WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 2
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=kW-ksVjWTao
Video-2: youtube.com/watch?v=40GARAVx6h8

Part: 1

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:04:29.600
--------- Good. Back there. Okay. Um, uh, the chair would like to entertain a motion to certify the purpose of the meeting in close session. Sir Hansen, >> we [clears throat] convene today in a closed meeting pursuant to a reported vote on the motion above and in

2
00:04:29.600 --> 00:04:45.919
accordance with the Freedom Information Act. Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires that the board certify that to the best of each member's knowledge. Only public business matters lawfully exempt from open meeting requirements under this chapter and only such public business

3
00:04:45.919 --> 00:05:03.120
matters as were identified in the motion by which the closed meeting was convened were heard, discussed or considered. Any member who believes there was a departure from these requirements shall so state prior to the vote indicating the substance of the departure that in his or her judgment has taken place. The

4
00:05:03.120 --> 00:05:20.000
statement of the departure will be recorded in the minutes. >> Thank you, Mr. Hansen. Is there a second? Second. >> This motion has been seconded. Um, this will be a roll call vote. All those in Figner will signify by saying I. Dr.

5
00:05:20.000 --> 00:05:35.840
Bridges, >> I. >> Mr. Hansen, >> Dr. Northern >> Hi, >> Dr. Wilson. >> Hi, >> Mr. Robinson. >> Hi, >> Mrs. Kilgore. >> I >> and chair votes I. Thank you.

6
00:05:35.840 --> 00:05:52.160
>> Thank you. I will now uh go through our decisions. Um in the case of 2616, the chair will entertain a motion to issue the license.

7
00:05:52.160 --> 00:06:07.600
>> So moved. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> A roll call. >> Dr. Bridges. >> I miss McFersonson. >> Hi. [laughter] >> Mr. Hansen. Hi, >> Dr. Northern.

8
00:06:07.600 --> 00:06:22.639
>> Hi, >> Dr. Wilson. >> Hi, >> Mr. Robinson. >> Hi, >> Mrs. Kilgore. >> Hi, >> and chair votes. I thank you. In case number 20, 2612, the chair will entertain a motion to

9
00:06:22.639 --> 00:06:40.800
revoke the license of Craig Scott Small. >> So moved. >> Is there a second? >> Second. All in favor signify by saying I. Dr. Bridges >> I. >> Miss McFersonson I.

10
00:06:40.800 --> 00:06:58.960
>> Mr. Hansen. >> Dr. Northern, >> Dr. Wilson. >> I, >> Mr. Robinson. >> I, >> Mrs. Kilgore. >> I, >> and Chair Rotes I. >> In case 2618, the chair will entertain a motion to issue the license.

11
00:06:58.960 --> 00:07:15.199
>> So moved. >> Is there a second? Great. Roll call. Uh, Dr. Bridges. >> Hi, >> Miss McFersonson. >> Hi, >> Mr. Hansen. Dr. Northern, Dr. Wilson, >> hi. >> Mr. Robinson,

12
00:07:15.199 --> 00:07:32.240
>> I. >> Mrs. Kilgore, >> and chair votes I. And then in case 202620, the chair will entertain a motion to issue the license. >> There's a second. >> Second.

13
00:07:32.240 --> 00:07:48.400
We'll call Dr. Bridges. >> I >> Miss McFersonson, >> Mr. Hansen, Dr. Northern, Dr. Wilson. >> I, >> Mr. Robinson, >> hi. >> Mrs. Kilgore, >> I >> and chair votes I. Thank you. That

14
00:07:48.400 --> 00:20:34.679
concludes um our um lensure portion. We the board will now take a brief 10-minut break and we'll convene shortly. Thank you. Morning.

15
00:20:46.080 --> 00:21:02.640
Good morning. I am going to turn it over to Superintendent Conway to um start our work session. >> Excellent. Good morning. Um, I will ask Chief of Staff Holly Koy to come forward to present on the report on the 2026

16
00:21:02.640 --> 00:21:19.520
legislative session for you all. Thank you so much, Chief Conway. I mean, Chief, [laughter] >> that's you. >> Good morning. Thank you for that introduction. Um, it is a pleasure to be here with you, uh, board members. Um,

17
00:21:19.520 --> 00:21:35.600
it's Chief Conway, Superintendent Conway, um, and and Chair Ashen. Um this morning I have a brief summary uh and report out on the 2026 legislative session and some of the implications and considerations for us as a department

18
00:21:35.600 --> 00:21:51.280
and you as a board. Um, so, uh, generally speaking, the 2026 General Assembly, um, it was a long session, quote unquote, 60 full days for the general assembly to consider more

19
00:21:51.280 --> 00:22:08.159
than 2,300 bills, uh, as well as a budget. And as you you are likely well aware, the budget is just coming to conclusion here hopefully soon uh with the general assembly finalizing their version on Monday uh and some outstanding amendments perhaps coming

20
00:22:08.159 --> 00:22:22.240
from the governor but hopefully that will be closed out shortly. Uh but in those 60 days uh of those 2300 bills uh there were roughly 278 depending on your how you're counting um that impacted uh

21
00:22:22.240 --> 00:22:40.240
K12 education in some way shape or those about 130 actually passed though many of those as you know not in the form in which they were originally introduced. Um some of the the hot topics that were emerged throughout the session were

22
00:22:40.240 --> 00:22:54.640
continuations of conversations that our general assembly had been having around assessment, accountability and highquality instructional materials. Uh but then we also saw uh new topics emerge related to the JARK

23
00:22:54.640 --> 00:23:11.440
considerations on SPSF. Uh we saw some innovative conversations around employee child care assistance. uh public schools and immigration enforcement was a hot topic as well as AI education technology. And then last but not least, there was also robust discussion around

24
00:23:11.440 --> 00:23:28.559
the mental health supports uh that our students and children in the Commonwealth need. Um as I mentioned, some of these bills were continuation of conversations the general assembly uh had had begun or had

25
00:23:28.559 --> 00:23:44.960
continued even in 2025. Um and so when it comes to the kind of core teaching and learning elements and the role of the state um in the instruction assessment and accountability of our classrooms um there were three topics of particular note. Uh so high quality

26
00:23:44.960 --> 00:24:01.679
instructional materials the bulk of that work was really completed in the 2025 session. Uh but that work and implementation uh continues on. We saw the conversation continue around um modernizing our assessment system. So there was directives and funding in the

27
00:24:01.679 --> 00:24:17.679
budget previously to bring that work forward as well as statutory reforms that similarly have staggered implementation and reenactment clauses. And so that will be obviously the subject of much conversation later today. Um along with the legislation

28
00:24:17.679 --> 00:24:35.440
that provided direction to the board on accountability and school improvement. I'm asking you all to consider the JWARK recommendations that were made in December. Um I will note uh that in addition to these core kind of teaching, learning

29
00:24:35.440 --> 00:24:51.279
and accountability measures um there were also conversations by the general assembly on a number of different curricular topics um those will come forward to you in a variety of different forms as we implement them. Some of those topics um environmental literacy

30
00:24:51.279 --> 00:25:06.640
health uh water safety standards will come as you review so standards on their regular schedules. um some of those academic and curricular components will come forward to you in guidance documents um or other regulatory actions

31
00:25:06.640 --> 00:25:23.360
in the course of your work. And that is a good segue to this last slide. Um as we look ahead, we wanted to share with you some of the more immediate actions that we see on the horizon both as a department as and as we work to support you in this work.

32
00:25:23.360 --> 00:25:38.880
Um so today the department will send out a comprehensive legislative report to our divisions. That is the attachment on your board item. Uh the goal with that document is to provide a very short summary uh on each bill and then uh to

33
00:25:38.880 --> 00:25:55.919
provide some context around statutory d timelines as well as anticipated timelines that the department has on when resources or supports may be available to our school divisions as they consider their own um implementation of the legislation.

34
00:25:55.919 --> 00:26:10.480
Um when we come back to [clears throat] you in August, we do anticipate uh bringing forward a couple of regulatory items to initiate the implementation of a few different bills. Um some related to lensure or three uh the three-year

35
00:26:10.480 --> 00:26:27.200
CTE licenses as well as changes to the division superintendent licenses. And then finally on that slide, you'll see a few notable guidance um report documents, board of ed reports uh that are in the more immediate future. Again,

36
00:26:27.200 --> 00:26:42.720
just so you're aware of some things coming down the pike. On August 1st, the DOE in collaboration with the office of the attorney general uh will need to issue guidance on immigration enforcement on school campuses. Uh we anticipate this fall having a

37
00:26:42.720 --> 00:26:57.840
guidance for AI use for student instruction available for our school divisions. Um and we also anticipate then in October there will be a couple of interim reports due to the general assembly to report on uh initial steps

38
00:26:57.840 --> 00:27:15.360
taken to implement bills related to uh a new requirement to bianually review all CTE courses, pathways and credential offerings as well as a new uh charge from the general assembly uh to look at alternative lensure pathways and

39
00:27:15.360 --> 00:27:32.880
create a work group uh to study that topic and bring recommendations forward uh for future considerations by this body and others. That concludes my very short and sweet presentation, but happy to answer any questions that you may have about these

40
00:27:32.880 --> 00:27:51.039
topics um or other components coming out of the 2026 session. I was going to say thank you, Chief Superintendent, but Chief Koi. Board members, do you have any follow-up questions? Um, Superintendent Conway, anything else

41
00:27:51.039 --> 00:28:13.919
to add? >> Are you going to go to the right, Mr. Robinson? >> Summary and It seemed like there were two pieces that they were saying more than considered seemed like more of a

42
00:28:13.919 --> 00:28:28.960
directive and I'd like to better understand um those directives and and and how we should move them. >> Absolutely. Um so there were two specific pieces of legislation. Um the first was that as you mentioned um the

43
00:28:28.960 --> 00:28:44.640
charge to the board to consider um specific recommendations coming out of the JWAC study. The second, as you have noted, was in fact much more directive and related to school improvement and really clarifying in statute that school improvement um is a broad responsibility

44
00:28:44.640 --> 00:29:02.399
of the entire department under the superintendent's leadership and under the board's direction. Um really kind of shoring up this connection between school improvement efforts of the department and the accountability system. Just very quick follow on that on the

45
00:29:02.399 --> 00:29:18.960
>> the the change in labels is a change in weight growth. >> Could those be considered more directives or just considerations? >> Those were part of the list of considerations for you all to take under

46
00:29:18.960 --> 00:29:41.720
adisement. >> Great board members and their followers. Superintendent Conway, anything else to add? >> Not at this time. Thank you. >> Okay, I think we are next presentation.

47
00:29:42.000 --> 00:30:13.760
>> Joe, is that right? turn it over to Superintendent Conway first to >> wonderful. Thank you all. Thank you for uh to Joe and to the extended uh uh audience support from from JARK. Um we

48
00:30:13.760 --> 00:30:28.640
wanted to make sure that this board could hear directly from the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission. um uh in large part uh for two reasons. One is I think there was a recognition during the course of this general

49
00:30:28.640 --> 00:30:43.840
assembly and expressed by our new governor about uh the value of of of the effort that had gone into analyzing the school performance and support framework and soundness in its its recommendations. The second is as Chief

50
00:30:43.840 --> 00:31:00.320
Koi just noted that uh it turned into legislative uh requirement of of consideration. Um and uh as she noted a very explicit requirement on how to think differently about school improvement. With that in mind, we

51
00:31:00.320 --> 00:31:15.200
thought it would be valuable for you all to hear directly from the JARK folks, to be able to hear the presentation uh and to be able to ask questions um as you think through this new newly legislated

52
00:31:15.200 --> 00:31:32.640
responsibility uh to consider these recommendations. We are grateful for the thoroughess of the study, the willingness of JARK to come and to present today. Um, and as somebody who has spent uh quite a few years in Virginia state government, just knowing how much work is underneath um each of

53
00:31:32.640 --> 00:31:48.880
these these studies and that intentionally there's an effort to focus on on on on facts and on on data rather than than politics per se. And we are greatly appreciative uh for all the time and effort uh in this report as well as

54
00:31:48.880 --> 00:32:05.440
uh thanks in advance for for your presentation. Thank you, Superintendent Conway, um, for the kind words about Jark. Um, good morning everyone. My name is Joe McMahon. I'm a project leader and chief legislative analyst at JARK. Um, as you probably know, JARK is a legislative

55
00:32:05.440 --> 00:32:21.360
agency. We conduct objective nonpartisan research and analysis for our Commission of General Assembly members. I'm joining me today is our director Hal Greer, our associate, senior associate director, Justin Brown, who oversaw the work, and then the analysts that worked alongside

56
00:32:21.360 --> 00:32:36.880
me on this study, Kate Hopkins, Sam Leeman, and Laura White. Um, my one little disclaimer here, we're generalists. We've now moved on to completely different topic areas for the last seven months. I'm going to might rely on the team a little more than I have back in December for some of the

57
00:32:36.880 --> 00:32:57.600
Q&A uh if something's not coming back to me immediately. Uh so the study was completed last year in response to a resolution from our commission. Um I have a list here of our primary research activities. I just want to focus on a couple. Um we did extensive

58
00:32:57.600 --> 00:33:13.840
analysis of the school accountability results for the 2425 school year. We conducted an extensive number of interviews including national subject matter experts, school superintendent, principles. We also viewed every state board of education meeting where school

59
00:33:13.840 --> 00:33:31.440
accountability was discussed over the three years prior and talked to board members who were involved in the design process. I'm going to quickly move through some background, but then a majority of the presentation will be focused on our findings leading into recommendations and policy options.

60
00:33:31.440 --> 00:33:46.640
So, a school accountability system serves several purposes. It provides stakeholders with information about school quality and student performance. It's meant to hold school leaders accountable and motivate them to improve performance. And it's the tool the state uses for identifying schools and

61
00:33:46.640 --> 00:34:02.559
students that need additional support. An accountability system achieves these goals by quantifying and reporting on school performance. Board approved Virginia's new system, the school performance and support framework. I'm going to refer to as the SPSF or the framework. It replaced that

62
00:34:02.559 --> 00:34:21.280
prior system that had been in place since 2017. And the framework went into effect for the 2425 school year. Here's a look at the measures or indicators included in the framework. As you know, the the framework's really essentially a big math equation. Uh

63
00:34:21.280 --> 00:34:37.280
points are assigned on a per student basis for each indicator. Then the waiting of each is applied. The product of those is an indicator score and then all indicator scores are summed to produce a total summitive score for each school.

64
00:34:37.280 --> 00:34:54.159
Then the framework assigns each school a performance label that's based off that summitive score. Um in addition, schools with certain levels of low performance can also receive a federal designation which I'll discuss later on. Um, one other piece of relevant information uh is that the state board

65
00:34:54.159 --> 00:35:10.599
took action to raise cut scores last year. Cut scores are the numeric scores that delineate performance levels on SOS. And those changes to cut scores would result in a declined to overall ratings if fully implemented assuming no other changes are made.

66
00:35:11.440 --> 00:35:28.960
I can pause. I'm going to pause at each one of these slides for for questions. So any questions? So first I'll give an assessment of our overall assessment of the system. So when evaluating a school accountability system, it's important to keep in mind that because of the

67
00:35:28.960 --> 00:35:45.119
complexity of K through2 education, states varying priorities means there's no single best system. Each is a balance of policy priorities, stakeholder concerns, and transparency. States are limited to measures where data is produced consistently and reliably

68
00:35:45.119 --> 00:36:02.800
statewide. And there's many trade-offs to consider. Some of the big ones are which areas of performance to include, how to weight, measure, and score each indicator, and how to balance simplicity and precision. For our first finding, we found that the new accountability system is more

69
00:36:02.800 --> 00:36:20.240
effective and useful than the prior system. First, the framework better school performance. That differentiation is important for several reasons. Notably, pro providing more transparency and information to stakeholders. You can see

70
00:36:20.240 --> 00:36:37.200
here for the prior system in that 23 24 school year, all schools fell into just two performance categories with most receiving the highest rating. That distribution was not typical with what you see in other states and not aligned with best practices. In contrast, the framework has four performance

71
00:36:37.200 --> 00:36:54.720
categories and distributes a meaningful number of schools into each one, which is closer to what you see in other states and what experts recommend. Next improvement is that the framework is a single system used for state and federal accountability purposes. That

72
00:36:54.720 --> 00:37:10.240
means it uses identical indicators, waiting, measurement, and scoring for the purpose of meeting federal accountability requirements and for producing state results. Uh another improvement is that the framework separates school accreditation from school accountability. Uh so as you know

73
00:37:10.240 --> 00:37:28.640
accreditation is a measure of compliance with state requirements whereas accountability is a measure of student and school performance. Subject matter experts in a majority of school divisions view these two changes positively. The framework is also more precise and inclusive than the prior system. This

74
00:37:28.640 --> 00:37:46.960
includes how uses separate indicators for each type of performance. how it scores many of the indicators and the minimum number of student threshold or N size that is used as part of calculations and reporting. So our next finding is that the framework's overall structure is

75
00:37:46.960 --> 00:38:02.880
generally found but we did identify some refinements that are needed. We found that the framework structural elements such as indicators, waiting, measurement, and scoring are generally consistent with federal guidance, expert opinion or recommendations and other

76
00:38:02.880 --> 00:38:19.680
states accountability systems. So given that the overall structure meets this criteria, we determined that fundamental changes are not needed. Uh they'd be unnecessarily disruptive and would be administratively burdensome to schools. However, we did identify areas for improvement and made recommendations and

77
00:38:19.680 --> 00:38:38.160
provided policy options accordingly and that those will be the focus of the rest of the presentation. >> So, you fundamental changes to the system are not needed um because otherwise they would be unnecessarily

78
00:38:38.160 --> 00:38:53.119
disruptive. So you're talking about fundamental changes to the proposed system that the board has adopted are not necessarily needed but otherwise major changes to what we

79
00:38:53.119 --> 00:39:08.560
agreed um as a structure wouldn't also be necessarily disruptive and administratively burden. So I just want to be clear about that because I want everybody to know that your fundamental changes to the system. You're not

80
00:39:08.560 --> 00:39:23.760
talking about um the old system. You're talking about to the system that we are now operating under. Making fundamental changes to that would also be unnecessarily disruptive and administratively

81
00:39:23.760 --> 00:39:41.200
burdensome to school. >> Yes. And I'll just follow up Miss Mcperson. Um, when we talk fundamental structural changes, we're we're talking don't throw it out and start again. Don't completely change the indicators. Don't completely change the scoring

82
00:39:41.200 --> 00:40:02.000
indexes. It's it's more >> tweaks, changes on the margins, refinements. >> Yep. Um, so moving into uh the results of the new system, you can see here the majority of schools received an ontrack

83
00:40:02.000 --> 00:40:20.079
or distinguished label for the 2425 school year. Our first finding related to those results is that we found the proportion of students in a school that are economically disadvantaged is the characteristic that has the strongest relationship with school's results. This

84
00:40:20.079 --> 00:40:38.160
means schools with more economically disadvantaged students tend to receive lower o overall ratings from the SPSF. Now, this isn't unique to the framework or Virginia accountability systems typically reflect accountability system results typically reflect school student

85
00:40:38.160 --> 00:40:54.480
demographics, especially economic disadvantage because many commonly used indicators like test results are correlated with those factors. There's a lack of consensus among experts about how much results should reflect student demographics. So on one side of the argument is that results that strongly

86
00:40:54.480 --> 00:41:10.240
reflect student demographics are the product of maintaining the same expectations for all students and can help target support to address disparities. The other side is that results that are overly reflective of demographics evaluate schools on demographic factors outside of their

87
00:41:10.240 --> 00:41:26.480
control rather than on their effectiveness. You can see that relationship here on the left. As schools percentage of economically disadvantaged students increases, their average summitive scores decrease. By another measure, schools receiving the lowest performance

88
00:41:26.480 --> 00:41:51.440
labels had a higher percentage of economically disadvantaged students on average. And I'll talk about this a bit more in a bit. Can pause there for any questions. uh this next section. >> So student population that is

89
00:41:51.440 --> 00:42:06.480
economically disadvant weighed one of two ways. weighed them straight across as it relates to the accountability and test performance. And because they're economically disadvantaged historically

90
00:42:06.480 --> 00:42:23.040
and based upon expert predictions, they are going to score lower because of status and all of the other factors that go with being economically disadvantaged, such as they may not be

91
00:42:23.040 --> 00:42:39.440
receiving the intensive support that they should be receiving or their schools [clears throat] have not been previously provided with all of the materials that they should have had or we could lower expectation

92
00:42:39.440 --> 00:42:56.640
for economically disadvantaged students and then their performance will look better on the accountability skill. So those are the options that we're kind of looking at. Mr. McFerson, yeah, we didn't get into the factors and and the things you named

93
00:42:56.640 --> 00:43:12.480
are are some of the factors that contribute to that relationship and it is it is an observed relationship between the results and the percentage of students that are economically disadvantaged. Um, we'll talk about the trade-offs there mostly through that proficiency and growth conversation.

94
00:43:12.480 --> 00:43:36.960
>> Okay. >> And kind of the two philosophical sides. >> Okay. So, I just wanted to make sure we were all kind of clear about where you were going in terms of defining what it looks like in terms of measurement. >> My understanding from the JR report you

95
00:43:36.960 --> 00:44:00.960
could figure out how the current report was distributed across But in figure 54 in the report on page 59 on um I just want to clarify, you know,

96
00:44:00.960 --> 00:44:17.599
in terms of options before the board. Um on on page 43 of the commission draft, um uh you know, you you your committee showed um the correlation difference uh between

97
00:44:17.599 --> 00:44:32.880
reading proficiency versus reading growth >> based on um and and uh and my understanding is, you know, that that's partially why you're seeing a a much stronger correlation in the current

98
00:44:32.880 --> 00:44:48.880
um [clears throat] uh ratings uh is because of the strong proficiency um weight uh but in growth you don't see as much as strong of a correlation. >> Yes, that is correct. And and I will get into more of that in the growth and

99
00:44:48.880 --> 00:45:04.079
proficiency section here. We could see that the proficiency indicators um one of the appendices has all the the technical correlations and um relationships between the two. But we could see the strongest relationship for

100
00:45:04.079 --> 00:45:19.680
all indicators between um scoring and economically percent of economically disadvantaged students was among the proficiency indicators. The weakest correlation albeit it still was correlated as the growth indicated. >> Thank you.

101
00:45:19.680 --> 00:45:44.319
Appendix G in the JR commission report. So, moving on to labeling school performance. To begin, school ratings are highly visible. They're the primary way states communicate accountability results to the public. Many states aggregate their

102
00:45:44.319 --> 00:45:59.680
accountability results into a single overall rating, like Virginia's framework. States use various formats for these ratings such as letter grades, stars, colors, or descriptive labels. School ratings are important because they can have both positive and negative implications such as shaping public

103
00:45:59.680 --> 00:46:18.720
perceptions of schools or affecting school and staff morale. The SPSF uses four descriptive labels to communicate schools overall performance and you know those are distinguished on track, offtrack and needs intensive support. Research shows it can be difficult to develop descriptive labels

104
00:46:18.720 --> 00:46:35.200
that are clear, widely understood, and broadly accepted because different stakeholders interpret terms differently. But with that being said, we found that some of the SPSF performance labels do not clearly communicate school performance or function as part of a

105
00:46:35.200 --> 00:46:51.200
continuous scale. Um, so the first part, um, three of the four labels do not clearly communicate school performance. There's often confusion about the terms when we were talking to experts and stakeholders. For example, ontrack and offtrack were often

106
00:46:51.200 --> 00:47:07.920
thought to imply a school's performance trend rather than a static snapshot. Stakeholders viewed on track is schools that are improving and offtrack as those that are declining. That means that the labels are not clearly and accurately conveying what they are intended to mean. The distinguished label may also

107
00:47:07.920 --> 00:47:23.040
not clearly communicate school performance because it can actually overstate how well some schools are doing. Uh the term distinguish suggests a school is exceptional across the board when it could be underperforming. And we could see that in the data underperformance on some indicators or have weaknesses outside of the school

108
00:47:23.040 --> 00:47:39.680
accountability system. And I think the the bigger piece is that the four labels do not clearly relate to one another as part of a continuous scale. There are four disconnected terms and there is no intuitive progression through the four labels. And because of this, it could be difficult for

109
00:47:39.680 --> 00:47:55.599
stakeholders to understand the order of labels and how they relate to one another. For example, in interviews, we heard offtrack be mispersceived as being lower a lower rating that needs intensive support because some people felt it sounded more negative. Others felt that may there was only experts

110
00:47:55.599 --> 00:48:10.720
felt that there could be perceived that there's only two ratings on track and off track if you weren't aware of the others on either side of them. Um, other descriptive labels, such as those used in West Virginia, which you can see here, allow for a more clearly continuous order. This is a better

111
00:48:10.720 --> 00:48:26.960
approach because it's easier for people to intuitively know where a given label fits amongst the others. So, given that the labels are unclear to some stakeholders, we have a recommendation for the board to develop new terminology for the four performance labels, it's worth saying here that it's

112
00:48:26.960 --> 00:48:42.960
unlikely that any set of accountability ratings will satisfy everybody. However, developing terms that are part of a continuous scale and more clearly and accurately convey school performance could help improve clarity and address concerns. Then just overall, we view this as a relatively minor change given

113
00:48:42.960 --> 00:49:01.920
it does not affect uh how schools are scored or how the accountability system functions but could meaningfully increase stakeholder buyin. So using needs intensive support which also identifies the fact that the school system may be in need of additional

114
00:49:01.920 --> 00:49:20.480
funding because it ties directly to the funding mechanism. >> You're recommending West Virginia's language as an example to use does not meet standard. >> But that's just a recommendation.

115
00:49:20.480 --> 00:49:37.440
>> Yes, M. words. Even though you say that it somehow appears to connect like if we don't meet standard now maybe next year we partially meet standard after that maybe we meet standard then finally we exceed standard. So somehow embedded in

116
00:49:37.440 --> 00:49:54.400
that you think there appears to be more of a a continuity that parents other people would understand more so than what >> correct and and I do want to emphasize yeah West Virginia is an example of this

117
00:49:54.400 --> 00:50:11.599
continuity. We're not recommending and you pointed that out. We're not specifically recommending that exact approach. You could use needs intensive support, needs support. Like there's all different ways to do it, but the continuity is the important piece that just >> something that appears to give us.

118
00:50:11.599 --> 00:50:26.720
>> Superintendent Conway and then Mr. Henson. >> Uh Joe, could you clarify? I know that some of the feedback we've heard when you talk about funding being attached to these labels, typically that is funding dedicated to support improving schools

119
00:50:26.720 --> 00:50:42.480
rather than sometimes there's a perception that schools that do better receive more funding uh for doing better. But could you clarify when you talk about funding in that prior slide that is typically with other states to uh prioritize schools that need intensive support for

120
00:50:42.480 --> 00:50:58.960
additional funding, not the reverse. >> Correct, Superintendent Conway? That is that's what we're referring to. We're talking about those school improvement funds or even just school improvement support from the from the department going to the needs intensive support schools or or offtrack schools depending

121
00:50:58.960 --> 00:51:14.559
on how that decision is made. But I think it's important for us to remember that many many of the legislators have been very concerned about the fact that in some of the schools where there are students that

122
00:51:14.559 --> 00:51:31.440
are economically disadvantaged that they have been deprived of funding that is needed for them to move forward. So needs intensive support has been somewhat identified with the fact that they also need additional funding. So I I hear you in terms of language, but I

123
00:51:31.440 --> 00:51:45.440
don't want us to get too far away from the fact that very that our [clears throat] legislators are very very clear about the fact that the money needs to follow where the most work is needed with the

124
00:51:45.440 --> 00:52:02.079
students. We don't need to mislabel what it is we're trying to do as a result. >> Mr. Hansen. >> Yeah, Dr. from a person. I agree and and I think even and again I think there's 20 different ways you would cut or

125
00:52:02.079 --> 00:52:16.720
splice the the words and the terminology and I do appreciate the having the constancy or the consistent um theme but um I do believe to your point IDA that

126
00:52:16.720 --> 00:52:34.079
the needs intensive support it is really what this whole effort is about is communication effort Um, and sometimes when we talk about stakeholders, um, some of the stakeholders that are in the system

127
00:52:34.079 --> 00:52:49.839
know this, but it's really for parents and for people who normally aren't paying attention um, as much and really need to understand locally what the needs are. Also just taking a step back as well about

128
00:52:49.839 --> 00:53:05.599
you know the most recent NAPE scores the learning loss that we wor in the country after co the movement that we've made but just even the most recent NAPE score still showing that our

129
00:53:05.599 --> 00:53:23.200
disadvantaged students um uh across the board in almost any every segment are where we need to be putting our priority to help close the achievement gap going forward. And so I I just I know this is

130
00:53:23.200 --> 00:53:41.760
just terminology and such. And I and I like West Virginia's a little bit more maybe, but then again, maybe we jumble this up and come up with a different terms that are consistent and constant, but also maybe are trying to tell the story that we're trying to

131
00:53:41.760 --> 00:54:10.640
for the most challen >> Thank you. I love the comments related to the the story and the signaling of needs intensive support on what we hope our state is able to do for right now it's only 200 213 schools that have that

132
00:54:10.640 --> 00:54:27.040
label 12%. Um my understanding from JARK's recommendations is the the most um you're signaling that the ontrack and offtrack labels are the ones that have the most both stakeholder feedback as

133
00:54:27.040 --> 00:54:42.800
well as the most confusion because of the signal of um uh you know uh that it's a trend that that may not be true. You could improve from needs intensive to uh off track. So, you're kind of on track to improve, but you're still

134
00:54:42.800 --> 00:54:59.680
labeled as off track. And and I think we'll hear later recommendations that include keeping the needs intensive support label and changing others, which I would support. But I just wanted to clarify from a JARK um standpoint that that uh that on track and offtrack is

135
00:54:59.680 --> 00:55:14.960
really partially what you're amplifying for us to cons. >> I I think that's accurate and and really distinguished as well. some of the things I mentioned that distinguish can kind of paint this school as great across the board where un there's underlying good and bad in in most

136
00:55:14.960 --> 00:55:31.359
schools um and the ontrack and off track which you said the directionality also just it's in our report offtrack just was not very favored by a lot of people just they felt it had a negative connotation felt it was worse than needs intensive support so I guess to

137
00:55:31.359 --> 00:55:47.440
summarize what you're saying needs intensive support is probably the one I'll look at the team that that had the least push back. So, if that helps with decision-m that that that's what we were hearing. And then to Mr. Hansen's comments too, that it just shows how difficult it is to create this

138
00:55:47.440 --> 00:56:01.920
terminology and convey what you're trying to convey and get a majority of stakeholders and people interested in the system to be on board. >> Joe, can I just ask you to clarify? I think it would be is it just the least

139
00:56:01.920 --> 00:56:18.720
push back or also uh if I remember you all speaking in December was also it was the one that was most clear, right? Going back to what Miss McFersonson and Mr. Hansen said that that felt like that was also just the clearest if you're looking for clarity and continuity. >> Yes, >> it's understandable. >> It's understandable. It's clear what

140
00:56:18.720 --> 00:56:35.440
what is being conveyed by that label. >> Joe, you could build a scale around it. We're not suggesting, but you could. And this has to be continuous. >> Kada from our team, she said yes, you could ground the scale in needs intensive support and then needs support

141
00:56:35.440 --> 00:56:57.839
and does not need support, something like that. Again, that's not our recommendation, but that's another way to make continuity grounded in that that term. >> Um, for our next finding, we found an issue is how the framework assigns performance labels to schools. The approach ignores differences in how the

142
00:56:57.839 --> 00:57:13.200
three school levels are measured, which ends up significantly benefiting high schools. Um, you can see here that because each level of school is evaluated on different criteria, but scored using the same scoring thresholds, the same point thresholds, high schools are much more

143
00:57:13.200 --> 00:57:29.599
likely than elementary and middle schools to receive a distinguished rating. Likewise, they are less likely to receive a lower rating. According to experts, you'd expect to see more similar distribution of the performance labels across each school level. Um, and this means that results across school levels are not comparable and can lack

144
00:57:29.599 --> 00:57:48.079
fairness. So, we have a recommendation there for the board to develop new scoring thresholds that are unique to each school level and result in a more comparable proportion of elementary, middle, and high schools receiving each label. So before jumping into this next

145
00:57:48.079 --> 00:58:03.680
section, just a bit of background. I think this will all sound familiar, but if anyone's watching, uh this gets pretty technical. So states are federally required to use their accountability system to identify low performing schools. These schools are given a federal designation, which is

146
00:58:03.680 --> 00:58:18.720
essentially another label in addition to their SPSF performance label. There are three types of federal designations, CSI, TSI, and ATSI, which I'll walk through on the next slides. The reason this relates to labeling school performance is that based on the rules

147
00:58:18.720 --> 00:58:35.280
of the framework, if schools receive one of these federal designations, it can affect the state performance label assigned by the framework. So our first finding here is that the framework should ensure that comprehensive support and improvement schools receive the lowest performance

148
00:58:35.280 --> 00:58:52.160
label. Comprehensive Support and Improvement or CSI is the most serious federal designation. It is primarily given to title one schools with the lowest overall performance in the state. Despite their low performance, many schools did not receive the lowest performance label of needs intensive

149
00:58:52.160 --> 00:59:08.160
support. Instead, they're labeled as off track. Experts recommend that CSI schools receive the state's lowest rating. This helps that this this helps ensure that federal and state labels are aligned, send a consistent message and then most importantly that the lowest

150
00:59:08.160 --> 00:59:30.079
performing schools are clearly identified and prioritized full of support. Therefore, we have a recommendation for the board to amend regulations to ensure that all CSI schools are labeled as needs intensive support. How would that go back regarding the

151
00:59:30.079 --> 00:59:55.559
high school middle school numbers? Would it >> um M chance you're asking would it balance out that disproport uh I don't think that Yeah, it's it's really technical stuff but it wouldn't.

152
00:59:59.119 --> 01:00:16.799
We also have a finding related to how schools with two other federal designations are labeled. The SPSF lowers all targeted support and improvement and additional targeted support and improvement schools performance labels which is imprecise and can be overly punitive.

153
01:00:16.799 --> 01:00:33.359
The TSI and ATSI designations indicate that a school has one or more significantly underperforming student subgroups. To reflect this, the framework rules lower the performance label of TSI and ATSI schools. The board adopted this approach to make sure that

154
01:00:33.359 --> 01:00:48.400
student subgroup performance is explicitly factored into schools accountability results. Without it, a school's rating could mask low performance student subgroups within that school. The issue with this practice and how it's uh currently being implemented is

155
01:00:48.400 --> 01:01:05.359
that lowering all TSI and ATSI schools performance labels is imprecise and overly punitive. First, TSI is meant to serve as a warning of poor performance in a subgroup. Uh to reflect this, we propose that TSI schools would not have their

156
01:01:05.359 --> 01:01:21.040
state label lowered in the first year that they're under a TSI designation, only after a second year of repeat TSI performance, which that would then indicate that student subgroup performance issues are persisting. Second, schools that are designated as

157
01:01:21.040 --> 01:01:38.720
TSI but already receive an offtrack label would not be lowered any further. This is a vast majority of the TSI schools. So if the point is to align the federal and state labels, we think that offtrack and TSI that that warning federal designation are already aligned.

158
01:01:38.720 --> 01:01:59.359
So no need to further lower the state label. Uh our proposed changes to the ATSI rules are similar. ATSI is a more severe um designation than TSI. So we found it appropriate uh to lower schools with

159
01:01:59.359 --> 01:02:14.720
distinguished or ontrack scores to offtrack. But as with TSI schools, schools designated as ATSI and that are already labeled as offtrack would not be lowered any further. So here's a highle summary of what we

160
01:02:14.720 --> 01:02:34.880
recommend. Rules can be changed to maintain the board's emphasis on subgroup performance while also better aligning with the intent of federal designations and avoiding being unnecessarily punitive. Yes, >> just on that last bullet about avoid

161
01:02:34.880 --> 01:02:51.200
being unnecessary. Does that mean in terms of designation is again part of this process is important is to prior two charts also might make it look like there'll be

162
01:02:51.200 --> 01:03:05.440
fewer schools in the needs intensive support because again simplistic there's two school houses on slide 42. um your recommendation doing the same on

163
01:03:05.440 --> 01:03:23.520
slide 41. So if part of this effort is to not be punitive in the way that there's a label but being helpful to target resources, I'm just wondering terminology means

164
01:03:23.520 --> 01:03:40.160
>> Yeah, Mr. Hansen, you're absolutely correct. These changes would leave few more schools in that offtrack designation and there would end up being fewer in the needs intensive support designation. So that ties back to the need to reconsider these thresholds. Um

165
01:03:40.160 --> 01:03:57.599
it was actually a vast majority of the needs intensive support schools were there not because their summitive score was in that range but because they were off track and received an ATSI or TSI designation and then had their score lowered to uh needs intensive support.

166
01:03:57.599 --> 01:04:13.520
So that's an example of all these different things working together. But but when we say the punitive piece, we're talking a school could be relatively high in the offtrack scoring 78 79 points, have one or two small

167
01:04:13.520 --> 01:04:29.880
subgroups underperforming and in TSI's case for just a year and then drop all the way down to that needs intensive support and and we felt that that those TSI and ATSI designations are are better aligned with the intent of offtrack. track.

168
01:04:38.160 --> 01:04:54.720
>> Thank you for all the clarification. So I I understand the recommendation on the TSI uh is meant from a federal designation to be a warning, not lower all the way to needs intensive. clarify the ATSI. You've now been designated multiple

169
01:04:54.720 --> 01:05:12.559
years as having subgroups that are performing at the bottom, you know, at the similar level as the bottom 5% of of the schools. And so, um, if if you have an offtrack score as an ATSI school and

170
01:05:12.559 --> 01:05:29.359
you were to be moved to needs intensive support, would that have the effect of heightening attention to underserved um, populations? >> Mr. Robson, yeah, I think it I think it could. So, that again, this is a policy

171
01:05:29.359 --> 01:05:44.720
call of whether where you feel that alignment is best served. Is ATSI better aligned with offtrack or is it better aligned with needs intensive support for those those things that you mentioned? So we as a board if we if we wanted to heighten attention to underserved groups

172
01:05:44.720 --> 01:06:01.039
that the a again the TSI might misalign with the federal um intent of TSI but the ATSIF we were to say no we actually want those receiving needs intensive support not as a punitive but because we want more attention more spotlight

173
01:06:01.039 --> 01:06:17.039
um on those students that that that would be a something to consider. >> Yes that that is something to consider. Uh I think internally the way we were viewing is that the CSI comprehensive support improvement is the roughly

174
01:06:17.039 --> 01:06:33.520
equivalent to that lowest category of needs intensive support. ATSI was a at the next level up on the federal designation. The next level up would be the state's offtrack and then TSI at least in that first year you could that school could stay as on track or stay as

175
01:06:33.520 --> 01:06:47.680
offtrack where it was and then after a second year it would be then put into alignment with offtrack the same as TSI because of the repeated underperformance but again it's all it's all judgment

176
01:06:47.680 --> 01:07:10.559
calls and policy decisions. And actually all of the recommendations can be implemented obviously we we'll ask staff about that but can be implemented pretty much within the framework that we've developed with some tweaking. This is not a master overhaul

177
01:07:10.559 --> 01:07:29.680
that delays our implementation, but that we can go on and make these tweaks and figure out roll out implementation scoring adding in your resume. >> Yeah, to add to that, Dr. McPearson, yeah,

178
01:07:29.680 --> 01:07:46.559
>> it's not a wholesale change everything. tweaks to the system, but there are implementation considerations. I think you're going to hear from staff. Uh that there is some sequencing, some you do got to do this before you do that type stuff that you want to make sure that schools

179
01:07:46.559 --> 01:08:04.559
have time to prepare for is something. So there are still some timing and implementation considerations. We may have factored those in when we talked about the way we were going to progressively because we took that into consideration but how we were going to progressively implement the plan itself

180
01:08:04.559 --> 01:08:20.480
we've already taken into consideration that it is not a major roll out but every phase of it don't we have some we have ways of telling you where you are now telling

181
01:08:20.480 --> 01:08:36.880
you this is where you scored as it relates to the new framework and then how we phased in all of that information going forward in terms of scores and graduation dates and things like that. So, we did take into consideration. So, it'll be interesting to make sure that

182
01:08:36.880 --> 01:08:56.719
we're still on track with our roll out that we previously agreed upon by tweaking these few things that need to be done. So my next session is on proficiency and growth indicators. Both are based on student performance on

183
01:08:56.719 --> 01:09:12.080
SO tests. As you know, proficiency measures whether students are meeting grade level standards and content areas. Growth is a comparison of students current year test performance to that same students performance in prior years. Together they account for majority of the rating for elementary

184
01:09:12.080 --> 01:09:29.600
and middle schools. Few findings here. Uh the framework's proficiency indicators are generally welldesigned and the growth indicators are an improvement over the prior system but still had shortcomings but are being changed. As I mentioned the proficiency

185
01:09:29.600 --> 01:09:45.199
proficiency indicators are generally welldesigned. The framework uses standalone indicators for reading, math and science and quantifies student and school performance for each. This is more transparent than the state's prior system which combined proficiency and growth into a single indicator. Another

186
01:09:45.199 --> 01:10:00.960
positive element is the use of index scoring. As you know, with an index, schools receive full credit for students who score proficient, but also partial credit for students who score below proficient and extra credit for uh those scoring advanced. This encourages focus on students at all achievement levels,

187
01:10:00.960 --> 01:10:19.040
not just those near the past fail line. The framework's growth indicators also have some elements. their improvement over the prior system like proficiency. Growth is a standalone indicator instead of being combined with others. It measures growth for all students, not just those who scored profic who scored

188
01:10:19.040 --> 01:10:35.679
below proficient as was the case with the the prior system. Um, we did find issues with the approach used for scoring the growth indicator for the 2425 school year, but the board is making a wholesale change of the growth measure for this current school year. So, unless there's questions, I won't go

189
01:10:35.679 --> 01:11:05.920
into any more details there. Our next finding is that the framework's much heavier weighting of proficiency over growth does not fully capture school's contribution to student learning and increases the impact of student demographics on school scores previous system or systems that

190
01:11:05.920 --> 01:11:21.840
both uh we're talking that heavier is in reference to if internal analysis of the our own system if you switched it to higher growth relative or if you just increased growth

191
01:11:21.840 --> 01:11:39.679
like if you made it 50/50 versus what it currently is now. Um that's what's that's where you would see some of that relationship decline. >> Just like >> Yeah. Yes. Comparing it hypothetically

192
01:11:39.679 --> 01:11:55.520
if Virginia it's like efficiency and growth if we flip-flopped them if we made them equal what it is now. That's the that's the differences we're comparing to not necessarily the old system or that that correlation other states. I think that interpretation of

193
01:11:55.520 --> 01:12:12.400
much heavier could also be looked at too much heavier than systems, you know, and I don't know if y'all >> you've got enough compared to >> Yeah, we have the the next slide, I

194
01:12:12.400 --> 01:12:38.159
believe, is or two slides. It at least compares the ratio to other states. It does not we did not compare that correlation to relationship in other states. So both proficiency and growth measure important aspects of student academic achievement. Proficiency measures how well students perform against state

195
01:12:38.159 --> 01:12:54.880
standards for core skills and knowledge and will help identify schools with the greatest proportion of students not meeting grade level standards. growth better isolates schools impact on student performance, encourages a focus on continuous improvement, and identifies schools whose students are not making enough progress from prior

196
01:12:54.880 --> 01:13:11.040
years. Here's the figure that I was referring to. Um, the waiting of growth and proficiency, it's really one of the biggest philosophical debates in school accountability. ESSA requires that each of the two indicators have substantial weight, but give states flexibility in how to weight them relative to one

197
01:13:11.040 --> 01:13:27.360
another. This figure shows the ratio between proficiency and growth by state. On the left you have states where growth is weighted higher. On the right where proficiency is weighted higher and in the middle states that give them equal waiting. Um you can see here that Virginia has the third highest ratio of

198
01:13:27.360 --> 01:13:50.719
proficiency relative to growth nationwide. Is were you able to do any evaluation on the where Arizona, Massachusetts, and Mexico Iowa are in terms of their systems and

199
01:13:50.719 --> 01:14:09.440
systems? Short answer is I don't have that. I'd have to to look more into that. I guess comparing NAPE scores would be the very top line way to do it, but probably more detailed analysis could be done. Was there any measurement of proficiency

200
01:14:09.440 --> 01:14:27.360
as it relates to NAPE scores for these other state? The growth in proficiency where higher rate of proficiency. Did you look at a model of another state that was close to us as to performance on the NAPE?

201
01:14:27.360 --> 01:14:43.520
>> Dr. Mcerson, we did not do that. I think that would be an interesting analysis and I don't have anything to add. because that was our our goal was to get the state of Virginia performance up to where you know the federal recognition

202
01:14:43.520 --> 01:15:01.360
would be there that we were performing at least at basic level proficiency. So if we should be rating proficiency higher than just measuring growth because of where we're trying to go and maybe we the curve is right for us

203
01:15:01.360 --> 01:15:15.920
>> and Dr. Dr. Mc, I do want to caution there there's a lot that would go into those needs. >> There's the accountability system, there's student demographics, funding levels. So, >> yeah, it would be a something to look at, but there's also other factors that

204
01:15:15.920 --> 01:15:40.080
are going to complicate that. So, as just was alluded to, the board was intentional about this decision to place more emphasis on proficiency. Reasons cited at the time include the belief that meeting grade level standards is a key outcome, wanting to maintain the high expectation of

205
01:15:40.080 --> 01:15:56.080
proficiency for all students, and citing that they heard from stakeholders such as parents and those in the business and military communities that proficiency is what they care most about. The trade-off of this waiting decision is that proficiency indicators produce results that are more highly correlated with

206
01:15:56.080 --> 01:16:11.199
student demographics, especially economic disadvantage. In contrast, student growth results are less correlated with student demographics, and a majority of schools and division staff as well as subject matter experts we spoke to emphasize that growth is a better measure of the extent to which a

207
01:16:11.199 --> 01:16:26.560
school's efforts are contributing to or affecting student performance. Because this is a policy decision with trade-offs and no single answer, we have a policy option and that is that the board could increase the weight assigned to the growth indicators to more fully

208
01:16:26.560 --> 01:16:46.400
account for school's contribution to student learning. Right? And this is my last uh major section here. It's looking at other refinements that we identified across other areas of the system. So this first one is the scoring used for the three E's college career and

209
01:16:46.400 --> 01:17:03.040
military readiness indicator is problematic. The scoring approach used for this indicator differs from the others. For the three E high schools earn points for student achievements in college, career and military readiness opportunities and one student can score points across

210
01:17:03.040 --> 01:17:18.640
multiple pathways. You can see on the slide an example of the student with achievement in all three pathways for scoring a total of 2.5 points. Um, hypothetically, a student can score a maximum of 3.5 points if they hit the highest level in each category. That's

211
01:17:18.640 --> 01:17:34.080
compared to just 1.25 or one point for each of the other indicators. This design is intended to incentivize schools to make many 3es opportunities available to students and to encourage broad student participation across each pathway.

212
01:17:34.080 --> 01:17:49.600
However, this allows scores to schools to score much higher on the 3E indicator than on the others, which can distort overall results. This means at least for some schools, their overall school is being driven more by the 3E and is intended by the indicators assigned

213
01:17:49.600 --> 01:18:04.320
weight. You can see that schools with the three indicator score with with high three indicator schools scoring highly on the three E indicator add 34% of their summitive score comprised by the indicator when the intended weight is

214
01:18:04.320 --> 01:18:19.440
just 25%. This effectively lessens the importance of the other indicators. Likewise, it can distort overall ratings which can be misleading. Essentially, a high overall score caused by the three E gives a perception of higher overall performance than is reflected across all

215
01:18:19.440 --> 01:18:34.880
of the school's indicators. Um, this is one of the factors contri contributing to why so many high schools received the distinguished label. As mentioned earlier in the presentation, we have a recommendation to the board to change the scoring of the 3E indicator

216
01:18:34.880 --> 01:18:51.600
by capping the total number of points a student or school can receive. I'd like to point out that the report provides examples of how these caps could be set in a way to strike a balance between that goal of incentivizing student achievement across multiple pathways while also limiting the indicators

217
01:18:51.600 --> 01:19:09.679
disproportionate impact on school scores. Um, this recommendation is no way means that there should be a limit on the actual number of opportunities being made available to students. Next, schools can score points toward the enlistment category with much less

218
01:19:09.679 --> 01:19:25.040
effort relative to other 3E pathways. This is because schools are awarded points for students earning above certain scores on the ASVAB test, even if they do not list in the military or participate in a JOTC program. The ASVAB's a one-time test, typically

219
01:19:25.040 --> 01:19:41.440
taking under two hours to complete. Other three E's achievements that are worth comparable amounts of points for the framework require substantially more time and effort from students. This scoring can incentivize gaming the system by having many or all students take the ASVAP test regardless of their

220
01:19:41.440 --> 01:19:58.520
interest in a military career. So we recommend the board change the scoring for the enlistment category so it's more commensurate with the time and effort required to earn points in the enrollment and employment categories. Moving

221
01:19:58.560 --> 01:20:15.040
to some of the topics related to English learners. Uh we found that the framework's inclusion of more English learners when measuring schools proficiency and growth aligns with federal requirements and is supported by experts. However, the board could change the exclusion period for recently arrived English learners to partially

222
01:20:15.040 --> 01:20:28.880
address divisioning school concerns while still aligning with ESSA requirements. For some context, Virginia's prior accountability system excluded all English learners assessments from proficiency and growth calculations for

223
01:20:28.880 --> 01:20:47.239
up to five years. The new framework The new framework in alignment with federal requirements excludes only recently arrived English learners for one year. Recently arrived English learners account for about 10% of English learners statewide.

224
01:20:49.199 --> 01:21:04.320
The framework's approach not only aligns with federal requirements, but is also strongly supported by subject matter experts and is much more aligned with practices in other states. Virginia's prior approach was a true national outlier. This earlier inclusion of English learners is important for

225
01:21:04.320 --> 01:21:19.920
several reasons, including tracking student progress, targeting support to students who are struggling, and maintaining attention on students that face the greatest challenges. The purpose is not to set the expectation that these students should be proficient by their second year. However, these

226
01:21:19.920 --> 01:21:36.880
rules were among school superintendents and principles top concerns with the new framework. They shared that counting test scores of students with limited English proficiency is unfair or unreasonable. There is something that can be done to at least partially address those concerns while maintaining alignment

227
01:21:36.880 --> 01:21:51.920
with federal requirements and best practices. SL allows for exceptions that apply to when to include recently arrived English learners in performance calculations. The framework currently uses exception A, but could switch to use of exception

228
01:21:51.920 --> 01:22:08.480
B, which would delay inclusion of recently arrived English learners from proficiency calculations until their third year in a US school. This longer delay for proficiency may be preferable to schools because it's generally more feasible for a student with limited English proficiency to demonstrate

229
01:22:08.480 --> 01:22:28.560
growth than achieve academic proficiency, especially early on. Therefore, we have a policy option the board could switch uh to exception B for excluding recently arrived English learners. >> Thank you. Is that a recommendation for

230
01:22:28.560 --> 01:22:45.920
both reading and math? The timeline from the previous slide >> would recommend exception B is for both. >> Yes, that thank you. >> It applies to both. Correct. There's some real technical stuff on it. Growth

231
01:22:45.920 --> 01:23:02.239
for one of those would act exception B actually moves growth up a year for one of the two that it would be in the report and um I think you can see it on the figure with the symbols but yes it would move proficiency for both back to that third year. >> Thank you. >> Yeah Dr. bridges

232
01:23:02.239 --> 01:23:21.679
>> and do do y'all have a report um any indication of where other states are taking? >> We we do if you give us one second we can track that >> they're on the case

233
01:23:21.679 --> 01:23:41.440
>> at my next stop >> page 63 near the top >> page 63 near the top. But >> of that use exception edit and >> so it's almost 5050

234
01:23:41.440 --> 01:23:58.000
>> eight eight using one nine using ethers. Um Joe, one question for for clarity sake on the graphic here on 64 for exception B though in order to measure growth in year two are the recently arrived the year one presents

235
01:23:58.000 --> 01:24:13.760
it's the same but there actually is a difference exception A they're not taking any assessments exception B they are taking the assessment in order to understand what the growth is in year two is that correct just in terms of >> super that is correct that they would have to take an assessment in that first

236
01:24:13.760 --> 01:24:30.719
year to establish a baseline for then growth to be compared to in that second year when growth counts. Thank you. >> Go back one step. Did you find any discrepancy when you were looking at the whole CTE plan, workforce development

237
01:24:30.719 --> 01:24:49.440
and all of that that there was a advanced classes students that were taking advanced classes and you may not have found any discrepancy but know there's credit given inside that framework for people who taken advanced.

238
01:24:49.440 --> 01:25:05.440
>> Dr. Mc Pearson, we compared the criteria in that college and career readiness indicator to other states >> and as you can imagine there's a lot of stuff going on in there in other states but generally >> the things that are in this new framework align with what's common in

239
01:25:05.440 --> 01:25:29.520
other states. We didn't see >> that advanced coursework was nothing jumped out at us that that was >> uh in the college and career readiness piece the AP tests. Yeah. That's another one of those technical questions that I might have to

240
01:25:29.520 --> 01:26:00.239
>> high school. >> Oh, there's no growth in high school. That is There you >> The growth indicator does not apply in these. Raise that work here. got to get back to where I was here.

241
01:26:00.239 --> 01:26:16.719
Okay, so uh the next slide is the framework's rules for reweing the ELP progress indicator for elementary and middle schools with too few English learners reduces comparability and fairness of results. So the ELP progress indicator is a

242
01:26:16.719 --> 01:26:32.960
measure of English learner progress toward achieving English language proficiency as measured by the WEDA exam. This indicator is required by ESSA. So why this matters is 42% of schools have below the 15 student minimum threshold of English learners to

243
01:26:32.960 --> 01:26:49.840
so this indicator doesn't apply to them which means that the entire indicator is excluded when calculating their overall score. That means the 10% weight is distributed elsewhere. For high schools, that weight is distri redistributed proportionally to all remaining indicators. For elementary and middle

244
01:26:49.840 --> 01:27:04.560
schools, that weight is entirely redistributed to the growth indicator. Uh that redistribution of the entire 10% weight to growth alters how a substantial proportion of elementary and middle schools are being evaluated when compared to their counterparts that have

245
01:27:04.560 --> 01:27:19.360
a score for that indicator. uh this reduces the comparability of results and has implications for fairness between schools with and without the indicator. So we have a relatively straightforward recommendation to change that to proportional reweing for all school

246
01:27:19.360 --> 01:27:36.960
levels. Um the next finding is that the ELP progress indicator uses binary scoring rather than index scoring which does not reward partial or significant progress and differs from the scoring approach used for other indicators.

247
01:27:36.960 --> 01:27:53.600
The ELP progress binary scoring approach rewards a point for only students who meet their growth target. There's no partial credit for students making progress but who fall short of their target and no extra credit for students that exceed their target. Using a scoring index for the ELP indicator

248
01:27:53.600 --> 01:28:09.760
would be consistent with the board's rationale for other indicators, reflect best practices, and then this is a big one getting down into the the weeds on the math. It makes schools ELP progress indicator scores more comparable to scores for the other indicators which has implications for the fairness of

249
01:28:09.760 --> 01:28:27.920
results again when comparing schools with and without that indicator. So we have a recommendation to use index scoring for the ELP progress indicator. And then this is our moving into our last one here. um

250
01:28:27.920 --> 01:28:43.199
proficiency scoring index for assessments with three levels can produce misleading results and affect how certain students and subject areas are prioritized. So the SPSF scores as proficiency indicators with one of two indexes

251
01:28:43.199 --> 01:29:00.080
for so tests with uh four performance labels. So I'm talking about advanced proficient, basic, and below basic. Framework uses a scoring index ranging from 0.25 points to 1.25 25 points awarded for each student based off the performance level they achieve. For so

252
01:29:00.080 --> 01:29:17.280
tests with three performance levels, those points awarded per student range from just 75 to 1.25. What we found is that the three level scoring index awards too many points for failing students, which could lead to deprioritizing assessments in subject

253
01:29:17.280 --> 01:29:34.239
areas that have that three performance levels. disincentivizing focus on the lowest performing students, um reducing the framework's responsiveness to scoring changes within those subject areas, and masking low performing students contrary to federal guidance.

254
01:29:34.239 --> 01:29:49.760
So, you can see an example of how that all plays out. Science subject area, which has so tests with three performance levels, had the highest average indicator score for elementary and middle schools despite having the lowest so pass rate. And that's really

255
01:29:49.760 --> 01:30:07.440
an effect of essentially more points for that bottom category. Um this another relatively simple fix. The board could reduce points awarded um for uh the proficiency index calculations from 0 75 to 0.5 for

256
01:30:07.440 --> 01:30:24.239
students who score fail or does not meet proficiency on assessments with three performance levels. And then to conclude, it was just discussed in your legislative update. So I won't uh read through everything exactly. There were legislative executive actions taken in response to

257
01:30:24.239 --> 01:30:40.400
the report. A house bill asking the board to consider changes with to the framework that align with these recommendations and policy options and an executive order directing the secretary uh and the superintendent to present an action plan for considering these

258
01:30:40.400 --> 01:30:59.440
recommendations. Uh Joe, could you talk a little bit more about that recommendation? How you landed on the the 0.5 [clears throat] assuming a distribution for those who did not um achieve proficiency? Is that just a best approxim

259
01:30:59.440 --> 01:31:15.520
approximation because you don't have the two categories? But there's nothing necessarily that you found about science for example that would suggest that everybody scored on average lower. Um it's just that you know mathematically unless you you have two options either to split those uh or to take a lower

260
01:31:15.520 --> 01:31:32.400
average. Is that is that a correct understanding? >> Superintendent Conway I think we landed on the 0.5 because the other one is a 0.25 and a 75 for those two below proficiency levels. when there's only one below proficiency level in those three level um tests, then

261
01:31:32.400 --> 01:31:49.280
essentially merge that into a 0.5 and that gets you uh scoring that's comparable to the other tests that are using the four point index. There could probably be further analysis. It might be 0.53, it might be 47 if you want to get real precise to try to make them comparable, but that's where we got

262
01:31:49.280 --> 01:32:14.560
there. That concludes everything that I have unless there's any other questions. >> I just want to thank you. Um I feel like this was a well thoughtout report. I felt like you really listened. Um I know when you spoke to me at length and many

263
01:32:14.560 --> 01:32:31.199
of us on this board at length. Um and I see some of our um concerns reflected in here. Uh, and I think that it was a thoughtful report and well done and that we should um take much of your advice. So, >> thank you. >> Thank you again for the kind words that

264
01:32:31.199 --> 01:32:46.080
thank you for participating in our interviews and and for being very open and and transparent with us. M >> make sure I'm clear. Says that we should take into consideration that you made nine recommendations and they're two policy options.

265
01:32:46.080 --> 01:33:02.239
>> Let me make sure I'm seeing the two policy options. Yes, they are >> 0.75 to the 0.5. >> Um, the policy options I believe are the exception A versus exception B on the E. >> What page are you on? >> Did you put them in here

266
01:33:02.239 --> 01:33:17.120
>> in growth first? >> Did you set them out as your policy? >> Yeah, in the in the slides, they're labeled at the top. And really that gets kind of in the >> okay >> it's the growth versus proficiency waiting okay >> and the exception A versus exception B

267
01:33:17.120 --> 01:33:34.320
for when to include EL um learners and to get into the J those are Jark terms in our reports the recommendation is something where we have a >> hopefully I I get this accurate for how a recommendation is kind of the higher burden of we really think this should be

268
01:33:34.320 --> 01:33:54.880
done a policy option is There can be two different ways to do it or it's maybe not as strong as a recommendation. A few a few other considerations fall into the policy option. [laughter] >> Mr. Robinson, >> first I want to echo Dr. Northern's

269
01:33:54.880 --> 01:34:09.840
comments on just an exceptional research report, thoughtful um you know uh nonpartisan just just really uh thorough um uh considerations for us and and the

270
01:34:09.840 --> 01:34:27.840
BDOE team. So deeply appreciate your how much you poured into this. Um, one of the things that you do not have a recommendation around that's most unique about Virginia's new framework is the advanced coursework designation or 10% of the score in middle schools. And uh

271
01:34:27.840 --> 01:34:43.199
my understanding is, you know, uh uh ultimately part of the reason that you deny recognition on is cuz it it it only negatively impacted like three schools and and there was some evidence that it did positively impact uh incentivizing

272
01:34:43.199 --> 01:35:00.639
schools to to have students take algebra earlier. And so I'm just curious over the long you know as we consider that very unique to Virginia and I think Florida um metric are there any you know maybe not recommendations but considerations as we uh are are piloting

273
01:35:00.639 --> 01:35:16.960
this new measure for us what we what should we be learning about as we're trying to see is this acting as intended just to get um you my understanding the intent of the board is to get as many students taking advanced course work as as possible and uh so so we we may not

274
01:35:16.960 --> 01:35:33.199
had that one right yet because it's new and so I didn't if you had any recommendations for how we learn about that one in the years to come. >> You're right. It is it is relatively unique. Unique isn't necessarily bad. Um we

275
01:35:33.199 --> 01:35:50.320
didn't find enough to recommend changing it or getting rid of it. So I think that's where we landed there. Um I think we already did kind of learn something. I was surprised in the data that we could only find 266 students statewide that scored advanced seventh

276
01:35:50.320 --> 01:36:05.440
graders that scored advanced on their seventh grade math so but then were not in algebra 1 in eighth grade. So what that told me was that schools are already advancing students that show this um aptitude in math at least by

277
01:36:05.440 --> 01:36:20.960
eighth grade and likely before then which is why there's so few in seventh grade scoring that advance. Um, so I think and and I think you mentioned one of the stats, another set, there's really only 18 of 360 middle schools had

278
01:36:20.960 --> 01:36:37.440
five or more students that fell into that bucket of scored advance in seventh but did not take an advanced math in eighth. So if the incentive is to or if the intention is to incentivize this to happen, it is largely happening already. I do think it will help um those 18

279
01:36:37.440 --> 01:36:54.320
schools and two to 300 students that are left potentially get moved up into advanced math. I may have lost my way on your question there, but I think I think it already kind of has taught us something and and I do know there was legislation too that directed schools to come up with a policy for advancing

280
01:36:54.320 --> 01:37:10.560
students in math. So, there's also a legislative intent to try to encourage this as well. So, they're they're getting it from a couple angles. And on that legislative intent, my understanding is the legislature actually goes further that that there there's more students that the legislature is incentivizing to take

281
01:37:10.560 --> 01:37:27.280
advanced math earlier than just those who score advance. And as we consider raising cut scores and other things where advanced is harder, you know, part of my interest and curiosity is how to get even more students into algebra earlier. And if this indicator could do

282
01:37:27.280 --> 01:37:41.840
that, could be used to do that. And again, I think we probably don't know enough to I didn't know if you wanted to comment on that. >> You are right that the legislative um the bill from last year it's the top

283
01:37:41.840 --> 01:37:59.280
I think 25 top 25 percentile of math scoring which then captures students that scored proficient as well and it recommends that they would be moved up to advanced math. Um, yeah, I' I'd have to give some thought on how changing the cut scores and there's fewer advanced students and and then where that 25th

284
01:37:59.280 --> 01:38:14.400
percentile falls. I'd have to give some thought to how all that works. >> There may be a way to to tweak to tweak this to as those things change, >> right, >> Miss McFerson? Yes. >> Yeah. I want to thank the whole JLock

285
01:38:14.400 --> 01:38:30.000
team, not just for the presentation, but for the hard work. I think what it does show us is that, you know, this has been a long time in the making and there's a whole lot of moving parts, but I think you help confirm that we're moving in

286
01:38:30.000 --> 01:38:46.719
the right direction and that's really important to the board and as you find additional things that can be helpful to us these past especially as it relates to moving forward, you know, our student population, they're like they're looking at it from I think this standpoint, you

287
01:38:46.719 --> 01:39:02.239
know, AI is emerging quickly [clears throat] and they are moving in that direction and they're looking for as much innovation as possible. So as we drill down making sure that they have the fundamentals, we kind of want to keep

288
01:39:02.239 --> 01:39:17.440
our eye on the fact that they really are taking that curve in a whole different direction which is why we may see some changes as it relates to math and engineering and some of the innovative things that are going to build a pathway. Like for instance, Amazon just

289
01:39:17.440 --> 01:39:35.119
put $1.2 billion dollar for employee improvement for workers to move up to the next skill level. So our whole workforce development innovation, you know, our new CTE platform is really going to take off. U

290
01:39:35.119 --> 01:39:52.000
but thank you for helping us with the fundament. >> And sher reserve's final comment. Um, I thought Jay was policy, not people. And so I want to say thank you um for actually bringing this to life for us. I I think um having served on this board

291
01:39:52.000 --> 01:40:09.360
for three years, you summed up three years in about 45 minutes. Um and I think it is encouraging uh the work that the board has done is all about the three words you use. Um, it's about improving the outcomes for our kid,

292
01:40:09.360 --> 01:40:25.920
making sure there's clarity for the support and the continuity. And I think what you summed up in 45 minutes, I want to say thank you and thank you for the team. Um, I at first I wrote we can do hard things and you made it sound very

293
01:40:25.920 --> 01:40:45.040
easy. [laughter] >> Thank you for that. We're gonna end on that positive note now. Um, with that, so thank you for you and for the team. Um, again, very, very thoughtful work. Um, with that, I would

294
01:40:45.040 --> 02:47:58.240
propose that we actually break for lunch now and then, uh, come back for the assessment accountability roadmap. >> Thank you all so much. We're almost ready. >> Hey, uh good afternoon. Uh we are going

295
02:47:58.240 --> 02:48:14.640
to come back into session. Um Superintendent Conway, will you introduce our next presentation? >> Absolutely. Thank you. So, uh, welcome back. Um, and again, uh, uh, in the theme of kind of making sense of of

296
02:48:14.640 --> 02:48:31.680
various strands of work from this morning, Deputy Superintendent Heislup and I are going to begin a conversation that will [clears throat] go into tomorrow and into the August session around thinking through

297
02:48:31.680 --> 02:48:59.439
the implications Yeah, >> we're good. Um, how to think through some of the the charges, challenges, and considerations in front of this body. Um, you heard first from

298
02:48:59.439 --> 02:49:13.840
Chief Koi about important pieces of legislation including multiple pieces of legislation related to accountability and uh assessment and we'll talk a little bit more about that. You then

299
02:49:13.840 --> 02:49:30.399
heard that what the general assembly uh rather simply framed as you need to consider the school and performance and support framework recommendations from JARK. um after a very lengthy thoughtful presentation from JARK you see the

300
02:49:30.399 --> 02:49:45.520
complexity of those recommendations um and then you have the work that this body has been diligently uh endeavoring over over the last few years and what we would like to do this afternoon is to

301
02:49:45.520 --> 02:50:02.960
kind of bring all those strands together as we think about the different components of a measurement system. a measurement system that thinks about students, the 1.2 million students across our system, and what we want them to know and be able to do and our

302
02:50:02.960 --> 02:50:18.960
schools, the 1,800 schools which those students attend. And that a great part of how we measure our schools, uh, is in how those students perform. uh what they know, what they demonstrate that they know and are able to do and how they

303
02:50:18.960 --> 02:50:34.399
make progress uh towards towards those those standards. Um we wanted to first um uh and I'll talk through these kind of first couple slides and then turn it over to Deputy Superintendent Heislop who will take us through the the the

304
02:50:34.399 --> 02:50:50.720
details or kind of and and preview what we will be bringing to you for for first review tomorrow. Um what we wanted to first do is take a step back and just talk about how we at a vision and values

305
02:50:50.720 --> 02:51:07.359
perspective see these different strands coming together. Um which cover both these different areas of the work and uh the many different groups that help set expectations for our schools, right?

306
02:51:07.359 --> 02:51:22.800
which range from this body, the board of education uh and our appointees from a governor, the governor, him or herself, the general assembly, our senate and our uh legislature. And each uh uh each part

307
02:51:22.800 --> 02:51:37.279
of that system set sort of whether it's laws, whether it's setting regulations, whether it's how you do measurement kind of has an implication for this this measurement system. Um from the outset

308
02:51:37.279 --> 02:51:56.319
uh this governor um has been clear and has emphasized to myself to the secretary of education Dr. Jeffrey Smith a commitment to excellence and an idea that is espoused in her platform from

309
02:51:56.319 --> 02:52:13.279
last fall as well as her executive order. uh a desire and a belief in excellence um believing that every student deserves an excellent education um that puts them on track for success. I think you saw this in the JARK

310
02:52:13.279 --> 02:52:28.800
content. I think we've talked about this even a little bit so far this morning having this deep belief that our students are capable as any in the nation and how do we think about our responsibility to prepare them to be success. You've successful. You've heard

311
02:52:28.800 --> 02:52:45.040
me talk before about much of my career has been rooted in accountability for early childhood systems with this idea of how do we organize all the adults to improve interaction so that kids come to kindergarten ready for success. And I

312
02:52:45.040 --> 02:53:00.880
think the really important work that many of you have done for years is how how do we think about you know measuring students and measuring schools so that ultimately um as we make these investments in this K12 system that that results in graduates who are ready for

313
02:53:00.880 --> 02:53:17.520
life um and prepared for success um we as a piece of this you know kind of really bringing together assessment where we are in assessment accountability and thinking through what

314
02:53:17.520 --> 02:53:32.720
we are trying to achieve. Um, you know, and that is about not only and I and I always find myself a little bit lost uh in the the weeds, but like the big goal and I think we heard this from Miss McFersonson and Mr. Hansen earlier,

315
02:53:32.720 --> 02:53:49.200
right, is to motivate actors to change what is happening down to the classroom level to improve outcomes for students and really thinking through how each aspect of that of that system can can do that. Um, you've heard me talk a bit

316
02:53:49.200 --> 02:54:06.720
about and when we were out on the listening tour, we have heard from folks and we heard this from Jay Lark as as well. How do we balance between staying the course? Um where uh there are things that are working well for our students

317
02:54:06.720 --> 02:54:22.160
um where there are things that we share in common and that the politics may have changed but you know at the end of the day that we we we believe in excellence for our students. We are not comfortable with our cut scores being the lowest in

318
02:54:22.160 --> 02:54:38.319
the nation and we you know ultimately know that it will take all of us to dedicate resources to those schools, educators and students in greatest need and to know that those resources are turning into better experiences and

319
02:54:38.319 --> 02:54:56.240
better outcomes. Um I think what is so hard and what we want to start the conversation on today is that there is great complexity here and thinking through um how each of these these pieces play a role in this is really key. I also as I describe this vision

320
02:54:56.240 --> 02:55:13.120
want to kind of recognize that um as this board has incrementally kind of made progress whether that is uh strengthened our content standards which you have in math and English language arts among other subjects helped

321
02:55:13.120 --> 02:55:29.520
increase the rigor of our standards of learning assessments which you have thanks to your higher standards for math and English language arts um and run a process to lay out more specific performance level descriptors as we did

322
02:55:29.520 --> 02:55:47.040
last summer um to kind of really lay out what do we want our students to know and be able to do. We also have to reconcile with some of the shifts that have happened since December. Um and whether that's you know we have uh this JARK uh

323
02:55:47.040 --> 02:56:03.439
report and some of the recommendations on shifts to the accountability system which as you heard uh Joe reference then has implications right if you change some of the underlying measures i.e. you change those cut scores that then has to be accounted for as you think about

324
02:56:03.439 --> 02:56:19.920
implementing those changes. As Chief Koy noted, we had a very extensive assessment law that was passed as well as a very clear legislative requirement on competing out our entire assessment system and implementing a new system. um

325
02:56:19.920 --> 02:56:37.600
you know that is mandated by our general assembly and thinking through how do we provide a clear path forward for you all um that reflects some of those shifts while also recognizing the trajectory

326
02:56:37.600 --> 02:56:55.200
over the last few years to have heard from US DOE about needing to adjust our standards and our cut scores. the desire and the success of having a a measurement system for schools known as the school performance and support framework that uh does not say that all

327
02:56:55.200 --> 02:57:11.120
schools are the same but actually begins to differentiate um but also needing to make some shifts in that um based on what you just heard from from JARK equally important and you heard as described from Chief Koi was that you

328
02:57:11.120 --> 02:57:28.720
know the place potentially where JARK was the most clear and what was turned into a law that was very directive was an obligation for this agency to make sure that we moved away from school improvement being something that was owned simply by an office or a subset of

329
02:57:28.720 --> 02:57:46.479
staff at the VDOE to something that was an agencywide priority. And that was a crystal clear law that was passed and signed by the governor. And that's why we move to this slide. Just thinking about the big picture is so important. Uh you've heard me talk before um about

330
02:57:46.479 --> 02:58:02.880
VQB5 and my work in early childhood and sort of that one of the most important things that VQB5 does is to help ensure that resources get to those early childhood programs that we know need the most support and that you ultimately see

331
02:58:02.880 --> 02:58:19.040
that improvement year overyear. Um that requires consideration of multiple things. um whether that's the standards and being very clear about what we want our students to know learn in our classrooms and again great progress has

332
02:58:19.040 --> 02:58:35.520
been made in that area. What we talked a little bit about which is also kind of essential but is essential to this theory of change is that this law that was passed by the general assembly whether the laws I should say whether it's the Virginia literacy act or the

333
02:58:35.520 --> 02:58:51.760
law more broadly pertaining to highquality instructional materials provides a very clear path forward that goes beyond the standards and says that Virginia school divisions and leaders must use highquality instructional

334
02:58:51.760 --> 02:59:07.840
materials that will help students achieve mastery in line with recommendations that come from this body. And so begin to really go not only beyond clearly defining what we want students to know and be able to do, but

335
02:59:07.840 --> 02:59:23.200
then says these are the resources through a rigorous process that will help students get there. When used, used well, used with fidelity and used consistently to meet the individual needs of students. To meet the individual needs of students, we need to

336
02:59:23.200 --> 02:59:38.399
know where the students are. And so thinking about the assessment and as deputy superintendent Heislip will talk with you, we've got a lot of sort of parameters and expectations you know set on us as we think about assessment but at its core it's helping to ensure that

337
02:59:38.399 --> 02:59:53.279
there is a transparent understanding of what kids do know and be able to do as this body has grappled with in the last six months of of last year. making sure that we are setting the right bar um for that teaching and learning so that we

338
02:59:53.279 --> 03:00:08.640
are um making sure that if our students and this is an important commitment to our students and their families right if students meet that bar that they are truly prepared to be success whether that's in college career whether that's within the commonwealth or they are

339
03:00:08.640 --> 03:00:24.720
nationally competitive and ultimately that accountability right is is while an important piece of this is really the way in which we measure and ensure it's the lever kind of across the 1800 schools the very different leaders and educators that by having a

340
03:00:24.720 --> 03:00:40.560
true north right that is based in standards HQIM and assessment that HQIM becomes that pathway along with supports for our educators and that's really important a box with a curriculum is not is only a step is necessary not to to

341
03:00:40.560 --> 03:00:57.520
but not sufficient to actually seeing the educa educator use that to support children's students learning and and and and and and development of skills. And accountability becomes the very important way in which we say this is how we measure this in schools and

342
03:00:57.520 --> 03:01:14.319
that we're ultimately aligning assessment which is how we understand what students know and able to do with how we measure schools and understand what they are able to produce in terms of students learning and and growth over time. And as we'll talk today, I think

343
03:01:14.319 --> 03:01:30.800
it's just very key that we as we present this to you and we're sort of saying coming back to this body and saying here's what we understand the true north to be what we and I I describe that true north both in terms of uh less in terms of the standards because that's where

344
03:01:30.800 --> 03:01:47.920
you have already begun to define what we want students to know and to be able to do and we're not at this point in time proposing any changes to the standards. But when you think about how we measure that success for students in terms of assessment and how we measure that success for schools in terms of school

345
03:01:47.920 --> 03:02:04.960
performance and support framework, I think there are kind of two two sort of versions, the student and the school version of that that we must get to. And what we are proposing is how we reconcile those pieces as we as we go forward. I know uh I won't spend a ton

346
03:02:04.960 --> 03:02:20.319
of time on these values, but just to know that hopefully um we can agree on the true north. I think there we welcome uh inquiry on kind of how we actually get there reconciling both what all the

347
03:02:20.319 --> 03:02:37.359
work that this body has accomplished and then some of the things that have shifted in terms of JARK and the legislative mandates coming out of this session. but that these values can guide us now and along the way. Uh that I have heard from both sides of the aisle uh

348
03:02:37.359 --> 03:02:55.040
new and veteran board members and many of our stakeholders across the state around the importance of high expectation and I think McFersonson you noted that today in terms of setting a standard of excellence and making sure that we are supporting students to achieve that. I think as you will hear

349
03:02:55.040 --> 03:03:11.359
and in the complexity and in even all the recommendations made by JARK, how do we think about focus and how do we think about what are these changes and as Joe noted that sequence and how do we do this at a fast enough clips to make difference for kids but also in a way

350
03:03:11.359 --> 03:03:28.800
that we can move the system of 1800 schools and all the many classrooms and educators. Part of our ask and why we present these things together today is this idea of coherence and really thinking through how do we make sure that all these things align. An example of this and and

351
03:03:28.800 --> 03:03:43.840
Mr. Robinson alluded to this earlier is if not we end up sending disperate messages to the field. So in a scenario where we have laid out uh higher cut scores for math but also have a law that

352
03:03:43.840 --> 03:04:01.359
requires a certain percentile score to be referred to advanced math if you looked in the out years of that ma of of those kind of numbers. what it meant is that you were potentially at risk of referring students who were not proficient in math into advanced math, right? And again, that is a fixable

353
03:04:01.359 --> 03:04:17.520
issue, right? Because as we sort of raise those cut scores, I think we'll figure out how to address that. But if we're not thinking about all of the different factors here, there is a risk of of not sending kind of a clear and coherent message to the field that

354
03:04:17.520 --> 03:04:33.040
reinforces from standards to assessment to accountability kind of this this this vision that gets us to this true north. We believe in opportunity for every student um and and prioritizing those students who are furthest from opportun opportunity [clears throat] as the

355
03:04:33.040 --> 03:04:49.520
priority for resources. We talked about the needs intensive support um and how critical it is that we are not saying that all schools or all students are the same or telling them that they're okay. I think as you saw in the JARK report,

356
03:04:49.520 --> 03:05:05.920
um while I have incredible confidence and have seen extraordinary high schools across the Commonwealth, I think it is hard for me to reconcile how we can have 65% of our high schools distinguish and then significantly different numbers for elementary and middle. And so kind of

357
03:05:05.920 --> 03:05:22.319
it's again not a critique of high schools but sort of a recon a recognition that we we probably need to sort of you know reook at three and some of those indicators sort of to be more consistent um you know in the ways that we sort of look at at other schools and

358
03:05:22.319 --> 03:05:37.920
that if we're telling them distinguish I think as as Joe noted that that could create a risk maybe less focus on really making sure that every student is fully included and and supported if you can score more points in E and then that student furthest from opportunity is not

359
03:05:37.920 --> 03:05:54.000
given every possible resource to pass that reading or math test. That's the type of disconnect that uh ultimately could harm our students furthest from opportunity. And last but not least, if you've ever heard me talk about uh early childhood and accountability, just this

360
03:05:54.000 --> 03:06:11.120
idea of how do we make this actionable and how do we think through you don't change systems by measuring and catching people at the end. you change systems, right, by being very very clear about what are the adult actions that need to change in order to achieve um those

361
03:06:11.120 --> 03:06:27.760
results. And so as we think through with our 131 school divisions who have, you know, who are have noted to us a commitment to raise the bar and pursue excellence, who recognize the importance of measuring schools to both show the

362
03:06:27.760 --> 03:06:44.960
value of public education in the Commonwealth, but also noting that there's always work to be done. How do we think through a pathway over the next few years that is as focused on the improvement as it is that high bar for excellence and again that's why although

363
03:06:44.960 --> 03:07:00.960
uh deputy superintendent heap won't talk uh as much about that but as we think about HQIM as we think about every possible resource at our disposable whether that's the school improvement funding why I asked that question of Joe about those resources how do we make

364
03:07:00.960 --> 03:07:18.240
sure that as we set these these high expectations that we support all of our schools, particularly those that serve our students further furthest from opportunity to achieve that. Um, and so with that, what I would ask as I turn it over to Deputy Superintendent Heislop is

365
03:07:18.240 --> 03:07:36.240
for you all to take what we um have have compiled for you today. Um ultimately what we want to ask for for first review tomorrow is a set of of shifts you know for the upcoming year but to sort of

366
03:07:36.240 --> 03:07:52.960
what we felt would not be wise but to bring kind of you in pieces right if you think about the entirety of Joe's presentation it felt a little worrisome you know and he even made a couple illusions to the kind of complexity to just bring you pieces of this um without

367
03:07:52.960 --> 03:08:09.600
the big picture. I imagine, you know, and and there will be tons of questions today about, okay, but how does this match up with what we agreed on in the past? How does this match up with what the pathway is for improvement from this body today? Um, but we we wanted to do

368
03:08:09.600 --> 03:08:26.880
recognizing again this is first review is to lay out my perspective a very practical yearbyear here is our first proposal on how to make sense of all these things. the work you've done as a body, what we have in terms of this JARK

369
03:08:26.880 --> 03:08:41.600
report, what the general assembly has put in front of you and us, um, uh, recommendations in some places, requirements and others, and how to begin to implement that. Um, I also recognize at first review there might be

370
03:08:41.600 --> 03:08:58.960
many questions and additional data or things that you need us to go uh in more detail on that and I know I've asked the team to sort of be very prepared to kind of take down that information and think what we need to bring back to you to support to to support that that conversation. U with that let me pause

371
03:08:58.960 --> 03:09:18.080
and see if there's any initial questions there and then I'll turn it over to Deputy Superintendent Heisl. So, as it relates to the vote that we previously took about implementation of the new accountability

372
03:09:18.080 --> 03:09:34.000
platform and testing while we have this for a first review procedurally, it doesn't change the board's prior decision. So, we are still

373
03:09:34.000 --> 03:09:50.880
on the path that the board originally voted that we would be on and regardless of what we do with this, it would take a new vote of the board to overturn our previous decision. Right. >> Yes. So, right now, we're in the

374
03:09:50.880 --> 03:10:08.080
implementation phase of what we voted on. That's correct. So we we would need to see I think a chart that says this is where we are with what we voted on and this is what the new proposed

375
03:10:08.080 --> 03:10:25.520
transition timeline would do. So we would know what about the vote because we already voted for implementation. >> Do you want to respond to that? >> Oh yeah. So I I I think that's correct.

376
03:10:25.520 --> 03:10:41.200
I think one of the things that has come up um even as we have prepared these resources and begun to look at implementation um is that uh there was a very clear

377
03:10:41.200 --> 03:10:56.240
uh very very clear true north in terms of this body's agreement on what proficiency looks like across each of those areas. Right? And those numbers are very clear and were shared with this body multiple times. Um, as we looked at

378
03:10:56.240 --> 03:11:11.279
the details of what that exactly means yearby year, it does not appear that that is a publicly available document from last fall. So we we do need to pull that get that out get that for you in

379
03:11:11.279 --> 03:11:28.960
terms of again we said four-year implementation true north is are those numbers very very clear from your process that we had with 250 stakeholders right to where you landed and all of that we were able to to do that. I think the one place where we

380
03:11:28.960 --> 03:11:46.399
would need to uh be more transparent about both with you and the general public is exactly what that meant numerically each year for each assessment and then how that would change with our uh shift in the how we get there. There is no proposal to

381
03:11:46.399 --> 03:12:05.279
change what we're getting to. >> Okay. So you're saying the proposed transition timeline matches up with the prior vote, but the difference is what we going to do in each of the years. >> Well, let's have I think let's hold that

382
03:12:05.279 --> 03:12:20.560
question in terms of having the deputy walk us through that. Yes. But then thinking through there, you know, and what that actually means in terms of the interim years. [snorts]

383
03:12:20.560 --> 03:12:36.960
There was narrative copy and there was a set of examples shared, but there's not the kind of the in between cut points that we're trying to then figure out. So, a part of it is to sort of to to to get clarity on what was

384
03:12:36.960 --> 03:12:53.840
actually voted on and what the difference is is is is on our list of things that we absolutely need to do. But in the interim, certainly until there is a subsequent vote, that is in effect. >> Um, Dr. Bridges.

385
03:12:53.840 --> 03:13:12.160
>> Oh, no. I was making sure you had seen >> Sorry, I was I was Okay, >> thank you so much. It's um a pleasure to be back before this board. I worked with many of you on the initial development

386
03:13:12.160 --> 03:13:27.920
of the SPSF as a consultant and appreciate um the opportunity today to present this coordinated plan. I know a lot of times um as Superintendent Conway so artfully walked us through, you know, assessment, accountability, school

387
03:13:27.920 --> 03:13:45.040
improvement are inextricably linked together. And I think it makes a lot of sense to think about all these changes whether it's the things the general assembly has told us to do around assessment like recompeting the assessment RFP for the first time in 20 years the changes um to sort of the

388
03:13:45.040 --> 03:14:00.479
administration and scoring of assessments in Senate Bill 200 that Chief Koi talked about the changes that JARK um so artfully talked about as needing for us to consider um that I think you know bringing all of this together was our goal so we could really

389
03:14:00.479 --> 03:14:18.000
think about is there a way to look at all the chess pieces on the board and synchronize the implementation in the most effective way possible. We do know that our students are smart, capable, have high aspirations for their futures and we need to do our job to meet them

390
03:14:18.000 --> 03:14:35.680
there through both assessment and accountability and to reflect those expectations. So this is the proposed transition plan. And our goal here was to try and simplify and streamline all those needed changes to both assessment and accountability. And to Miss McFersonson's point, um the SPSF changes

391
03:14:35.680 --> 03:14:51.520
have not been brought forward to the board prior to this meeting because JARK came out last December. So all of the how we were going to implement the sort of SPSF 2.0 and those refinements, this is the sort of first time we've really brought that forward to the board for

392
03:14:51.520 --> 03:15:07.760
discussion. We have had a lot of conversation over the last um several years around our standards and assessments though. Um so I think this package here is really focused on that bigger transition roadmap but also some very specific technical policy adjustments to the accountability system

393
03:15:07.760 --> 03:15:23.040
that start to get at some of those JARK policy recommendations and options. But certainly not if you see a policy recommendation that Joe may have mentioned that's not in this deck, it doesn't mean we're not considering it. it's just maybe not one of the initial steps we're taking because we have to

394
03:15:23.040 --> 03:15:40.800
sequence things appropriately. Um so here you we're sort of calling this the measurement road map. It's not an assessment road map. It's not an accountability road map. It's trying to think about it all as a cohesive hole. We built this off of I would say a set of kind of key principles here that

395
03:15:40.800 --> 03:15:55.920
guided some of our initial thinking. Um but the most important piece here I think is that we are trying to create that clear consolidated timeline for all of these changes with a lot of opportunities for the field for the board to learn about and prepare for the

396
03:15:55.920 --> 03:16:13.520
changes before they take place in the 2829 school year. So that when we looked at again the changes on the assessment side, the changes on the cut scores and the changes needed for SPSS, that was the school year where the timelines could converge into a single year.

397
03:16:13.520 --> 03:16:29.040
Importantly, we wanted to be sure that we sort of reflected each of these key principles and I'll walk through them in turn on the next several set of slides. So, first in Superintendent Conway, and I think many members of the board have talked about this already, really building from the incredible work that

398
03:16:29.040 --> 03:16:44.880
has already been accomplished over the last several years. Um, we have new, stronger, more rigorous standards in reading and in math that were adopted in 2324. We have to build from those standards and fully incorporate them

399
03:16:44.880 --> 03:17:01.040
into our assessments. We have already done so in math. We are doing that this coming school year in reading. So this year is the first year this upcoming school year where our assessments will reflect fully those higher expectations that were set by this board in 2023 and

400
03:17:01.040 --> 03:17:17.040
24. We are also releasing test items. Um we have not released test items for educators in many many years. This will help give them insight into how our assessments are reflecting those higher standards. And that's transparency that

401
03:17:17.040 --> 03:17:32.399
we plan to continue in future years. And in fact, the general assembly is directing us to do that. We are also um as a result of general assembly action streamlining some of our assessments. We are getting rid of eliminating the Virginia growth assessments, those

402
03:17:32.399 --> 03:17:48.479
interim assessments. We're also making some um moves to streamline um the high school integrated reading and writing assessment. If you remember, there is a standalone EOC writing which is what most students take. And then there was also this IR IRW test. we are just going

403
03:17:48.479 --> 03:18:06.640
to be phasing that out based on feedback from divisions, student usage, etc. And we also know that we're going to be making some really critical changes this coming school year to get assessment results out to parents and to the public faster within 45 days of the end of the

404
03:18:06.640 --> 03:18:21.840
um test administration. We are also reporting test results on a 0 to 100 point scale. So those parent reports that um parents will see next summer are not just going to be on our 0 to600. We're going to show them and sort of

405
03:18:21.840 --> 03:18:38.160
translate that score into a 0 to 100 point scale. That was something that the general assembly passed this year as a way to make assessments more intuitive for families. Um we are also, as uh superintendent Tom mentioned, releasing an RFP for an updated statewide

406
03:18:38.160 --> 03:18:54.479
assessment contract. um that is going to be released this summer and I can sort of give you a sense um here we say the so probably take at least a couple years to execute part of this is out of our control though we're working with VA we're working with the office of the

407
03:18:54.479 --> 03:19:09.680
attorney general we'll see what the vendors come back with we don't fully control that timeline but we are moving as fast as possible to get that work accomplished as well and I think you know as as Joe mentioned earlier the work that this board did to adopt A new

408
03:19:09.680 --> 03:19:26.000
accountability system is an incredible strength. It is a more effective, more efficient system than the prior one. It may need some refinements. We have those 13 policy recommendations and two policy options, but we are going to be building

409
03:19:26.000 --> 03:19:41.920
from that. We are not taking that away. We are not it's refining. It is not throwing the baby out with bath water. So, I we really wanted to be sure that we were considering all of these really critical pieces that have already occurred as we think about what the next

410
03:19:41.920 --> 03:19:59.840
three years look like. The second piece here that we sought to, as we alluded to earlier, is to have one major transition across all of these different moving pieces, whether that's our assessment contract, the um

411
03:19:59.840 --> 03:20:15.760
assessment cut scores, and the school performance and support framework. And are proposing this transition plan that has that 2829 school year as the implement year. there's a year to prepare, a year to preview, and a year

412
03:20:15.760 --> 03:20:32.000
to implement. Um, I will say, you know, in thinking a little bit to Miss McFersonson's question, um, part of our piece here is trying to again synchronize the most significant changes as one cohesive hole because everything

413
03:20:32.000 --> 03:20:48.800
is interconnected. Um during this prepare year, it would give us time to bring forward to this board more of Jayorg's recommendations to begin the regulatory process that we would need to for a few of the policy recommendations that the board will consider require regulatory change and that's a longer

414
03:20:48.800 --> 03:21:04.800
process that can take a year or more. Um so we need to begin that. We also need to be working during this prepare year on our assessment contract to be sure that we get um we're evaluating the vendors who submit proposals and selecting a high quality vendor moving

415
03:21:04.800 --> 03:21:21.920
forward. We also want to be sure that we can use these years in the interim to help start to preview for our school divisions, preview for our families what new accountability changes, what higher cut scores look like. Um that would

416
03:21:21.920 --> 03:21:39.359
certainly be the main focus of the 2728 school year that preview year. Um we're hoping that we would be able to provide a full look into the sort of SPSF 2.0 is we are calling it without stakes attached. So this would be sort of an

417
03:21:39.359 --> 03:21:54.960
insider insight look into what's coming down the pipeline before everything takes effect in the 2829 school year. And while it is not listed here, we also anticipate that in 2829 we would be under that new or updated contract. So

418
03:21:54.960 --> 03:22:10.960
that work is also converging under this timeline as well. Um I think a key few key points here is that this is actually a year faster to get to the proficiency cut score changes than the plan that the board voted on prior that had full

419
03:22:10.960 --> 03:22:26.720
implementation in the 29 2030 school year. This is full implementation in 2829. So it's same destination a little bit faster. But our goal here of course was to synchronize everything together. I think what may be slightly different

420
03:22:26.720 --> 03:22:44.000
to Miss McFerson's question is what is happening in 2627 and 2728 as well as 2829 and that we would be at full implementation at that point as opposed to in the final year of that phase and plan. So if you're if I hope that is a helpful clarification and um

421
03:22:44.000 --> 03:23:00.239
we really appreciate the feedback on this because again this is sort of our first opportunity. We really want to uh you know be sure that we're getting feedback from the field and input as we refine this and ultimately this will inform the report that we will be sending to the general assembly with our

422
03:23:00.239 --> 03:23:17.120
plan and timeline for considering the accountability changes as well. To that point, I mean, I think we we're committed here to continually trying to signal high expectations for both schools and for students. As Superintendent Conway mentioned, this is

423
03:23:17.120 --> 03:23:33.840
about being sure that our accountability system is as rigorous as our assessment system. They one is sending, you know, signals sort of to what we expect students to know and do and one is sort of sending signals to what we want the adults leading our school systems to know and do and take action. Whether

424
03:23:33.840 --> 03:23:50.960
that's because we've highlighted a great practice, a school that's hitting it out of the park or a school where individual groups of students may be struggling. Um, we really want to be sure that um, I can't tell you how many times in this work I've heard like implementation is the death of policy. We want to be really thoughtful about implementation

425
03:23:50.960 --> 03:24:07.680
of all these changes. That is certainly something that we heard on our listening tour during the first 100 days of this administration with Superintendent Conway and Secretary Smith was just, you know, this has been a lot of change like help us help us manage that. Clear the guide path. Show us how we can get there

426
03:24:07.680 --> 03:24:24.399
because I believe that we can get there. Um I know we can get there and we can have better outcomes um for for educators, for students, for families. Um but we need to have a strong transition plan in order to accomplish that. Um to that end, I think it's critical

427
03:24:24.399 --> 03:24:40.560
that we think about using this whole plan um to really be mindful about how we are communicating with all stakeholders, whether it's families, parents, those who work in our school systems, our state leadership, our board, um to give everyone the time,

428
03:24:40.560 --> 03:24:56.239
information, and and tools that they need to prepare for these changes. Whether it's a change or a potential change in an assessment vendor, whether it's a change in cut scores, whether it's a change in how we measure 3E, we don't want there to be surprises. We want to give folks time to actually

429
03:24:56.239 --> 03:25:11.600
understand what is changing, why it is changing, and when it is changing. [snorts] And that is going to require a lot of listening and learning on our part immediately following this presentation. We already have plans, Chief Ko and I, for all the people that

430
03:25:11.600 --> 03:25:27.120
we are going to be talking to in July and August, how we're going to be communicating with different stakeholders to get input to refine this. We certainly want to hear your questions during this uh presentation as well as first review tomorrow so that we can come back and refine this and be

431
03:25:27.120 --> 03:25:42.160
sure that we are being as clear as possible. And one of the things that I think we really do want to do is by having the time to model and to preview I think is going to be critical to building trust so that the folks who are being held accountable or the students

432
03:25:42.160 --> 03:25:57.520
who are being assessed and their their families understand what we are doing and have insight into it before it happens. It won't feel like a surprise because they've already seen it. Finally, I I do want to say this is

433
03:25:57.520 --> 03:26:11.920
critically important to me and I wish we could talk even more about it because the whole purpose of a measurement system. It's not a math problem. It's not about getting the right number of schools or the right distribution. It is ultimately about action and school

434
03:26:11.920 --> 03:26:28.319
improvement. That is why we do this and that is not an agencywide priority. And that is one thing that this general assembly made clear. They have already implemented several of Jay Lark's recommendations to ensure that this board and the agency and Superintendent Conway are specifically charged with

435
03:26:28.319 --> 03:26:44.560
taking responsibility for school improvement, not just for designing that accountability system in all math, but for actually improving outcomes for students. And so this is not work that is just going to be happening in the office of school improvement. We are committed to thinking about how can our

436
03:26:44.560 --> 03:27:01.200
office for specialized populations that serves English learners that serves our students with disabilities. How are they supporting school improvement? How is our office of instruction supporting school improvement? Whether that's through HQIM and ensuring that teachers have what they need to teach our high standards that this board has voted on.

437
03:27:01.200 --> 03:27:16.880
And we really hope that when we are using our measurement system as this kind of foundational tool, data being the foundation of how we consider school improvement, it's going to guide and create the conditions that we need for both divisions action, but also action

438
03:27:16.880 --> 03:27:32.880
within the the agency. Um, so it's really critical that we get these pieces right so that we can then have this effective school improvement system that's going to accelerate outcomes, especially for our students that are furthest from opportunity, but frankly for all of Virginia's students. This

439
03:27:32.880 --> 03:27:49.840
work will benefit everyone. So, we know that this work is going to take some time. It is complex as as Joe alluded to, and I will likely be spending a lot of time in front of this board over the next three years or more. Um, but we know that we can get there

440
03:27:49.840 --> 03:28:07.279
and we know that the outcomes, the end result is worth it because it will lead to that meaningful action that we need to see our parents, our students, our schools, our educators, our divisions taking to continually improve student outcomes. Um, so I am happy to now just

441
03:28:07.279 --> 03:28:23.600
turn over briefly um can run through some of these actions that we're bringing forward for tomorrow for first review. Um the first is related to that proficiency implementation plan and sort of having one change to increase

442
03:28:23.600 --> 03:28:40.960
expectations for proficiency that's synchronized with these other changes. So that would be in the 2829 school year instead of 29 2030. Same end point. We're not reopening what the cut scores would be, but it's more about the timeline and then what happens in those interim years between now in 2829.

443
03:28:40.960 --> 03:28:57.359
That's the first um action being brought forward. And then the actions two through five are mostly related to to the Jark recommendation. So the first is to update the SPSF performance categories immediately this fall. So

444
03:28:57.359 --> 03:29:12.960
we're proposing in this item for first review to no longer identify schools as off track or on track in fall 2026. Instead, we would be updating those with approaching expectations and meets expectations are the names that we put forward in for first review

445
03:29:12.960 --> 03:29:29.279
consideration. But I'm sure there will be a lot of robust discussion around that. And that doesn't preclude maybe future action on those items. But this is one step that as Joe mentioned is kind of it's one piece that is less connected to everything else. If you change those school names, it doesn't

446
03:29:29.279 --> 03:29:44.160
have a ripple effect on a bunch of other items in the system. So, it is something we could change sooner. The third, fourth, and fifth changes are probably even more wonky and technical. Um, one thing right now is that we don't use in

447
03:29:44.160 --> 03:30:01.920
high school how we look at test results. We don't look at recent data. We look at the 12th grade cohort. And for many students in 12th grade, they took that reading test in 9th grade. So, it's lagged by multiple years. And we have

448
03:30:01.920 --> 03:30:18.239
other measures for high schools that do look at the 12th grade cohort. We look at graduation rates. 3E is based on the 12th grade cohort. We don't have many measures in high school that are looking at those 9th and 10th grade students. And we think that it would be a good change to move for fall 27 to an annual

449
03:30:18.239 --> 03:30:33.359
measurement. So that we are looking at all the students who took assessments in high school that year rather than waiting multiple years to include them in the accountability system. That will lead to more timely actionable intervention and improvement. We also are planning to bring forward

450
03:30:33.359 --> 03:30:48.640
for consideration the JARK recommendation that would is related to when schools don't have enough English learners to have that English learner proficiency data point. This is what was creating a great deal of um unfairness and inconsistency in terms of growth

451
03:30:48.640 --> 03:31:04.800
mattered a whole lot more in schools that didn't serve enough English learners to have that indicator compared to those that did. So this is would be bringing forward that recommendation for fall 27. And then finally this is the policy option that Joe mentioned around

452
03:31:04.800 --> 03:31:21.680
exception A exception B. Here what we are proposing is because um this would take multiple years to implement statewide. Our recommendation for consideration is that for this year, we would maintain the ability for recently arrived English learners, those are

453
03:31:21.680 --> 03:31:36.080
students who have been in the country for less than one year to not take the reading assessment. That is our current policy. We would stick with that. We would consider though seeing if we could pilot the other option in a few

454
03:31:36.080 --> 03:31:52.960
divisions to test it out before to see, you know, what happens to the results. kind of do that modeling, that preview before it would go potentially statewide or we could bring it to this board for consideration. So, we just want to get some more information about what this would mean for students before making a

455
03:31:52.960 --> 03:32:08.399
drastic change that would affect um all students students and all schools and divisions. So, those are the five pieces. Like I said, if there's something that Joe mentioned earlier that we've talked about or you all have talked about in prior meetings that's not on this list, rest assured, it doesn't mean it won't be coming forward

456
03:32:08.399 --> 03:32:24.000
in the future, but these are the changes that we thought made sense to bring forward now for first review. For final review then would be in in August. Um, and do just really want to um recognize and appreciate all of the work that this board has taken over the last several

457
03:32:24.000 --> 03:32:41.120
years to get us to this point. I think we are at a really exciting kind of pivotal moment in Virginia where we have built a very strong foundation for of our measurement [snorts] system but over the next 3 to four years it's going from that version 1.0 to that 2.0 know it's

458
03:32:41.120 --> 03:32:58.080
strengthening it, it's improving it and kind of finishing the work. Um, so I'm happy to answer questions now. I know there's a lot of com content and I will be back tomorrow of course but um any questions or discussion to hear it? >> Thank you so much for your presentation.

459
03:32:58.080 --> 03:33:15.120
Do you have questions? >> I almost don't know where to start with this but I guess I'll start it. I do think it's important that we really go back and figure out where we were. And I understand this whole thing about

460
03:33:15.120 --> 03:33:31.279
wanting to roll out, not making some principles upset, some superintendents upset, this whole thing about names on track, off track versus meeting expectations, not meeting expectations. But at the end of the day,

461
03:33:31.279 --> 03:33:47.040
we have determined that Virginia's students are not prepared. And when we look at it nationally, we don't have to go back and talk about the fact that the, you know, the stats tell us about the reading and writing and the

462
03:33:47.040 --> 03:34:02.720
low scores in Virginia, which none of us are proud of. And I don't think we have four more years to figure out how we going to roll this out. So, I'd like for us to just go back. Let's look at what we talked about cut scores the date we were going to

463
03:34:02.720 --> 03:34:19.920
implement them and compare this to. We can pull in the tweaks that Jay said is not going to require major overhaul. But this board was committed to going into accountability and transparency as quickly as possible so we would know

464
03:34:19.920 --> 03:34:35.760
where we were and figure out how we would best put the resources to improve. So, I'm I'm really concerned about a foyer interpretation, not really rolling out the cut scores, not telling them what the cut scores

465
03:34:35.760 --> 03:34:52.399
are, and then in 2029 beginning to talk about the accountability that we took three years to build. >> So, a a couple of things. Let's let's break it piece by piece. I mean, first I want to just acknowledge that you putting these things side by side is a

466
03:34:52.399 --> 03:35:07.600
necessary step for the spotting, right? So we we can absolutely do that work. Um you the language adopted in December said 2930 right and we are moving this up a year right so that sort of aligns

467
03:35:07.600 --> 03:35:22.160
very closely with this idea of we cannot wait four years. I think what is is different is how we get there. And you know what this body did adopt and is in place

468
03:35:22.160 --> 03:35:39.439
until we change it was moving the line between approaching which was a brand new category, right? That was an interim that was not actually your true north but this interim place, right? That was different for three years solid across all these different assessments, right?

469
03:35:39.439 --> 03:35:55.279
and moving up the the line between approaching and fail basic right you know varied across that it was recommended and it was clear and resources shared you know from the TAC and other that potentially that there was some concern about doing that

470
03:35:55.279 --> 03:36:11.359
incrementally that was then made more complicated by the reporting on a 100point scale and some of the other things that were then adopted by the general assembly and so this just to be very to the spirit of transparency In light of all that, we

471
03:36:11.359 --> 03:36:27.279
are proposing a shift that would move up the kind of the full move over but would in fact not have those two year well three years of like a different fail basic and an approaching category that was you know you know that ultimately

472
03:36:27.279 --> 03:36:44.399
would not be passing but would be in those interim periods because of the confusion that that would create for parents. I think we can go map that out on paper so that we can all see that and agree to that. I think there's also a sense of um you clearly and even the feedback you all have heard that we need

473
03:36:44.399 --> 03:37:00.800
to be much more clear with everybody about what is and what we're proposing so that there is at a minimum transparency but this would be a shorter timeline overall timeline than what was proposed in

474
03:37:00.800 --> 03:37:18.560
December. Um it would not however have those interim years of the approaching which again the other piece that I hear is very important. How do we signal each of these years about the true north? And so thinking about what we provide uh for

475
03:37:18.560 --> 03:37:34.800
divisions in terms of the delta between where you are today and again with different numbers that are agreed upon and were very clear and published in September, in October, in November, in December. Um and then how do we get that to parents, right? And and and what you

476
03:37:34.800 --> 03:37:51.439
voted on was let's move up the fail basic and call approaching. And I think what we would recommend is that's a lot of noise and complexity over the system each year to operationalize while you're also rolling out a new assessment system. Figure out a way to communicate to parents and schools, but then move up

477
03:37:51.439 --> 03:38:10.560
when it is in effect and is aligned with how we measure [snorts] students and how we measure schools. I also think it it is and and maybe it's helpful to reconcile the slide that is making the one major transition. I think there's and the and

478
03:38:10.560 --> 03:38:27.200
the SPSF transition timeline in terms of like what is start of the year versus beginning of the year because I think what is what I read and and I just want to be radically transparent about it is that the proficiency cut scores increase, right? So the the tests that are taken in the fall of 28 and in the

479
03:38:27.200 --> 03:38:43.520
spring of 29 have the higher cut scores, but then you have on the appendix slide no change to cut scores in 2829. So I I'm I'm a little also worried that we have not done what we needed to do even in preparation for today in terms of being clear. But the idea is that by

480
03:38:43.520 --> 03:38:58.960
that the the the the SPSF has fully implemented in fall 29 and that what it reflects is higher cut scores in the implementation year 2829. Is that correct? >> That's right. Yes. This is the uh

481
03:38:58.960 --> 03:39:16.560
inevitable year of the data versus when the results come out problem which is perhaps the bane of anyone who does this line of work. And I fully agree that the appendix B timeline maybe made it more confusing rather than simplifying it. But the especially because the it does

482
03:39:16.560 --> 03:39:32.560
not always consistently reflect year of the data. So what this is intended to show is that for the assessment results that were taken from the 2829 school year and are released in the summer of

483
03:39:32.560 --> 03:39:48.000
2029 that is when the full implementation of the higher cut scores would be in effect and that is one year faster than the plan that this board voted on in December. That is also so that fall fall of 2029 we would use the

484
03:39:48.000 --> 03:40:04.000
2829 school year data and release with consequences with stakes with federal identification of new comprehensive support schools and ATSI schools. That would also happen on that same year of data. It just happens in the fall because we tend to release

485
03:40:04.000 --> 03:40:20.960
accountability data a little bit later than our assessment data. So, I do think it's important that we get the slides back from the time that we voted the discussion because this is not sounding to me anything like where we were. And so, Mr. Jennings, I know you made

486
03:40:20.960 --> 03:40:36.800
presentations back then. It's going to be helpful. We really need to see because we had we were going to implement the scores. We going to be able to see what the progress was. We were going to put the support in place and we were going to tell schools

487
03:40:36.800 --> 03:40:53.120
exactly where they were. This sounds like we're just kind of sliding towards 2029 without that transparency being in place. And I understand the intent for clarification and I understand the

488
03:40:53.120 --> 03:41:09.120
recommendations that Jayla, which is why I was really clear about asking him, this is not a major overhaul. what they're recommending are things that we could put in place apparently pretty quickly and stay on track. Now, I do recognize that needing a vendor for your

489
03:41:09.120 --> 03:41:23.840
new assessment could be a potential delay, you know, but then again, here we go. I mean, a contract, a vendor, contract gets off track, whatever. But I think we really need to go back to where we were

490
03:41:23.840 --> 03:41:41.279
and now look at the recommendation. I think that is a fair point and we can definitely bring that back for August and share ahead of time and I think what we'll also try and do to that is since the prior slides that you discussed um in November December work >> and if the board could have some information tomorrow before we go into

491
03:41:41.279 --> 03:41:57.359
public session it's going to be helpful if you can go back and put something together that we have because I do think we need to be able to see that tomorrow before we have this open discussion with >> I can we can at least do that with the proficiency cut scores I think because the board's discussion in November and

492
03:41:57.359 --> 03:42:13.520
December we didn't have the Jay report then so that information is not reflected in that but I think on the >> not as worried about their reation as I am there three years of studies but we made a decision >> absolutely yeah

493
03:42:13.520 --> 03:42:29.760
>> about what we wanted to do >> and to your point about the vendor too I do just want to assure you that we thought about the risk of a delay the soonest the new the an updated contract could be in place is the 2728 ate we but we built in buffer in case there was a

494
03:42:29.760 --> 03:42:46.319
delay because of you know these processes are a little bit outside of our control. So we felt you know confident more confident saying that in 2829 we'll absolutely um have that contract in place but felt less confident in saying that definitively you know we wanted to build

495
03:42:46.319 --> 03:43:07.040
in that time right um Mr. Henen and then Dr. Northern >> um [clears throat] I agree a lot with what I had just said. I also I think there's a little bit of

496
03:43:07.040 --> 03:43:23.920
moving the ball on what the board approved in December and what the goal or what the world would look like in 2030 versus 29. I think it's a little bit of an apples to oranges discussion and how we're getting there.

497
03:43:23.920 --> 03:43:41.279
I just feel like there needs to be a sense of urgency here. The purpose of this is to bring transparency for parents to the public generally. Um, this is to also help.

498
03:43:41.279 --> 03:43:56.080
Let's just go back a few years ago. 2017, our standards were lowered in the state. Three years later, we had COVID hit. We had the largest decline of any state in the country in our uh student

499
03:43:56.080 --> 03:44:12.080
performance, learning loss. The last four years we've been digging out of this um and there were a lot of sense of urgency things done to dig us out of the co hole

500
03:44:12.080 --> 03:44:29.120
whether it was the high dosage tutoring whether it was the teacher pay and retention to where the teacher shortage has been changed. One of my first board meetings was where the superintendent

501
03:44:29.120 --> 03:44:47.160
at the time brought forward a proposal to kick the can down the road on the chronic absenteeism problem that occurred from CO where we had I think a three or fourfold chronic absenteeism.

502
03:44:47.680 --> 03:45:03.439
that recommendation was thrown on its head and we were able to make uh chronic absenteeism an absolute priority to get on top of it and change it and the data now is showing that because that was

503
03:45:03.439 --> 03:45:20.239
made an absolute priority we are back to where we were at precoid levels. Um so you know if you look at this in these tanches of four years what was done [clears throat] and able

504
03:45:20.239 --> 03:45:37.760
to solve you know really an existential crisis that we had not faced before with the learning loss in co um it took action it didn't take um transition plans it took action plans

505
03:45:37.760 --> 03:45:53.840
and it took action by the legis legislature, by governor, by the board, by all of the boots on the ground with the teachers and the administrators and the parents and the students. So, this just feels to me that we're um getting a

506
03:45:53.840 --> 03:46:11.439
little bit into um this situation where if I have a true north, and I think the board had a true north and putting this in place um last year, it is a sense of urgency. It's a sense and I haven't even talked about the NATE scores and about

507
03:46:11.439 --> 03:46:28.399
how 60% of our minority and disadvantaged students in this commonwealth in eighth grade are not going to be ready as of where we stand as a Commonwealth today when they graduate from high school to either go into the workforce or to go to college.

508
03:46:28.399 --> 03:46:43.199
and um if this is put into place. And so again, those kids in eighth grade today are going to be dealing with the same system and the incremental [snorts]

509
03:46:43.199 --> 03:46:58.399
change. I think it's a recipe for disaster. When I talk about disaster, I'm talking about the kids and talking about where are they going to be four years from now. And I feel like a lot of this whole conversation that we've got going on right now is about the systems.

510
03:46:58.399 --> 03:47:14.479
It's about the process. It's not about the kids. It's not about the sense of urgency to and I know everybody is well-intentioned in what we're doing here and trying to get it right. But this is um

511
03:47:14.479 --> 03:47:30.560
massive challenge if we can't learn from the examples of 2017 to 2021 or the 2022 to 2026. Um you know these numbers and years are

512
03:47:30.560 --> 03:47:45.680
to me it shows absolutely no sense of urgency that we need to continue to do whatever is necessary to help us. And and again, the other true north of this is to identify the schools that need the help the most so that they can get it to

513
03:47:45.680 --> 03:48:01.680
the kids that need the help the most and to allow for parents to be able to make informed decisions on what's in the best interest for their kids um where they are going forward. So, I

514
03:48:01.680 --> 03:48:17.920
agree with I, you know, I'd like to see almost a side by side or at least have the information of what we did in December. I I've got it. I've been looking at it for the last few days here, but for the board, I think for public transparency to be able to show what we are doing

515
03:48:17.920 --> 03:48:34.319
here with apples and oranges and the delay for this. And I will tell you, as somebody who sat through a lot of the changes these last four years, this is opening up opportunity for Lucy to keep pulling out the football

516
03:48:34.319 --> 03:48:49.520
from Charlie Brown every time he's come to kick it or moving the goalpost or whatever you want to call it. And we need to get about the work of what we put in to get this accountability system in place. And again,

517
03:48:49.520 --> 03:49:05.040
I can rattle off a dozen states that have done this, have done this right, done it fast, done it efficiently, and I just feel like we've got to um stay focused on really what matters most here, and that's to get our

518
03:49:05.040 --> 03:49:28.880
accountability framework done, our transparency system done, the systems in place to help our students, to help our most needy and disadvantaged students to get to where they need to Yeah.

519
03:49:28.880 --> 03:49:44.800
>> Um, I'll try to be piffy. Um, I've go in so many different directions, but I'm going to start with Norview High School, uh, which is where I taught, uh, in Virginia. And I'm going to start with as a young teacher having the the new

520
03:49:44.800 --> 03:49:59.359
SOS. at that point they were fairly new. I'm going to show my age and how much uh we used to have to put the so on the board every day and how um Marjorie Staley um was the principal at the time

521
03:49:59.359 --> 03:50:15.359
was about I don't know 4 and 1/2t tall and she wore stilettos like this and you listen to her because she knew these kids could um succeed. She knew that all the kids were on free and reduced lunch

522
03:50:15.359 --> 03:50:31.120
and yada yada, but she didn't give a flip and she just kept pushing us and pushing us to high expectations. We ended up winning the board uh the Broad Prize, which is the prize that they don't give anymore, but they used to for helping to close the achievement gap

523
03:50:31.120 --> 03:50:48.319
nationally. It is a very big deal to get the Broad Prize. Um so I am so proud of my time at Northw High School and that accolade. I say all that because um like my colleague here uh let's remind ourselves what percentage of 8th grade

524
03:50:48.319 --> 03:51:04.479
black children are proficient. Anybody know in Virginia 8% of our black children are proficient. Um and that's in 8th grade. Uh let's see.

525
03:51:04.479 --> 03:51:20.399
We have 13% of proficient in eth grade. 13 of Hispanics, sorry, are white kids 38% and other races are 30. So, we don't even have anywhere near half, right? And and and what what what we're doing for

526
03:51:20.399 --> 03:51:35.920
some of these groups is, you know, we've already gone through we're the lowest cut scores in the country. We've already gone through um you know, all these other terrible terrible things we're now known for nationally. So, I don't care. Um I know that we all want to have our

527
03:51:35.920 --> 03:51:51.760
act together. That's what I keep hearing. I heard it through the last administration. Like everybody kind of wants to have their act together. You want to have the pieces in place. You don't want to confuse the field. I get all that. Um but we will not have everything right in the next year, in the next two years, the next three

528
03:51:51.760 --> 03:52:06.000
years, the next 10 years. Like the the act of school improvement is backbreaking work. I've been in this field a long time. I've I've worked in charter schools. I worked in schools myself with a lot of like this school improvement is the hardest thing we can

529
03:52:06.000 --> 03:52:24.080
do period. And so if we think that we can wait for the test score assessment to come out, we can wait for like the the data to come in for the the 3E framework on military readiness. Like there's a million things that aren't going to be ready and we have to go

530
03:52:24.080 --> 03:52:39.760
anyway. Like we have to go anyway. And so I just feel like um we're doing a great disservice to our kids by not continuing on with the phase in path. I mean you guys, my gosh, I was on the

531
03:52:39.760 --> 03:52:56.640
side of like, you know, let's not rip the band-aid off, right? And we heard so many people come in and say like, it's not fair to go 0 to 60 in one year. And they were right. You don't raise expectations like that. It makes teachers feel um demoralized. Frankly, I

532
03:52:56.640 --> 03:53:12.560
wouldn't have wanted them to say, "Oh, you got to raise, you know, the cut score in one year by 50 points." But I did copy out what we approved in December, right? So I could see what the phase in looked like because you're right. We should have gotten this in our packet. And if I'm right, it looks like

533
03:53:12.560 --> 03:53:30.960
and I don't know how much of a cut score we're doing in this last year. I know you guys are going to get back to us. Yeah, we we'll show you the plan for each subject area and each test because I know that document has ranges showed. >> That's right. >> And so I don't know whether this 2829 is

534
03:53:30.960 --> 03:53:49.760
starting from this 2627 or 27 like I don't know which one of these approaching where y'all are pegging it. But if you if you say you're not going to decrease expectations, then I assume 2829 would still be what we initially agreed would be, which is 453.

535
03:53:49.760 --> 03:54:06.640
So that's saying 400 2526 to 453. So there's no way we're going to expect kids to jump 53 points in one year. So, I don't know why we're now wanting to rip the band-aid off in

536
03:54:06.640 --> 03:54:24.080
one year versus having this lovely approaching thing that changes. Yes, it changes for every subject. It does. Um, that then says, "Okay, what? Here's your north star." Like, we all say want to know the North Star. Like, there's your number for the North Star. And, oh, by

537
03:54:24.080 --> 03:54:39.840
the way, if you're in the approaching bucket, you're still going to be counted as proficient. We're going to hold you harmless for four years just so you can see like this is where I'm aiming for, but I didn't get there. But you know what? I know what I was aiming for. And next year it's going to go up a little bit and it's going to go up a little

538
03:54:39.840 --> 03:54:55.040
after that. But it's a phased in approach. We've already had a prepare in preview year. I just looked at it like we already gave them their scores in 2025. No, they weren't perfect. Were the data probably need to be cleaned? Yes.

539
03:54:55.040 --> 03:55:11.040
But all of these things that I'm seeing and sorry I'm very passionate about this. Um all of these things in my estimation are a department of education challenge. They're hurdles that your staff need to get back their act together. If their data house need to be clean, you you guys need to work with

540
03:55:11.040 --> 03:55:28.479
ODU and help them get your data clean pronto. the test. I don't buy it. Like the the way that the the tests work and if our TAC is any good and if they should be, they know how to correlate a 400 scale on a as a as a um so score to

541
03:55:28.479 --> 03:55:44.239
a 0 to 100 scale. It's called equaentile equating. So they they can do this and the they do this all the time. This is not something that's difficult. Okay? And by the way, we shouldn't let the test um interfere with what we're doing because the test we don't want to break

542
03:55:44.239 --> 03:55:59.439
the trend line. So why would we say like we're going to care all about the new test when we're going to do a bridging study if we know what we're doing and equate the new test to the old test so that we're not breaking the trend line and that we can compare kids across

543
03:55:59.439 --> 03:56:15.680
years. So the test shouldn't be like states change test all the time and they do bridging studies so they can keep the um to keep to keep the scale comparable. So like why are we letting that be the big thing one of the things things that

544
03:56:15.680 --> 03:56:31.520
are going to hold us back. Anyway, I I think I've I've said enough there, but I do want to say that um we made such positive high. I mean, across the country, people were like, "Yay, Virginia's getting their act together." And already I'm seeing, "Oh my gosh,

545
03:56:31.520 --> 03:56:46.720
they're already new administration. They're changing their mind." Like, that's not the headline I want out of this. I want regardless of whether there's a Republican or a Democrat in office, an administration, Virginia's for high standards, and they're going to work together with colleagues that are

546
03:56:46.720 --> 03:57:05.160
on the right, the left, center, I don't care. And we're going to continue to do the right thing by kids on an aggressive uh aggressive yet doable timeline. >> Dr. Bridges question.

547
03:57:06.160 --> 03:57:10.800
the the five proposals that

Part: 2

1
00:01:22.440 --> 00:01:38.840
We Sorry for the technical difficulties. I understand we are back online. So, >> [clears throat] >> I am going to turn it over to Dr. Bridges to restate what you said for public. >> Thank you. I was uh

2
00:01:38.840 --> 00:01:59.520
trying to that the slide we're looking at now, that items two, three, four, and five were predominantly from the JLARC report recommendations. And I understand that number three is a VDOE recommendation, and and items two, four five are

3
00:01:59.520 --> 00:02:16.640
from J Lark and I was asking my colleagues or just welcoming more conversation about those because um I'm I'm assuming large support from the board on those items but I don't want to make I don't want to falsely assume. >> And then number five is different.

4
00:02:16.640 --> 00:02:34.680
As number five says main thing focus on teaching and learning not testing. But we had a significant >> I'm I'm asking about that as part of the J Lark recommendation and then it is So so then we get to provision one here

5
00:02:34.680 --> 00:02:51.120
which is the increasing expectations for proficiency and I was clarifying that when we're looking at what the um board approved in December, we are talking about a five-year phased-in model and and those tables that would be probably be helpful for the public to be able to

6
00:02:51.120 --> 00:03:06.959
see. Um so we are still talking about a phased-in approach um with this category of approaching that gets created for three years and then goes away. Those were my clarifying questions as that >> Yes and hopefully we can uh do a quick

7
00:03:06.959 --> 00:03:23.880
turnaround and get something that really lays this out as clearly as possible for you all but I think that that is an accurate description. It was a four-year phased-in plan. I would say four-year not five because um the real sort of 25 26 there was some conversation about what to do and the

8
00:03:23.880 --> 00:03:41.680
conversation that the board was to not make any changes starting in the 25 26 school year to not make any changes that would impact >> seniors that in 2026 exactly. So the four-year plan that was voted on in December was sort of starting in the 26

9
00:03:41.680 --> 00:03:58.720
27 school year. There would be this new approaching proficiency category. What it would take to be approaching is different for every subject and every grade level. So, it varies by test. Um and students who were scored at the

10
00:03:58.720 --> 00:04:14.080
approaching level would be considered as passing for purposes of accountability and things like that. So, even though it's a new label, they would still be considered passing. Um so, you would have that approaching level would be in place for 26-27.

11
00:04:14.080 --> 00:04:29.400
It would be in place for the 27-28 school year. And it would be in place for the 28-29 school year. What it would take to be approaching is not only different for every test and by math or reading, it is also different in

12
00:04:29.400 --> 00:04:44.160
each and every year. So, those So, that's I think partly why maybe in the boilerplate and things from December, they just gave examples because it would have taken maybe pages and pages to show >> [laughter] >> all of that. Yeah. Um but we we will provide that level of

13
00:04:44.160 --> 00:05:01.160
detail for you. So, you can see how full transparency into it. And then on again on that December plan, in the 29-30 school year, that is when the approaching level is no more. It is sunset. So, in 29-30, you would just have go back to having

14
00:05:01.160 --> 00:05:17.160
the four levels with proficiency being the scores that the board voted on in September. So, the what those 29-30 scores were ultimately going to be to be proficient on every assessment, that was voted on in September.

15
00:05:17.160 --> 00:05:33.680
That sort of four-year phasing plan was voted on in December. If you're trying to figure out which look fluid cuz it came back it came up multiple times. But the plan that we have shown here today varies on the 26-27 school year in that that

16
00:05:33.680 --> 00:05:49.040
approaching category would not exist. It varies in the 27-28 school year in that approaching category would not exist. Instead of having the approaching category, we would be showing to parents and showing to divisions what their

17
00:05:49.040 --> 00:06:04.280
scores would have been as if the full implementation was in effect. So, so that would be the 2029-30 scores under the existing plan the board voted on. That's what would be shown

18
00:06:04.280 --> 00:06:20.880
to the to families and to our divisions and our schools. >> Yeah, so that's Yeah, we just need a presentation because it's your issue issue your show. >> Thank you. So, I I appreciate Thank you for that answer. No, that's okay cuz I I hope the

19
00:06:20.880 --> 00:06:36.880
third So, what we're really talk They're both the the proposal today and the and the the previous board votes, there's always been a phased-in multi-year approach. Because I I do think when we talk about things like a sense of urgency, I have

20
00:06:36.880 --> 00:06:53.160
been getting a really favorable sense that everyone shares those values. So, I want to get really clear about um what the differences are in that one area. And then if I could, the fi- the final question that I had was about number three, the timely data to calculate

21
00:06:53.160 --> 00:07:08.360
mastery in high school. Would that help us with the high school issue because you know, I even though I wasn't on this board, I watched all that that the board did and I'm so pleased to be able to build on that foundation with y'all now. But when when y'all talked about honesty

22
00:07:08.360 --> 00:07:24.200
gap and I read that J-Lar report on what we're doing in terms of labeling high schools right now is like we're not being honest if we keep that this way. So, will that provision with timely data and calculating mastery help us with that what I think is a kind of a false

23
00:07:24.200 --> 00:07:40.880
positive of so many high schools getting labeled to be category when they still have lots of improvement to make? >> So, it may help somewhat, but it's not the major thing that I think is going to affect that. The two things that are probably going to most help get

24
00:07:40.880 --> 00:07:56.840
our high school data to be a little bit more consistent with how we're treating elementary and middle schools, are looking at the JLER recommendations related to the 3E readiness indicator, and then the second is their second policy recommendation about the thresholds to for each performance

25
00:07:56.840 --> 00:08:13.080
category. Because right now we use the same scores. So, it's 90 points to be distinguished for elementary, middle, and high school, even though the underlying data we use is quite different for those grade spans. You know, high schools have graduation rates. Elementary and middle schools do not.

26
00:08:13.080 --> 00:08:28.520
Our graduation rates, thankfully in Virginia, are pretty high. You know, um, elementary and middle schools have growth. High schools right now do not have growth. So, there's underlying differences in the data, but we still are using the same it's 90 points for all of them. And that it So, I think

27
00:08:28.520 --> 00:08:45.839
until we come back at a future time and consider that recommendation as well, that is really it's both 3E and sort of what are the cut points between each uh, performance category that is really going to be the juice from the squeeze. >> That is my second encouragement to my

28
00:08:45.839 --> 00:09:01.600
colleagues is I'd love to hear more from y'all about how you feel about the recommendations two through five here. And do we want to think about accelerating the JLER recommendations given that sense of urgency, um, point that I think is quite compelling.

29
00:09:01.600 --> 00:09:18.160
Beyond, you know, recommendations beyond what, uh, what is currently being So, thank you all for clarification. >> Yep. >> Can I ask a question? >> Thank you, Dr. Bridges. Dr. Wilson. >> Thank you very much for all of the conversation, the clarification. I want

30
00:09:18.160 --> 00:09:35.560
to amplify a few things that I'm hearing, uh, and agree with this idea of urgency. Um, I I agree, uh, Dr. Bridges that we all, I think, share a sense of urgency, and we don't want to flutter step. We don't want to create confusion,

31
00:09:35.560 --> 00:09:53.280
which would then cause some pause at the local level. Um and at the same time thinking about um clearly practically what is possible, doable, etc. to Dr. Northert Northern's um

32
00:09:53.280 --> 00:10:11.440
comment about getting just just getting on with it, right? Can we just get on with it? So, I have several questions um that may or may not be answerable right now. So, uh I know on slide 21, I believe it is, um the proposed transition timeline,

33
00:10:11.440 --> 00:10:28.240
there's a phrase there that uh says without the lift of preparing for multiple significant changes every year. Whose lift are we talking about, right? Um I think that gets to a question that you already So, so what is the barrier

34
00:10:28.240 --> 00:10:42.680
to that? Um I second point, and I'll just get them all out at one time and you answer in whatever way you feel appropriate. Um second point is uh agreeing with

35
00:10:42.680 --> 00:10:59.400
a comparison of timeline. If we know that our end goal is X and it demonstrates urgency, how do the two plans or three plans, if there are such, right? Because I hear the one that was adopted or talked about in September, adopt there was one

36
00:10:59.400 --> 00:11:15.160
adopted in December, and now we're talking about this one in whatever month this is right now. Um so, so how do those three plans or paths differ in getting us to the same end point and whatever the end goal or date may be.

37
00:11:15.160 --> 00:11:31.000
Seeing that visually would be really helpful. The slide on 21's uh slide 21, I understand has some of that information as we're talking about the in June, but it's busy, right? And so, it's it's not necessarily easy to

38
00:11:31.000 --> 00:11:46.160
discern. And then uh just a point of clarification, um as we're thinking about a 4-year versus 5-year implementation plan, I wonder to what extent any of the preparation

39
00:11:46.160 --> 00:12:03.520
work that would be necessary, so if this board were to say, "We want to maintain the the cadence that was prescribed in December." Can practically at this point, can that really be done?

40
00:12:03.520 --> 00:12:20.800
Has the groundwork been laid sufficiently from a an agency perspective to be able to deliver? Um and then the last piece is I think it's important for us not to lose sight of

41
00:12:21.480 --> 00:12:37.680
for whom in this work is most important and who will use the information. Yes, certainly our schools, our local uh the local divisions, local school divisions need the information to be

42
00:12:37.680 --> 00:12:52.280
able to serve our students. There's also though some expectation, I believe, from the public and our parents. And so thinking about what does any change or what does any plan or change in plan

43
00:12:52.280 --> 00:13:08.640
demonstrate, suggest to the end users multiple. And how do we then reconcile all of those things in a way that is going to practically allow us to serve the students that we are here to serve.

44
00:13:08.640 --> 00:13:24.200
Thank you. >> So several questions, do you want to >> Yeah, I will I will do my best to remember the multi-parter. >> And if you don't remember them all, that's okay. >> Yes, no, I mean I think wholeheartedly I think one of the biggest takeaways from this conversation is there is a lack of

45
00:13:24.200 --> 00:13:39.680
transparency about what the current proficiency implementation plan is and I think we can definitely commit to bring that back. Um you know, as soon as tomorrow and I work tonight to get that so that it does become clearer kind of what are the key

46
00:13:39.680 --> 00:13:56.360
differences between this road map and sort of what was pri- previously voted on. Um is the old path feasible? I think one of the hardest parts of that is that because there is a lack of transparency right now, that plan does have some things that

47
00:13:56.360 --> 00:14:10.920
would be taking effect this school year and it hasn't been seen. So just as y'all are sort of kind of remember, what do we what is it? What do you know, our divisions, our family families, our parents have also not seen those details. I will be frank. And that I think is a question about

48
00:14:10.920 --> 00:14:27.120
feasibility especially for next year about that question of you know, one of our these guiding principles here was no surprises. Um so I think that is just something to to bear in mind. I think what it has been made clear and what has been shared

49
00:14:27.120 --> 00:14:44.040
very publicly is the 29-30 version of the current plan, the full implementation, the true north of where we going for each and every subject. You know, we're going from 400 to 446 here. We're going from 400 to

50
00:14:44.040 --> 00:14:59.440
453 on this that test. That is clear. What has not been clear enough in my opinion and I think in the opinion of what this conversation here is, those interim years. What it looks like in between and so that is a key to that question. I think that is a piece that

51
00:14:59.440 --> 00:15:15.080
we would need to address to be sure that we are not surprising anyone, whether that's our leaders or our divisions. >> Before you go to that next point, so have those have those incremental scores been identified and calculated?

52
00:15:15.080 --> 00:15:30.720
>> Um so we have an internal document that has not been shared. What was shared publicly was sort of I think as I can't remember, it may have been you Ms. Burgess was saying oh in this item there were some examples but it wasn't sort of the full we have so many assessments as we know so it wasn't every end of course

53
00:15:30.720 --> 00:15:47.440
assessment it wasn't every grade. Um so there's just some examples of that and and sometimes that was even shown as a range for what the scores would be across three years so it didn't distinguish 26-27 from 27-28 and from 28-29.

54
00:15:47.440 --> 00:16:04.320
So we need to provide the I think that is a key level of transparency that is missing right now. Um and talking about sort of the lift here I do want to be I think there is a lift at both agency and local. Um I I want to be clear that one of the

55
00:16:04.320 --> 00:16:19.320
things we will need to do some of these the the J Lark recommendations in particular have different degrees of difficulty you might say. Um and some of those things are I think maybe we have a pretty clear option but we might have to go through the

56
00:16:19.320 --> 00:16:34.800
regulatory process that takes time. >> [snorts] >> That you know take can take a year just to go from the proposed through final even if the change is relatively simple it's just the process of going out for public comment addressing those public comments and and walking through that.

57
00:16:34.800 --> 00:16:50.280
So we that is something that I think on this albeit complicated slide 21 part of the reason why we have begin regulatory updates happening this year. Because we have to begin that this year.

58
00:16:50.280 --> 00:17:06.040
>> We have a statement which of the J Lark recommendations do you believe are not within the purview of the board to do without regulatory change? >> I think yes. >> Absolutely one or two that have to be a regulatory

59
00:17:06.040 --> 00:17:23.280
>> Yes we can make that >> the options that I'm not immediately identifying ones that absolutely require that we go in for regulation. >> We can bring that back tomorrow. >> agency would would take a position

60
00:17:23.280 --> 00:17:40.040
telling this board what they believe in writing. Required regulatory change. I think that would be a bust. And two, >> [clears throat] >> when we go back and we look at what we implemented I'd also like to be clear about what we said we would

61
00:17:40.040 --> 00:17:55.360
tell the public and the school each of those years. What we talked about. We would publish the results. Superintendents would get it. The parents would get it. The parents would have it on their on their parent report cards and they were going to be able to

62
00:17:55.360 --> 00:18:11.480
talk to the students in the home about it. They were going to be able to send back their feedback for the scores that they released every year. All of that information is That's what we took into consideration when we decided to phase in. The parents were going to know what the

63
00:18:11.480 --> 00:18:29.040
new scores were as the results of the test came have the opportunity to communicate back to the board. And I realize it may be a having this the agency but at the end of the day, everybody said we were prepared to do it. We've been going out talking to

64
00:18:29.040 --> 00:18:45.600
superintendents about this whole process, talking to the teachers and all of the input came back and it was pretty good. We looked at the number of comments that we had. There weren't that many that were in opposition after we finally rolled it out, which is why now I'm trying to understand why is there so

65
00:18:45.600 --> 00:19:02.800
much opposition to the way we were going to do it before because we went out to the public and we talked about it at all these different meetings and we had buy-in everybody. >> [laughter] >> And we looked We looked at The staff looked at if we issued this

66
00:19:02.800 --> 00:19:21.160
test and these questions and the public voted on the questions and where the cut scores would where the cut scores should be based upon all of these community that we put together, all the focus groups that we put together. We came up with the scores after all of that.

67
00:19:21.160 --> 00:19:36.480
>> Uh let me let me pop in on the sort of the the with with with the lift question and and to that very point, Ms. McPherson. So, if you go back, right, sort of to the the biggest lift here is around

68
00:19:36.480 --> 00:19:52.800
thousands and thousands of educators being clear on what proficiency looks like and how that is different from the past. And just to kind of go back to work that has been done, you you you first have to revise and strengthen your standards, right? You

69
00:19:52.800 --> 00:20:09.360
have to be very clear about what students know and be able to do. And as you many of you know, particularly those of you educators, it's many, many pages of content, right? And then as as you all are familiar, and if you go to the website and look at the August

70
00:20:09.360 --> 00:20:25.440
and September content from last year, uh in you know, in in in sort of under the oversight and with support from our TAC, right, which is as Dr. Northern noted, kind of the the group that supports doing this in a fair and consistent way, they did exactly that, right? They took

71
00:20:25.440 --> 00:20:41.640
our standards, this group, which involved more than 250 folks, um which represented educators, subject matter experts, as well as community members for the first time, then went through and they looked at the rigor of those questions, which are now more rigorous because of the standard.

72
00:20:41.640 --> 00:20:58.640
As Deputy Highslap noted, I think there's an open question around the transparency around when standards are adopted versus when they fully appear in tests, right? Because of you need to field test and do that. So, this even sort of whether or not we've been

73
00:20:58.640 --> 00:21:15.680
clear there, but the math test for last year fully reflect the revised standards and the higher rigor point. They are still, because we field tested last year, ELA will not fully reflect that until this year. Um and those cut scores that you then

74
00:21:15.680 --> 00:21:32.160
voted on, I believe it was first review in August, final review in September, reflect what that difference looks like. They reflect the entirety of that difference, right? Between where we are today and the true north. They don't necessarily reflect the incremental. So,

75
00:21:32.160 --> 00:21:47.720
if your true north, your previous, you know, passing is 400 and your true north is 445, like it sort of reflects the difference there, not the 415, the 425, the 435, right? With the the confusing. Our

76
00:21:47.720 --> 00:22:03.800
concern on the from the lift perspective in and and why we are proposing the shift in terms of the multiple significant changes is that to really equip system, the thousands of different educators across the system and those

77
00:22:03.800 --> 00:22:19.600
that support those educators, that, you know, there is not a precise understanding and to get everybody to understand how you would need to move towards that. Now, uh still the most important thing is the true north. What does the 445 look like

78
00:22:19.600 --> 00:22:35.920
in terms of what specific kids, whether that's reading um as a fifth grader that's algebra one as a seventh or eighth grader, um and that, you know, that is, to me, the biggest lift, right? So, that you are actually making sure

79
00:22:35.920 --> 00:22:51.000
that you sort of from evaluating where your kids are at the beginning of the year, understanding where they're strong, where their deficits, where their gaps, excuse me, and how to sort of organize that day-to-day to get those kids across that finish line. I think part of the premise of having higher cut

80
00:22:51.000 --> 00:23:06.000
scores and why I think there is so much urgency, to echo Mr. Hanson's point, is that you have to know exactly what that looks like and how much a kid needs to know and be able to do. That is the biggest lift and I think we know we're we know

81
00:23:06.000 --> 00:23:22.720
prepared to support that conversation this year. I I don't know that we're prepared to be able to describe the difference between a 415 and a 425 just to be totally candid, but I think we're prepared to describe that difference this year. Prepared as you all know to say here are the literacy high quality

82
00:23:22.720 --> 00:23:38.160
instructional materials, here are the math high quality instructional materials to support and to get there. Um but that that to me is is is the biggest lift. I think what we're proposing CEO is is twofold and again this body might not ultimately

83
00:23:38.160 --> 00:23:54.920
agree with that is that there's a lot of noise and the kind of difference across these interim steps versus saying here's what that difference looks like in terms of what students need to be a need to know and be able to do, but we move up then a year to kind of to get there. Um and

84
00:23:54.920 --> 00:24:11.960
that is a much bigger lift than some of the things you've heard this morning around um accountability. There there will be things that are not lifts, but will be hard to deal with. So if you think about what Dr. Bridges notes, I don't know this is a lift, but I think

85
00:24:11.960 --> 00:24:28.240
we're going to get some pushback. If you have 65% of high schools are distinguished today and you're going to ultimately reset that threshold, which again we get numbers, we have two years of results, we look at 3E, we fix 3E in a year, we bring modeling to you next spring. There's not a lift per se for school

86
00:24:28.240 --> 00:24:43.440
divisions. There will be some changes in what they do because of 3E, but there will be you know some pushback as you go to a more normalized distribution that will not say that 65% of high schools are doing that. So there's sort of the real lift related to the most important

87
00:24:43.440 --> 00:24:58.360
thing, which is raising these cut scores and setting the expectation, and then there's the other pieces related to JLARC, some of which will require some shifts in behavior. Whatever we say is different for 3E that will require some changes for high schools,

88
00:24:58.360 --> 00:25:14.160
um and some of it will be around It's a fairly easy change for the department to make, but it will still uh you take some time for school divisions to understand and be able to communicate to their >> I really do. I'll get off my bill wagon just a

89
00:25:14.160 --> 00:25:36.360
minute. I'mma have to go to something Fairfax. I don't understand why somebody we put in a classroom that we say is capable of teaching fourth grade reading

90
00:25:36.360 --> 00:25:54.960
and fourth grade math and they have a set of materials that they can't get those students to perform. We got here because I think we just we got caught in a lot of mush. This is about teaching.

91
00:25:54.960 --> 00:26:13.480
A teacher, materials, a student. You got them for like 6 hours. The more layers we put on top of that, I think the more it becomes a heavy lift. But that's unfortunate.

92
00:26:13.480 --> 00:26:29.960
These parents place these kids in the care of the school system for a certain amount hours, and the goal is materials teach you got it. Surely there's going to be some that are falling [clears throat] behind, but that's once

93
00:26:29.960 --> 00:26:47.560
we figure out where those problems are, that's where I say we put the resources, and we figure out is it a teacher, was it a student, was it the parent? We I think we have to stop and just say we got to get about the business of

94
00:26:47.560 --> 00:27:03.600
teaching. We got too many layers on top of basic education. And students are falling further and further behind. And I I really appreciate the difficulty

95
00:27:03.600 --> 00:27:19.720
it is at this point and where you are and what you have inherited. I think what this board is saying is that the chips are going to have to fall where they got to fall. We got to figure it out. We're just done with waiting. Implement it.

96
00:27:19.720 --> 00:27:36.200
Let's see what happens. And let's put the resources where they need to be. That's my bottom line. Because here's the here's the opposite of that. If we take this new system and we go to 2029 and we're not absolutely sure where

97
00:27:36.200 --> 00:27:53.080
the problems are, we just wasted another 4 years. And we're going to be right back here talking about, "Oh, now we need another system cuz that didn't work." The sooner we figure out where the problem is, no matter how difficult this

98
00:27:53.080 --> 00:28:07.720
is, the better off we're going to be. >> I appreciate your passion and commitment to that. And I think one of the things that I want to just clarify to you a little bit, I think again the absolutely the

99
00:28:07.720 --> 00:28:24.480
scores that this board voted on in September would be a huge monumental improvement for raising expectations for Virginia students. I want to spend the next year focused on that. Not focused on approaching this like ephemeral thing

100
00:28:24.480 --> 00:28:40.960
that is changing each and every year. I want to be sharing with our educators to prepare them for the the change that is coming to actually get there. And I think by in some ways by having this approaching level that is it's confusing. It's an approaching level

101
00:28:40.960 --> 00:28:56.320
that is counts as passing. Like what is it's approaching proficiency but yet it is counted as proficient. That's confusing. And that's not the point where we want to get teachers and and our kids. We want to get them to what this board voted on in 2029-30.

102
00:28:56.320 --> 00:29:12.920
That is what I want to focus on and I think that by having in 2026-27 and 2027-28 those those prepare and preview years, that's what we would be doing. We wouldn't be sharing, so here's how your student did and here's what approaching means and it's going to be different next year. It

103
00:29:12.920 --> 00:29:33.160
would be here's how your student did and here's what it's going to look like when we raise the bar. Period. It's just those things. >> I understand I understand your passion, too. >> Yeah, maybe. >> But I'm saying and that's why they never track off track cuz you're either on the

104
00:29:33.160 --> 00:29:50.160
track or you're off the track. You see you see what I'm saying? >> Yep. >> You get it? >> Yep. >> Okay. I'm going to call on Mr. Robinson in the afternoon. >> Good morning. >> Thank you. Um well, first off on the recommendations

105
00:29:50.160 --> 00:30:06.720
two through five before going back to one, I want to um I commend the urgency to get uh fixed as quickly as possible those changes that will make the system better uh the already strong system that this board got in place better uh without going through the regulatory process and

106
00:30:06.720 --> 00:30:22.720
I want to double down on the recommendation to come back to us with where do the other recommendations fall cuz I think some of them like the high school recommendation number five on three is just going to make the system so tremendously better. Uh even just signaling to the field sooner

107
00:30:22.720 --> 00:30:38.760
that we're getting the regulatory process going even if we can't get it in place um because of technical reasons yet. Uh I think would bring a lot of value to the field and then the ones that are more in the middle uh maybe just go and name, hey, we don't know yet uh because the because then on

108
00:30:38.760 --> 00:30:55.000
those ones maybe we can signal, okay, well, how can the board help? You know, or how can a committee of practitioners and the board help you figure out solutions over the next couple of years on on those, but just that that would just be great signaling to the field. Um,

109
00:30:55.000 --> 00:31:11.200
question before my comment on number one, if in 2026-27, this year, we were to move to what the board already recommended or already voted and passed, um, if we were to do that, uh, would there

110
00:31:11.200 --> 00:31:28.240
still be are there any blind spots we have on standard setting or having the right data in place or anything that would prevent you from getting to your recommendation to have full implementation by 2029? If we were to at least do this board's

111
00:31:28.240 --> 00:31:43.160
recommendation for going ahead and raising having urgency with raising the standards this year, standard I mean the cut scores this year. >> I think from a technical standpoint, nothing. It's mostly just on the communication side cuz again, we really have either found I think discovered in

112
00:31:43.160 --> 00:32:00.160
this conversation the lack of understanding about what exactly 2026-27 looks like for each and every assessment. >> Okay. Um, thank you. Well, my my thought is that the, um, you we are already changing a lot of things in 2026-27.

113
00:32:00.160 --> 00:32:16.920
We're moving on with urgency on these SPS F changes that we can get done. We are streamlining assessments per the legislature's push. We are implementing for the first time the higher standards in ELA per prior recommendations. Your team per your push is moving on getting

114
00:32:16.920 --> 00:32:33.360
out the result assessment results sooner and moving it to a zero and 100 scale. So, all that to say I there's just a ton of changes happening in 2026-27. So, this idea that we're not making any shifts like one big shift in 2028-29, I don't fully I don't buy that one

115
00:32:33.360 --> 00:32:49.040
because I we're already making a lot of shifts in 2026-27. And I think we're just valuing the other shifts over the cut scores. And I I would promote having urgent as least as much urgency on the cut scores as the other changes. Um

116
00:32:49.040 --> 00:33:05.400
one of the things I loved about this presentation was your focus on these values that can guide our conversation the next couple years. I I love the values that proposed. And I think we're just valuing focus and simplification over high expectations,

117
00:33:05.400 --> 00:33:21.040
opportunity for every student, and actionable improvement. And I I I'd like to see us consider um you particularly given where we are in the nation with a 8% of our black students uh proficient and other metrics

118
00:33:21.040 --> 00:33:36.040
named to have urgency to signal to the field uh that we're not going to do the Charlie Brown thing. We we are going to uh there's no chance that we're going to change our minds two or three years from now. We are moving to higher cut scores

119
00:33:36.040 --> 00:33:53.520
with urgency. Um uh and if there were um you know, I do hear and value the concern about this approaching piece being confusing and the communication piece being hard. Um and so uh

120
00:33:53.520 --> 00:34:09.960
you just as a consideration, I I I wonder if there's a um compromise possibilities out there um to move with urgency on doing exactly what the board has already stated for 2026-2027. You're moving with greater urgency in

121
00:34:09.960 --> 00:34:26.679
this proposal to move towards full implementation a year earlier. Um so so are there, you know, with discussion and a lot of people's ideas other than my own, um ways to urgently go ahead and raise the cut scores, whether it's to the 2027-2028 level or to the 2026-2027

122
00:34:26.679 --> 00:34:42.960
level like this year. Um to uh and if we don't like this approaching, if we think that's too confusing for the field, there's got to be ways to still move to higher cut scores this year and not have to do that category. Cuz I I do understand

123
00:34:42.960 --> 00:34:59.200
the desire not to have four shifts four years in a row. Um but I guess my broader point is we can move to two shifts instead of four shifts and have a lot more urgency towards um higher expectations. Uh sorry, the final point there is that the other value that

124
00:34:59.200 --> 00:35:12.760
we said is >> instructional coherence. >> I think right now there's a lot of instructional incoherence, you know, as we happening and just moving to higher cut scores will help the field understand those incoherencies and misalignments

125
00:35:12.760 --> 00:35:28.600
with greater specificity and experience. And I I do want to have an urgency towards the field experiencing um cut scores that are no longer the lowest in the nation to help us experience uh what's going to take to move towards those richer student

126
00:35:28.600 --> 00:35:50.040
experiences our Virginians deserve. >> So, I'm appreciating very much Mr. Robinson's observation about compromise. I mean, that's resonating with me as an opportunity to explore. Um I also in that vein I'm thinking about

127
00:35:50.040 --> 00:36:05.520
So, if our uh the the the ultim- one of the ultimate goals of having scores to begin with is to be able to identify those students who need the most resources, the schools and the students

128
00:36:05.520 --> 00:36:21.480
who need the most resources. So, as we're thinking about introducing cut scores at whatever cadence it may be, for me a question is if that cadence is whether it's annually that we introduce um new cut scores or increasing

129
00:36:21.480 --> 00:36:36.960
incrementally increasing cut scores or we wait until whatever period of time, what are the mechanisms that we can have in place to ensure that even throughout the process as we're moving incrementally, perhaps, to ensure that

130
00:36:36.960 --> 00:36:53.760
those resources are going to the students who need them the most. So, because I hear that as as maybe the the the fear or the concern that we're not getting to our students the resources that they need to be able to move them forward in their learning journey.

131
00:36:53.760 --> 00:37:10.640
>> I appreciate that. And um I think that is an important point to to make as well here is that regardless of any modifications to this road map, we are continuing the accountability system in each and every year. So, we will have

132
00:37:10.640 --> 00:37:26.360
SBSF. We are giving school ratings. A lot of times when states do this type of work, they pause things. They they they say, "Let's put things like let's not do that." So, every year, um so this fall we'll be identifying new targeted support and improvement schools. Those

133
00:37:26.360 --> 00:37:42.560
are our schools that have struggling individual groups of students, whether that's English learners, black students, economically disadvantaged students. That's happening this fall. That will happen next fall as well. It will happen the fall after that. It's every year we do that. So, whether the cut scores go

134
00:37:42.560 --> 00:37:57.640
up or don't, we will be identifying those schools, which I think gets to the especially our students furthest from opportunity. We'll also say that all schools that are federally identified, so if you're in targeted support, if you're in additional targeted support, if you're

135
00:37:57.640 --> 00:38:12.280
in comprehensive support, and we already have a number of those schools right now. They are all eligible for additional funding through the federal um grant for school improvement. So, we as an agency set aside a portion of our

136
00:38:12.280 --> 00:38:28.800
Title I funds, and only divisions and with those schools are even eligible for the funds. So, those resources will also, assuming congressional appropriations continue for title one, those resources will be available each and every year and is something that our

137
00:38:28.800 --> 00:38:45.200
team will be directing to the schools that have those identified schools. In addition, I think as part of this new charge we have from the legislature from JLARC to have agency-wide school improvement, I think when we're thinking about how are we implementing HQIM, we

138
00:38:45.200 --> 00:39:02.360
want to be sure that HQIM implementation is strongest and like effective in those schools that are federally identified. When we're thinking about in the special education office, how are we working with school divisions? Are we Are we prioritizing our divisions that have identified schools? That work is

139
00:39:02.360 --> 00:39:17.400
underway now. We are have a new senior advisor for school improvement that's helping us think through that. >> [clears throat] >> And so I think that is a piece of this work of regardless of timeline on That is happening and that is happening starting this year.

140
00:39:17.400 --> 00:39:33.040
And will continue forward. >> Wait. >> Chair takes prerogative to jump in if that's okay. Um so uh I've as I've been listening in, I think it is uh important we use the word uh true north and I think the question is

141
00:39:33.040 --> 00:39:48.680
true north for who? Um and I am sitting here as both the parent and as a school leader and you know, all I'm looking at is if I have a kid and this is where the conversation happened uh last year, was really the

142
00:39:48.680 --> 00:40:09.040
impact on high school kids. And if you I I actually have two kids who are going into ninth >> Whoa. >> [laughter] >> You're right. >> You and Miss >> Are we connected? >> I have two I do have two uh students who

143
00:40:09.040 --> 00:40:25.800
are going into ninth grade and I'm thinking for my ninth grader when two ninth graders when they the stakes are so incredibly high in terms of preparing them for college and career. What is the standard? And that's really where the conversation started and that's where we

144
00:40:25.800 --> 00:40:41.320
said we have to make it very clear where it was both support and clarity for parents, for administrators, and for kids. What gives us confidence at the end of fourth year, we are putting our kids out in the world and they are ready to be

145
00:40:41.320 --> 00:40:56.800
competitive in college and career and their life pursuits. So, this feels very personal to me having ninth graders going into high school. Um that being said, what I'm thinking as as a principal of a

146
00:40:56.800 --> 00:41:13.720
school, honestly I'm thinking about what is proficient. Like that's where my true north is right now and I'm trying to figure out what I need to do today in the summer time when everyone else is at the beach, how am I preparing my teachers, my staff when they come back

147
00:41:13.720 --> 00:41:29.400
in the fall to get to proficiency. And what I appreciate about what we've done and we have done tremendous work over 3 years and so I do not want that to be taken away. High quality instructional materials, high quality standards. We

148
00:41:29.400 --> 00:41:46.560
have we have done major major work and so for the field to have high quality instruction materials, have high standards going into this year, we we are going to get the feedback that we need to decide to determine whether or not Virginia's kids are on track to be

149
00:41:46.560 --> 00:42:06.960
competitive not just in Virginia and not just in the country, but in the world. That's I think what we're looking for. And when I Oh gosh. Um somebody's touching the lights. It's the first.

150
00:42:06.960 --> 00:42:30.040
Yeah, okay. We're still here. Um I think what >> So that's called >> It is really a sign. >> [laughter] >> Get out your guitar. >> AI Um

151
00:42:30.040 --> 00:42:46.840
So I I am uh I think I want us to as a body to be very clear uh that this is a work session, that we are collecting information so that we can be as informed as possible as we go into tomorrow and and future uh

152
00:42:46.840 --> 00:43:02.360
conversations. The point that we are having I think the most um questions about is around the proficiency cut scores and making sure that we as the current State Board of

153
00:43:02.360 --> 00:43:20.480
Education are incredibly clear about the the decision we're making, the clarity to the field, to the parents, to everyone around how are we going to make Virginia the best in the country? Like that to me is that's where we are um trying to get

154
00:43:20.480 --> 00:43:36.520
some clarity around. And I I want to just really um echo a point that Dr. Northern made. There's intent and there's impact. The intent is we want high standard. The impact is there's there there's some

155
00:43:36.520 --> 00:43:53.040
work that needed to happen from September to November to December that now the the team has tried to do and so I want to applaud the team for trying to make sense and you know, listen and to take into in to account JLARC. Um so but

156
00:43:53.040 --> 00:44:10.080
we are trying to do three different things from my perspective. We're trying to get clarity around proficiency cut scores and a timeline for implementation. We're trying to uh take the advice for JLARC and make sure that it makes sense in the timeline that has

157
00:44:10.080 --> 00:44:27.160
been um outlined. And we are trying to manage feedback from everywhere. Feedback from stakeholders, um a new composition of the board, and I I I go back to what I said earlier is we can do hard things. Um and this is not easy. It

158
00:44:27.160 --> 00:44:44.960
is It is hard, but I think all of our students deserve us to do the hard work to make sure that they're set up for success. And we don't have time to delay. Um we we do have to act with urgency. So, what I I I want us to make

159
00:44:44.960 --> 00:45:00.400
sure we are clear on what we are talking about. I also want to be clear on what actions are we taking or not taking, um but also clear uh feedback to uh Superintendent um Conway is that right

160
00:45:00.400 --> 00:45:17.920
now we do need some more information and clarity to make sure that this whole body is clear about what has already been approved because it lives our values of urgency, accountability, of support. Um I feel incredibly encouraged

161
00:45:17.920 --> 00:45:33.600
that the SPSF is in place and schools are going to get the feedback that they need to make the best decision. Parents are going to get the feedback they need to make the best decisions. So, that is is progress. Um

162
00:45:33.600 --> 00:45:49.280
and I think when I see the one through five, you know, it's like three of them are uh covered in the J Lark conversation presentation we made and I think there was clear support or uh consensus around one, and then the high school just got

163
00:45:49.280 --> 00:46:05.960
kind of thrown in there. And so, I think what one, I want to make sure that we are clear on exactly what we are uh debating, deciding, voting on, but right now, when it the the the the

164
00:46:05.960 --> 00:46:21.880
point of um confusion right now is around the proficiency >> Yes. >> implementation, the timeline. And my sense is at least based on the information we have right here, we don't have it

165
00:46:21.880 --> 00:46:38.720
clearly laid out for this body to in order to really thoughtfully make sure that we are sending the right signal to our key stakeholders. And so I want to you know, see where you feel about that, Superintendent Conway. But then I I do

166
00:46:38.720 --> 00:46:55.240
have some questions about um and this is something Dr. Bridges raised earlier about what first and final review. So I'm going to actually ask Deb to help me out in a minute, but uh when you hear that the kind of like what are we what are we talking about? What are we

167
00:46:55.240 --> 00:47:10.280
deciding? Where is there consensus? How is that um I'm going to say landed on you, Superintendent Conway. >> Oh, yeah. I mean so uh Uh thank you, uh Board President Ashton. And I appreciate

168
00:47:10.280 --> 00:47:28.920
um the the summary there. Um I will note that this was uh intended initially to be just a preview. There's actually a little bit of content on each of these five items for tomorrow. Um so this is feedback for us on the the danger of a little information. Um

169
00:47:28.920 --> 00:47:44.960
uh but in all in all seriousness, um uh it what this conversation has made very clear is um you know, is absolutely the need to be um very specific around each of the

170
00:47:44.960 --> 00:47:59.760
recommendations for which there is some underlying content in your in your packets. I would say the other piece of of of of of useful feedback here is just a recognition of um

171
00:47:59.760 --> 00:48:16.440
how we can do a better job of pulling particularly in a place where we have a different mix of when folks were here and when folks were not. Like all although much of this content is available on the Board of Education website, just we can do a better job of pulling that sort of the relevant content cuz I know

172
00:48:16.440 --> 00:48:33.200
there's a lot of information so that as as Dr. Bridges note we sort of say, "Okay, all the meetings last year, here's what you all agreed to in August after the process that Ms. McPherson described around laying out what the true north is in terms of these cut

173
00:48:33.200 --> 00:48:51.680
scores, and then here's what you decided in December." And just so that there is a thinking in how we reach more into the past and don't just make the assumption because it's on the website that everybody's on the on the same place. I think that's that's that's another key

174
00:48:51.680 --> 00:49:07.720
way in which we we can improve the um other uh just piece that I will note and appreciate everybody's both strong sort of strong moral commitment to kind of to

175
00:49:07.720 --> 00:49:25.280
urgency. I also just want to acknowledge even though it was complicated, we did feel an obligation to kind of bring a bigger picture. I think we maybe needed to break this down into more discrete pieces, but the reality is is that this deal result these came out and

176
00:49:25.280 --> 00:49:41.480
like there are very big operational implement implications in terms of where you draw those thresholds, right? That that will affect schools. Uh there are very big implications around the assessment RFP and it's just more than

177
00:49:41.480 --> 00:49:58.280
an RFP. It is a requirement that as per the law or for the General Assembly that we have to be have you this current contract no later than July January 1st of 2028. And so it is in law. That's not just a nice to have or recommendation that we have

178
00:49:58.280 --> 00:50:15.160
to do that. And you know, and I don't want us, you know, and that we had a very complicated many many page assessment bill that was passed. And so I don't want there to be any interpretation that

179
00:50:15.160 --> 00:50:30.440
that presenting some of these other factors which are more systematic in nature you know, is somehow a distraction from the very very important work of the cut scores. But these are legal obligations that as an agency and as an agency had

180
00:50:30.440 --> 00:50:45.880
that we are accountable for. And so I just I want just to sort of pre-state that. And I'm not saying that anybody is accusing that you know, at this at its core this work is absolutely about kids, but it's also about making sure [snorts] that we are

181
00:50:45.880 --> 00:51:01.720
implementing the laws, right? And and this is the one job I've had in which I've had many many bosses, but I have a governor as a boss, I have a secretary of education, I have this board, and I have 40 senators and 100 delegates all of which through various formats, not to

182
00:51:01.720 --> 00:51:17.880
mention, you know, kind of our our partners who ultimately make this happen in our 131 school divisions. So this has been very helpful. I think we can be more clear, but just wanting to note that part of why we wanted to do this work session bring these pieces together was that this is what

183
00:51:17.880 --> 00:51:34.080
ultimately what we have to execute on. What I think we will definitely do before sending it back to you or president is is to just get really clear on what changes and what doesn't related to the slide on the proficiency scores so

184
00:51:34.080 --> 00:51:49.640
that you understand here's what you approved or didn't approve in December. Again, no change on what those final expectations are, right? And we can put those let's get those in writing in in whatever document we share with you tomorrow and then here's what we'll be

185
00:51:49.640 --> 00:52:07.960
different. Um you know we'll have different perspectives on it. I I And And again, understanding as Dr. Northern noted the difference between intention and impact. I I I would say, you know, personally having spent as much time as I have in Virginia where

186
00:52:07.960 --> 00:52:25.400
the governor changes every year, I think getting to the full true north in 2029, I thought that there might be a little bit more excitement about today than was received. Okay, message received. Feedback is a gift in whatever format it comes in, but the idea of sort of getting to that number that this group

187
00:52:25.400 --> 00:52:42.200
voted on a year earlier, uh you know, it's like when the cat brings the dead mouse and you're not really that excited about it. Um but would be so that we could, you know, in some ways, you know, be there to support that, not have that be an election year, and have some of what the

188
00:52:42.200 --> 00:52:58.240
noise of the last few months is also related to it. >> transition. And I've been through multiple governors and multiple states, and no matter who you are and how long you've been there, you know, with those transitions comes, you know, a little bit of inherent noise and chaos. So, um again, you know, that was our way of

189
00:52:58.240 --> 00:53:13.360
showing respect for urgency. Um it didn't land in the way that we exactly thought it would, um but let us sort of get these two things on a piece of paper, a couple piece of papers for tomorrow, and then to note, um let's figure out what you need to find out on kind of first versus a final

190
00:53:13.360 --> 00:53:35.280
review as we go into tomorrow. Um thank you for those comments, and I do want to thank y'all for the um the theory of change and really sort of pulling back and trying to make sure folks understand how all these pieces fit together, um because I think sometimes we talk so much about one

191
00:53:35.280 --> 00:53:50.320
particular area and we don't think about all the things that have to get into place in order to move the needle of accountability. Um so I do greatly appreciate that. Um I wanted to um comment on something that that you said um

192
00:53:50.320 --> 00:54:07.480
Dr. Conway and now I've lost it in the in the thoughts. Oh, um I think where I would like clarity from our from the discussion of the board is to your point, you brought forth a plan that accelerated and kept the same final

193
00:54:07.480 --> 00:54:23.520
year for cut scores as the board voted on. And so I think we're just talking about those two middle columns and the specificity of when to when to start bumping things up. And so I would really value hearing from folks what the implications of that is.

194
00:54:23.520 --> 00:54:39.280
It's kind of like our lunchtime conversation. I hear about 98% agreement on this board and I think we're really just talking about some very technical updates um that I would appreciate hearing from board members about what it what does this mean if we do or don't shift the

195
00:54:39.280 --> 00:54:55.680
base thing, create the cat- the temporary category. That's not crystal clear to me. All the rest of it I'm I'm fully on board with it. And so I would I would appreciate hearing from uh folks as well as the experts in our department um about what those implications are.

196
00:54:55.680 --> 00:55:11.840
>> Absolutely. I think I think that that's a good um summary all around. You know, the comments that you made as Bridget as well as President Ashton and Superintendent Conway. And I will also say, I mean, that maybe this is getting to your question for for Deb there at the corner is um part of why we wanted to bring this for

197
00:55:11.840 --> 00:55:29.120
our for first review as well is um we want to also hear from the field about this idea cuz they have not also been asked that question directly of do you like for for 26-27, 27-28, is this approaching proficiency level? Would you rather This is really a

198
00:55:29.120 --> 00:55:45.040
question about I actually think there's a great deal of agreement around wanting to give school divisions and parents a preview or a a look on like what higher standards look like in those years. And it's a question of how. And I think we should be This is a question that our

199
00:55:45.040 --> 00:56:02.080
board should debate rigorously. Feedback is a gift, as Superintendent Conway says, but also that we need to hear from our educators, our parents, our division and school leaders, um you know, our state senators and our state delegates. Like we want to hear from everybody. Um so that we can

200
00:56:02.080 --> 00:56:21.240
then come back in August with um a revised, if needed, proposal that reflects all that feedback. Or at least say, "Here's what we heard, good, bad, and in between." >> So, if you look at the US Department of Education in 2022, mapped out our cut

201
00:56:21.240 --> 00:56:37.400
scores compared to everybody else. Virginia here, way at the bottom, we're at 218. Okay. Proficient is 249. So, that's the delta. Okay. About 31 points. Personally, the reason

202
00:56:37.400 --> 00:56:53.880
I wanted, personally, a phase-in of multiple years is because I don't think that you can make that big of a jump that suddenly. I think that it's fair to say, like, "This year, we're going to bump it up five. We're going to bump it up another five. We're going to bump it up another

203
00:56:53.880 --> 00:57:10.040
five." You know what I mean? Trying to get from there to there is going to demoralize, I think, a lot of our educators. See that we expected that much in one year. Um I feel like if we delay cut scores, it weakens momentum. Like we've got momentum. I feel like it takes away

204
00:57:10.040 --> 00:57:25.120
some of the incentive to adjust to adjust instruction. That's another big one for me. Um but, back to this point, the biggest thing I think is just the delta, because we're the lowest. We have so much ground to make up compared to the rest of the

205
00:57:25.120 --> 00:57:42.320
country that we need multiple years to get there. Like I feel I just feel like we can't make that big of a jump, and we know we're now tied to make proficient. And again, you know, you can go to the department, you can see like how much we've got to how much we've got to make up. So, that's to me is um you know, and

206
00:57:42.320 --> 00:57:57.560
I get it like to me, I'd rather give the field another year, and I know it's hard hard for me to say this, but I'd rather give them another year and give them more time than than wait on the cut scores. Like, I I I think we're all saying that the cut

207
00:57:57.560 --> 00:58:14.600
scores are important for us to signal that we're serious about this, to signal that we're starting this process of raising them Um and that uh yeah, we're figuring it out to this point of like communications with you guys. Like, it is so important. And if

208
00:58:14.600 --> 00:58:31.520
there's not a mechanism for the department to be um communicating like every week with districts and principals because like they need that, right? So, that communication part is so important. So, um I agree that that's um something we need to work on.

209
00:58:31.880 --> 00:58:47.600
>> Any questions, Cherry? >> Yeah, the question about the vote was if we vote about implementation, let's talk about implementation cuz you talk about fast approaching, but we did talk about a sim thing in 12th grade students, but we

210
00:58:47.600 --> 00:59:05.720
talked about implementing scores. And I was just looking at some information about So, if the student's unable to perform at the national level, okay, as Nate had identified,

211
00:59:05.720 --> 00:59:22.680
what do you think the likelihood is that they can pass an SAT or an ACT? What do you think the research shows? If they're not at that level, their ability to pass a college entrance exam is almost nil.

212
00:59:22.680 --> 00:59:38.880
So, that's why I'm concerned about the leg because if we don't tell people where they are now and move that needle 4 years from now those kids don't stand a chance. So, let's just talk about what we said about

213
00:59:38.880 --> 00:59:55.960
we were exempting the 12th graders, but when we were going to really implement when people were going to be told exactly where they were. That's my concern. >> And I I appreciate that as someone who's done a a lot of work on high school graduation assessment requirements in the past. And I do

214
00:59:55.960 --> 01:00:11.840
want to be clear to you that the road map we're bringing forward makes no change to the vote that this board made around the class of 2026. I don't think the board fully got to discussing the class of 2027 and the class of 2028 because we know a lot of students take

215
01:00:11.840 --> 01:00:28.160
our assessments very early in their high school career. And they may retake them, but you know, they they start taking some of these SOLs for verified credit in ninth grade. So, we we can't just sort of think about our 12th grade students. We have to back it up a few years as well to think about our freshmen and our sophomores in high

216
01:00:28.160 --> 01:00:49.480
school. Yeah. Yeah. >> what the impact was going to be and when it was finally going to hit where it would impact the complete fail rate for graduation. So, we phased all of that in.

217
01:00:49.480 --> 01:01:04.200
So, if >> Yeah, I think the the specific piece here is the question I think that maybe was not specifically addressed was sort of for say 2027 when you were going to have that approaching and the proficient level.

218
01:01:04.200 --> 01:01:18.960
What is the standard for verified credit for graduation? Is it proficient, which is our you know, the true north innate proficient? Is it approaching? Is it something else? Is it something more like the current 400? That is a I'm not sure that that

219
01:01:18.960 --> 01:01:37.520
question was specifically addressed um to the extent that um sort of we would need to to prevent provide that clarity to our students so that they and our teachers they knew exactly what was needed for graduation purposes. >> May I just say um the intent was

220
01:01:37.520 --> 01:01:53.920
there was no direct impact on kids on high schoolers. That was the intent and so >> That was the intention. >> Well, it may not have been you know >> explicitly stated. >> the the intent was that while we were >> It would remain 400 essentially for

221
01:01:53.920 --> 01:02:09.400
>> they would have the you know, we wouldn't say oh, the cut scores got raised and now you have to retake it or you're not eligible for verified credit. But you know, again just want to over communicate. The intent was to >> was no. Yes.

222
01:02:09.400 --> 01:02:25.440
>> The specifics may we may not have fully fleshed out. But Mr. Henson >> Just a process question for tomorrow just again thank you both super very on my end just your your team it's been very very helpful and

223
01:02:25.440 --> 01:02:42.320
um and maybe just some counsel with the the jailer recommendations is and I think there was a legislative mission by August 1st if I remember correctly and I'm just throwing this out. I don't know if it's a good idea or bad idea but just maybe for our consideration tomorrow is

224
01:02:42.320 --> 01:02:59.640
to maybe bifurcate because I do sense a good deal of um unity and uh re-session on but uh recommendations that they had in there I know and I think if those are put out

225
01:02:59.640 --> 01:03:15.240
there for first review seems like that could be on a a glide path report to the legislature on April 1 and then for August you know, the second and final review and then other issues um where I think board may

226
01:03:15.240 --> 01:03:31.520
need to have deeper considerations and again I'm not maybe we need to have a sense of urgency tomorrow and get it all done. But um just it's maybe as everybody's doing their midnight work and pulling stuff together it might just be a way of

227
01:03:31.520 --> 01:03:47.000
at least making sure we get what we need to get done with the legislative report tomorrow but just an idea. >> No, I think that's that's helpful and to clarify we wanted to bring this together as a unified package in particular because

228
01:03:47.000 --> 01:04:03.600
we've already gotten questions from divisions of what are the cut scores this year? What are they? Tell us what they are for grades for every test every grade like we don't know. We need to get that information out and so in order to bring this forward now you know we wanted to be sure we would have that vote in August on that issue

229
01:04:03.600 --> 01:04:19.320
so that we can be crystal clear with our divisions what the expectations are this year. The report that is going to be sent to the General Assembly is only talking about the JLARC pieces. That is what the legislation mandated us to do. So the the legislation itself has

230
01:04:19.320 --> 01:04:35.600
already told us that that is just how are we think how is it how is the VDOE how is the board thinking about sequencing and timing the consideration of the JLARC recommendations. >> We will adjust the report that they gave us to be what's >> Yeah, so I think the part of the reason

231
01:04:35.600 --> 01:04:51.400
for for bringing all of this together was again just that we know going back to that theory of change you know these things are they're related and we are getting questions now from our from our divisions from families from from the field that just needs to know what's happening in 26-27

232
01:04:51.400 --> 01:05:09.520
for assessment and for accountability. So we're trying to meet their requests while also recognizing too we have this additional requirement of what we provide to the General Assembly in August related specifically just to JLARC. >> All right, I'm going to be first of all

233
01:05:09.520 --> 01:05:36.760
I think you're in uh one >> I think yeah week six, I think. >> And all the thought that went into the proposal and your construction of the SBSF we're seeing I'm seeing across the state Commonwealth already

234
01:05:36.760 --> 01:05:52.920
schools amplifying attention to special needs students, black students, multilingual language superintendents putting out statements about how we're going to have a laser-like focus on these issues in a way that I haven't

235
01:05:52.920 --> 01:06:09.400
seen with an urgency. And I know that's a direct result of your this board's Superintendent Conway and others work and and I think on that issue the board ultimately did what

236
01:06:09.400 --> 01:06:26.560
had us doing at North Star. And as we're thinking about I'm ultimately fully on board with yes, this is very complicated and we need feedback from the field in the how. I think it could be construed this proposal as

237
01:06:26.560 --> 01:06:42.120
getting feedback from the field on whether. And that may not be I don't think that that's the intent and I think it's risky of us as a board to send a signal that we're asking whether to raise cut

238
01:06:42.120 --> 01:06:56.800
scores and so I already stated where I stand in terms of wanting cut scores raised this year at least doing two as opposed to only one shift but in general I just wanted to

239
01:06:56.800 --> 01:07:13.680
name that that same North Star that uh yourself Superintendent and the team made possible with the framework Uh, as we think about what to bring to the field. I hope it's not just do we do what the board voted on December or do we do this? It's it's something that's

240
01:07:13.680 --> 01:07:35.640
more into what's it going to take for this to be successful cuz then that could connect to JLARC's older report on school funding. And what it's going to take for us to truly uh, support schools in achieving this. >> [laughter] >> I did.

241
01:07:35.640 --> 01:07:51.240
Um, first of all, my children when they were little got me a t-shirt for Mother's Day that said it was a Life is Good shirt and it said glass half full, you seen those. Cuz I tend to look at things glass half full and it's not a necessarily bad trait. As I have sat here and listened to all my colleagues,

242
01:07:51.240 --> 01:08:06.720
you know, I don't care what anybody says when they're watching this as we're meeting together, every single person who's here in the audience or on the stage or behind the scenes cares so deeply for our students in

243
01:08:06.720 --> 01:08:23.319
Virginia. That's what matters most and at the end of the day, that's all that really matters. And if I if this if this had been a church service, I would have sit been saying amen to every uh, one of my colleagues. Everybody had great things to share and we are all pretty

244
01:08:23.319 --> 01:08:40.560
much on the same page. We're not that different in what we want in the outcome that we want. And there are there's been some very valid concerns, you know, pro and con as to what what we do from here forward. Um, one thing I would I would want to echo like with once one thing that Amber said that I was practically

245
01:08:40.560 --> 01:08:57.000
shaking my head about as a former teacher, I do wonder if we do prolong implementing changes as Amber pointed out, that to me sounds more challenging for a classroom teacher

246
01:08:57.000 --> 01:09:12.560
and administrator to go from one score and jump, you know, and ultimately to the higher scores. That sounds more challenging to me if I was back in the classroom than if we did it like we had voted on in December. So,

247
01:09:12.560 --> 01:09:29.440
I'm open. I'm open. There's pros and cons to everything. I don't think um I think we've had some healthy discussions today and I'm very proud to have been part of that even though I was over here pretty much just listening and shaking my head, but um we have some more to do, but I think we can get there. And thank all of you for

248
01:09:29.440 --> 01:09:58.480
your hard work. I know you've put many hours into it. So, thank you. >> session. That ends this work today and we'll be back tomorrow if we're here. Okay. We'll entertain a motion to this special

249
01:09:58.480 --> 01:10:19.000
meeting. >> [laughter] >> Second. >> Sorry. We are going to that ends our work session. Uh thank you uh uh Superintendent Conway, staff for your presentations today. May I entertain a

250
01:10:19.000 --> 01:11:46.720
motion to adjourn? Is there a second? Okay. I don't think I Okay, thank you. Adjourned. >> Hey.