the standards of learning and then clearly defining our processes for publishers what um what the different areas of
adequate limited and no evidence mean. And then um HQIM should provide that in-depth support to facilitate teacher understanding. So, that's that back-end training that we're talking about to make sure that teachers after something has been adopted, they actually had great ideas about having each vendor do
like a little 10-minute snippet overview of their program uh offered to all stakeholders. Next slide. The additional feedback is that rubrics should reflect discipline specific components. And so that is where we do um you know you'll see a a generic um
kind of one that we've done for English but those uh components would be specific discipline specific that also is in alignment with the legislation. Um build in extra time for the new process. uh time became uh a big topic of
discussion because with our recent implementation of English and math standards, we kind of uh implemented those uh on a little bit earlier timeline than has been typical in the past and therefore they wanted to make sure that we had textbooks in HQIM in
process as new standards are adopted and new textbooks are then subsequently adopted and then um division leader participants requested training and so we've built that into uh the recommend recommendations. So, next slide and then again.
So, as we think about the recom the revised process before you, we have the broader definition of textbooks and other HQIM that's within the legislation from 2025. We have uh incorporated the identification of how textbooks and HQIM will support advanced learners, multilingual learners, and students with
disabilities. Additional training for textbook reviewers. additional feedback solicited on the materials to be being considered for adoption. We made a lot of technical changes. That's a lot of the red lines that you made and then or that we have and then the timeline uh
for the cycles to align with what the field is asking for. Next two slides. Um so our next steps uh after this meeting, you know, we'll solicit additional feedback. We'll bring it to the board in June for your final review.
Once approved, we'll engage with our field on the process and develop resources to address awareness and training needs. We'll review current materials and timelines. Uh the legislation did set some enactment clauses on the timelines, but does give us flexibility to change those timelines
based on when we've re last reviewed standards and adopted other materials. And so we'll um we'll be reviewing that. We've already done that actually. But um just to give you some parameters, uh science and and history are being selected to to go first because they
don't have any materials in those areas and we know that history in particular is has been asking for a long time. And then you guys know that you just adopted the science standards in the last part of last year. So we're right on time with science which is why we would be doing those at the same time. Um use the
new process uh to when we adopt. So, we're currently going through a core K through5 materials review process that's led by the Virginia Literacy Partnerships at UVA, our partners in the VA implementation. Um, and so we've been working really closely with them. New
for this year, uh, this cycle, we are, um, after they've done their initial review, we are taking a comprehensive look on the DOE side to standards alignment and then we'll be putting out documents that inform um, what how those materials align to our standards of
learning. And so that is something that'll be new for this uh cycle. And then finally, ensure all full compliance with all aspects of the law. Um recommending vendors. There's an appendix there that shows you um you can go to the last two slides
uh that shows you the professional learning that took place since the last board meeting. Um we had really great response from the field on just learning about HQIM in anticipation of the legislation, in anticipation of the new process coming. And so, um, you know, that's been very welcomed by the field
as far as, uh, how divisions think about what they're g how they're going to implement the new HQIM in other content areas other than English literacy K5. Any questions? >> Okay. Um, I do Dr. Wallace, thank you so
much for that presentation. I'm gonna go to Miss McFersonson and then Dr. Wilson. >> All right. Thank you. So going back to what I have is page nine, the current state. Um, and so the John Hopkins study
indicated that 63% of the English language teachers reported using some form of highquality instructional materials. Correct. But only 10% of math teachers were using some type of highquality instructional
materials most frequently. Mhm. >> So it am I to understand that um and 80% of the math teachers were not using anything that apparently met ed reports
alignment and usability standards. So one of the slides also indicates that it looks like the best data we have will demonstrate it will take us three years before we will see any improvement or
manifestation of the use of the high quality instructional materials as it relates to math because it takes about three years before we'll see a difference. >> Yeah. So that's a good indication. I mean, anytime you change anything, we in school improvement, we typically say three to five years before you're going
to see improvements. And and when you have high quality instructional materials, you're going to it's really dictating. I mean, that's going to be a less time. So, I'd say yes on the three-year end. But remember, this is a 2024 study and we're in 2026. >> And this board adopted mathematics, high
quality instructional materials last February and March. So, divisions have been going through their local adoption processes over last summer and this fall. Some have started implementing those those uh HQIM. We also had a $10 million grant that targeted highquality
instructional materials use uh that was awarded to school divisions. And with those funds, divisions are also purchasing some of those high-quality instructional materials. So I would say that the vast majority of school divisions will be using high quality instructional materials in the math classroom beginning with next school
year, the 26 27 school year. >> Um and so yes, I mean but some have already started implementing because some were early adopters and they implemented piloted in the fall and more implementation with Fidelity in the spring.
>> Okay. And at some point I'm assuming that we'll also get information as to the use of those materials as it relates to the performance on the SOS. >> I'm hoping that we'll be able to crosswalk that. So
>> Conway. >> Okay. >> Yes. So uh great question. So sort of two things um in addition to what Dr. Wallace noted. So I think the first is um uh a survey gives you a snapshot but
it's not kind of systematic u you know you know uh where it is or is not being used right because there's you know who it's who sort of opted in to complete the survey I think those survey results did their job and saying hey we're further along in English language arts
than we in mathematics as as Dr. Walls noted, but ultimately what I think the comprehensiveness of this law does, it also calls more broadly on the department, not just in the area of instruction, but to think about, for example, in the area of accreditation, which we're going to talk about later
today, how do we check to make sure now that this is state law, that every school, not just the division as part of a a broad plan, but every school is has chosen and has adopted a high quality uh curriculum. So I think you're going to see uh Miss McFersonson us developing
better systems to gather that information and then once you understand what a school is identified is using then you can then go back and marry that with the growth and uh the performance based on our standards of learning
assessments. And so I know that's something that we're looking at right now now that we have systematic information on K5 literacy. We've not yet done this, but we can look at the 35 literacy growth and performance and then sort of at least at a minimum correlate, right? It's not causational, but can
correlate that with uh the curriculum choices. >> Okay. Uh Dr. Wilson, >> Dr. Wallace, thank you very much. Um so this point that um Superintendent Conway just made about the uh what this
information um study recognizing limitations provides us as a baseline and thinking about the throughine then and the responsibility of the department to help support divisions uh and holding the the department and the board
accountable for its part in uh student learning. >> Absolutely. So my question though goes to roles and responsibilities and and who um is identified in terms of making and keeping track of information. So on
the slide that talks about board of ed, DOE, school divisions, and then educator prep programs, I notice that the department is required or will be um publishing annually a list of these
materials, but I don't see a similar level of responsibility at the local level. So it seems to me that there is some responsibility. Yes. for the department and the board's perspective, we need to be able to to understand what's happening and how our work is
impacting what's happening in the divisions. But thinking about the local responsibility, I wonder if there is any expectation that locals are are are publishing and being um perhaps transparent to their communities about
what the materials are that they have adopted um and where that that line is. >> Yeah. So that actually falls within their comprehensive plan. So their comprehensive plan which should be on their websites um is where they would document the information and every division does comprehensive plan
differently. Um some give a lot of background information on how they got to that point of what they've adopted and how they're doing with that adoption. Some may do it differently. Um but that's where their accountability comes in. Um the legislation calls for us to publish. um the legislation
doesn't call for them to publish, but through that comprehensive um divisionwide plan, uh they should be including that. Um then again, when if you look at the the division's responsibilities um or excuse me, the department's
responsibilities about monitoring implementation for those schools that have been identified on school for school improvement. Uh those school improvement plans have to go before their boards, which is a public document as well. And so those improvement plans should also incorporate some tenant of their textbook adoption since it becomes
part of the school improvement process. >> So just one follow-up comment if I may. Um thank you. Um that reminder is good. I think for the public though >> um who may not know where to dig for that information. um it makes it a bit
more difficult for the public to understand at the local level what is happening how it's happening and then it comes here so that's my observation yes thank you Dr. Wilson so um >> uh in the spirit of of transparency and
I want to applaud Dr. Wallace and the instruction team for their diligent work on what I consider to be a very important law um that provides a ve a nice framework for this body for the department for divisions and for our
educator preparation partners on how we should approach this work. Um as uh I am in my role am evaluating um the ultimate kind of how do you implement this law fully. I want to note that it will I think as we come to you in subsequent
meetings be much more than instruction. Right? So and and you'll you'll notice a similar vein when we speak later today about school improvement that it can't just be owned by one >> division or office within the department. So when you think about holding schools accountable for inputs
based measure that's our accreditation system right and thinking about how we make sure once this law goes into effect fully which is in July 1, right? that that is so that every superintendent understands when they are signing off on accreditation that they are too attesting to the use of of highquality
materials. Um I think when we work in partnership with with uh our COO and our deputy superintendent around how do we make sure that you know to the extent possible our federal funds right are you know and sort of any applications as Dr.
Wallace noted, we had a a math grant on this, but again, if this is a top priority, and we know that folks are still in the process of changing, aligning resources to make it uh possible and to encourage uh more divisions to to purchase these if
they've not already. Ultimately, there is a big shift for school improvement. And I think um really thinking through not only um you know where is it in your comprehensive plan or where it is in your improvement plan that you take to your board but how do we put this at the
center of the school improvement plans and how do we think about making that more publicly available. Uh it is not necessarily part of the school performance and support framework. We don't necessarily want inputs there, but you could see where we might um as we have done in the world of early
childhood post online on the school quality profile which curriculum is being used, right? So that parents that do know to go there for information about schools could do that. And then again really thinking through with our educator preparation partners, how do we make sure that they're not only
delivering this, right, but that it is we're seeing changes in terms of the educator candidates that that come out. So um that is uh you know I want to sort of both recognize the incredible work of instruction but just acknowledge that there are multiple aspects of the
department that will need to think through this implementation and be responsible for communicating that in order to comply with all six uh layers. And then I think thinking through as well how do we make sure that our uh uh school division partners understand this
is not just a a chief academic officer at the VDOE to the local division but is broadly and you think about you know your funding choices your school improvement your uh teaching and learning um as well as your superintendent's office that all of
those folks um are uh understand what the law calls for for them. >> U Dr. Bridges. >> Thank you. I have a couple questions. I I do think to um Miss McFerson's point, this is it's exciting with the focus on
math. We really should start to see some movement in those math recovery um outcomes just from this because we know that alignment and reducing variation in what children are are receiving in instruction can can be a huge big step.
So, I'm excited about that. I wanted to ask to your point about um the ed prep programs because we've got so many educators coming in now from alternative programs and uh not even having field-based training as part of their um
uh experience before they're in the classroom. Do you see do you feel like we're we're able to close that gap with the professional development expectations that are that are in the proposal? Yeah, I mean that that actually
it's not spelled out in the legislation again. So, you know, this is what you know, we we're charged with >> implementing the legislation. Certainly, we can go beyond. And I think that that is also a valid point to bring up to school division partners, right, as how they are training their local teachers.
And so, with the curriculum-based professional development, that is also a part of the legislation. It's not a requirement that school divisions use CBPL. It is a requirement that the VDOE adopts or puts out a list for curriculum based professional learning, CDPL. Sorry
for the acronyms. Um um just kind of kind kind of rolls. Um >> it's education we know, >> but that um yeah, we're our C of uh the alphabet today. CBPL and HQIM. There are your two two new ones today. Um but the
the legislation calls for us to adopt CBPL at the state level that signals to divisions these are approved by us to support the curriculum that we have adopted in Virginia as well. And so those kind of align right and then it's
divisions have the option to select from that list to get that curriculum based professional learning which is direct typically direct classroom observations um support to teachers and I think that
is where that training is really going to hit any teachers that have come in a non-traditional fashion because they're going to be really looking at that curriculum not just holistically what is HQIM as our educator prep programs are going to
be doing um but also very specific to that school division's implementation of the HQIM at the classroom level and typically that type of professional learning is a very sustained type of professional learning that it's not one and done it happens over the course of the year many times and we actually do
have a couple of grants right now um the math grant is one we also have a literacy grant that is doing that same thing right now in divisions to provide that um that support through curriculum based professional learning vendors. um you know but very valid point and how
we can really think about maybe working with some of those alternative accredit or alternative teacher pathways >> uh that offer that and um you know I will just say that we've encouraged we've we've been talking with EPS for a little bit now they were invited to all
of this training so they got what the divisions got and we've encouraged them and we'll be encouraging them to reach out to their localities find out what they have adopted and get samples of those curriculum materials for their students to see, put
their hands on, look at the lesson plan, thematics, and how how it's set up and what they can do to adjust lessons to address student needs for disabilities or advanced learners or EL learners. >> Thank you. I have a second question, but it's not not related. Um I think the
other really important piece there is that uh the law provides uh a clear expectation that we're gathering this data right in order to publish it but it also means that we can start to look up at okay what do we know about this school how many provisional licensed
educators do you have right at what levels right and then what are they using in terms of HQIM where are we seeing growth where are we not where might that be related to professional learning so the uh Dr. Dr. is exactly correct. This will probably be our priority over the course of the next
four years in terms of like that's how long it takes. On the other hand, um what we've learned from our our work in early childhood is really thinking how you measure and show that back to a school division every step of the way is critically important. Um, as you sort of think about what do we have at the
aggregate level, how do we take things from accountability or sort of test level performance, attach that to what we know about the workforce, attach that to what we know about which HQIM are are or are not being used. >> Great. Miss McFerson. Oh, wait. Oh, Dr. Bridges has another question.
>> Do you want to add on or >> Yeah, I'm adding on to this one. Okay. So, I'll be quick. So, I'd like to from an elementary standpoint. Um, so the role of the board is to obviously look at systems and make policy that's going
to make changes. And in order for us to do that as we adopt standards and as we adopt materials, that information has to flow out to everyone so that we know that they're all on the same page with us. These are
the high quality instruction materials that we expect that you will use. And so the communication needs to be really clear because give you a perfect example. I'm sure that during co time and even before that because I've got some experience with it
there were materials that were being used to provide shortcuts to learning. What we have found from the experts is that as well as that was intended th those materials were not based on fundamentals
because the textbooks that are approved have fundamental steps of growth in them and as you go through those materials and you master those you get to the next set of materials you're a you have the building blocks and when you shortcut that you don't have the foundation and
then students fall behind. But from a board's perspective, what we're trying to do is say we need to get on the page together so that we can move from the materials to some of the other issues that teachers and principles and superintendents have said create
problems for them such as self-regulation in classrooms. So that's my point. Can we get the word out? This is where we are. This is what the expectations are. so the teachers are clear about what we're expecting of them and their accountability and we can then
help them with some of the other issues that are facing the school system across the board. So I do want to thank the staff. I do want to say thank everybody out there that's trying to do the best that they can under this circumstance. But just understand the framework. do want to try to move on from this to help
you address some of the other issues so we can build a first class Virginia entire system for the growth of our students. >> Absolutely. >> Thank you, Dr. Bridges. >> Thank you. Uh this is just a clarification from my understanding. The background document, not the uh
presentation talked about the Excel and Ed report that only eight states um require or maintain official adoption list. Does that mean Virginia with this law becomes the ninth? Is that >> is that what it does?
>> That would be my perspective. I don't know that the specific underlying criteria, but in my 15 years, this is a one of the more assertive state laws on HQIM >> and we're thankful to the general assembly for it. >> Yeah. And if you look at those eight,
there's a couple in there that, you know, are getting some attention for some of their advancements in um in outcomes. So, thank you for that. Thank you. >> Y uh Dr. Northern and then Mr. Robinson. >> So, I just want to underscore um a point just made by our superintendent. Like
this is this is huge um in terms of what we're being asked to do. Um I've got frankly mixed feelings about it. Um on the one hand, there is no other state in the entire country that's deciding HQIM for history and science. Uh because
guess what? It can be a hornets's nest. Like we know the problems that we had, and I'm just being real frank here. We know the problems that we had with our history standards, getting them, you know, right, so to speak, uh where we could actually feel good about them and and all the negotiations and
collaborations that we had. Um so you can imagine us trying to as a a body say like here are the science textbooks that we think are great when nobody else is willing to do that, right? So, we're going to have debates about climate
change, about evolution, like these are no small issues. Um, and so that's one. Both science and history have their own hornets's nest, right? Um, so I would suggest that there's going to be some education that we need to do with the general assembly to say, um, there's a
reason no other state has done this before, right? We started with with math and ELA because they're easy, right? And we know they're not. So, um I guess just that point like I I just feel like this is going we're we're
going to be the frontr runner on this when nobody else has done it. Um and so we need to be real careful and it's going to take time. Um I don't think we need I don't think we should push and say, "Okay, well, they told us we had this timeline and it's more like, okay, let's tell you like why it's important
for us to take our time when we're going to be the the only state to to do this period." Um my second point is I think that um we're trying to do this through the textbook adoption process from what I understand. I guess that's the right
vehicle. Um I worry though like is it the right vehicle to say like this is how we're going to think about this process. I don't know if it's I don't know if it should look like a textbook adoption process. Um given that we're not in 2011 anymore and teachers are not
just using a textbook. we've got like all these materials on, you know, on Google Classroom and on Canvas and on all these digital learning platforms like the getting a textbook and putting it in your backpack is not the world we're in anymore. So, I really do think
that we might consider what the process look needs to look like in 2026 and going forward given that textbooks are not what a teacher I mean I just did a survey in my day job. teachers are telling me they use 37 different types of materials um and and that you know
intervention and core and supplementary and and all this stuff begins to blend together. So I would just encourage us to think differently um about the process and not try to tie it to 2011 um process. And I'd also be um I'm also curious, this is my question, what the
um textbook vendors said um because I feel like um we've put them in a compromising position. In some cases, there just haven't been enough highquality ones out there. And we've had to force ourselves to say we think these are high quality, even though I don't think some of us were convinced
that they were. >> And so sometimes the field hasn't caught up with what we're being asked to identify. And so again, I do worry that there may be no HQIM in these two areas um because other states haven't been forced to do uh what we're getting ready to do.
So, the the vendor that uh specifically gave feedback um I talked with them and said, "Hey, while I've got you, let me ask these questions, get your feedback." And um actually, you know, they they app they like the Virginia process. The the process of that we go through is a good
process. Um and primarily it's not changing. What is changing is the way we implement that process with the rubrics that we're using to evaluate things. As far as textbooks and you think that we look at textbooks, we did not get a single hard copy textbook in the last
two reviews for English and math. Everything was digitally reviewed. So we are up with the times on our review processes of the materials and we do look at those tenants. What's changing though is the ancillary other materials
that are with that textbook that becomes the whole package. Those are now going to be reviewed where they haven't been reviewed in depth in the past. Now, we did incorporate that into our math >> textbook and and ELA textbook review process because we knew that there was
going to be legislation coming. So, we did look at some other like supplemental type materials with those not just the textbooks, right? Whatever the vendors sent to us is what was reviewed and that included those other materials. But now this process gives us and the def the
clear definition of what HQIM are in Virginia gives us a clear mind and to develop a rubric that can go along with that definition and along with you know what is an what does a quality assessment look like for um looking at
the materials uh and the progression that students should be making with those materials. Um, and so I think that we we're we're we're already moving in that direction. So I want to reassure you on that that even in our last review process, we're
already moving in that direction. There's no way we could look at a hard copy and then we have to keep all of those hard copies until the next textbook review. Um and so yeah, so that that piece um but the the the vendor
going back to the vendor, they appreciated because we're very transparent with our vendors throughout the process. >> This is where uh we need to see better alignment and then they revise and and then they send back materials and we review again or you know if we have
questions they're very responsive about getting us what they need. um our process is very clear that we have to know who who wrote the materials. It's not that you know who was the editor or the author of the materials. You know there there's some components of our process that are safeguards not just for
the textbook vendors but also for divisions um because the pricing structures things like that all have to be submitted ahead of time. That protects our divisions uh in the long run. And so, you know, overwhelmingly both the the stakeholders, teacher,
educator stakeholders as well as the vendor that I spoke with were in favor of how our process works. Is a good process. Yes, there are things that could be >> Quick follow. >> Yep. Dr. Northern and then >> um so we know that HQIM um differs based on the subject and the
grade level. >> We're being asked to do this for K12 um every course, I assume, and every grade level. Um, so I would just suggest and I know we've relied heavily on UVA in the past to help us with our reviews of HQIM
in uh in reading and literacy. Um, given again that we're going to be the the forerunners on this, I would suggest that we find um, you know, our partners in the state who are also experts in science and history and have have some real credentials around this as opposed
to putting it all on the feet of our educators. Um, I think we're really going to need some heavy-handed expertise here that have um expertise working with other states um that are, you know, maybe have done this at a local level. Again, I know nobody's done
it uh at the state level. Um and so yeah, I just and and also my last point is just that we study it, right? I've talked to the superintendent about this before. like everybody's saying HQIM, but we don't have any impact data that actually shows that particular HQIM are increasing student outcomes, which is a
real problem. We're still using rubrics and so on without real outcome data. >> So, two points. Um, we do invite institutes of higher education onto our review committees. Um, we also get feedback, you know, so we we do have some insights there. Um and then also um
our team right now is learning about HQIM and there is a session today going on about science HQIM in the session that um that my team is attending as we speak right now. So we have through CCSSO already been looking at science
HQIM. We've been talking about it for about a year and a half. There are a few states that have some OEER that are considered HQIM and that they've been implementing and it is getting more national attention on um the forefront. Uh as far as history, you're 100% correct. They're not going to be a lot
of um all HQIM uh in history. Um and we've seen that there are some states that are developing their own. Um so there there are lots of different things going on nationally. So very valid points. Thank
you, >> Superintendent Conway. >> Yes, thank you. Um, you know, want to kind of acknowledge I mean it is a very big deal to contemplate this work for history and and social sciences and science fundamentally particularly with
the definition of HQIM uh saying that it's adequate content and materials for student mastery of that content means in in some form or function it is it is a relitigation of the standards. Right? as you think about the extent to which um uh that content is covered uh how you
demonstrate uh what you sort of define as that threshold for mastery and then um how you make the choices about what's in and out fundamentally in in in drawing that line. So I want to acknowledge that. I also just want to acknowledge um and again have
appreciated Dr. Wallace and the team jumping in to the the deep end here, but this is a significantly different definition. And this is not just take textbooks and just added the four words high quality instructional material, but
the reason we had the team uh put the definition here on slide eight. Um, and the reason that we brought this back for second review is I am concerned because you have not heard more about this that we potentially don't have a full
recognition in the field. Uh, when you think about what Dr. Northern just noted and how many grades and that every single school division, every single one of our 1,883 schools, right, uh would be affected by this that there's probably some
additional work uh to be done around really making sure that it uh supports student mastery that it is thinking about the science of learning in terms of the instructional practices. It is calling for, you know, intentionality
around that ongoing assessment, which is completely different. And we know we we when we were out on the listening tour that from a uh educator or parent perspective, you're pretty indifferent whether the assessment comes from the state or the assessment comes locally. But if the testing balance is not right,
um that in that impacts your experience as an educator or as a as a parent. And then how do you really make sure that there is the professional learning? And so I just I don't want anybody to underestimate the magnitude of that definition and as we think about then all the responsibilities that follow um
on on that chart. So um I think you know this will you know there's a a flag here and and wanting to one um as we heard today make sure that there was some time for additional review between now and June. But I think we'll also be looking at the maximum discretion on how we roll
this out over the next four years. And I think this is a four-year law. uh quite frankly that will you know from at least the entirety of of my tenure and thinking about where we need to take more time to get it right um because the thing that you're watching it that you're avoiding and I know this is what
is is beyond the newness of it and and and Dr. Dr. Northern is an expert. The other thing that you want to avoid is a whole lot of work for a null effect, right? And if and if you say everything is okay, um then what you see is a ton of of of investment uh the vendors of
products uh end up making more more money, but there's not actually effect on students. And so really thinking through how do we bring the right partners to the table? How do we make sure our school division uh partners are fully aware and phase this over the next
the next uh four years um and make sure that it is a core piece of whatever kind of four-year roadmap that we would produce. >> Great. Mr. Robinson. >> First, I want to applaud that ambitious goal and the ambitious effort uh and
we're seeing uh in places that moved on literacy uh you know high quality uh instructional materials um uh really fast movement in many divisions and many schools in dramatically improving student achievement. And so I think when
when done well um you know I think we need to absolutely study it a lot more and this is an anecdote not a research that I'm um saying but you know we have multiple examples um uh of of students getting dramatically better instruction and seeing results within a short
window. And I and so one thing I want to say is just encourage us that yes it often takes three to five years for change to stick but we're making this huge investment uh you know we should start to be seeing student outcomes particularly for students further from opportunity in in a much shorter window
and uh what I want to ask for comment is you about the alignment to standard should remain a priority that's one of the principles of of the board in this this comprehensive shift of this definition. Um, do you have discretion as you think about the scoring rubrics
and how you evaluate whether or not we're keeping a high enough standard for whether these materials knowing it'll be very hard in uh harder in history and science than math and and and and language arts. Um, you know, I'm concerned that is is our is our criteria
actually high enough and are there too too many materials being approved as HQIM and just what your experience is so far? Yeah. So that that's a it's a very valid question and um I will say that um alignment is at the forefront of this
process and so um the first leg of the review process is alignment and if they don't make it through that alignment component they should not make it through to the next section of the rubrics which is the HQIM tenants. >> Right? Alignment can be defined in a lot
of different ways. It could be 60% alignment to standards. could be 80% alignment to the standards and just just curious um you know how we're how we're thinking about using this opportunity to ensure that that we feel very good about those evaluation criteria.
>> So so my team is is really good on alignment. They and they train very well on alignment and really anything um we we would for adequate alignment is around 80% but we try not to equate it
to an exact 80% but um looking at the whole you know all of the materials across the whatever was submitted some materials are only submitted for you know a couple of grade levels some materials are submitted for K12 some are 68 some you know and so um you know we
we hold that higher standard on our on our committees. >> And then um you know back to to the implementation you know once you have those that have gone through I love that we're adding the in the definition assessment to monitor student mastery of
the content. Um and as we do that I worry about it being very focused on what the curriculum providers are are promising and not necessarily aligned to the standards. And so I I'm I I I appreciate the and and support the
addition of that and love your explanation that it's more about the formative assessment and I think the field needs a lot of help in in ensuring that we aren't just giving the keys to all of our assessments to what the curriculum providers promise us and and
instead the field's getting support and how they're thinking about how that ties to um you know assess interims and units and other assessments that helped ensure the learning is um is is deepening and is aligned to Virginia standards. So all
that to say, uh I support all this and and encourage as we think about the training of system and district leaders, which I see in here as part of the the criteria that that we uh really uh hone in, particularly as math is so new in in
thinking about uh how we're scaffolding system leaders to support teachers with um systems for assessment and PLC that um uh are are are more comprehensive than just uh what the curriculum
providers provide. >> Have you been dropping in on my staff meetings? >> Um our team is already considering a lot of what you've said, the PLC's. Um we have a literacy planning cycle that was introduced with the English the Virginia Literacy Act and we're applying that to
like a lesson planning implementation cycle. So we've already integrated it in our math materials that we've shared out but we'll be doing it um holistically. We have additional tools like walkthrough tools that are designed for HQIM implementation for those division leaders to look at how the HQIM is being
implemented. Also looking at those assessment results, looking at um where teachers are filling in the gaps where something may not be aligned 100%. Uh to meet the the rigor of our standards. We're also uh so that whole planning cycle that um that that we're talking
about with school leaders is all about what you just said. And you do that through your PLC. You know, it's not uh let's go to a PLC and talk about our field trip. It's let's go to our PLC and talk about how we're going to implement this new HQIM lesson and what did our data say from our last set of walkthroughs that we did and when we
were focused on X Y and Z. So, we've put out um new walkthrough tools that we're training divisions on that really is specific to um looking at that implementation of HQIM at the classroom level. Additionally, I do want to say um we are looking at SPSF data for literacy
already. Our team has looked at the data. We have we're currently doing um school visits to those schools that have shown tremendous growth which we do think that came from the implementation of HQIM. Um and so our team is finding um some pockets where there are some
strong places of HQIM implementation of that literacy K5 and we'll be highlighting some of those in the fall um through a process that we're we're working through defining. Um we also are seeing where um and and this is where superintendent Conway and I have had some discussion that um you know
sometimes incremental steps like that you see the teacher still using the the you know holding the computer to go through the lesson. They're implementing right they're implementing with fidelity but they are not 100% confident. And so you know in the listening tour for example I went into two different
classrooms. one where the teacher had the had the computer and the other where the teacher was on the floor saying verbatim what was coming from the HQIM. They had script they they knew the script. They knew it. And that's what you're going to find with your quality teachers that have been there a little longer, your experienced teachers that,
you know, kind of, you know, they know the routines. They know the content. That's why HQIM is so good for new teachers because it's all there for them and they and it outlines a high quality instructional program for students. um in particular our students that come
that don't have the resources and and the backgrounds at home that they're bringing to the classroom. So um all those things take into consideration and I swear I think you have a microphone in in in my staff meetings. >> Dr. Norom.
>> So just last comment on this from me. Um I would just suggest since we are the the um the guinea pig I'll say um for the entire country on this. Um I think that like we did with our process for
history review where this board and this was before I was on the board but they meticulously like rolled up their sleeves and got involved in making sure that those standards I remember Mr. Rotherham I saw pieces like literally going through this. Um I would just
encourage you to involve this board a little bit more on the process and how it rolls out. And when you begin to review um textbooks uh particularly, you know, since you said science and histories first, um let us know like give us examples as you continue to
confront, you know, present to the board of like here's what we're seeing as we're looking at new textbooks. Here are the problems we're coming up against. Um here's where we worried like that. We just don't think there's going to be enough um history history textbooks out there to match our standards because you
like we created really good standards. I don't know if textbooks have caught up with us um on the history front. So just in general um because I do think there's going to be some education that we need to do on this and I'm kind of look forward to that like okay if we're going to be the forerunner runners here then
let us be a model for other states and let's be transparent about the process that we go through with you guys um and be real um open about the troubles that we see in trying to do something like this. >> Thank you. I appreciate the request and welcome that. >> Great. Okay. So chair has final comment
on this one which is just going to say everything that you just said. Um first I just want to thank the previous board members, previous staff members and our current board members and current staff. This is really just the the most appropriate next step in our work. Um
we've done accountability, we've done standards, we are you know accreditation and performance framework. Um, from my experience, high quality instructional materials is the highest leverage thing that is going to move our our state across a state forward from, you know,
from our youngest learners to our highest learners. And it takes time and that's that's the tricky part. So, how do we have the patience, persistence, but move with urgency around high quality instruction materials? And what I hope you are hearing and that the
board is agreeing that we are 100% on board with moving forward high quality instructional materials for our for our state. Uh it has different parts and elements whether it's the process or the tools or the resources but we are 100%
on board with it because we know it is what is needed. Um just just a couple things from my experience um is almost exactly what you said. Um the implementation with Fidelity um what we know and from my experience is there's a third of our sector that is hungry for
this and is already moving forward and they're going to see probably the most immediate impact on academic outcomes for their community and we need to learn from them very very fast. Uh there's another group that's somewhere in between like you said, you know, they've got the materials. Yeah.
>> What the shift is from my experience is teachers have to internalize the materials. You can't just read a script. That is more heavy lift. It's a different kind of lift for educators that we're used to. Um I have examples of a you know a a teacher who was
tremendously successful and a new teacher coming in. new teacher just takes it, implements and turn it, gets better results than a teacher who's been teaching for many years just because of the rigor of the standards and the alignment. And so there will be uh
varying stages of implementation. Uh and I think that the more we learn, the more we're patient around it. The last thing I'll say, two two last things is uh is the point you made. Um all of the data and there's a lot of data and research around this. our most vulnerable students are the ones who don't have
access to highquality instructional materials and that is where we're going to close the gap by the work that we're doing today. Uh and this is a change management process and what I think you've heard is um I am one who does not want to be in all the details
particularly around history and science standards. Um but but I know take that to Dr. ignore them but >> yes yes yes however the communication around this
the um whether it's to all of the stakeholders what I would just really emphasize is why why high quality instructional materials if we don't spend enough time on that I think we'll we'll run into two just bumps that are
unnecessary and so again we can get down to the details but I think the more we emphasize the why and you know we're we're not the first to lead on high quality instructional materials that has been happening across the country we would be the first around science and
social studies so it's really an opportunity for us to just jump frog the whole country around it but if we don't explain the why I think that we're going to have some missteps so just thank you for the team u and with that we will accept this item for second review and
see you in June >> thank you very much for your time. I did not anticipate it would be this long. >> So exciting. Yes. >> Great. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Board, are you in need of a break?
Maybe a quick five minute bio break. Okay, we are going to take a quick five minute um break and we will reconvene on our next item. Thank you. us that brief break. Um we will uh return back to the agenda although or
>> I don't know if we need to wait for that. Um this is Mr. Williams. Thank you. Our assistant superintendent of child care health and safety. Um I remember the the I can't remember the exact comment but the ickies or something. Um so yes, we are we are up
getting an update I believe. So would you uh please present? >> Yes, ma'am. Uh good morning, Madame President, superintendent, and board members. Uh my name is Jeff Williams. Um so we're here to um do a final review for a guidance document for licensed
child day centers. So I'm here for any questions, but uh in full disclosure to stay out of the ickies, uh hopefully there aren't too many uh questions so we don't have to get into goopy eyes or crusty lesions. Um but what questions might you have for me?
Great. Thank you board members. Any questions? >> Okay. Thank you. Um is is there a motion to approve the guidelines for notification reporting of communicable diseases? >> So move. >> Second.
>> Thank you. All right. Miss Reinhardt >> I. >> Dr. Bridges. >> I. >> Miss McFersonson is not here. Dr. Northern >> I. >> Dr. Wilson. >> I. >> Mr. Robinson. I, >> Mrs. Kilgore. >> I chair votes I. Thank you.
>> Yes, ma'am. Thank you. >> All right. All right. Mr. Chapman, you're up. >> Thank you. >> Um, having been in the technology gentleman's shoes, please forgive them. They hate this. They they trying their
best to keep this running and just have to do their best. >> We understand. We also appreciate the library for hosting us and moving us from room to room. So, we know it takes a minute. >> Well, if it's okay, Madam President, I
don't think my presentation depends on on the slides. >> Okay. Yes, please jump in. >> And uh thank you board uh for hearing this item. Mr. Williams will stay up here just because the content area um falls within his uh his his
jurisdiction. Um however, the reason I'm presenting is because this is a a very highly technical item and essentially what has happened here is this uh this action a series of actions that affect a number of different chapters in the child day center regulations um have come back before uh the board a couple
of different times and this is just the latest iteration. And so in 2024, the department started the process of enacting a piece of legislation that had to do with epinephrine availability in early um in child day centers. Um that action had stalled for a couple of dis
different reasons and then proceeded in the fasttrack towards the beginning of this year. Um so this is obviously a much longer implementation time than I think anyone is anticipating for the uh the so-called fasttrack process. Um when this went into uh public comment uh it
triggered a provision of the administrative process act. Basically these received more than 10 comments of folks who were you know a little wary of this action. I will say that the the reasons for the weariness seemed to have more to do with the um with the the controversiality of the action um and people not really
liking some of the provisions the cost aspects of this things that um you know were considered by the general assembly not the textual aspects of the actions. Um however under the administrative process act uh th those actions as fasttracks must now proceed as full
regulatory actions that are going to take a much longer period of time. Um we are coming before the board today to ask the board to withdraw those u those actions uh and allow the department to come back with a single nora u a notice of intended regulatory actions to kind of restart these for one specific
reason. We have had a very large regulatory chapter um in the works. It's a replacement of 780 which is the standards for the licensed child day centers has been in the process for five years um since the the the Nora came out. I think my third month on the job with the department and that is in the
final stages. We expect it to come back to um to the board next month for first review uh at the final stage. That is a very large ship and we would really like for that ship to kind of dock and get settled. Since one of these epinephrine
actions from 2024 is amending the old chapter, um it doesn't make sense from a policy standpoint to have the licensed child day centers completely out of sync with family day uh family day homes um and with voluntarily registered uh child day centers. So we we we think the right
thing to do at this point is to take a step back um let the other regulatory action play out its course and then come back with the NORA in order to amend the correct new chapter and all the other chapters at the same time. So this is just a very sort of wonky situation with um regulatory a regulatory action that
we thought was going to be much quicker um colliding with a a very large a very large regulatory action that u that sort of needs to needs to complete this five-year journey. >> Okay. Thanks Mr. Chadman. Are there questions? Okay. Is there a motion to weigh first
review and approve the action to withdraw actions of 6380, 6381, 6383, and 6384? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Great. >> Miss Reinhardt, >> I. >> Dr. Bridges,
>> I >> Dr. Northern I. >> Dr. Wilson, >> hi. >> Mr. Robinson, >> I >> Mrs. Kilgore. Uh and chair votes I. All right. Thank you. >> Okay, Jim, you're up again.
>> Thank you, Madam President. >> So, we're doing the first review. Yes. Okay. >> Sorry. Yeah. Item H is a first review of a fasttrack regulatory action to amend the regulations governing pupil transportation. Um, this chapter had a periodic review in 2025
where in discussing um the the language and the text with staff, we found a series of amendments, very small changes that needed to be accounted for uh that we thought a couple of, you know, minor clarifications. Um there's one instance, probably the most substantive, has to do with school buses and when they move
over railroad tracks. The current regulations say that those lights need to be turned off before they go over the railroad tracks. Whereas I think the practice has changed in the time since these regulations were originally published that now we want them to turn off after they cross the railroad tracks. Um there some some very minor technical changes. Um along those lines,
we do have Carrie Miller who is our director of of uh pupil transportation who we've been working with a lot on this. We have also consulted with a number of uh pupil transportation uh directors across the state um and the DMV about these changes, but we are we
are presenting to you as the results of the periodic review and these changes we think are in line with the periodic review from last year. The recommendation from the superintendent is this be accepted for first review. >> Great. Are there any questions?
>> Okay, we will accept this item for first review and see you in June. >> Thank you very much. Okay, let me see. I think we are reviewing the 2026 27 BQB5 guidelines.
Is Miss Carol Oh, there you go. >> All right. Good morning. Uh thank you to the board for having us here uh today. Today we're excited to build on the great conversation that we started yesterday during the work session uh where we talked about early childhood uh
Virginia's birth of five system and specifically uh VQB5. So I will um kick us off again today and I will once again uh turn it over in just a few slides to um our expert and lead in this area Chris Meyers.
Um so we can go to the next slide. Uh so today we will um take just a few moments to refresh and reset on some of the key goals that we uh are seeking to accomplish through our VQB5 efforts. Again, that's Virginia's quality
measurement and improvement system. We'll talk a little bit about some of the feedback that we have heard from the field in doing that and the structure of our VQB5 guidelines. Um these have of course been provided to you. there uh one of the I'm sure many uh monster
documents you got today. Uh so we'll summarize some of that for you as well. Um and then Chris will provide some details uh related to the two key changes that we are proposing for this year as well as um some of the uh more
technical uh edits that we have included. Uh next slide. Um so we wanted to start with just taking a quick step back and looking at our our guiding principles. And so these principles have been um essentially uh
exactly as they are here from the very beginning of our development of this quality measurement and improvement system. And that is work that started um seven uh seven maybe plus years ago. uh and we uh designed these before we had
the name BQB5, before we even had the measurements identified and have worked hard to uh refresh and remind ourselves of them um every year and as we go through the year. Um so we have sought to build and support a system that
really uh focuses on the impact on school readiness. So, as we talked about yesterday, really centering on school readiness for our birth of five learners. Um, using measures that can distinguish quality and support growth. Um, so really, uh, equipping teachers
and the professionals in the field to know how they can get better, actionable information and incentives for improvement. Um we knew when we were charged with building the system that we uh were going to uh need to expand it to
every publicly funded site. So 3500 plus sites. And so uh that requires that the system is affordable and scalable. Um so there's some you know practical measures to keep in mind there. Um and uh importantly uh that we are increasing
opportunity for children. Uh that we're mindful in what we are measuring as far as outcomes. U much of which we discussed yesterday. Um and then always with the centering of how this is useful for families um as they make one of the
most important decisions they make uh related to child care for their young children. Next slide. Um, so one thing that we're really uh proud of on our team is the uh level of engagement and opportunities for
feedback that we try to keep um consistent throughout the year both as we prepare annual revisions to this document. Um but also as we uh launch in the fall and the spring um and uh the uh amount of feedback we have is sometimes
overwhelming, but we have tried here to summarize some of the key themes that we have heard throughout this year. Um so the first uh key theme uh we continue to hear um general satisfaction with class and curriculum. Um I cannot
tell you how many times I have heard people just attest love for the class tool. Um and we're actually going to provide some examples of of what that looks like in action in just a few slides. uh we receive general support uh for the ready region for linkb5 and for the way
that we have um as a system been able to coordinate responsive supports. Uh yesterday we highlighted the success of the honor roles uh which really gave programs an opportunity to highlight areas where they shine. Um and we've seen that carry throughout the year as
well. Uh people are very pleased with the accessibility of our VQB5 data. Um this is a very transparent system. We actually just post an Excel file with all the scores and ratings on there. Um
folks can you know do with that um in a in a safe way of course but um do with that what they want if they want to you know really dig into that. Um, and then as we mentioned yesterday, we've seen our quality profile website be um, extremely popular with uh, about 200,000
visits in uh, just two years, not even two years. Some of the areas that we have um, heard feedback on that we are continuing to refine are related to the link B5 and the VA Connects user experience. Um, as we
mentioned yesterday, the VA Connects website was new this year and we've heard some ways that we can continue to make that uh more userfriendly and are are actually actively working on some of those um updates right now. Um, I think sites have communicated that they uh
continue to uh benefit from hearing what the purpose and rationale is. Um, this system is work. there is um lift to be done here and the more that we can help folks really understand the benefit to
everything we're asking them to do uh the more we equip directors to do that when they have to ask their teachers to fill out profiles um and you know participate in that way um the better off I think we are um we uh have continued to uh expand the
way that we use our data to support classrooms and I think that will continue to go as we more data year-over-year. Um, and then we have heard and we will talk uh quite extensively about this today. Uh, but we have heard feedback um that we uh that
there's a demand to make sure that the rating levels are accurately reflecting children's experiences. Um, and so as we showed you yesterday, currently uh the vast majority are sitting in that uh one middle rating level.
Next slide. So um again you have the the full guidelines document in your materials today. We have not changed the structure of this document significantly. Um this is the sixth time we have brought this
document um to the board of education. We've brought a set of updates every year. Um again trying to be responsive to this evolving system. Um we you know started in a pilot. we had these as uh guidelines that were uh
evolving were a first year, a learning year, a practice year and um have continued to make some refinements annually since then. Um, one important thing to note, and I don't think we covered this yesterday, but we do have the early childhood advisory committee. And so this is a um
legislativelymandated group that we take every document that we bring to the board of education to them beforehand and they have the opportunity um with their expertise to really weigh in, ask questions. And so we did do that on March 19th. Had a
great discussion with them and received an endorsement. Next slide. So there are two um key proposed updates and I'm going to summarize them here and then Chris will give more information. Um but uh you know just to kind of steal
the surprise for her. Uh the first change that we are proposing today is changing from a threelevel rating system to a fivelevel rating system. Um and so we alluded to this a little bit yesterday. Again, this is really um with
the goal of providing more meaningful information to sites and to families um and more distinctions in what quality looks like. Um and so she'll explain a little bit more what that looks like. And then the second change is changing to a required site improvement planning
for a larger category of sites. So for right now that starts at 399 which is um a rating that very few sites receive and this would be a um modified uh but required improvement planning process for an additional group of sites which
we will also talk about and next slide. So um why are we talking about this? Um so as we covered a little bit already um we have seen several challenges with the three rating levels which again is our
our primary I think the biggest change we are proposing here and um somewhat motivates the second change of the um the site improvement planning. Um, so I think some of the challenges we have seen is with those bigger rating categories, we're really getting more
general feedback. Um, and we are grouping a whole bunch of sites together that are really doing very different things. Um, I think that is limiting both for our higher performing sites that are in that category that really
have something to be seen and it is also limiting for our lower performing sites that fall into that big category. um where when we know that they need some additional supports um compared to others. Um again, we also want families
to be able to see uh the more accurate information and have more meaning from the ratings that are available. Um moving to a more uh uh differentiated rating system is also important for our ready regions and improvement partners.
uh we really emphasize prioritizing supports to those that need them most and this helps us identify who that is. Um with that we will go to the next slide and uh Chris Myers will take us through some of the details uh for our
first change. Good morning. Uh glad to be back and to follow up again on the great discussion we had yesterday. Um so uh this is our kind of big change. Uh so what you see here is our current structure. The three rating
levels there on the left. Uh that is what we were are under right now. So when we uh share profiles in the fall, that will still be under those three rating levels, but we are proposing starting next year to move to a fivelevel rating system. Again, those would not be published until the fall of
2027, but we'd begin measuring under that system. I'm going to walk through just a couple of the key changes here. Uh but the full definitions uh are in section six of the guidelines page 65 uh if you want to refer to those as well. Uh but we tried to pick even just the
names for these uh levels to be something that was easily understood and kind of built on each other. So the first thing to point out is uh we are keeping the lowest level uh exactly the same. Uh so a 100 to 399 points will still be called a need support rating.
Um we are also keeping the top level at least the points uh the same. So the top level will still be a 700 to 800 points. We are proposing changing the name of that level. When we look at what those class scores are and we think about calling these sites national exemplars,
which they they truly are, uh we think distinguished is actually a better name for that level. Um it also aligns with the K12 uh framework. Uh so we think there's some nice alignment there. Then basically what we have done is taken that meets expectations range and broken
it into three categories that we think better explains where these sites are. So the if we start from the bottom there the 400 to 499 points. Uh we're proposing calling those approaching expectations. They are partially having some of those uh good quality
interactions. They just aren't fully there yet. uh 500 to 599 would now be considered what we uh expect and that would be meeting expectations and then uh the exceeds expectation sites 600 to 699 again they are doing some higher level
interactions uh and things that we'll break down in just a minute as well. So we think that's a better label for that 600 to 699 category. Next slide. So, it's important to note we are not uh proposing a change to how we actually
calculate the rating. And this will actually allow us to continue to measure uh year-to-year uh growth from how we started in year one. So, it will still be this three-digit score. Uh again, we just found that parents found that three-digit score confusing. And so,
again, having a shift in the labels and the the kind of cut points will help with that. Um so, we calculate these ratings at the end of the year. Uh so this just kind of summarizes what we're doing now and what we will do under this new proposed system. Uh the first thing
to highlight is we will continue to get most of the points from those local observation scores that happen in every classroom in the fall and the spring. Um we multiply the average score at the site times 100 and that's how we get up to 700 points. If there's a score
replacement, as we talked about yesterday, if there's any inconsistencies, we factor that into that interaction point category. The curriculum point is a slight change and this was actually approved by the board last year. Um if you'll go back to that uh other slide.
Um so the curriculum change was approved by the board last year but it doesn't actually go into effect till next year. So just want to remind uh everyone that currently we give the 100 points um if they are using a curriculum in at least one classroom and again that's optional.
uh then starting next year again they wouldn't have to use curriculum but if they are using it they would need to use it in every classroom in order to get that additional 100 points. We'll still add the points together for the total points and then you can see the difference between the cut points for
the three levels versus the five levels that would start in the fall of 2027. Next slide. Uh so this has been one of our favorite slides to share with the field to kind of show uh the impact. You didn't have to look behind you Jenna. You knew what
slide this was. Um so we were trying to help the field understand what the impact is going to be with this uh change. Um so what we did here is we took our existing scores from the 2425 year uh and kind of modeled what that would look like or
what it looks like currently and what it would look like under these new cut points. So the blue line there on the left is all 3,293 sites that currently have a quality rating. Uh the orange in the middle is their current where they've fallen currently. So again, there were 101 in
that top category. Uh 25 in that lowest category and all others 3,167 were in the middle under the new cut points. That's the green uh bar there on the right. So what would end up happening is most sites would end up in
a higher or equivalent rating category. So we still predict uh very few at that top in that distinguished. We still predict very few at the bottom in that needs support. But then we think there would be about a half of those meets expectations that would move into that
new exceeds expectations category. uh another fair chunk that would stay in meets expectations and then about 300 or so that would drop into that approaching expectations and that's what we'll talk about in a few more slides again about how we would uh require some additional
improvement support for those particular programs. On the next slide we took a look at what this looks like uh by site type. Uh so the dark blue is the current threelevel rating system and the lighter blue is the fivelevel rating system. And then
you can see the percentage by centers, family day homes, and public schools. So again, most site types would fall either into exceeds or into meets expectations. That's true for all three site types. Uh but overall, there would be more public schools that would be in that exceeds
expectations category. Um and when you look at the approaching expectations category, that's mostly centers or family day homes. However, we do predict there would be a few public schools that would be in that category. We have not had any public schools in the need support category, but uh we do think
there could potentially be some there. Again, this is our estimate. We'll have another year of data this summer that we'll do another modeled impact on, but this uh helps us kind of predict what would happen and what the impact would be on the field. Next slide.
So when we were thinking about how uh we could potentially uh shift to more levels, uh one of the things that we talked a lot about was how do we help our system and help families in the field use these levels to better understand what children are experiencing. That's really kind of one
of our main points with using the class tool is to understand what those children uh are experiencing. So we decided to use these 100 point brackets because every 100 points then represents a shift in the frequency the quality the intentionality of the interactions that
are impacting children's experience. Uh the class tool itself actually uses a one to seven point scale. Uh so each one point of class actually represents meaningful changes and how that teacher is supporting interactions and a one point in class is equal to 100 points on
our interaction system. uh we're not going to have a seven point uh rating scale. That would be too many ratings. And really when we look at what's happening at 399 points and below. Uh truly children in those sites are rarely if ever having those positive interactions. So again, that would kind
of be our lowest chunk, but then we'd move up by 100 point intervals. And you can kind of get a sense that the frequency of those positive interactions that support learning happen more frequently as you get up each level. On the next two slides, we're going to
break this down even more. I know we talked some yesterday, but we thought uh to really help this hit home on what we're talking about with what children are experiencing, we wanted to put this into a couple slides. So, we've got an infant toddler example that we'll look at first and then we'll look at a prek
example. Um, so what we've done here is we've taken some actual uh children's experiences based on things that the class tool looks for. Um, and we've broken them into the low, mid, and high range. So the class tool also kind of lumps things into low, mid, and high and
then has individual score breaks breakdowns within those. So if you start on the left, uh if you read those interactions, uh it it's it's pretty hard to read to think about our babies and toddlers being in setting settings that are um having those uh types of
interactions consistently. Uh that's why those are considered sites that need support. They need very intensive support because we need to have our infants and toddlers having better experiences. Um if you look first, let's just kind of do the three kind of basics. So if you look at meets
expectations, those sites tend to have class scores that fall pretty much in the mid-range. So when you look at those types of experiences, uh that's primarily what's happening in a site that's meeting expectations, uh definitely some good things happening and things that are starting to support
uh learning. And then if you go to that highest level uh what would be considered a distinguished infant and toddler uh site uh you would see uh the types of experiences you see listed there as well which are very high quality stimulating uh experiences for
those little ones uh brain that you saw the pictures of yesterday that will really support that high level uh brain development. The two new levels that we're proposing tend to be a little bit kind of on the border and have a little bit of a mix of interactions. So what we see in the approaching uh expectations
that 400 to 499 category those class scores tend to be a mix of some lower interactions and some mid-range inter interactions. And then the 600 to 699 what we see again is a mix. We see some mid-range interactions but we also see
some of those higher range interactions. And that's why we think having those additional categories helps uh that make more sense. This is also similar to some of the language we'd like to use more with families to help them understand what the class tool is and why these interactions um are important.
Next slide. So, similar to what we just looked at, this one it's prek and it's also just one domain of class. So, the prek class uh actually has two other domains that look more at emotional support and classroom organization. But this instructional support domain, it is
actually uh the one that we see the biggest variation in across our prek classrooms. It's also the lowest scoring overall domain across the state. Uh so we wanted to kind of really try to explain and put uh as much uh you know examples uh here to help you understand
what's happening for instructional support in a needs support site versus uh the other levels as you move up the system. So again, if you start at the left, uh the things that are happening there are not really supporting learning and those need support sites. And so we need to get in there and help uh those
programs start to promote learning and to do it in ways that are developmentally appropriate for young children. Uh meets expectations. Again, there is definitely some interactions that are starting to promote learning. There's sort of a mix. They're just not happening as frequently or at the depth. Uh and then when you get to that high
level, uh not only are these things happening, but they're happening frequently. uh they're they're lasting longer. We talk about the duration and the depth of those experiences. And I think even after yesterday's meeting, we were talking about how uh just helping folks understand how important talking
and having those back and forth conversations with young children is for promoting their brain development. Again, those two new levels, they just they're more of a mix. So again, the 400 to 499, we see a mix of kind of low and mid uh examples there. and the 600 to
699 we see a mix of mid and some high range uh interactions. Next slide. So we wanted to uh give you a little more data about these two new levels and again that kind of helped us really feel like these were the right uh levels to
breakdowns for these sites. Um so first on the left is the sites that scored 600 to 699. So we looked uh very closely at those scores and some of the trends that we noticed uh from last year's data is that these uh programs had a higher
average compared to all. So they their average was 639 compared to 592 which was the overall average. 99% of these sites were using an approved curriculum. Uh so pretty much all of them were using an approved curriculum compared to 80%
of uh all sites. Um, most of these sites, 92% were returning, meaning they uh mostly had had a couple years of being in VQB5, although there were a few that were firsttime participants in VQB5. Teacher retention overall was higher uh
at 84% compared to 77%. That probably means there's less new teachers uh coming in uh and some strategies at those sites that are helping retain those teachers. Um and then on average when we looked at a couple different categories of experience uh and years in
early childhood uh these staff had more years of experience in early childhood compared to other sites. So we feel like these sites uh need the recognition to uh serve as peer models in some ways as we think about those distinguished sites being our national exemplars these are
our state exemplars too and we want to be able to learn from them uh so that people have more examples of what this really looks like. how is it working and what they could do uh to reach this level. When we took a closer look at the sites with 400 to 499, uh they
definitely demonstrated more of a need for that targeted support. So, their overall average was lower, 466 points compared to the overall average. Only 23% of these sites reported using an approved curriculum. So, very little curriculum use. Uh and if they were
using it, they're probably not using it that effectively to be in this category. Um, still most of these sites were actually returning 77% so a little bit less. Uh, but these are sites that for the most part had some experience with VQB5, a few more newer sites. Uh, but
showing that potentially we need to get in there and help support them more. Uh, teacher retention was a little lower. So, these sites probably have more new teachers. Uh, on on average staff had less experience uh, coming and working at these sites. And then this last point
really hit home for us because we have been prioritizing these sites the last two years. Uh we send letters, we encourage them to participate in coaching, we tell our coaching partners to prioritize them, but as of December, only 14% of these sites have taken us up
on those state coaching supports. Uh so that is partly what led to us wanting to have some kind of requirement for this these sites to help them improve, which I think takes us into the next slide. So the second part of our change which
again is related to the first uh again this would not actually start till the fall of 2027 because we'd measure under the new five levels next year and then we'd actually publish the new levels in the fall of 2027 but starting that year we would require site improvement planning for both our needs support
sites and those approaching expectation sites. Um when you look at the definitions of those sites you can see again they're a little different. uh that needs support definition. Again, they are definitely significantly below the standard. Uh so we are actually not proposing any changes to what we're
doing with those sites. It seems to be working. It's very intensive both with a DOE quality consultant and intensive coaching. So that would continue to be a very uh intensive required improvement support to meet the quality expectations for the approaching expectations. again
they are making progress towards they're just not fully there uh towards our uh quality standards. So we would propose more of a targeted approach that would be required to help them fully meet our expectations which we'll talk about a little bit more on the next slide.
So to give you kind of a sense of uh the differences here on how we'd kind of uh differentiate the support we put this side by side. Uh so again the need support items uh no changes this is actually what's happening now. So, needs support sites, their goal is to move out
of need support. Um, ultimately we want them to reach that meets expectations. Uh, they have to work with our uh coaching partner out of UVA, the Virginia Early Childhood Coaching Consultation. So, no choice there. That is the coaching partner uh that works with them. Every site leader, every
classroom, every new teacher at those sites has to participate in the coaching. And the coaching happens uh a lot. Uh so on average it's about every two weeks but it might happen even more and at minimum uh to meet the compliance piece of this they have to have at least
10 sessions during the program year. So a very intensive approach that we would continue to have. The approaching expectations is a little more uh flexible but still again with some requirements. So their goal would be to get to that 500 level point um level or
higher. We would give them a little bit more choice here. So we have four current state coaching partners. Uh the VECC is one of them. We have some stream uh coaching related to using the stream curriculum. We have an infant toddler specialist network uh and our TTAX uh as
well. So uh one option would be for them to work with a state coaching partner and if they work with them those coaching partners again have those minimum requirements of coaching and that would meet the requirement as long as they're participating and keeping up with their coaching. The other option
would be that they identify another qualified coach uh or an improvement partner and they would work to develop their own quality improvement plan. They would have to submit it to us and we'd have a committee that would review it uh and if it met our criteria for that uh we would approve that and they could
kind of manage their own quality improvement uh pieces. We'd monitor it but not as closely uh as we would uh with some of the others. This the second option is probably more an option we think for like our public schools who already have instructional coaches on
their staff. Sometimes our head starts have their own instructional coaches. This is probably a more challenging uh option for a family day home who doesn't necessarily have a coach, but potentially there could be other coaching organizations that again if they met some requirements uh this could
potentially be an option. But we would we would guess and we would want as many as possible to take that state coaching partner option. Um as far as who would participate in coaching, a little more flexibility here. We would require the site leader themselves to get coaching. Uh we'd look
at the individual classroom scores. Um so and determine which of those classrooms had the lowest scores to participate in coaching. It is potentially there could be a center that has 10 classrooms and maybe one or two of them actually had higher scores. So we wouldn't necessarily uh require every
classroom to participate but we use our data. Uh and then any new teacher at these sites we would require to get coaching. Coaching would happen uh less frequently. Uh again this is kind of our initial proposal. We'll work uh and kind of think this through uh over the next year. Uh but we're thinking something
more like a minimum requirement of at least every month with something more like five sessions uh throughout the year. Again as a minimum. There could certainly be more than that that we'd encourage. So that's just an overview of kind of how the two are differentiated. Uh you
can go to the next slide. So that kind of sums up the main two changes. Uh and again we can take uh some questions on those in just a minute. Uh this slide I won't go through all of these uh individual items, but as you heard Erin talk about uh when she uh
introduced the guidelines document, we do just find kind of every year there are places that we can strengthen our language to talk more about the purpose or perhaps adjust a deadline uh based again on either the feedback or the data that we see in the field. So this kind of outlines some of the areas where
we've made some smaller clarifications again to address uh those pieces from the field as well. And something like the honor roles is not new. Uh we just didn't have that fully fleshed out in the guidelines and recognized that we needed uh information in there as well.
Next slide. So uh to wrap up just want to kind of share with you and remind you sort of of this timeline. Uh one thing that we are currently doing is going out into the field and having lots of stakeholder sessions about these proposed updates.
Uh we had a webinar just a couple weeks ago that has almost 2,000 uh views of the recording. So we are trying to get this out there this spring. This summer uh sites go in and they have what's called a data verification period at the end of July and they get to preview their rating. Uh and that's when then
they can request a change if they think there was an error. Um, so when they do that this summer, they will go in and they will see their three-level rating and we will also have some kind of additional information that will say if you got this score this year, it would look like this under the new five level
rating system and it would give some information as well to start them thinking about that. uh in the fall of 2026. Again, those quality profiles would still be published under the three-level scale, but we would start to have some communications on the website and for families to start letting people
know that this is coming and what this means. Um the improvement planning again starting in the fall would still just be for those needs support sites, but we would continue to prioritize uh coaching and we think more sites might be motivated to take us up on it if they know that they're going to be required
the following year. Uh throughout the winter and spring, we will plan on doing uh many emails, newsletters, webinars both for families and the field. And then next summer of 2027 when we have data verification that's the first time they would log in and see their kind of
preview of their rating under the five level scale. And then the fall of 2027 we'd publish with the new scale. Again we need to have some resources and FAQs to explain the shift and the change. Um and that is when the improvement planning requirement would start for both need support and approaching
expectation sites. And with that, I will open it up for questions. >> Superintendent Conway, any >> uh just appreciation for um uh the team and for the incredible amount of work
here. I do want to note that the early childhood advisory committee does go through this in depth. Um, and there was a full uh unanimous endorsement of this. Um, uh, and as noted, 2,000 views already, but continuing to gauge so that no one is surprised by what is a very
significant shift in how we, uh, how we rate these these these programs. >> Great. Um, I'll just I don't have any questions. You know, I think the transparency and the the change gives just the great feedback that providers need in order to improve, but also to
highlight the providers that are doing an excellent job. So, I just want to thank you for that presentation. >> Dr. Bridges, >> thank you so much for building on what we learned yesterday and and really um taking us through the the very thorough
process y'all have been through. I just had two quick questions. I see in my rabbit hole of links that y'all provided that um class has a a new version that the class 2 and that's not being used yet and so is there a plan for that uh
integrated into into this? >> So a couple things with that the second edition of the prek has been out now for about three years and so we have built some initial capacity at the regional level to understand and explore the tool. It it aligns pretty closely with the current tool. It's not major shifts,
okay? So, it can be used for some professional development. It's just a bigger shift to completely shift to that. And they had not released the infant toddler second edition until this past fall. Um, and that tool is significantly different. They've actually taken the two separate tools
and combined it into one. So, it it would be a pretty big lift both uh from, you know, the cost of it and the time for people to completely reertify. So we're we're exploring it and we're sort of trying to like kind of look at that capacity. Um but we will not shift yet
until we feel like it's really the right time. The second edition tool is very much still it's not like they're going to phase it out. Uh they are still using it is still very much uh supports high quality interactions and there's really more of a research base still behind the initial the original versions and so
we've also asked for more uh data on the impact of the second edition tools. Side note from the rabbit hole too. I didn't know that class was used in K12 settings and in some studies uh is even has has proven to be more effective than
the Danielson framework which we see so often. So anyway, that's just food for later thought. Um my second question and honestly this you the the move to the from the three to the five um rating scale makes so much sense to me as someone who has personally uh wrestled
with um standardsbased competency based grading myself in a college setting. Um and I this semester dropped exceeds expectations um from my my system because I was finding you know the subjectivity increases so much when you
get anywhere beyond um meets because you can really map you you met these things here are the things. So I'm just curious for y'all how you think about the need for e exceeds but even distinguished is there is that incentivizing anything in
your mind to add the distinguished there? Um is there an advantage in terms of uh incentivizing improvement for others or or spreading best practices? What what do you what do you think having both exceeds and distinguished uh
provides for providers? I guess >> you want me to start? >> I can I can jump in. Um that's a great question and it is true that it's a a fairly small group that is currently in that what is now exceeds and will be
distinguished. Um, however, those sites really and truly are national models. Um, to be able to multiple times across a program receive scores at that level.
Um, it it is a distinguished rating and um, we do hope that it is motivating for folks to see that. Um, we also hope that we can continue to equip those sites to be models to the sites around them. Um, we didn't share this graph today, but we
do or chart today, but we do have a map and and the sites that are in that category, while, you know, not not a ton, um, they are around the state, and they they cover every site type, which is really important. Um, and so we think
it's important that there are family day homes that are distinguished, centers that are distinguished, head start sites, schools, and we can point to those. Um and hopefully you know regional partners can do that too to really lift up what that looks like there. Um anything you would add
>> Superintendent Conway? >> Yep. >> Uh so I think the other important just to take a step back and to to bring together some of the concepts from yesterday and today is that this is all a a very significant evolution. Right?
So before the law was passed, one in six of our programs that took the child care subsidy program predominantly family childare and childare were participating in any form of uh rating system and most of them were at the entry level which was functionally just lure right the
sort of the the floor in terms of health and safety. And as we rolled out this system, we wanted to be very cognizant that if you were going to tell folks that they didn't meet expectations, what they would more likely do is to say, "I'm not going to take public dollars."
Right? And then the risk would be unlike our K12 system that sort of has to take public dollars. That they would simply say, "I'm not going to take public dollars." And then our our most in need, uh, children and working families would not have access, right? And so the whole
idea was to say okay we will lay out a reasonable bar for meets expectation and we will drive resources for improvement to that group that no matter where you went and no matter who you were that if you walked into that classroom you would agree this is a place that needs
additional support. We then also said we know that the research from the tool sets a very high bar. It is a very hard by bar to achieve and we have the benefit as Chris noted of of almost two decades of class right and we can say if you can get a six like no matter where
you go if Dr. Wilson walked in or if Dr. bridges walked in, they would be like, "This is truly exceptional." And that compares kind of across the country. But setting that bar, right, meant that in year one, we had about 79, is that right? Like, uh, sites that met that bar
out of 3,000. And this year, we had 101. And that feels like a really, you know, feels like almost too small. But you keep it small because it is truly exceptional. By creating the exceeds, it truly recognizes those folks that are
higher performing where there is a difference for children um and allows there to be kind of a recognition of of that that um again thanks to the underlying tool there truly is a difference between exceeds expectation
and meets expectation. I will say and I have the sort of this is a a rare moment of mentioning other states but we happen to know that there is another state that has had this system in place for now than a decade and one of the uh things that I had the opportunity to share with
the authors of the class earlier this year was the power of holding that high bar. So when we looked at some of the Louisiana data 10 years into this they still have the five levels. So similarly in Louisiana, we started with three and
moved to five. Um that you have examples and the example I'll give is a is a very rural underserved parish in the Mississippi Delta known as East Carroll Parish. When this effort started, they had three early childhood sites and they were kind of an approaching expectations, right? So if you think
about what we described and kind of where kids are not receiving those high quality interactions, fast forward 10 years later, they have eight sites. So they didn't reduce access, they nearly tripled it and their network average, the average across those eight sites was
a 6.02, 02 which basically that plus curriculum would put you into um you know that that distinguish if you were to go back and Aaron and I were go back to East Carol Parish in 2016 it never felt possible right it did not you could not imagine only half of their only a
quarter of their population has bachelor's degrees you know 70% is poverty it felt like that bar was too far out of reach but we think by creating the kind of the stepping stones by aligning the resources and by keeping that high bar even though it's a little
frustrating in the beginning because only you know only 100 out of 3,000 sites earns it that if Virginia can hold that bar and add that ingredient of support and time we have to believe that it can be done anywhere. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. Um Mr. Robinson. >> Speaking of holding a high bar, uh for those who didn't get to watch uh the presentation yesterday, uh I just want to recognize one reason that this is such a phenomenal change in raising the bar is because uh my understanding is we
had um about 50 schools that had were in that bottom category a couple years ago and now only 25. In part, we hypothesize because of the strong support the team has provided. And this will raise the bar in um not only expectations but also
in more schools receiving support. And so my question before comment is like do you do we have the resources? It's not like you've been twiddling your thumbs um to uh dramatically increase uh the support uh that we'll be providing to schools in the way outlined.
>> This is a great question um and one that we've been receiving and are actively working through. >> Um yes, we do. And uh we'll continue to figure out to make how make sure that we are prioritizing the supports that we have. We're currently getting an
estimate of exactly how many classrooms and we're going to use our most recent data to make sure um that you know the the supports and the coaching partners that Chris mentioned that we have available will be able to meet those
needs. I do think that will require us to do some thinking um potentially some you know re-evaluating uh this year of exactly how those supports are prioritized and reach the
the teachers that need them most. Um but as Chris said this this is a change in the requirement but it is not a change in how we have been doing this the last few years. We do reach out directly to this population already. In fact, we have our coaching partners. These are
the folks that have contracts with the state, reach out to them directly already. And what we have seen is just not a lot of uptick. And I I don't think that is a criticism on these sites at all. I think these sites are likely overwhelmed and and you know handling
many challenges. Um and we believe from what we've seen in that very lowest group that has been required that putting some uh you know weight behind that and saying you you have to do this to stay in the system will get them to participate again primarily with these
partners that are already in place and already targeting these populations um or these sites rather. Um so yes I think we have the right resources. We will take this year to re-evaluate, look at our most updated data, and um when
we're going into uh designing scopes of work and so forth next year, make sure that we're um spelling that out exactly as we need to. >> That's phenomenal. One thing I was most excited about was when you said that you'll start to offer this support and I I really encourage modeling exactly and
learning from exactly what you've proposed here. So if there are new sites in that four to$4.99 range, really treat it as change management and learning lab to to model this, learn from it, see if you think you've gotten it right as then we then require it a lot more the next
year. Uh so that you have that that that learning and um and then final comment in terms of power of holding the bar high. uh I don't want to I love the simplicity of the model in terms of how it's scored and uh and uh defer to the committee that's already fully endorsed
this and just wanted to recognize that we're proposing that I think about 50% of our sites are now would be now be at exceeds expectations in an environment where thanks to your work and the educators across Virginia we're continuing to raise the bar in the scores and so I would just want us to at
least consider long term maybe not now uh raising the score bar as well on what it takes to exceed expectations as we incentivize uh better practices for our youth. >> Great, M. >> Yep, Mr. McFerson. >> So, I was looking at um
the scores in the category of the 400 to 499 um sites in 2024. So where their total point average was lower about 466 points and they need to
get to 500 to 699 in order to be at meet expectations. But I also see that one of the biggest problems they have is that they're not using an approved curriculum. But then am I correct that they're getting a 100 points if they
just implement an approved curricula in at least one class? the 100 points then to one of one school that say is scoring 466 would then put them into immediately put them into meeting expectations. So for
every CL for every school that implements at least the approved curriculum in one class, do we give them the 100 points and then it would move them over into meeting expectations? And just do you think that
skews the numbers or or is it that all your data would tell you that that alone makes them meet all the other requirements pretty much for meeting expectations? But as we go forward, I mean, obviously, I'd be curious into in
understanding more about were we really making a difference or should we require all of their classrooms have at least the approved curriculum for them to get the 100 points because it's going to move them to another category immediately. >> That's partly what led to us requiring
it in every classroom. So, that's one shift that would also be in place. So, they wouldn't um they would need to start using it in every classroom in order to get that 100 points. Um, but we would look at again they to get the class scores that would also help them get to that level are, you know, not as
low. They are some of those mid-range class scores. So, the combination of those together would still be what we would look at. And we do analyze even currently how many sites are like just across the edge and what are the characteristics of those at all the cut
points uh and just below the edge as well. So, we'll continue to kind of watch uh what that means um too. Do you want to add anything? >> Much appreciated. Appreciate the work too. >> Board members, are there any other questions? >> Okay, Dr. Northern.
>> Um, just kudos. I um just like many of my uh colleagues here on the board, just really applaud the effort um and the process and I've shared this with the superintendent privately um just the way in which um the system cultivated trust,
right? buy in, of course, buy in, but not buyin sounds kind of icky, right? It really was building trust um over time and um and acceptance, right? Because when you have a trust, you kind of accept the system you're and you want to work with it um and in incentivizing
sites wanting to get that higher bar, right? Because now we trust the system. We understand what we're being measured by all the transparency stuff my other colleagues have said. So um I I actually think the process in which this was carried out was really informative for me frankly um just in terms of how we
think about change right and how we begin to um build trust uh in in change. Uh and my other comment is is a little bit more pragmatic. I was looking on slide 18. I've personally been excited
about linking data systems. Um and I know we give vowels. It's a K3 screener, right? Not just um K. And so I mean is there am I right that we are going to begin at least on the literacy front with vowels to begin to
um connect these data to the early elementary school grades and to begin to see okay now we can look across and begin to identify these kids even earlier prior to the typical third grade identification when we have their when they had their first so test.
>> Yes. Uh absolutely that that is um absolutely one of the key goals and outcomes that will be possible through the new VA connect system. Um, you know, again, we have, you know, prioritized doing this as safe as possible, making sure our systems are in good place, but
having that data all housed together is going to allow us to really take a look um both at the in both directions, right? what is happening in early childhood and how is that working out um in later grades as we go on and have
more and more years of data um as well as looking back and and just understanding the more full picture of how we got to those um early elementary outcomes. Um it's a very unique perspective to be able to have I think we're
the only if not one of the only states that are going to be well equipped to do that at this scale. Um, and we are uh incredibly excited to explore that data. Uh, probably none other more than Superintendent Conway. >> Great. Um,
>> well, with that, uh, Miss Carol, Miss Myers, we want to say thank you very much for your presentation yesterday and today. Um, has been echoed, we think this is a model and hope to have some best practice and learn for our K12 system. And so with that, we will accept
this for first review and see you in June. >> Thank you very much. >> With that, um, we still have a number of items. Board member, I would propose that we, uh, break now for lunch. Is that okay? >> Okay, great. We will, uh, adjourn now
for a brief lunch and then we'll come back in about 45 minutes. Okay. Thank you. and get back into session in the back. Are we all set? Okay, thank you. All right. Um, we have up item J. U, Mr.
Jennings, is that that's you. All right. We are the first review of the amendment title nine of Virginia's consolidated state plan. Wonderful. Thank you. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, President Ashton, Superintendent Conway, and members of the board. My name is Mark
Jennings. I'm the assistant superintendent for assessment and accountability. I have two presentations for you today. The first, we will talk about this proposed amendment to our consolidated state plan, and then we'll pause, take any questions, and we'll move into our accreditation system.
So, we'll move through the slides, and if you turn to the next slide, I want to outline the presentation for you. We'll talk about the purpose of amending our state plan at this time. two proposed revisions that are needed for 2526 accountability and then we'll talk about the process and timeline for next steps
with this amendment. And so our next slide. So we talk about the purpose of of making these changes uh for the 2526 school year that we're currently in. And I want to share that it is this administration's priority that this will not occur in the future.
You know coming to the board at the middle of the year or the end of the year talking about an accountability during the year is not best practice. And so we want to own that, admit that upfront. And we're excited that at the June board meeting, we will share with you any changes for 2627. Uh we'll do public comment as needed and
then would ask for a final review for that in August. Uh but as you saw in the last presentation, really what we do, states would have this really locked down by April at a board meeting like this so that school divisions can plan their summer professional learning and know what's expected for the next year. So want to share that vision with you
and the public that's listening and that is a cadence we hope to move to. Uh and so we stop this practice of being in the middle or end of a school year asking you to make or approve changes to an accountability system. Now these two specific elements you're looking at today are federally required and that is
why we're asking for them and so we'll talk through them today. The first is using value tables as our growth methodology for reading and mathematics. And then second, we do need to establish an exit criteria and progress levels for our students who are English learners uh
with the most significant intellectual disabilities and they take an assessment called the WEDA alternate access test. And so we'll turn now to our next section. And there you'll see on this slide about value tables transparently measure growth. Uh and so you'll see
here national experts uh from our uh technical advisory council uh they've given us guidance on this and Virginia educators prefer that we use value tables. Uh in 2015 when the every student who sees act was passed states you know could use this as an indicator
and Virginia selected to do that. Virginia embarked on a study and we looked at value tables. At that time they were progress tables. I'll explain the difference. uh we looked at student growth percentiles and we looked at value added and from that research and stakeholder engagement Virginia selected
progress tables at that time. Uh we did use value added model for one year which was the past year and so the proposal today is to return to value tables uh with some modifications to it. And so why does the public prefer these? Why do
tech recommend these? one uh what value tables do is they're going to measure changes in performance year-over-year. Uh again, the helps with transparency, consistency, and familiarity to Virginia. Schools can look at these in advance and tell families, teachers,
students, this is what's expected for growth. Uh this is what your target is, and pretty immediately they would know, did the student meet these expectations? Value tables allow both the so test and our VAT program, our Virginia alternate assessment program to use the same growth methodology. Last year we had two
growth methodologies. We used value added for our so test and then we used value tables for our Virginia alternate pro assessment program because the vendor was unable to uh create value added model for our alternate program. So we actually did have to run both. This will bring both back to use the
same model. And as you see in the last bullet, educators stated that using value tables again provides better communication with families and the public on student growth. So I'll share with you, we asked one of our uh experts who worked with us on accountability, Chad Alderman, has presented this board multiple times. We
asked him to look at uh value added in the way we ran it last year. And then we asked him to look at value tables in the way that we're proposing it to you today. And when he did a correlation, he found there to be a 0.96 correlation between how schools performed in value added and how they performed in value
tables. So a very high correlation to see that schools that are having students grow, the students are growing. I mean so just wanted to share that with you. Uh we did find some differences as far as with our value added. We had done some partial credit for students. It was a bell curve. those stu some students
may not have shown the same partial credit uh with the value uh tables that we're talking about today. So if I give you percentages here for reading using our our previous model we had around 50% of the state showing reading growth. Uh
under value tables it was 66%. So you can see a clear difference in metrics. In math we had 49% of the state showing growth using the value added model. Value tables it's at 65%. And so you can see using value tables, you do have more students showing growth individually.
They're not being compared to their peers. That's one of the key differences there. We'll turn now to the next slide. And you're seeing here in Virginia, we use a 0 to600 reporting scale uh currently and that's what you're seeing grades three through eight. These are our annual assessments. And so, you know, we call
it a horizontal scale. It's it's how we communicate sort of how a student has performed. We have four performance levels. you know, are they below basic, basic, proficient, or advanced. And what you'll see for growth is now on the next slide, we have a vertical scale. And
that's where we take uh we took the test from grades three through eight and we link them. We funded a linking study to look at our assessments for reading and mathematics to see what progress should be made year-over-year with these tests. So rather than seeing them in isolation,
uh you'll see there's a through line from 1,00 to 2,00. If you can turn to the next slide, please. And so that's what you're seeing there all the way through. And that's why the scores are different, which you'll see on some of the tables that are coming up. So what does a vertical scale do? Well, it
allows for reporting of scores across these so tests to measure student growth. It's more sensitive than the horizontal scale I just showed you. Now the progress tables we used previously what we did with those is we would say a child is high basic or low proficient or
high proficient. It was still within a bucket but it was very broad. So you know we might say to a parent your child is high advanced or low advanced. What the vertical scale does is it actually gives you numbers to that. And so it's much more specific. Uh and so that's the
difference between a progress table and a and a value table is we're actually using the values versus uh using the progress or the bands there. And so we will look at a student's performance year-over-year to see how they did individually uh from one test to the
next and the expectations for growth can be defined so that again teachers students know what's expected for them at the beginning of the year. The next two slides here, eight and nine, uh these are examples. Well, these are the value tables that we had uh
based on our current SOS. You see the score ranges there from 900 to 20,000. Uh looking here at reading and you see the different ranges and the expectations. Uh we can go to the next slide and look at mathematics. You see the difference is we have a large
percent about 50% of our students in middle school will take an end of course assessment. they'll be in algebra. Uh you most of them are algebra and some are in geometry. And so that is why we included algebra in our linking study here as well so that we can measure students who may move from 8th grade
into algebra uh to measure their their growth. And so that's that's our math table uh that we've used and we would continue to use based on our current proficiency standards. On the next two slides, you're going to see our proposal. And so in the past
when we had uh value tables what we said is if a student moved up a level they received a point and that was it. We also said if a student passed the test they received a point. And so really as long as a student passed they were getting a point and if a student moved up to level they got a point. That that
was the business rule to it. That was the methodology. What we're doing here is we're proposing some indexing. We're looking to reward students who are showing moving from one performance level to another. And so if a student failed in the prior year and now demonstrates proficiency, they would get
a 1.25. Or if a student was proficient in the prior year and now they're advanced, it would be a 1.25. Uh or if you see a student who moved two ranges, you would see the 1.25 as well. So, we're trying to incent
not being successful, not passing to passing or showing advanced. And as students still move one range, we're still doing the point. I mean, they're still showing expected growth there. And so, that's what you see on this proposal on this slide. And now, if you would go ahead and click through for me, you're
getting some animation here around the different point values and how they work. You can keep clicking. We're going to move to the next slide. And on this next slide, what you'll see is now we have where students may not advance. They may move back one or more
ranges and so they would not demonstrate growth and would have zero points. Uh students may move back one or more ranges but they're still uh being successful on the test and so they would receive 75. Uh if students were not successful on the test but they
maintained then we're uh proposing a 0.5 value. And as students stay in the same range also again proficiency you're seeing the 0 75 uh staying in the same range I know this is very detailed but this really came from stakeholder engagement really to look at individual
students and how they're scoring and providing all these different points and so I'll say to you in this complexity really was to honor that feedback and say students grow in different measures and so could have kept it simple uh but we wanted to honor those different points there and so you'll see there if
you can clicking through these visualizations. Uh you'll see there on our final point is a student who scores at the top of the range and then the next year's at the top of the range, they also get 1.25. There's nowhere else to go. And so uh from our feedback and
our our study there, 1.25 seemed appropriate. I'm going to move to the next section and again we'll take questions on the growth methodology here at the end. I want to recognize uh today with me is Nikki Saunders. uh she's the department's title 3 coordinator. Uh she
was very instrumental in the work I'm going to describe to you now. Also want to recognize with us a national expert helped lead us through the conversation I'm going to share with you uh Molly Faulner Bond who works with Westad. Uh she's a national expert in multilingual learners and she helped facilitate this
process. So we're going to talking with you now if you can go to the next slide about the WEDA alternate access. And so this is an English learner progress assessment. It is based on the alternate model performance indicators. It's developed by WEDA just like our access test. Uh these are for students who also
participate in Virginia's alternate assessment program which in Virginia by federal is supposed to be around 1%. Uh in Virginia very proudly was under 1% last year. We're very proud of that. And so in Virginia you have about 3,246 students who took this assessment last
year. Uh which is 3% of our population. 2% of our English learners take the WED to alternate access. And so what this assessment is, it's a large print paper pencil test administered to students one-on-one who have the most significant
cognitive disabilities. And so what it's assessing is students language, arts, mathematics, and science across the four language domains of listening, speaking, reading, and writing. And so the next slide, please. And so the test was
redesigned in 2024 and this is why we currently do not have an exit criteria and we're bringing it to you today and that's why we're bringing these progress levels. They expanded the test to be in compliance with ESSA. ESSA requires that you would have a measurement for your kindergarteners. And so they expanded that and they also made substantial
changes to the grade 1 through 12 pieces uh so that only 15% of the original items remained. And so when this happens at both the national level tests like this or at the state level, we come before the board and talk about standard setting. What is the proficiency level,
progress levels? And so while again the test itself, you know, had pieces that remain the same given the changes to the academic language, uh the rigor of the assessment did change. And so we convened a standard setting committee. We had uh English language learner
specialists. We had special education uh both from the department and the field on this committee. Again, our national expert facilitated this process. Uh of course, title three was a part of this. Instruction was a part of this assessment and accountability. And we work together to give you these
recommendations uh for an exit criteria and progress levels. And so on the next slide, you'll see the proposal. The committee is recommending that of the five levels that for a student to exit with this assessment, they would exit at a level four. And there's no inte or
this is integers here. There's no decimals. There's not like a 2.3 or 2.1 like the access test has. Uh the these are whole numbers here. And so previously, again, if you're wondering, well, what was the prior exit criteria? There wasn't one. This is a newer assessment and Virginia did not
establish exit criteria previously. So this would be the first. We did coordinate with many other states on this to hear as they walk through this process where they uh landed as far as their their recommendations. And you'll see in the final bullet some of the methodology that we used. We did look at
performance level descriptors like we would do with our reading, math, science, history, standard setting. We looked at data on how students performed both on this assessment and our alternate access our alternate uh assessment program. And we also looked at services. We looked at the services
that students receive and title three and instruction were instrumental in that. Uh because you talk here about if a student exits these are dually identified students. So they still have services under special education but now they would exit under English learner services but they still would have
monitor status and as we talk through this again Nikki's available any questions around sort of a student might exit and might be reclassified. So just to share that was very instrumental to this work um to think through sort of a students exiting that communication to families but they may also re-enter
and on the next slide you'll see the data. So what is the impact of this? Again currently there is no exit criteria. We have students who are scoring as you see a level five the highest level and they're not able to exit because Virginia is not defined and and by federal law we need to do this work. So exit level four was proposed by
the committee. The committee had great conversation between levels three and four looking at the performance level descriptors, thinking about this exit, thinking about the students, thinking about how they scored on VAP, all that criteria. Really good conversation. They really, you know, between levels three
and four and they they they settled on a proposal of level four. This will go to public comment. We'll hear from the public around that as well and bring that back to you at the June board meeting. Uh but the recommendation from this committee was to to maintain a higher standard at four. We did find many states that did select three. Uh
but uh our recommendation here is a level four. And now that's exit criteria. So now we need to talk about what about students who continue in to be measured through this. How do we measure progress? And so if you turn to the next slide, we're going to talk about progress for this
assessment. So the approach for this was we only had two years of data. Uh and so this is something we will examine this fall with more data. It's a new assessment. how are students doing? But even with two years of data, you still need to determine progress levels. It's required by federal law. So, we used the
data uh and I say two years of data, but really you're looking at one year because it's really 2324 being compared to 2425. So, really that one data point. We were looking at grade clusters. Were certain grades performing better than other grades? You know, how are they
doing uh based on the type of assessment and the different levels one through four? And again we looked at the calculations uh for the groupings and the average performance. And so considering all of that now if you can go to the next slide I want you to see
our proposal here. And I'll mention to you JARK uh the joint legislative audit review uh commission put together a study on our K12 program accountability and made a list of recommendations you'll hear more about. And one of the recommendations you know based on feedback was to index English learner
progress. This is the beginning of that work. Uh it's something this committee felt very strongly about and it also signals to the field that we would look at partial credit. Currently for English learner progress, we simply say did a student meet the benchmark? Yes, they get a point. No, there's no there's no credit. This starts to look at a way to
say, well, they made some progress. Could we give some value to that versus no credit? And so what you see here is very interesting in the data. Typically what you have with English learner assessments and from WEDA's study and other assessments is that the lower uh
the students are performing they actually move faster and that the higher students are performing they're actually slower in their growth. It's actually the opposite here. Students at the proficiency level of one are showing less growth than students with a higher proficiency level. That's unique to this
population. Again, this test is intended for students with uh significant cognitive disabilities. And so you're seeing some of that plateau but that that's different. Uh you know if I come back to you about access it would be the opposite and we need to treat these tests differently but just to share sort of you know it's not what was expected
in this research. So the proposal here is proficiency level one. Uh you know you might look at and say really one point one point of a scale score for this assessment in this population and nationwide I will tell you that was the consensus that one point for a scale
score is considered to be growth and the student would earn a point. If a student went over one in their scale score then they would get 1.25. And I again just to set sort of the ground there in the establishment. Uh now Virginia, I've got to I've got to share with you Virginia
uh other states, they let that be the the guidelines for all all levels. Uh looking at our data, uh we found that two points for levels two through four was very doable. We saw students as an average uh meeting that benchmark if not exceeding it. And so our proposal is for
students in proficiency level two through four. If they meet the twopoint threshold, they get a point. If they exceed the twopoint threshold, they get 1.25. But let's say they improve by one point, then they get half a point. And so you're starting to see some of that partial, you know, credit there for
showing some growth, but not full growth. Our thought here again is to have this by law. We need to have this. We'll come back and analyze more data this fall with a next another year of data and to see sort of again if the trend is continuing with this student
performance. Uh and so with that, I'm going to turn to next steps and share with you where we're headed. This will go out to public comment. We'll announce this next week. Uh we have meetings already set up next week with uh English learner specialty groups and leaders to
talk through this and get more feedback from them. Uh we will embark on listening sessions around these proposals. Uh we have some conferences coming up. It'll be made publicly available through our website, our newsletter that has over 2,000 subscribers. Uh it'll be on the website
for a minimum of 30 days you see there. And then we'll bring all this feedback to you to the board and share what the public had to say if there's any proposed revisions from the public comment. And then we would ask you in June for final review uh with approval from the administration uh and the
governor's office. It gets submitted to the United States Department of Educa education. Uh they've already been made aware of this so that they could expedite the approval process so that we can run 2526 accountability and have it on time. I'll last say that the appendix that you
see uh is for you and the public. I just want to share if you would go ahead and click to that appendix really quickly because I just want to highlight the reason this is there is to share with you transparently in the public there's no changes to the weights and so we just want to share that the same weights that were used in the prior year are the same
weights we're proposing for the framework. No changes there and that's why just to sort of put that out there and be transparent. And then that final slide was around um some scoring on the access test some of the levels. So I will pause there and take any questions or feedback. Thank you.
>> Yeah. Superintendent Conway, anything to add? >> Okay, board members, Dr. Northern coming straight to you. >> All right, this is going to be unpopular. Um I have several issues with value tables. I've been really thinking about this since you initially presented
it, like are we going forward or are we going back? because we've been talking about doing growth right for a few years now. So the issue with value tables um is that we're incentivizing focus on the bubble kids which is exactly what we wanted to get away from. So value tables
are only measuring whether a kid is moving between the performance levels. It's not measuring growth within a performance level. So you're incentivizing again if the kid is far below or far above proficiency, they're going to receive less attention because
you really only care about the kids who are just about in between those levels, right? And moving those levels. And so I think it's confusing and not very good for parents either because they're going to see um the risk is that they're going to see no level change as no growth even
if there was a lot of growth within the level, right? And I think once we try this out with school districts, they're going to get a little frustrated, right? Because they're going to they're going to be trying their hardest to get kids to move and we're only capturing if they move between the level and not within
the band. And so I think that um the other problem is a very small shift in scores can then cause this huge shift in ratings because now you've got your little you all your teachers are contrastless bubble kids like we used to do. Frankly, I used to do it too when I
was teaching. Um, and now you're going to see you were able to move some of them to the next level. Um, and so you're going to get a big shift, right? Even though you didn't have that much growth, like you just got your bubble kids over, you actually didn't have growth in all the different categories because again, the system's prioritizing
um, you know, between the levels. So, I think that a lot of other states have done student growth percentiles. Like people like value tables because they're simple, but they're simple because they're ignoring like 85% of the data, right? Like we're just concentrating on
the moving the levels. And so an SGP, even though it's a little harder to explain, I don't think it's I don't think it's out of the realm of explanation because you're basically comparing a student with another student who has the same exact prior test score. And then if you're if you're making that
comparison, then you're able to look at the whole distribution of growth. And we want to be able to look at the whole distribution of growth because that's the way we started two years ago. Like I remember all of us were aggravated because the old system prioritized the bubble kids. And now I feel like we're kind of going back to that because
again, we want to be able to look at the whole distribution of growth and not just movement between categories and then ignoring the growth within the one category. Does that make sense you guys? >> Oh yeah, I think you raised good questions. Um I guess I guess um is
there a specific question you have for Mark to respond to or >> So my question is can we continue to discuss this and if it's going to be an issue where we're meeting a deadline and we're you know because I think this is a to me this is one of the biggest issues
to get right on the board is how we measure growth because we've never done it before and we've been trying to get this right for so long and now I feel like we're making this quick change to value tables um when that wasn't the direction we were going because we heard somebody say it's simpler. Um, so my question would be like do we have time
to actually continue to workshop this try to explain it to folks like the like what I just tried to hear like explain some of the negative ramifications of going this direction and then I mean maybe we just say okay this is something we try we were we get feedback from the
field but we're not going to you know etch this particular um methodology in stone. So, a couple comments. The of old the way it was done is the way you described it. This this proposal is students would still get credit from moving within the same performance level. So, as long as they move up one
range, we still give them credit or if they move up two ranges, but you could you could show growth even if you're low basic to high basic, you could still earn growth. Um, what I also would say to you is we do currently do not have a methodology to run accountability for this year. So I don't want to speak on
behalf of the superintendent but just to throw a proposal is we could you know solidify this have this for 2526 and again I'd look to the superintendent is you know with future years you could then explore student growth percentiles we could you know investigate have more stakeholder engagement we did examine
that before we brought this back to the board talked with TAC around it analyzed it but the thought was for some of the same reasons I mentioned was the familiarity the consistency sort of this is what Virginia adopted prior uh that this was the best route. >> Superintendent.
>> Uh thank you. Thank you, Mark. Um so I had I heard two things I think. One is uh about how do you make sure that you focus on on more of the kids. And so it seems to me um while it is probably not
possible to go to something that's uh kind of a value added like we used last year that you arguably what I hear you saying Mark is that you know because we do split there's a difference between kind of rating and range like you you
you you move you get credit for moving range even if it's sort of basic or uh proficient I I suppose the team could go back right and look at could make even more ranges, right? Which would allow for um uh a more incremental focus,
right? Like you could divide it into more than two ranges, right? And you could and we can look at sort of the mathematical impact of that. I do think it would um uh still reflect kind of a um the most practical solution with the
time constraints that we that we have. But I think I can we can ask the team to go back and at least look at that and we could then sort of really look at the number of ranges. Um and this is math that makes my head hurt a little bit and sort of which students fall in which and sort of growth and sort of try to
understand is this only affecting x percentage so that we are have some confidence that it's not just a a a small percentage and then I think the second piece is the concern Dr. Northern about etch and stone. I think we acknowledge that um uh this is uh a kind
of an ask for a surgical change to sort of address a real need so that we can roll out accountability um by the first week in October this year. But is not as we sort of we we we hear the underlying concern about this approach and so
thinking through doing things in parallel which is what is the best way to get this year's done while also coming back to this body and saying you know there will be some discomfort in in in continuing this in perpetuity. >> Great. Just a followup. So just a
clarifying question. So right now are there just two ranges in each >> yes >> column? Yes. >> Okay. So your point is which I actually think it's it's interesting, right? >> So if we and I don't want to get too technical either, but if we build out like four ranges, >> right,
>> within each bucket, are we capturing a more complete distribution? Like what are is there still like how grossly are we clumping together parts of distribution? You know, I I would think that four would be better. You're going to lose some of the, you know, ease of
explaining. Um but yeah, I I do think that you're going to um actually incentivize um what we want to happen, right? More by what paying attention to all students that way. >> And I can go back to uh the research as you put this together and ask absolutely to look at more more ranges within them.
>> Great. Mr. Robinson, >> um first of all, I support both broader pushes that I'm hearing. So, first of all, thank you for prioritizing surgical shifts to get this ready for a timeline that's going to be more responsive to uh educators to actually learn from and uh enhance education by by by having
results to uh schools and districts uh much earlier this year. And so, I I deeply appreciate uh both proposals in terms of their uh surgical precision to move things forward uh quickly. Uh, and I also support um at least an
examination of whether moving from eight to either 12 or 16 uh levels could make sense. I was heartened to hear that that Mr. Alman's or Dr. Alderman's research showed that there was some correlation between this and the value added. Um,
and maybe that could be made public at some point, but you regardless like I think this is a great push from from Dr. Northern. Um and then uh and then my my my push would be like to make sure that not necessarily for this year but as we think about long term we're considering
a growth measure that that's truly prioritizing growth particularly for the students furthest from opportunity when when I look at this current measure like it makes me you know uh could we reward more students advancing three levels uh
you know uh rewarding the same someone advancing two levels someone staying the same level I understand that it's uh we want to incent people to to continue at high levels when they're already there. >> Um but we already reward that in our our proficiency scores. And uh since this is
meant to measure growth, I'd like to see something that better prioritizes um growing our uh the results for underserved learners, at least considered. Uh, and one bubble specifically I want to call out is right now in this proposal, if you're at
proficient and you go down to range four, you get zero points. And if you're at range six and you go down to range five, you get 75 points. And that's you. Again, I I'm I'm supportive of us prioritizing proficiency, but that seems quite a stark, you know, not the
intention of a growth measure. >> Great. Thank you, Dr. Wilson. >> Thank you. So, um, Dr. Robinson's uh observation uh this last observation is exactly one of the questions that I have. It doesn't quite make sense to me. Um and so I I appreciate that
observation. So having made that you having made that I'll um tag into uh Dr. Northern's um concern about you know are we fully recognizing
and capturing growth in a way that is uh even-handed across a full population of stu all of our students. As we examine that, we should also be thoughtful about how we explain this to
our community and to families because the accountability system certainly is for our use, but there is a call from the public that they understand and it's not, you know, we talked about the acronyms that we use consistently, right? So, this education ease that is a
real concern. And so um as we are thinking about how to best represent what's actually happening across students uh performance, we can't lose sight of how we communicate whatever it is at the end of
the day to families um and the broader community. >> Great. Thank you board members. Any other questions? Y Dr. bridges. >> I I'm um not seeing who that the technical advisory committee I I know
you mentioned quickly, but um is that can you say more about who that group is because there you said they're the ones that were saying that the system would provide transparency, consistency, familiarity. So can you tell us a little more about the >> Yeah, so they're national experts in their field. They're recommended. Uh
some have served uh I I can provide for you their names. Um some have served as uh state uh leaders in other states and they serve on different advisory boards. Some one of them in particular uh worked at the University of Pittsburgh and assessment evaluation. Uh some have
worked even with other uh companies such as like an assessment vendor. Uh and they do that work. Uh and so there's five members of the team. Uh Molly now sits on that team. Molly Faulner Bond Dr. Bond. Uh previously she hadn't been but now she sits as one of our TAC members. And so we meet at least twice a
year. We bring to them assessment and accountability topics and they help advise us. They look at the the data from Virginia. They bring their national expertise and provide those uh and so um and it's a great conversation, very rewarding. So they have been talking through this with
us for um since we, you know, first initially brought to the board and looking at the data and sort of looking at the context of Virginia and what the research says. And so they had recommended uh for a variety of reasons that the value tables were a good fit for Virginia. I I think the piece, you know, one of the things they said was what you may lose, I think to Dr.
Northern's point, what you may lose in statistical or statistical usability, you gain in usability. And so just that sense of they're very usable. And so I think that's part of, you know, talking about the trade-off sort of what you get from one for the other. >> Okay. So then that's f you said that's
five votes. >> Yes. >> Okay. So the the open comment time will get the Virginia perspective because you know they're saying it's familiar to Virginia based on their their external >> exam. This was adopt Virginia's been using value tables since 2017. Got
>> first they were progress tables and then after this linking study was done they were value tables and then for one year last year was the first year we we shifted to value added. >> Um this proposal that you're seeing was presented at the VAS conference last year and so superintendents also gave feedback on this. So they've seen this
as well um as we were walking through with the board and talking through it. So they've given feedback and some of their feedback was incorporated to the changes that you're seeing today. >> Um and and so they've also seen seen this presentation. >> Is it okay? Continue. >> Yes. Go ahead.
>> And so uh I appreciate the the reference to the appendix and and that nothing's changing there, but I'm curious when will that change? because having previously been a part of um groups that had looked at the the necessity for
growth to be in the overall accountability system weighted a little bit differently than it currently is. Is that sort of let's not do both things. So >> at the same time because >> correct. So this is to close out this school year because we need these two pieces to have accountability for this
school year and then our proposal is to come back to you in June with thoughts recommendations uh with more stakeholder engagement to save Jark's recommendations. You just referenced one of them was to consider growth and the weight of growth uh which we were just speaking of and that could be used for 26 next school year and beyond. Um but
we wouldn't obviously retroactively apply that and so that conversation would be forthcoming in June and you could do public comment in July and then do a final uh take final action in August. >> So when you say so then essentially the open comment period will be asking folks about both things.
>> This this is to close out this. So this is we're now sitting in April. This will go to public comment now. Yeah. during the month of May, we come back in June to close out these two pieces that like the superintendent said, it's very surgical because we we need to close that out. And then we would open up another amendment. So amendment 10 would
have the some of the pieces you're describing are looking at growth more broadly, maybe SGPS more broadly, sort of really looking at the accountability system at large. But these two pieces are to satisfy federal law and to run through uh so our 2526 can be processed. But you but you're saying still we would
we would be trying to get over the summer public comment and input on uh >> for amendment >> amendment 10 >> 10 would be in the month of July >> to complete in August. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Thank you for that context. That's right. >> Yeah. No, thank you. And and and Mark is
right. So we're trying to balance between uh we we don't want to be confusing to the public, but we also want to make sure that we are uh using first and final review. um and also being responsive to this body uh
executive order four that came from the governor uh on her first day and and recent legislation. So this is uh surgical related to this year. It's still because it uh requires an amendment that goes to US DOE has to
have public comment, right? And so we we've just got to do that and check that box and we'll try to to do our best to explain why it is so narrow as much of the field is still wondering as you are Dr. Bridges about the broader set of recommendations. Um because of executive
order 4 and the feedback we've received from the field we as early as next week have a proposed approach for thinking about the broader set of changes to the school performance and support framework that we will share with the superintendent. do some engagement
around not official public comment in the way that US DOE recognizes but just to at least be able when we come to you for first review uh so June will be final review of this and first review of a broader set of changes uh which would
ultimately become part of amendment 10 um that there we would then need to then do formal public comment after that. O think of some of what so we're doing two things in parallel formal public comment for these very narrow changes engagement for the broader set of
changes but a commitment that you will have both a first and final review for those broader changes that could begin as beginning as early as June >> Dr. Br is that answering your question in my head >> great but Dr. Northern
>> the broader set of changes doesn't this gets settled in June and then the broader set of changes doesn't have to do with this. >> Exactly. >> Right. >> Okay. >> So it's consequential. Yeah. >> It doesn't have to do with this. No, it doesn't. But I think what it what it does I just want to sort of note we we
have to solve for this year, right? Because we have to we have to deliver it and has to be it has to be growth or you know I just don't know that we can you change everything. what it what what I hear in this conversation is important and this is something that JARK recognized um as something we needed to
look at more carefully when it came to the 3E uh readiness indicator is you have to do the actual math and the modeling to understand the impact of these changes on the sort of what is the on paper percentage versus depending on how students are earning points what is
the actual percentage so the example cited in JARK is that even know the on paper for 3e is I think 25% mark correct me if I'm wrong you know when you count how the students earn it ends up can be up to 34% of their piece and I think that's a sort of similar point that uh
Mr. Robinson is namey in terms of let's look at you know as we sort of ma you know math this out I don't know if you're supposed to use math as a verb but that like if we end up that we are you know proficiency ends up being more than we meant because of how we've done this we need to make those adjustments
um and so part of what that ultimately means without giving this away is that we have to think about these changes in chunks because you have to do the math to understand the impact before for example you you reset the threshold. So, this will be, I think, a healthy part of
the the June conversation and sort of saying here's how we're thinking about it so we have enough time to do the math and modeling and bring back the changes to you all. Um, we just are in as as Mark noted um at the uh outset, we are in an awkward position of we just have
to resolve this for this year. Um uh and I we appreciate this feedback because it helps us understand okay even now how do we think about the analysis we need to do this summer so that uh if this is not something that you want to see you know in the future that we we are hearing
that and gives us some time to think through how do we uh make sure we we organize to do that. >> Dr. Wilson, >> I was just going to reiterate, you know, the point about clarity for the public, you know, as we are thinking through and
articulating here kind of the the timeline, what has to come first, second, what's temporary versus long, that clarity will be really important for the field as well as for the general public. >> Yeah. And you know, I think that's what
I wanted to also add. You know, um, Mr. Dr. Jennings, I I appreciate actually the way you started this, which is just acknowledging that this is not the ideal timeline for us or practitioners or, you know, folks who are in the field to make decisions that impact the next school
year. And you mentioned in an ideal world, we would be having this in April. This would be final. I guess I'm trying to get to next April. Um, so te tell me with the the changes that we just said, the surgical we're going to get this
done and then there's the the broader changes like in the ideal world if if I could put you on the spot where would we where do we where do we see this changes happening so that you know we're getting ready for school year 26 27 where 27 28
will ideally be related to this >> ideally no hot seat questions. >> Yeah. So, I mean it ultimately comes back to the why, right? Which is that the purpose of accountability separate from giving all of us an opportunity to test our math and uh decision analysis
uh skills is about as Mr. Robinson noted uh students, educators and classrooms furthest from opportunity. And so one of the most salient themes I heard out in in the field is that, you know, the sooner we can get to schools an
understanding of how we define and measure success so that they understand which schools need the most help, the better, right? And and I am realistically saying to you all based on what I understand to date, like the first week in October is the best we can do for for this year, right? with
obviously still pieces being you know decided now which is which is not ideal from a school perspective they would like to have this in August right in terms of if not earlier for some of our schools that begin then and that um and there's also a a relevance here in terms
of a significant amount of federal funding which sort of in general rolls over in line with the federal fiscal year which which starts on October 1. So, you know, already there like that is what matters, right, for schools with the additional consideration that um uh
you know, knowing what changes when in the spring before that year is is is ideal. Um uh realistically we have uh uh a a JARK study that on the one hand which is great for this body says
fundamentally the school performance and support framework is foundationally strong right and that you know and that it would be preferred to kind of continue to support the implementation of that rather than than to start over. On the other hand, it gives you a very long list of um of of recommended
changes, some of which you know changing one would affect the other. And again, the most obvious example of that is it very much says we should not have the same scoring threshold, although that is simple and easy to explain. If a 90 is a distinguish, right, for you know, across the board, well, then it's very easy as
a parent to understand. However, as you see how that played out, it meant that we had a very different message about high schools than we did about elementary schools, right? And in a way that we did not think served our schools, our educators, and our and our students well. But we have to kind of do
all of the other changes and then look at the distribution to then decide right where um you know, we would we would change those thresholds. So it, you know, in that you're going to hear us say, "Here's a set of changes we think for next year that probably do not go as
far as some might want in terms of what best practices, but are are realistic about what we can actually change and then you know it will be the subsequent year in which we will bring to you the sort of the the the broader set of of of changes. So um you know I think we will
be in a solid place uh by the probably the 2829 realistically in terms of getting those pieces um in place uh with you know transparency, clarity, you know more simplicity while also you know kind of you know making
sure similar to the conversation about guiding principles this morning that we're kind of remembering the why about about this work. But I think we also need to hear you know you from you all in June with specificity around okay do
you want us to move a little bit more quickly here or there right even if it is a little bit you know potentially more confusing for the field right or even if we have to you know change that this year and then change it again next year I don't know that we'll be able to evaluate that until we put that in front
of you uh in June uh realistically. >> Great. Thank you. That's very helpful Dr. Wilson. >> So, as you all are playing out the timeline and process, it may be helpful to understand from VAS and from VSBA because I'm thinking about resource
allocation and budget uh season and all of those kinds of things and requests and how superintendents and boards put those proposals together. You know, all of that may inform what the timeline realistically needs to be because we want to set divisions up for success. We want to set students up for success and so understanding that may be really
helpful. >> Great. Thank you. Absolutely. >> Miss McFerson, before we transition, did you have a question? >> It was a comment. Okay, it was quick. >> Okay. >> We may end up needing a complete work
session to deal with that material, you know, where it's not necessarily a board, you know, where we having to also make a decision. We may need a work session so that we get the materials. We ask The gods think otherwise,
>> right? I get it. And I and I didn't even want to be the one to propose it. Okay, summer's coming on. Everybody's schedules are getting ready to impact everything. But I we just may need it. >> We just, you know, we probably need to dig deep into and everybody flesh out,
you follow me, what you're thinking. and we we do what we asking everybody else in terms of the professionals and the and the um teachers and superintendents to do to just decide what we like and don't like about where we are so we can
get a really clear message out to the public. >> Great. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Jens, thank you. We will accept this item for first review um with a followup in June. I think you're now on for the school accreditation system report.
>> We spent quite a bit of time, >> decoupling. We separated out our accreditation and our accountability system. And so I'm going to speak to you now about that accreditation system. Uh and if we can move to that slide deck, I'd very much appreciate it. Uh so we brought this to you uh previously and we
last year the board approved a report that was exclusive to the 2425 school year. And so what today will be an update of that report and sort of expectations for the accreditation system. Uh let's go ahead and go to the next slide. Uh you'll see the outline for the presentation. We'll differentiate between accountability and
accreditation in Virginia. Uh which we're still learning. I mean the public is learning with this. Uh we still have conversations internally and around sort of these terms being used. I'm going to provide for you a background of the standards of quality, our Virginia code and the standards of accreditation. Uh determining how our accreditation
designations determine uh the review and appeal process that we're going to propose for your adoption and then changes to the report itself. So on the next slide you see here uh the accountability and accreditation system. If you go ahead uh on the right side you
see the accreditation system. This is rooted in the standards of quality Virginia code which you'll see on an upcoming slide that directs the board to establish these regulations for how to accredit schools goes back to 1970. Uh this came after colleges, universities
of course were being accredited and so the expectation from the general assembly was our secondary school should be accredited too and that's how it began. It was only for secondary schools sort of mimicking what we were seeing at the collegiate level and then it also went was moved down into elementary and middle schools. So accreditation from
the outset was very much inputs what you would think of the term accreditation to mean as we got into the 90s with the standards of learning and move starting to assessments Virginia was a pioneer in this work uh this was before no child left behind Virginia had a seat at the table of no child left behind because of
the work that we had done and that's when the words accreditation started becoming outcomes and we think of it in that sense of you know accreditation how are students performing uh and so from there we're going back to how its original intent was you get these accreditation designations of
fully accredited condition accreditation denied. This information is shared publicly through reports and we provide support. If you're out of compliance, what do you need to do to be in compliance? State law is very clear that division superintendents should should ensure that all of their schools are
fully accredited. That that's what should be. I mean there should be no sort of you know that should not be the exception. That should be the norm that all of my schools are fully accredited. uh and in our previous system we would get push back from superintendents on that because they would say how do you expect all my schools to be fully accredited when you're waiting all these
academic factors but the law was set up for these compliance measures you see on the left side what we just talked about and and to the board member's comment uh Miss McFersonson around a work session I I would absolutely embrace that idea to walk through with everyone the framework as it's now and then any proposed
changes but you see from this this graphic of the framework uh we have three standard models. Elementary and middle are two and high schools the third. You're actually not seeing on this. We actually have six models total because we also honor our combined schools and they have their own weights
to honor their their configurations from those calculations and the different indicators in these buckets of growth, readiness and mastery. Uh we get a performance category and we'll be talking more about performance categories and these names in the the near future but currently you see what
they are. And then we move to federal identification. So our system now is cohesive between state and federal. This meets all the requirements of ESSA. And so you see that some schools, most schools in Virginia are not identified. Uh some schools are identified as targeted or additional targeted support.
Really looking at the student groups. And then we have a percentage of our schools that are comprehensive support whether it's based on graduation rate or the lowest serving 5%. or they are additional schools, additional target support schools who the student group is
just not making progress after three years. All of that again is publicly reported and the department has really shifted to allocate both state and federal resources into one to braid those funds and help schools. And so we can look at our application process and rubrics and say this school is in need
of support both on the state side, federal side and then give what it needs uh to maximize effect. And so that's that's the bifurcation. We talked about the decoupling of these two systems. On the next slide, you see the standards of quality that I referenced. Uh
standard three here says again the board these are the expectations. These eight criteria are laid out to the board to say uh regulations need to be established in these areas. Uh and so from those regulations standard three and the standards of quality uh we move now to the standards of accreditation
that this board adopts. Uh and if you go ahead and go to the next slide, you see there the intent of the standards of accreditation are to ensure an effective educational program is established and maintained in all of our schools. Uh they provide an essential foundation. Uh again, a continuous appraisal and
improvement of school programs. Uh they foster public confidence that parents know that the inputs in the school are doing what they're supposed to be doing and that I can see the outcomes. It assures recognition of Virginia's public schools by other institutions of learning. We do certify that our schools
are accredited for NCAA teachers on visas. It there is a purpose behind this. It is it is important. And then finally to establish a means of determining the effectiveness of schools. We're looking to see sort of again how are they using the resources they have and being in compliance.
So on the next slide it talks again about the board has adopted a process to accredit schools. uh the 2024 regulations that the board adopted uh shifted some of this when we bifurcated between accreditation accountability and section 300 of chapter 132 outlines
which you'll see in a moment. Uh and so part of this process is the department is charged to make all of this transparent, all of this clear and make it very accessible and understandable uh to superintendent, principles and the public. And if we go to our next slide, you'll see these areas of compliance. There are
11 total. Really, it's a list of 10. Uh because number 11 simply says if you were non-compliant in the prior year, what have you done to address it? But this this list of 10 items, you know, promotion retention policies, graduation requirements, instruction, safety, and
facility, uh parental notification, school planning, and there's a piece for federally identified schools. That's what we're looking at as far as inputs. Are schools meeting the requirements here? uh both from regula regulations and statute and so this is all spelled
out for them. So from all this information on the next slide you see again a school can be fully accredited which means they've satisfied everything conditionally accredited or accreditation denied and let's unpack those together on the next slide. And so fully accredited would
mean that all evidence is submitted to the department and it's satisfactory. And so that's what you expect to see. State law says all schools should be fully accredited. that that's the expectation. Conditioning accredited says that some of the information received by the department uh was
unsatisfactory and they'll remain conditioning accredited until the school successfully submits additional evidence. And so there's a pathway that a school that's conditioning accredited can submit a corrective action plan and move to fully accredited because that's our that's our goal. I mean that's the
expectation. And so some schools have to provide more justification to move to fully accredited because they did not satisfy the fully accredited. They didn't do exactly what was needed by a timeline. And then you see accreditation denied. Uh for a school to receive that,
they would have to have been conditionally accredited and they would have to demonstrate that they were not making progress. There was no corrective action plan or no progress on that corre corrective action plan. Uh we currently have no schools accreditation denied. You'd again have to establish a pattern and this is a new system and so no no
pattern has been established yet. I will share with you from our results last year the schools that were conditionally accredited uh sought to appeal sought to make corrections and wanted to move very eagerly to fully accredited. We didn't see any schools say you know we're just going to maintain that sort of we're
going to let it be. And so we want to share with you today two slides about the review process. Uh on the next slide here, the process has these two opportunities. First, and this this is going to work as well with our accountability system. We really want to provide ways for divisions to see their
school data to be able to verify that data, validate it, and make sure it aligns with what they've sent to us. And so when after they've completed the report, I'll share with you prior to public release, they would be able to see what the designation is. Are we, you know, categorizing them as fully
accredited or conditionally accredited? And then they would know why, which area listed the 10 items for you. Is it number one, two, four? And then they would have an opportunity to submit additional information to the department. The department would review that with respective offices. So if it's
in the area of uh instruction, we would pull the instructional offices and take a look at the additional information and then the school could move to fully accredited. We would note, they had to give us additional evidence, but they could move to fully accredited. Uh and so any issues identified during this stage again the expectation is to have
them resolved before the results go public which benefits us benefits the schools sort of it's not a gotcha no surprises everybody knows why they're receiving what they're receiving and so that's phase one that would be over the summer before any of the public release they would be seeing it internally we'd
be having conversation with them part two of this process on the next slide is an appeal process that is outlined in the regulations that the board this board has author authority to uh allow appeals to their accreditation designation. And so what would happen is after that first phase, if we're still
haven't reconciled to move to fully accredited status, uh school division may appeal to you and we would they would have 30 days to do this. We would look at some of the specific areas here, you know, extraordinary substantive data, procedural errors, um
circumstances beyond their control, sort of other circumstances that warrant special consideration. we would review their information here at the department. Uh the superintendent would review it and let them know sort of would they receive her recommendation for the board to support this appeal.
And the school division would then have the the authority to say we want to submit it to the board after another look or they may say we've decided we don't want to go public with this. We'll accept sort of your findings. It's another another opportunity for the department to re-examine additional information from the school division.
And you see the final note there. The board retains final authority to hear and decide all accreditation appeals. And so if the division does want to pursue it, we'd let them know the superintendent's recommendation and then this would be brought forward uh to to the board for a final review.
In our next slide, we'll talk here about some next steps. So the report itself you see on the screen a redline version for you. The report on the left is the 2425 version. We went through the regulations and pretty much spelled out uh in great detail what is required
under each of those 10 areas very detailed. And what we went back to examine based on feedback is many of these items are also captured in the standards of quality report that superintendents do. Could we reduce paperwork? Could we reduce the burden? Could we simplify it? And that's what
you're seeing in the red line is that we're not saying these areas are not important. We're not saying we don't collect information. We're simply saying we're going to get this from another source and so we're going to remove them from the accreditation report because they're already captured in the what we call the SOQ compliance report that
superintendents complete. And so the report that would be completed this year is shorter uh for that very reason, but we still note uh where this information is is coming from. The next slide gives you a sample of the screen that the division superintendents
would see. Our proposal is that superintendents would complete this again this year on behalf of all their schools. Uh we would want to work with our associations and superintendents about principles having a role in this. The regulations do speak to principles, but we need to build that process together collectively. And so the survey
here asks again, did you satisfy the requirement? If not, tell us why. It's self-reported. And then on the final, you get a summary here of what we're looking to do for 2526. Uh again, division superintendents would complete this and certify it on behalf
of all their schools. Uh this would be the specific 2526 report. Again, it removes any items if we collect these and other sources. We want to be very clear and we've given to you. We provide already to the public for feedback. This appeal process the board needs to adopt
an appeal process that they would uh use. And so we've submitted that to you for your consideration and make that also publicly available so divisions know the expectations and the timeline. Uh our goal again is public reporting to be clear and more transparent about how schools are meeting these obligations.
This information is on the school quality profile. We're really working to make sure the public understands accreditation versus the school performance and support framework. and then documenting how schools are satisfying these again in their commitment to use these resources uh to
improve student outcomes. And so, thank you today. >> Great. Thank you, Mr. Jennings. Um Superintendent Conway, do you have any board members, you have questions? >> Okay. Well, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Jennings. We will Oh, sorry. Go ahead,
Mr. Robinson. I just want to express gratitude for the simplification uh of process of reporting for superintendents and divisions and all the thoughtful work that went into this. >> Thank you. >> Getting you off the hot seat, Mr. J. So, thank you. We will accept this for first
review and see you in June. Thank you. >> And good job as usual. >> Okay, let's see. We are now uh for first review of the ex memorandums of understanding. Uh Dr. Ballard, you're up.
>> All right, ready to go. Good afternoon, uh President Ashton, uh Superintendent Conway, members of the board. I am Dr. Quinton Ballard, and I serve as the director, uh in the office of school improvement. Uh today I'll present an update regarding eligibility of uh five
school divisions to exit their respective memorandum of understanding with the Virginia board of education. Next slide please. So in today's update, you know, I'll talk a little bit about an overview and the history of the use uh ofus to uh
improve student outcomes, the impact of separating the accountability and accreditation on the currentus, share a little bit of data uh from the impact packed school divisions and then finally recommendations to the board for your consideration. Next slide.
And so, as shared during the November 12th, uh, 2025 board meeting, the standards of quality require all local school boards to maintain fully accredited schools and describes a process for addressing systems and processes impacting student performance
outcomes. When the Virginia Board of Education determines that the failure of schools to meet standards is related to division level failure to implement the standards of quality or other division level uh actions or inactions. Uh a
division level academic review actually may be required. And so the division level academic review refers to a process used to kind of analyze a school division systems and practices to determine the degree to which the local school board uh is meeting its
responsibility uh as prescribed in the standards of quality. Outcomes from the division level academic review inform the development of a memorandum of understanding between uh the board and the local school board.
And so this formal agreement really defines the responsibilities of the board, the local school board, the division superintendent, the Virginia Department of Ed uh staff uh to strengthen implementation of the standards of quality and improve student outcomes. Next slide, please.
And so since 2004, uh there have been eight school divisions have entered into an a memorandum of understanding with the board of ed after implementing interventions to build local capacity for improvement. Four of these divisions exited status, including Lee County in
2006, Sussex County in 2017, and Franklin City in 2018. Although Richmond City exited anou in 2007, uh the Richmond City School Board actually requested a second division level review in 2017 and entered into a
secondou with the board in the same year. And so currently we have five divisions that are under a memorandum of understanding with the board. We have Danville City Public Schools which entered in June of 2020. Greensville County Public Schools which entered in uh March of 2018. Petersburg City Public
Schools uh which was enacted in April of 2004. Uh Prince Edward County Public Schools enacted in June of 2020. And then Richmond City Public Schools enacted in July of uh 2017. Next slide please. And from July uh 28th of 2000 through
the September 25th of 2024, uh the Virginia school accountability system included an integration of pre-acreditation compliance uh standards and there are things like school uh instructional programming, school instructional leadership and pass uh student pass rates on the standards of
learning and other alternative assessment. This resulted in an overall rating for individual schools which Mr. Jennis just talked about a little bit and reviewed in his presentation around fully accredited, you know, schools being designated fully accredited, conditionally accredited, accreditation
denied, etc. And so in 2024, the regulations were revised as he mentioned which separated accountability from accreditation. Currentou exit criteria were established. I want to emphasize that under the prior unified accountability and accreditation system
and therefore divisions operating under an MOU status are currently measured against criteria aligned to a system that is no longer in effect. Next slide, please. Each school division's memorandum of understanding contains specific exit
criteria agreed upon by all parties related to schools earning full accreditation status before the local school board is released from the formal agreement. Moreover, these agreements include different exit criteria based on the regulations and legislation in
effect at the time of the respective enactment. So this slide really talks a little bit and intends to contains the specific exit criteria for each of these impacted school divisions for your review. It is important to note that many of these divisions have experienced
growth improvement during theou period. However, they may not exit their respective until 100% of their schools are rated accredited as you see presented in the language there. Next slide. The current standards of accreditation
sets a new threshold for division level and at and eligibility. I'm sorry. The the current standards of accreditation sets a new threshold for division level review and eligibility, if you will, for anou with the board of education. The new criteria
emphasizes the percent and number of schools within a school divisions that are identified as comprehensive support and improvement and/or additional targeted support and improvement. If 40% of schools in a division are identified
for comprehensive support and improvement or additional targeted support improvement or 10 or more schools are identified as comprehensive support and improvement, the division will be required to undergo a division level academic and resource allocation review that is conducted by the
department consistent with the elementary secondary school act and the and the school board will enter into a me aou with the Virginia board of education. Based on these criteria, Danville City Public Schools, Greensville County, and Prince Edward County school divisions do
not meet the threshold. However, Petersburg and Richmond City Schools would be eligible for a division level academic and resource allocation review, which would result in revisions to the current memorandum of understanding with the board. Additionally, Franklin City Schools meets the new eligibility
requirements for division level academic and resource allocation review atou. Next slide, please. And so, at this time, I'll take an opportunity to kind of review uh the data for each of the impacted divisions. And so, next slide.
First up would be Danville City is eligible to exit MOU uh with the board based on the new criteria. though all of its schools, if you look at it from last year, what you're looking at is a presentation of uh of its accreditation information from 2024 school year
compared to the 2526. And so you have an opportunity to kind of see uh what the conditions uh look like as it relates to accreditation accountability in this particular division. Next slide. Greensville County. Greensville County is eligible to exit thisou with the
board based on the new criteria. Next slide. For Prince Edward County Public Schools, eligible to exit this with the board based on the new criteria. Although you'll take a look that all of it schools have not been accredited without conditions for two consecutive years. Uh for Petersburg City. Next slide,
please. >> Sure. What in the far right column? What? D >> uh division level academic and resource allocation review. >> That's the abbreviation for division level academic and resource allocation review. Yes, ma'am.
>> Yes, ma'am. No problem at all. >> And so for Petersburg City Public Schools, it currentou will require revision since it does not meet the previously established exit criteria. Additionally, the division currently meets the new division level academic and resource allocation review criteria promagated in the 2024 regulations and
the Virginia consolidated state plan under the elementary and school and secondary education hack as amended you see presented here. Next slide please. For Richmond City, Richmond City uh currentou would require revision since it does not meet the
previously established exit criteria. Additionally, the division currently meets the new division level academic and resource allocation review criteria uh as well as similar to what was just presented here uh for Petersburg. And so um
can we go back a slide? >> Can we go? >> I don't think we have >> it's ahead. Next slide, please. >> Did it skip? Go to the next one, please. Somehow it got out of order. Okay. And
can we go to the next one? I'm not certain how that happened. Okay. Uh for Franklin City, uh Franklin City Public Schools is actually eligible to enter uh an MOU because it meets the new division level academic and resource allocation review criteria um as uh
outlined uh and attempted to be presented here. Uh if you would transition back then, I think based upon the order of this, if we would go back maybe to there we go. Yes, there. Okay. Um, and so what we're attempting to
share to to show and here is an overview of the divisions with a significant number of percentage of schools that areident federally identified for comprehensive support and improvement over the past uh two years. And so presented here for you, you'll see that Danville city has remained constant with four schools or 36% of its schools that
identified as CSI. Greensville has no schools identified as CSIs for the past two years. Prince Edward has remained constant with one school at 33% of its schools. Petersburg is at 66% of its schools for the current year. Richmond City uh uh has 45% of its schools or 20
schools. And then Franklin City uh has uh one of its two schools that is currently identified for uh comprehensive support and improvement. And so if we could go forward now, I think that's going to be two slides forward. One, two, eight. There you go. Right
there. Okay. And so based on the information provided uh this the uh in this presentation uh the superintendent of public instruction recommends that the board accepts or first review the recommendations to one release the Danville City Public Schools uh board
from the memorandum of understanding with the Virginia Board of Ed that was enacted in June of 2020. Release the Greensville County School Board from the Memorandum of Understanding with the Virginia Board of Ed enacted in March of 2018. and release the Prince Edward County Public School Board from the memorandum of understanding with the
Virginia board enacted in June of 2020. And so at this at at this time it is recommended that the board should not take any action on the three school divisions, Richmond, Petersburg, and Franklin City that are eligible for a division level academic and resource
allocation review and may need to revise or establish. This will allow video staff to conduct additional analysis on the results, engage stakeholders, and identify sufficient funding to produce recommendation for moving forward. Next steps uh certainly would be brought forth to this board uh at the June board
meeting uh for consideration. >> Great. Dr. Ballard, thank you. Board members, uh Superintendent Conway, comments first. >> Absolutely. Thank you, Dr. Ballad. Um and I know there's a lot of letters and systems here. Um, so I'll just do a a
quick summary and and and and uh Dr. Ballard or Mark will correct me if I I misspe, but basically you we have a system that identifies schools in greatest need and you do that through the federal identification and through our school performance and support
framework. We then have gone a step further and we said um you know if a substantive number uh if if a division has a substantive number of those schools then it warrants additional attention and intervention from this
body is is the is the gist of the changes that were made as we separated accountability and accreditation. What Dr. Ballard notes and just wants there to be transparency about is that the original agreements were very much rooted uh in a time when accreditation
reflected performance in addition to compliance with expectations. Right? And so even though uh it it said that then as of 2024 we moved to a system where we said uh the additional attention and intervention would be based on how many
of your schools either as a percentage or a raw number above 10. Um and so we we with with that lens sort of said if you apply that lens three of them uh three of these school boards should be exited and we want to bring that for first review and then final review. uh
first review today and final review in June. It also means that there three that we now need to sort of figure out the path forward for that additional attention and intervention. Um but we need a little bit more time to kind of come back to this body with a proposal.
So that that's the again I know we're we're we're making your brain think in all different ways around uh sequencing here. uh but that is it's sort of helping you understand the change uh understand the move from accreditation to uh accountability noting that the
intent ofus was not really about compliance right as I think you heard from Mark and Dr. ballot. The idea is every one of our schools ultimately should be fully accredited because that means that that's kind of like the floor in terms of compliance and ultimately the purpose of theus was around that
additional attention and intervention if there are students classrooms and educators uh in in greater need and a higher proportion within these divisions. >> Great. >> Dr. Wilson, >> I'll apologize because I have several questions. Um so thank you first of all
for the analysis and looking through kind of where divisions are uh at the moment. So um I don't even know where to start. Uh so the as we are contemplating
releasing three school divisions from anou, my fundamental question is do we believe that over the course of time that they have been uh in under thisou that they have now developed the kinds
of structures and systems that are necessary to move continue to move their school divisions alone. Um that's the question kind of related to that when you look at the number of schools that
are uh right now receiving comprehensive support for example in in each of the divisions the number you know for Danville for example that number of schools hasn't changed they still need comprehensive support in 2526 as they did in 2425 same thing with Prince
Edward so I wonder about you know have we really helped the divisions to be more ready to uh continue to to improve and make significant mark. And I'll go on and finish all of my questions maybe at at one time. Um and then thinking about
sustained support um for uh the divisions that remain andor going forward. So in the um number of and and what resources are available that the division or that the
um department can provide. I remember when a number of these school divisions entered into and the conversation at that time was a huge concern about what are the resources available at the department to actually provide the kind of supports that are truly needed to
move divisions and so thinking about you know kind of the eb and flow um as we release some divisions for example but then we add potentially I know that this will be a later step but potentially adding others does do we have the resources is really
ongoing to provide the support that that whatever the divisions are know knowing the number of schools who um who are under this need for comprehensive support and improvement. So in any way in any order you'd like to address those Dr. Ballard happy to hear any response.
Thank you. >> Uh thank you. Um and so if I miss one of one or two of the one of those questions or two uh please come back. Um so what I'll say is that the the the new division level academic and resource allocation review you know you know after this uh the the state
superintendent and you know OSI is certainly planning to engage our division superintendents and our leaders to really talk about what a meaningful process is to look like. The board is act this process has to come before the board for the board to kind of determine
what that is actually going to certainly be um as it relates to progress and improvement. uh you know if I may say these are kind of the rules to the game now subject you know considering that we have this new these new SOAs and how everybody if we're going to treat
everybody kind of fairly and equitable etc. uh these are these are the terms and the the rules to the game if you will. These many of these divisions I would say yes in terms of where they were until where they are now have put in systems and processes. One of them
have actually partnered with uh external vendors. One of which is you know UVA UVAL to kind of really look at driving some systems changes. um and they have done two works of service, two years of support through that entity and this year is actually continuing and you can see the evidence they came before this
board in I want to say August or September and provided a presentation around just some of the systemic improvements some of the uh uh uh uh improvements that they've actually made around leadership uh in the areas of human resource leadership in the areas of student academic uh student academic
performance. Um and so uh you know as it relates to improvement from where they were to now certainly these divisions have put forth some systems and and processes in place. We can certainly say as well when you talk about the nature of the support. So uh with these
divisions sustainability planning is is crucial and key. Uh many of these divisions as you see if they have federally identified schools uh or schools that are identified on the state or federal side they'll continue to be supported through our office. things that we have done which have been prioritize uh placement in any technical
assistance offerings, workshops, different things that are offered from the agency. We've triaged they these divisions also have had uh uh uh a consultant support uh and an executive liaison that have have been on site to
provide if you will monthly support to them uh in in in some of these divisions. In addition to that, uh we continue to monitor their schools to ensure that they're meeting state and federal accountability uh to support them with their needs assessment support planning. Um uh in addition to that, um
uh uh there's on-site technical assistant offerings. So we typically we will go out, we'll coordinate and work from an inter agency perspective as well. So if there is an identified need that exists with these divisions, we're coordinated with the instruction office, with the accountability office, with the special education office, with whomever
to really make sure that we're there to provide the necessary uh uh support that they certainly need. Um when you say um the capacity moving forward, I do want to say that as we consider releasing these divisions, they are not going to
be left alone. they are still going to be under the if you will the support of our office and the support of the agency for sure >> and that if I just to follow that that's that's my observation is that you know by the sheer numbers we I know that the ethos of the department is not to you
know um but when you look at the numbers where we'd be moving even with releasing schools from or divisions from the MLUS we'll be moving from 25 schools to 30 schools. So you're at we're still
so because we're not leaving them, we're still in some capacity increasing the number of schools to which the department will be providing support and so just observing that that's a resource need and and ensuring that the department has the resources in order to
provide the kind of supports ongoing uh for new andor those who are are remaining under the opaces or the wings of the department as you move forward. So just an observation that I think >> absolutely >> needs to be considered. >> No, I think there's an important consideration here. I think to Dr.
Ballard's point around according to the criteria set forth by this body, you know, the the exit is there. They are still federally identified schools, still eligible for the school improvement resources, still the top priority for this department. I also
just want to acknowledge part of that fairness is also recognizing that we have other school divisions that also have a a high number of identified schools and really thinking through how do you think about the resources for all of those divisions. You know theouou is
this designation of additional attention and intervention. Um but I think what we have heard and we saw this as we separated and had more clarity around accreditation and accountability. We also heard a clarion call for agencywide
support around school improvement for every single identified school. And I think in the past it's sort of been either in theou bucket or out of the bucket and somehow the perception is if you're out of theou bucket that um that you're okay. And I think what what what I hear from our general assembly and
from JARK and from this body and the conversations and making the the decisions to separate or as Mark said bifurcate um that you know and to change that that in or that number of students meant that we identified far far more schools through school performance and
support framework. It does raise a resource question. Um this was another uh uh key principle that went from JARK and was uh adopted into legislation. And I imagine as a group in addition to looking at what we need to do for these
particular three school divisions uh also thinking about what the resource implications are and being prepared to advise the governor uh as she prepares her her upcoming budget in addition to maximizing all federal resources. >> Thank you.
>> Yep. This McFerson. Okay. So, I was looking at uh Petersburg for instance. >> Yes, ma'am. >> And the length of time that they've been under. So I'd be interested in knowing for
instance um from their perspective what it is that they believe that the department has not provided to them that would help them remove themselves from this category and am I correct that the total number of schools
is seven or you just giving me the numbers that need comprehensive support and improvement? >> I see you 50% of the school >> six they have they have six schools >> in 2024 2025 need comprehensive support
and then you got 66% and you and the number is only four >> they went up ma'am uh so they have one additional school that was identified uh for comprehensive support and improvement okay >> so previous year was three of the six this year is four of the six >> okay
>> yes ma'am >> which is why you put eligible to amend the >> that's exactly Right? Because they are above >> an improvement that you know this direction it was basically the needle's going >> they they are above the 40% threshold. Uh very good question. I do want to to
just simply add while their their was enacted in April of 2004. It was updated uh by both parties in November of 2006, November of 2009 and then most recently in April of 2016. So that was the last time that it was
actually kind of updated, if you will, between the local boards and the Virginia Board of Education uh since 2004. I I mean, you you raised a very good question. I would also, you know, mention I think that's what the state superintendent is certainly wanting to do is to get out and get get in front of these division leaders and talk with
them a little bit about uh what their uh what a meaningful division level uh academic and resource allocation review is going to look like and mean for for them. Petersburg is I would say uh a little different in the sense that in the LA I've been here now four years in my four years of service here they've
had five superintendents to include three acting right >> um so when you when you when you think about uh just the work that that has to happen and you know some of these questions that you're you some of the data points that you're looking at um I certainly would say to you that you know the their current superintendent has
been there since the summer of 2024 uh and certainly uh I think has built uh a team of of of leaders from across the nation and and filled vacancies across princip you know with principal ships in the schools etc to kind of get some stability there when it comes to recruitment intention which we know
having highly highly effective leaders in in schools is very very important >> right certainly no doubt about that whatsoever I've been involved with talking to city officials in Petersburg and I know that there's this great push to try to you know change things and they got great leadership but when we
look at the executive order and we talk about the the new governor's executive It specifically says that we should be looking at focusing the financial resources to the places that need it most. Which is why I'm concerned about us having some underlying data about for
instance Franklin City Public School that has one that may have to go into anou. What is it that we need to provide to them? Really hearing from them and then let us measure how they're doing based upon this joint effort. us and
them together because, you know, we're measuring against our standards, which we should do, but obviously there's there's a missing piece here that it seems to me would be easy to correct. And before we decide with the new standards, oh, now we have all these
other people who need some intensive support. We need to fix this first. Sure. We need to help these schools. >> And the division level academic review will will be intent is a way of kind of diagnosis. If I could, you know, use an analogy of taking your car to the auto body shop and they they running a 100
point uh uh analysis or or diagnostic, right? Like determining what are the components that we're going to look at, if you will, underneath the hood. Uh if I could use that as an analogy is going to be part of this process and initial phase of of our efforts before we come back before the board in June. And I
think what the state superintendent certainly want to make sure that she that that is done in terms of engaging these divisions. >> Great. Dr. Northern >> I'm just um wondering why um what they're struggling with.
Like I'm looking at these 11 things, you know, that that they've got to kind of provide documentation for, but if there is a pattern, you know, which of these 11 things do they most struggle with and period? >> Yes, ma'am. What I would say to you, uh
uh Dr. Norm is that that again with um you know we transitioning to this new accountability system and certainly where we are at this point we would want to go in and do a new analysis and that division level academic review resource allocation review would be a driver to kind of help inform uh the very answer
to the question that you just that you just raised but many uh is what I would say to you. >> Let me add to that >> and I think Mr. Mr. Jennis can kind of maybe speak to some of the >> the uh data maybe I think you may be asking for more specific data. he he would be be back on the hot seat. Okay.
No, you know, I guess the one question you you you mentioned a small anecdote. I I would be curious about leadership in all of all of these divisions, meaning how long, how many, if that if there's some trends there. Um I'm also wondering
about the local school board again how long new members that would just help me have clarity around um you know we are a governing body that's setting policy and looking at data but don't have the the face behind the data and so being able
to just have that anecdote of who is leaving and how long might give us some more clarity. So, but I don't know. >> So, I'll speak first some of the comments heard. Dr. Wilson, I want to speak to some of the comments you raised. Uh, and so let me let me frame it. Our old accreditation system was the
compliance, but actually was more of the academic achievement, the things that we think chronic absenteeism. So, some of these schools, it was any school that had a level three was conditioning accredited. So, some of these schools were able to improve in reading, math, and science, but not chronic absenteeism. Many of these schools as
you see the dates on the board entered theirou right before the pandemic. So when we look at their academic data and we're trying to look at all of them went up because right after the pandemic I mean we had 20 30% pass rates. So they entered there and I will say as I analyze the data to be fair we used what
we call the pass rates which is the simple the kids who took the test they pass or fail no exclusions. We have to provide that for the federal government and these schools are showing increase. Some schools went from 30% pass rates to 60% pass rates. Um, some went as high as 70 to 80%. So, we're seeing growth to
the question from Dr. Wilson sort of are we seeing evidence? We looked at the key metrics in reading, math, science, and chronic absenteeism. And so, some of the schools, science was still an area of concern, but we saw reading and math and chronic absenteeism. Now, to your question, they still have federally identified schools. I just wanted to
clarify these schools to exit federal identification need to show two years of growth before they can exit. Danville could not exit three of their schools because they need additional year. Those three schools are showing tremendous growth. We are projecting based on what we've seen they would exit this year.
The same is true for Prince Edward. So while they're still federally identified, they're on track to exit this year. So I just want to put that out there too as far as they're going to exit. They saw these fedally identified schools. Um we're seeing tremendous growth. they're following the procedures and the the supports that are available. But I did want to provide that piece
sort of why they haven't exited yet. Um but we we analyze the data in those three areas. Reading, math, science, those are the core areas. And then we did look at chronic absenteeism. But I will say to you some of the divisions like Greensville, it was level three just in science. So they were making
growth in reading and math even before the new accountability system, but they were still not fully accredited because of science. And so they basically was just this sort of the expectation was fully accredited which means everything has to be you know about at these certain benchmarks
how many CSI statewide >> 80 in terms of what we're paying attention to >> the real number of schools in which we're paying keen attention to use the analogy of the blue line from the early childhood conversation yesterday is 80
right so it is this is a you know a higher percentage than those but all of those schools are in need of that comprehensive support intervention and need the sort of the full attention of the department and this body. >> Great. >> Do you have a quick >> I think it's a clarifying
>> Dr. Dr. Northern >> I think it's a clarifying. So the bifurcation that you kind of started with Oh sorry the bifurcation that we started with I mean the old system was measuring outcomes the new system for accreditation is all inputs. Yes. Like
when I look at this, it's compliance with facilities and safety provisions, compliance with parental notification provisions, compliance with the requirement to offer courses. None of that's outcome, right? It's all input, which is really how an accreditation system should be. >> So I think you're saying, and correct me
if I'm wrong, going forward, now that we've got a whole another system that deals with outcomes, >> we're actually going to be following Virginia administrative code, right? Which kind of we should have been before, but before we we couldn't. We were doing both because we had the system that was globbed together. Yes.
>> But now that we've pulled them apart, going forward, are we saying that we're only going to identify schools based on these compliance measures? >> No. It's completely off of the 40% federal identification, which is in alignment with federal law, which says a significant number of federally identified schools need to receive
resource allocation support. Sort of you're as a state agency, you need to show what are you doing for those school divisions. So our newou with the new regulations says 40% Okay. Sorry. Sorry. I should not have a sideway conversation. So if you look at
page seven and and again we asked asked Dr. Bell to include the old content about accreditation so that we were being transparent but the idea is this body decided in 2024 to move away from compliance. Want to say this. So ultimately with
accreditation, the goal is that everybody at the end of the day wants to say that all their schools are accredited. And so even though you do have a number of schools for a variety of reasons last year that weren't fully accredited, that the hope is between now and then that we're having conversations
to get them into compliance on that. Right? So that no matter where you go in the Commonwealth that you'd see we have 1,883 schools, they're all fully accredited. It doesn't mean that the performance within those schools is the same. And so uh we are we you know even
though it was anou and that contractual agreement was was in place we are saying that the reggg that was passed in 24 supersedes that going forward it is all about you know your federal identification which is based on on performance. Um that's right
>> obviously you know we're still monitoring uh and would like for for Richmond Petersburg city to get those schools up to accreditation. um uh but we will you will only be able to exit once you reach that that certain
performance level. I would also note that there to Dr. Wilson's point about clarity. I think there's still some confusion in the field right there are a whole lot of people were very excited that all the schools were accredited and you know and we were also excited for them. Uh I would say that when they put
that on their billboards and put that in their newspapers that many of us, you know, I think there was a general assumption that was still reflective of performance and so there's still some some work to be to be done. But ultimately getting the system to pay keen attention to the 80 identified
schools and then once you have a you know a prepoundonderance of those schools either more than 10 or 40% um that that is where we go a step above and beyond. Um, I also think it is really helpful to hear your feedback on how we think about uh what we bring to
you in June. Uh, in addition to uh what what the board president noted and and and and Miss McFersonson, these are also just very different contexts. And so I think that we are trying to balance between where you want this to be consistent across the board. However,
Petersburg is quite different from Richmond City, uh, which is quite different from Franklin City, which has a brand new, I believe, superintendent, right? Versus Richmond has had the same superintendent for eight years. And so, really trying to balance between from a fairness perspective, which Dr. Ballard
noted about, and where we want things to be uh consistent enough, but then from a an equity perspective and a contextual perspective that these look very different. Running a school division uh that um has as many schools as Richmond City looks very different from running a
school division with two schools um and that happens to get over that uh 40% threshold because one of its two schools uh meets this this this criteria. So this is incredibly helpful feedback as we think about what we ultimately need to bring to you for the school for the divisions that are going to continue to
be engaged in this way with the board going forward. >> Mr. Robinson. >> Uh, forgive me for my excitement and nerding out on this topic a little bit. Um, but I I think Virginia has an opportunity to be a national leader here. U theou process, uh, the fact that
it exists, the fact that we have this reset with the criteria with to align with the school performance framework and uh, uh, and separate it from inputs and more focus on outcomes and the fact that we have a chance to to learn and and write newus here. Um, I think we
should take full advantage of it and and truly move from an MOU process that sometimes is perceived as compliance focused uh to one that is focused on what uh we as VDOE and the divisions together decide it's going to take for transformational outcomes.
>> There's so many great things about the existing process. Number one, the opportunity to be partners together in understanding needs and and and building on the other board members thoughts and how you coalition build towards what needs to change, but also the fact that it's tied to a corrective action plan
which gives a chance for bold action and cover to do the work that our students need educators and adults doing on their behalf. And so, um, just a few things I want to share from what I've seen nationally in places like Ogden, Utah that had five of the eight lowest
performing schools in all of Utah and then a few years later had none of the bottom 20% or Fulton County that went from 29 F schools down to three. There there's uh or even Danville that that is showing great gains. There there's consistent themes and and one is um
starting with a comprehensive needs assessment. So I I I know the statute talks about instruction and resource allocation. I would and I'm in full support of the deep focus on instruction and bear tying that versus thinking of school improvement as separate but but I
really encourage the team to to think comprehensively about the needs as we think about talent and time and and other things as well. Um number two there's a chance to tie it to these divisions haven't hadus written in over a decade. So there's a chance to tie it
to what has the video learned over the last decade. Um so for instance, do we have any non-negotiables in our theory of change similar or at least aspirations similar to how we have in early education? We've said we want high quality curriculum. Uh we have a theory of change about what needs to happen to
help that come into place. How are we building that into the comprehensive needs assessment? Um and then uh finally, how do how do we get the divisions to drivers of transformation, not just a long list of things to do? Um
because they already have they already have comprehensive plans. They're still going to have comprehensive plans. We're still going to support comprehensive plans. How can a corrective action plan be about the bold things that we're deciding together, need to be invested in, um need to be shifted, um and might
allow for not only better implementation, but innovation and boldness and thinking about things like, you know, do these divisions want more high dosage tutoring? Do these divisions want uh uh more time for teacher collaboration? I don't know. But the point is what's gotten us here is not
going to get us to where these students need us to go. And I I just uh again, forgive my um uh passion on this topic, but I we the Virginia has a better opportunity than most states to get this right because of all the moves this team
and this board have made preceding this and the existence of thisou process. And please come to June with recommendations, but please take your time like like let's get this right. Let's be bold. Let's this is a generational opportunity. add one point there. I I thank you Mr.
Robinson. This is all very very helpful feedback and again without giving Dr. Ballot a heart attack here. Um I think the other pieces I think we have to get it right for the 80 right not just the 25 and so I just again I think there's been this uh to your point earlier Dr. Northern about the sort of the bubble. I
think theou and that hitting that threshold signals the bubble right and that you know and if you're Franklin sitting you're like but only one of my school is right and there's a lot of other divisions that have far more than one school affected and so I think it's about obviously what we have to do to comply with the law around these
particular divisions um and doing this in partnership not two because they don't need another list of things to do but also being able to come back and think about for all 80 what are we doing and how are we working with a school division that otherwise might have incredibly high performing schools but
for whatever reason historical contextual also has schools in great need and those kids at those schools are just as in need as in the ones in the divisions. >> Correct. Um Miss McFerson. >> Yes. I was going to say just like we
also reward good behavior we also have to hold people accountable for what we do do and put in place for them. So a part of the comprehensive needs assessment ought to also have built in the performance that relates to exiting
and what resources the board has when people are not performing when they could perform. So for instance, if a school gets some of the latest and greatest teachers and you know teacher salaries have gone up as we understand
like 19% over the last few years. If those things are put in place and then there is no improvement then the question becomes to the board what are our rights and responsibilities as it relates to those particular schools. And
uh I'm always hopeful that everything is going to turn around because I think the kids are so resilient that they get it right even when we don't. But um I'd be interested in the needs assessment comprehensive and again hearing from those schools that are struggling to let
us know when in fact they're really needing. Then we need to meet that need and then we can measure the performance um as we go forward. >> Great. Thank you Dr. B. >> All right. I'm going to see you. you're nerding out and raise you a passioning
out. I don't know what else to call it. Um I'm not usually one to like go on and on about myself in my second meeting with any organization, but I do want uh y'all to have a little bit of context of why um this may not sound as coherent as I'd normally like to sound. I was uh I
joined the Richmond School Board in '07 and I served on it till 2012. I was chair in this still to this day one and only year when all Richmond schools were fully accredited as we called it then. Right. Okay. >> So I saw firsthand what it took to get
there and then I went to DOE and watched it unravel. Um, and so now I teach a course where I use Richmond as my case on sustainable improvement and where did I realize that I went wrong um as a governance uh uh uh official at that
time and watching you know continuing to watch today as as these schools struggle. So you see Richmond, Petersburg's been in a long time. Richmond went out right when I was there, got everything, put all the put all the pieces together, got fully accredited, and then they it eroded.
Leadership turnover was a huge piece of that, but not the only piece. There were four superintendents after I left. Um, between 2012 and and 2017 when you include the interims, that's a huge piece of it. but coherence and a and a robust theory of change where the entire
division understands what their what what their big levers for improvement are. Actually, we learned that at the PLE because at that time I came as a school board member um to better understand some of these things. So, uh so what I will say in terms of thinking we've got the immediate decision about
the the couple of divisions for theus but then the bigger issue thank you so much for the work you're already putting into it. I would say there there are things to think about because I don't see theou process as distinct at all from the accountability process even
though you've done this bifurcation to meus and VDOE supports are the other inputs now with accreditation and then the outputs and the outcomes obviously if you continue the logic model or we should be able to we should be able to put those puzzle pieces together in a
way that we see outcomes but we set divisions up for sustainable success because it is all too easy for things to erode um when leaders turn over, boards turn over, um teachers go away, etc. Uh so I would say the three big questions I
think we should be able to ask of any of these divisions when we're doing these reviews is uh if they if they're coming out of it like Danville and and you're seeing some success, uh what support did they get? What did they do with it? And
how will they sustain? and and not talking about those things mean that we don't have lessons learned for for the Franklin's of the world. And I know Dr. Conway is so right, every context is different, but we do know from the literature that there are there are themes in what you can do and coherence
is a big one of just having folks who all understand where you're driving towards and what your levers for for success are and knowing um that those things you're just you just become religious about doing those things. I watched two superintendents do it
successfully and then I've watched um as it's all all um gone by the wayside. And so in terms of the short term though with to Dr. Wilson Wil Wilson's point, we hear that some things are heading in
the right direction and and so the recommendation is that they exit this, but I wonder if there's some middle ground there of maybe it's not anou, but may is there some kind of
um you know caretaking kind of that. No, I don't like that language. um some kind of partnership that can still sustainability a sustainability >> to help them sustain to help ensure that we don't see Danville sliding back in in three or four years if the stellar
superintendent there gets plucked up by another division because that's a thing that happens too, right? Um so that's what I'm thinking about the short term. Is there another option, a middle ground there uh that where they exit theou but still continue to get some kind of identified resources? And we do need to
hear from these division leaders um about what they need, what their big challenges are, where they would, if they could wave their magic wand for VDOE help, where would they point um to those places um that would help. So does that help the sort of short-term
thinking and then the longer term? Yes. Let's talk big picture about um what we can do that might be transformational. William, I agree with you that you know really take an opportunity to think about meaningful support um that can provide improvement that sustains. >> Thank you Dr.
>> That was a lot I know but I'm telling you like this this is my jam. I love prek but this is the thing for me. >> Yeah. >> Thank you Dr. Bridges. Dr. about do you have any >> No, I just wanted to just simply uh uh uh you had asked a question about the uh
time frame by which these division superintendents were serving and I just wanted to just simply share that for many of these all of these divisions none of the superintendents that are currently serving went through the division level review process were not in position when these divisions entered. So, uh Greensville actually uh
just made it named their new superintendent as of uh April. in fact their April board meeting. So they have a new superintendent that starts May 4th. Uh uh and that was supported by the Virginia School Board Association with their superintendent search process etc.
Prince Edward Dr. Jones is in his first year there uh July 1 um of uh the 25 26 school year. So he's in year one and then Prince uh Danville uh Dr. Haristen uh who is a Danville native as I understand I think has been there now
about four or five years maybe. Uh so I just wanted to just simply share that information and likewise with Petersburg and obviously superintendent cameras was not in place when these uh division level review was was enacted it. So I just wanted to make sure that I clarify that and share that information since you brought that point up. Ma'am,
>> I promise I won't talk that much again, but can I ask a quick question? I did notice again thinking about these things as all linked together now. We got accreditation as an input. We haveus as an input, but I did notice both Franklin and and RPS do have accreditation
challenges. And so knowing >> what those inputs are and what what the challenges are will help us to better understand um perhaps in investments or supports that they need with that. It didn't look like I don't think in the last report that Petersburg had
accreditation. Well, well, accreditation in in the sense of the new how you know how accreditation is defined >> 2425 report the spreadsheet >> sure had but the way that accreditation is defined for the 2526 right compared
to the previous year and so uh uh that's what I would what I would want to maybe uh make sure that I emphasize there I can invite >> uh so you're saying what the spreadsheet I was looking at it was not just reflecting inputs it was reflecting performance So yes, there's
>> okay >> there's one element not to confuse things >> there's this one the code of Virginia the first one says that it includes uh student growth and outcomes and so in the regulations adopted in 2024 section 300 it talks about schools that are CSI
competence support improvement schools they start off as conditionally accredited for them to be fully accredited they have to be showing academic progress at a rate that they could exit within three years so there is a correlation to be very fair and this this will come up in our future accreditation talk there is a
correlation between these schools being federally identified as CSI conference of support and they're also for the accreditation piece even though everything else might be compliant their data is not showing they'd exit and so they're also conditionally accredited so I just want to be clear as far as that
might be the area of need which is roots back to the outcome piece which is something that's on our >> and this goes back to just one of those things where again uh additional conversation can be had in this area but this board and the superintendent remember we cannot rewrite code. So the
idea is that there there could be a scenario where uh there are recommendations to the general assembly to remove that not because they don't care about growth but because they want these to be two distinct systems. Uh the
desire of this body was for it to be two distinct systems. They just got stuck in this one little piece of law that uh continues to blur the two systems. >> Great. Well, Dr. B, thank you very much. We will accept this for first review and see you in June.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay, we have >> Chief Bertha, you're up. So, we are in first review of the guidelines for school construction. Good afternoon, Madame Chair, members of
the board, Superintendent Conway. Uh I am Christina Bura, chief operations officer for the department. And with us today, we also have Mr. VJ Romnner, who is the director of support services, uh and the master of making sure that all of these things get delivered to school divisions in compliance with your board
guidelines. Um for those of you that have been through this presentation before, please forgive me. I'm going to go a little deeper for our four new members so that there's a clear understanding about um what these guidelines are and what they support for our school divisions. Um we have taken
the approach in the past that this has been first and final review and we're hitting the brakes a little bit just so that you all can take this under advisement. Um it also allows for our school divisions um and other stakeholders to also provide feedback before you vote on that in June. So
funding for the school construction assistance program began in 2022 to 2024. I don't have a presentation. You're just going to hear me talk. I'm sorry. Um and that has continued in the 24 to 26 bienium with $80 million in funding
that was included in the appropriation act for fiscal year 26. These grants support um our competitive basis for school divisions to apply and they are for local school divisions to remodel, build, construct schools andor our
regional career and technical centers. Um they have to demonstrate poor building condition and the need for the funds for construction expansion or modernization of public school buildings. During the 2025 general assembly session, an
additional $30 million was transferred from the literary fund for a total of $110 million being available for distribution of grants in fiscal year 26. Any unobligated appropriations in the SCAP program in a prior fiscal year
can also roll over into the next fiscal year um and be used for the same purpose. There were funds that were left over as of June 30th, 2025 by way of 88,341766 and an additional 5,269283
from previously awarded SCAP awards that were returned by several school divisions due to the inability to execute their grants as they applied for them. This brings the total available in this grant cycle once these guidelines are approved to a total of 23,711,49.
The legislative intent of the school construction assistance program is to provide funding for major school construction renovation or additions project giving priority to high need school divisions and regional CTE programs. Funding is intended for
planned projects. has to be in their CIP or for a planned project that lacks sufficient funding and that are not yet in a construction phase. Program funding is based on a competitive criteria through an application process. The
board of ed, you are charged with developing guidelines for the administration of this program to include establishing competitive criteria used for the scoring of the applications and determining funding eligibility. The competitive criteria must reflect the categories of
commitment, need, and poor school building conditions, and a minimum qualifying score is established for a project to qualify for funding. These current guidelines include various criteria reflecting these three categories and assigned point values.
Department staff have updated the data used for several selection criteria so that the latest available data is used for the upcoming application process. A minimum of 65 points on a 100 point scale was previously adopted by the
board as a minimum qualifying score for a project to qualify for funding under the program. School division and regional CTE programs apply through the Department of Education for grant funding during all of our designated open application periods as established
by the appropriation language. Awarded funding is based on 10, 20, or 30% of approved project cost depending on a division's local composite index and the lo locality's fiscal stress category. This item aligns to the board of
education's priorities and goals for the 2024 to 2029 under the category of to advance safe and healthy schools. In your documents, there are some key proposed changes to the guidelines to ensure that divisions can enhance student learning environments and these
changes include the following. One, we have made adjust a recommended adjustment to the point score for the building uh poor building condition to enable some divisions that did not achieve a minimum score of 65 points in previous applications to potentially
qualify them for funding uh consideration. We have also recommended the addition of a new criteria for school division enrollment trends using data from the fall SRC which is our student record collection enrollment. Divisions could earn a
fivepoint um weight for increased enrollment over a course of three years. So we will look at their student record collection and if they are uh seeing increased enrollment, we are recommending that we assign a point value for that to recognize their growth in their schools.
The points for the scores awarded to school enrollment criteria are obtained by adjusting the following criterias. One, reducing ADA criteria points from five to three. Reducing debt capacity criteria from five to three. and
reducing the condition of all schools criteria with a previous maximum score of nine to a max score of eight. We are also recommending points be adjusted for the ISP, which is the identified student percentage, fiscal stress designation,
and poverty percentage, which may enable some schools that fell slightly short of the minimum 65 points to qualify for funding in the next application round. We have also added language on the process to determine the correct final grant award for projects whose actual
cost are below the estimated cost that they provided us in the original application. We want to ensure that the grant aligns with the allowable criteria and requirements outlined in the appropriation act. Uh as you take a look at this item for
first review, attachment one provides you with a redline version of the criteria. Attachment two is a clean version with our recommended changes and attachment three provides you with a detailed criteria change in a summary format. I am happy to answer any
questions that you may have while this is under advisement for first review. >> Superintendent, do you have anything to add? >> No. Okay. Uh Dr. Northern. >> Yeah. I was just um I'm intrigued. I think I noticed before that the funds could be used for regional CTE programs.
Yeah. Um, does that cover like equipment or like can you talk a little bit about what's in and what's out relative to the CT program funding? >> Yeah, it's for buildings. So, it's got to be an let's say they wanted to convert a cosmetology area to an auto
mechanic area and that is included in the regional plan >> and they have their board their regional board approved that that would be allowable. Um, it would also include that equipment, but it's got to be the construction of to be part of the project.
>> Okay. So, you're creating a new space or you're rehabbing an old space. >> Yes. >> And with that Okay. >> It can't be for non-C capital items. It has to be capital expenses, which I would include a renovation of a space. You can't have the space without the equipment. I would classify that as
collective. >> Okay. Can just follow up. Can you tell me um is there a percentage or are you saying that more um applications are for CT um programs or are you not seeing an update? >> So I believe that the board changed that
criteria to allow regional CTE centers two years ago and we saw two CTE centers apply. Um in your last round in fact Chesapeake I believe received full funding from this program up to the allowable amount to build a new CTE center a regional center for their
school. and also happy to see the points for the enrollment. I know we've talked about that before. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Any questions? >> Dr. Bridges, >> I I'm in support of the additional criteria and the changes that you made.
I do wonder for divisions uh that aren't increasing enrollment. You know, sometimes one of the toughest things they have to do is to consolidate schools and oftentimes those are very very old schools that would meet some of these criteria. And I wonder about the
potential of this funding uh conversely to be able to incentivize um you know consolidation where you're getting essentially two or three schools worth of small old buildings into a state-of-the-art facility. I I mean is
that something y'all considered or >> so it gives them points if they are increasing enrollment but does not exclude them from other things their building may be in such a dilapidated state that they get points in another category >> that they still could qualify for the award. So I don't want you to think that
just because they don't have increasing enrollment doesn't mean that they may not get an award. >> There's there's 12 other criteria >> that may qualify them >> um for that. I should add for the new board members too that once you approve these guidelines and um we put the open
application period out there before we make awards, you will see all of the things that came to us, what their point values were, assignments, and you actually approve the distribution of those awards. So that's that's also an item that will come back to you in a future meeting.
>> Yes. Yep. Mr. Robinson, >> I just wanted to second the uh I'm not sure if this exact um program can be used to uh help incentivize very thoughtful consolidation. Um but I just wanted to to second the you with the the
dem with the demographics and the student population continuing to decrease. Um, and you know, back to the earlier conversations about cover for hard decisions, anything this division can do to help move our uh school buildings uh and student experiences to
state-of-the-art and uh serve only only have the number of school buildings that are appropriate for serving that population, the better student learning uh opportunities we can give our students. Again, that may or may not be something you can send to us because this has to be I understand a scored program for equitable allocation, but it
it it I am similarly curious. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. I thought someone was moving. All right. Um Chief Bertha, thank you. We will accept this for first review and see you in June. >> With that though, that completes all of
our review. We are now transition to presentation and written reports. Is there anyone who's going to present on this or there's no one left to present? >> We've cleared the room. It's it's a a very different room from this morning.
>> Yes. >> Yes. Okay. Well, we'll we'll take the report as as is. Um, uh, final, uh, anything final from you, Superintendent Conway, and then, uh, we'll close this out. >> Uh, one, thank you, uh, uh, for those of
you who know made it last month, it was a little easier, uh, a little shorter than this month. So, thank you, uh, to Dr. Wel Wilson and Miss Reinhardt for your your patience. Um, uh, uh, deep appreciation to the team for the
preparation. I think as we as we heard this morning a full commitment to try to make sure that there is ample time for first review that is separate from final review. I want to flag that at certain
moments uh both yesterday and today members of this body were apologetic for uh having lots of comments. Um and I just want to gently remind you that we see feedback as a gift. um and that the
purpose of first review is to hear your passion, to hear your questions um and to let us know sooner rather than later if there are things that you are deeply concerned about. So, uh I know uh many of us can have a tendency to sort of apologize before doing that, but you
really don't have to because this is incredibly valuable for for for our team and just want to thank you for that. Part of what we wanted to do is to hear what you care most about, what you would change, and that will then help inform
us so that we ultimately don't have a place where we're coming back in June and you're saying, "Oh, whoops." Like, "This is really not what I want to see." So, again, and I'll we'll work with with with uh Mr. Hansen to make sure uh because he wasn't here that he has plenty of opportunity between now and
then to uh to get up to speed in this on this. So, I I really want to reiterate some of you who heard us on the listening tour um uh and I think for Dr. Wilson who's observed me for years in these board meetings, the feedback is incredibly helpful. Please do not
apologize ever ever for it. Um and the team, you know, we we use it to to be better. All of us can be a little bit better tomorrow uh than than we are um today. Uh so with that, thank you for your patience and just a steadfast commitment to getting this content to
you on time, making sure that our partners at the various association are dedicated uh uh folks who come and and and make comment have it in enough time so they can be prepared um and then where possible having the two opportunities for review so we can fully
hear from this body is a top priority. >> Thank you, Superintendent Conway. My only uh final um comments are that I appreciate all the board members. I appreciate getting the materials and you know when I hear the apology, it it's actually a reminder that there's great
work that happened with our previous board. It's the transition to our new board and the apologies like if this already has happened already and you know I think that we we do appreciate the questions and the comments and just the respect that you all are bringing to this process and to the team uh is just
great greatly appreciated and you know I will always be committed to moving us because we always have to get out of the library by five o'clock but I I really um am just appreciative of the questions of the engagement the time um the materials that the staff presented and
always superintendent your your ability to reflect but also hear and just commit to followup. Um that's the level of transparency and trust and flexibility that we just want to continue to build and the listening tour getting the updates on the listening tour has been
invaluable. So thank you for that work as well and please extend it to the secretary and to the rest of the team. With that I will take a motion to adjourn. >> So moved. Second. >> All in favor? Signify by.
>> All right. Motion. No roll call. Run out of here. Thank you everyone.