Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>> 9:59.
AND A QUORUM OF
THE BOARD IS PRESENT
AND FOR THE AUDIENCE MEMBERS--
SOME OF THE BOARD GOT CAUGHT UP
IN AN ACCIDENT COMING
FROM DETROIT SO WE APPRECIATE
YOUR STICKING IT OUT AND
GETTING HERE-- THANK YOU.
STATE BOARD OF ED MEETING
OF DECEMBER 17, 2013
IS CALLED TO ORDER.
THE FIRST ITEM IS APPROVAL
OF AGENDA AND ORDER OF PRIORITY.
CAN I HAVE A MOTION PLEASE?
>> SUPPORT.
>> JOHN.
SUPPORTED BY DAN, I THINK.
ANY ADDITIONS, DELETIONS?
ALL IN FAVOR-- AYE.
>> AYE.
>> OPPOSED, SAME.
I THINK EILEEN IS GOING TO
JOIN US BY PHONE.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S
HAPPENED YET.
>> EILEEN, ARE YOU ON THE PHONE?
SHE THOUGHT SHE'D BE DELAYED.
>> OKAY.
>> BUT SHE SAID SHE'D BE
ON THE PHONE FOR MOST
OF THE MEETING.
>> I KNOW WE HAVE ONE BOARD
MEMBER WHO NEEDS TO LEAVE ABOUT
3:45 PM, SO WE'LL TRY TO
ORGANIZE OUR TIME.
AND PLEASE FEEL FREE IF I AM NOT
ON TOP OF THAT TO REARRANGE
THE AFTERNOON IF IT LOOKS LIKE
WE'RE OFF-KILTER A LITTLE BIT--
>> SUPERINTENDENT.
>> YES, MA'AM.
>> AND THERE'S A BOARD MEMBER
THAT NEEDS MORE THAN TEN MINUTES
TO EAT LUNCH SO HOPEFULLY
WE MANAGE MORE TIME--
[LAUGHTER]
>> OKAY.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THAT WILL BE GOOD.
NOTED, DUALLY NOTED.
SO ALL IN FAVOR, AYE.
OR DID I DO THAT?
>> YOU DID THAT.
>> THANK YOU.
MERTZ.
>> OKAY, I WOULD LIKE TO
INTRODUCE THE PEOPLE
SEATED AROUND THE TABLE.
TO MY LEFT IS MIKE FLANAGAN.
HE IS THE STATE SUPERINTENDENT.
HE SERVES AS CHAIRMAN
OF THE BOARD.
TO HIS LEFT, JOHN AUSTIN.
HE IS THE PRESIDENT
OF THE BOARD.
HE RESIDES IN ANN ARBOR.
CASANDRA ULBRICH IS THE BOARD'S
VICE PRESIDENT FROM
ROCHESTER HILLS.
DAN VARNER, THE BOARD'S
SECRETARY FROM DETROIT.
LUPE RAMOS-MONTIGNY,
BOARD MEMBER FROM GRAND RAPIDS.
MICHIGAN TEACHER OF THE YEAR,
GARY ABUD JR., HE COMES FROM
GROSSE POINTE PUBLIC SCHOOL
SYSTEM, NORTH HIGH SCHOOL,
WHERE HE IS A PHYSICS
AND CHEMISTRY INSTRUCTOR.
AND ACROSS THE TABLE,
CRAIG RUFF.
HE IS FROM THE GOVERNOR'S
OFFICE-- THE EDUCATION ADVISOR.
EILEEN WEISER, AS WE JUST
MENTIONED WILL BE ON THE PHONE.
SHE IS BOARD MEMBER
FROM ANN ARBOR.
KATHLEEN STRAUS, BOARD MEMBER
FROM DETROIT.
MICHELLE FECTEAU, BOARD MEMBER
FROM DETROIT.
SHE IS THE BOARD'S NASBE LIASON.
IT'S THEIR ASSOCIATION.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
STATE BOARDS OF EDUCATION.
NEXT TO ME, THE BOARD'S
TREASURER, RICHARD ZEILE
FROM DEARBORN-- THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU MERTZ.
WE'RE GOING TO START WITH A--
WELL I'M GOING TO JUST SAY IT--
I HAVE TO ADMIT
IT WON'T BE FOREVER.
IT IS ANOTHER SHORTER PERIOD
OF TIME, BUT I'M GOING TO USE
MY GRANDKIDS TO GET US THINKING
ABOUT KIDS FOR A MINUTE.
AND I'LL TELL YOU WHY THIS ONE
IS IMPORTANT IN A MOMENT.
[VIDEO PRESENTATION]
>> OKAY.
I WAS A DRUMMER.
MY SON, WILL'S,
FATHER WAS A DRUMMER.
HE LITERALLY OPENED THAT UP
AT HIS BIRTHDAY LAST THURSDAY.
THEY PUT IT OUT AND HE STARTED
DOING THAT.
[LAUGHTER]
NOW, HE'S PROBABLY
SEEN IT OCCASIONALLY.
BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS STILL
PRETTY GOOD.
AND IT WAS JUST REALLY ON
A SERIOUS NOTE, I WANTED TO SAY,
OUR KIDS HAVE POTENTIAL
YOU DON'T KNOW, AND OFTEN
YOU CAN'T RECOGNIZE UNTIL
KIND OF THESE INTERESTING EVENTS
THAT HAPPEN, AND THEY ALL HAVE
SOME GIFTS THAT WE NEED
TO TRY TO FIND.
SO I AM LOOKING FOR
A ROCK STAR HERE.
I'LL BE THE GRANDPA THAT
GOES TO ALL THE ROCK CONCERTS.
I WANTED TO TAKE A MOMENT,
AND I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE
IMPORTANT GIVEN THAT
CHRIS AND GONGWER
JUMPED THE GUN AND WE DO
AN INTERVIEW YESTERDAY,
AND HE SAYS, "WELL, IT'LL
BE NEXT WEEK."
AND THEN HE WENT BACK,
AND THE BOSS APPARENTLY SAID,
"LET'S DO IT THIS MORNING."
SO I THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE
APPROPRIATE WHILE HE'S HERE,
BECAUSE HE'S OFTEN NOT HERE
IN THE AFTERNOON, TO JUST GET
A FEW THINGS ON THE TABLE
RELATED TO SOME ISSUES
LAST WEEK, AND THEN SEE IF
THERE IS ANY COMMENTARY--
JOHN OR OTHERS,
THEN MAYBE SOME MORE
IN THE AFTERNOON.
BUT I WANTED TO MENTION
A FEW THINGS.
ONE IS THAT-- I THINK IT IS
IMPORTANT, BEYOND KIND OF
THE PRESS RELEASES WE DID,
TO SAY THERE IS TWO THINGS
GOING ON.
ONE IS RELATED TO SO-CALLED
SCHOOLS GOING INTO
THE STATE REFORM DISTRICT.
ONE IS IMPLEMENTING A LAW
THAT WAS PASSED IN 2009,
AND CALLED FOR US,
OVER A PERIOD OF TIME, TO LOOK
AT ALL 4,000 SCHOOLS AND TO
DETERMINE IF THERE ARE SOME.
AND I THINK WE DID A BETTER--
I TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS--
DID A BETTER JOB LATER
IN THE WEEK TO SAY,
"IT'S A SMALL NUMBER."
I MEAN OUT OF 4000,
IT'S A HANDFUL.
BUT OVER THAT PERIOD OF TIME
THERE IS NO PROGRESS.
I MEAN ZERO.
AND WE ARE STILL VETTING THAT.
THAT'S NOT JUST FOR KIND
OF POLITICAL REASONS TO
SAY THAT.
WE ARE STILL VETTING IT
BECAUSE WE KNOW WE HAVE TO
GET IT RIGHT.
AND THE INTERESTING PART
FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW ON
THE FIRST PRESS RELEASE--
WHICH I THINK MARTY IS
VERY TALENTED ON THIS STUFF--
BUT YOU CAN'T ALWAYS TELL
HOW DIFFERENT SOURCES
ARE GOING TO RUN WITH IT.
IT WAS ALMOST AS IF IT WAS
AN ANNOUNCEMENT THAT WE
WERE GOING TO DO IT IN '14,
WHEN REALLY WHAT IT WAS
INTENDED TO DO WAS TO SAY,
"WE'VE BEEN SAYING
AND BUILDING UP THAT IT
WAS GOING TO BE DONE IN '13,"
MEANING PROBABLY THIS MONTH.
AND INSTEAD WE WANTED TO
MAKE CLEAR THAT BASED ON
THE VETTING AND TO GET
THIS RIGHT AND TO BE FAIR.
IT WOULDN'T BE UNTIL AT
LEAST '14.
PROBABLY NOT ANYTHING
LIKE JANUARY.
THAT WAS JUST TO LEAVE
OURSELVES SOME ROOM HERE.
SO THAT WAS ONE THING.
IT IS IMPLEMENTING A LAW,
AND THERE IS A SENATOR WHO
I HAVE HIGH REGARD FOR,
SO I DON'T WANT TO SAY
TOO MUCH, BUT I WAS
DISAPPOINTED THAT HE WAS
A CO-SPONSOR OF THE BILL.
AND THEN IS KIND OF
CRITICIZING US FOR
CARRYING OUT WHAT IS
CALLED FOR IN THE BILL--
I'M SORRY, IN THE LAW.
A SEPARATE ISSUE IS--
IT'S BEEN A DISTRESSING THING
FOR US IN THE DEPARTMENT IS--
IF YOU ONLY HAVE ONE ENTITY
THAT YOU CAN ACTUALLY--
I MEAN FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW,
WE'RE PUTTING IT
INTO A SCHOOL REFORM
OFFICE FROM THE 2009 LAW.
IF YOU ONLY HAVE ONE ENTITY
TO WHICH THOSE SCHOOLS
CAN BE PLACED,
ESPECIALLY IF THERE'S--
I DON'T WANT TO TAKE SIDES
ON THIS, BUT THERE IS
LEGITIMATE DEBATE ABOUT
THE PLUSES AND MINUSES
OF THAT ENTITY.
THAT'S WHEN I-- IT WAS MY CALL--
BUT DECIDED THAT
DO WE HAVE A WAY TO TRY TO
THINK ABOUT OTHER ENTITIES
LIKE ISDS, LOCAL DISTRICTS,
MAYBE SOME WE HAVEN'T
EVEN THOUGHT ABOUT.
SO THAT WHEN THAT DAY
HAPPENS, THE AUTOMATIC
ISN'T TO-- TO BE BLUNT
TO THE EAA-- AND THAT'S
NOT SAYING...
I DON'T WANT TO SAY
ANYTHING ABOUT THAT.
THE BOTTOM LINE IS, I THINK
THEY ARE WORKING AT HAVING
A SYSTEM THAT WILL
WORK FOR KIDS.
WE NEED TO HAVE
MULTIPLE OPTIONS.
SO I WAS DISAPPOINTED WHEN
BY THE END OF THE WEEK,
WHEN IT LOOKED LIKE THERE
MIGHT BE OTHER ENTITIES
CREATED IN THIS NEW LAW
THAT MIGHT TAKE PLACE, AND
WITH A PAUSE, WHICH WOULD
HAVE BEEN FINE--
THAT WOULD BE AN IDEAL
WAY TO DO IT.
THEN YOU'D HAVE
KIND OF TWO LAWS.
ONE WOULD BE THE 2009 LAW
WHICH CONTINUES TO CALL
FOR US TO PLACE SCHOOLS,
A HANDFUL, INTO THE STATE
REFORM DISTRICT, AND THEN--
IT'S ALWAYS BETTER
TO BE CODIFIED.
SO THAT IS A POLICY ISSUE,
THAT PART.
AND THE BOARD DID, TO YOUR
CREDIT, STRUGGLE A BIT AND
HAD SOME DIFFERENT POINTS
OF VIEW ON HOW TO CODIFY
THAT, AND PROBABLY NOW
DESERVE SOME NEW THINKING
ABOUT HOW TO CODIFY OR
WHAT TO SUPPORT IN
CODIFYING THE SECOND PIECE.
WHAT I REALLY NEED TO MAKE
CLEAR IS THAT THE FIRST
PIECE HAS NOTHING TO DO
WITH THE SECOND PIECE,
OTHER THAN I,
I'LL SPEAK FOR MYSELF,
AM CONCERNED ABOUT PUTTING
INTO THE STATE REFORM
DISTRICT AND ONLY
HAVING ONE OPTION.
AND THERE IS A NUMBER OF
REASONS, INCLUDING--
EVEN THOUGH THERE IS ONLY
A SMALL NUMBER--
LET'S SAY JUST FOR THE SAKE
OF DISCUSSION SAY IT WAS
15 OR SOMETHING-- THE EAA
CAN'T HANDLE 15 SCHOOLS.
SO, THERE'S LOTS OF REASONS
TO BE THINKING ABOUT
OTHER ENTITIES, AND SOME
MAY BE MORE APPROPRIATE.
THE SECOND THING WAS--
HOW DO SCHOOLS GET OUT?
I MEAN THE CONCERN IS THAT
EVEN THOUGH IT'S FOUR
YEARS LATER, AND THE SAME
SENATOR SAID, "WELL IT
TOOK THEM A LONG TIME,"
AND DIDN'T WANT US TO DO IT,
BUT THEN ALSO SAID,
"IT TOOK A LONG TIME
TO DO IT," IT'S BECAUSE
THE LAW CALLED FOR US TO
WAIT FOR THREE COHORTS,
AND KIND OF GIVE THEM
A CHANCE, WHICH IS
TOTALLY APPROPRIATE.
GIVE SCHOOLS A CHANCE.
AND THE OVERWHELMING
NUMBER OF THOSE IN
THE SO-CALLED "BOTTOM 5%"
ARE GOING THIS WAY.
AND THAT'S WITH ALL
THE CHALLENGES IN THE WORLD.
POVERTY-- I'M GENERALIZING,
BUT A LOT OF THEM
ARE STRUCK WITH POVERTY,
AND HAVE A LOT OF KIDS
THAT COME TO SCHOOL
WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING THEIR
LETTERS, AND THIS IS RURAL--
THIS IS A MISCONCEPTION
THAT THIS IS ALL
ABOUT URBAN AMERICA.
IT'S NOT.
I MEAN, IF YOU SAW SOME OF
OUR WORK RELATED TO
THE MONITORING OF THESE.
THESE ARE SCHOOLS
IN VERY DIFFERENT PLACES.
THEY'RE NOT ALL IN
WHAT WE PERCEIVE TO BE
KIND OF URBAN PROBLEM.
THERE IS A HEAVY
CORRELATION TO SCHOOLS
WITH KIDS IN POVERTY,
RURAL AND URBAN, AND TO
SOME DEGREE, SUBURBAN.
SO THEY ARE GOING LIKE THIS--
AND SO THAT WAS PART OF
WHAT WAS GOING ON LAST WEEK.
NOW, HERE'S WHAT I THINK
WE NEED TO DO AS A DEPARTMENT
FOR THE FIRST PART OF THE LAW.
WE'RE TRYING TO GET SOME
UNDERSTANDING FROM OUR
ATTORNEY GENERALS.
AS YOU KNOW, WE HAVE SOME
ASSIGNED TO US AS A
DEPARTMENT-- ON WHAT OUR
OPTIONS MAY BE AS
A DEPARTMENT UNDER
THE ORIGINAL LAW.
AND I'M GOING TO JUST SAY THIS,
IF WE FIND OUT THAT
WE HAVE OTHER OPTIONS
WITHOUT LEGISLATION TO
DETERMINE THAT THESE
SCHOOLS GO INTO OTHER
ENTITIES LIKE ISDs,
OR LET'S SAY A NEXT DOOR
NEIGHBORING PUBLIC SCHOOL
THAT HAS SIMILAR
SOCIO-ECONOMICS, AND IS
DOING REALLY WELL,
AND THE EAA--
ALL OF THOSE ABOVE.
THEN THOSE SHOULD BE
THINGS THAT WE WOULD WANT
TO HAVE IN OUR TOOLBOX.
BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO
BE LIMITED TO JUST THAT.
BUT THAT'S FOR ANOTHER DAY.
I MEAN, I WAS HOPING TO
HAVE SOME FEEDBACK SO WE
COULD SPEAK ABOUT THAT TODAY.
I MEAN, WE JUST DON'T
HAVE A SENSE YET.
THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME
WORDING IN THAT LAW WHICH
MIGHT GIVE THAT
TO THE DEPARTMENT.
AND BY THE WAY, IT'S NOT MEANT--
I DON'T KNOW THE INTENT
OF THE LAW, BUT I THINK
THE INTENT OF THE LAW
AT THE TIME WASN'T TO
BE DISRESPECTFUL TO
THE STATE BOARD OR
THE GOVERNOR OR ANYONE ELSE.
IT WAS JUST SAYING, LET'S
PUT IT IN AN ENTITY THAT...
YOU KNOW, DOESN'T HAVE--
IN THE BEST SENSE,
DOESN'T HAVE ELECTED LEADERS.
THAT'S WHY I THINK THIS
WAS PUT TO THE DEPARTMENT.
NOT BECAUSE OF DISRESPECT
TO THE GOVERNOR,
OR THE STATE BOARD.
BUT THAT PART WAS FOR
THE DEPARTMENT TO DETERMINE.
THE PART ABOUT POLICY ON
WHAT SHOULD BE A LAW TO
KIND OF BE THE COMPLEMENT
TO THIS FIRST ONE, WHICH
DIDN'T HAVE ALL THE PIECES
COMPLETE-- AND I THINK
THE REASON IT DIDN'T HAVE
ALL THE PIECES COMPLETE
IN 2009 IS YOU WERE AT LEAST
THREE OR FOUR YEARS AWAY
FROM PUTTING ANY SCHOOLS IN.
WE WERE HOPING IN THAT
PERIOD OF TIME THAT THERE
WOULD HAVE BEEN SOME
COMPLEMENTARY LEGISLATION
THAT WOULD BE CLEARER
ABOUT HOW TO DO THAT,
WHAT WOULD HAPPEN, HOW DO
THEY COME OUT, AND ARE THERE
MORE THAN ONE ENTITY.
LET ME JUST LOOK AT
MY NOTE FOR ONE SECOND,
AND THEN MAYBE JOHN...
SO THE EAA, FRANKLY, IS
THE ONLY VEHICLE AT THIS POINT.
AND, YOU KNOW, I KNOW
THERE IS DISAGREEMENT
ABOUT THIS, BUT I THINK
THEY'RE WORKIN' HARD AT IT.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT
THERE AREN'T OTHER OPTIONS
THAT ARE AS APPROPRIATE
OR MORE APPROPRIATE FOR
A GIVEN SCHOOL THAT MIGHT BE--
WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT,
IT'S THE MOST SEVERE THING
SHORT OF-- WELL,
IT MAY BE THE MOST SEVERE
THING THAT CAN BE DONE
IS SUDDENLY A DISTRICT
LOSES ITS SCHOOL
FOR SOME PERIOD OF TIME.
NOT FOREVER, SO THAT'S WHY
WE ARE REALLY THOUGHTFUL.
I CAN'T TELL YOU--
WE SPENT THOUSANDS
OF HOURS ON THIS.
I DON'T THINK I'M
EXAGGERATING TO SAY THAT.
THIS IS A DAILY...
CHALLENGE FOR US, AND ESPECIALLY
THE LAST FEW MONTHS.
AND IT DOES COME HEARTFELT
TO A PERSON HERE THAT I
WORKED WITH, THAT THIS
HANDFUL, SOMETHING ELSE
HAS TO HAPPEN FOR THOSE KIDS.
AND THEN THERE NEEDS TO BE
A FAIR APPROACH FOR, OKAY,
WHEN THAT'S RESOLVED,
"HOW DO THEY GO BACK TO
A SCHOOL DISTRICT THAT THEN
CAN EMBRACE THEM AGAIN?"
I THINK I COULD STOP FOR NOW.
JOHN, I KNOW YOU WANT TO--
>> WE'VE BEEN TALKING,
ALL OF US, AND I THINK
IT IS A MOMENT WHERE
WE CAN THINK OF SOME
BOTH CLEAR AND HELPFUL
POLICY DIRECTION ON
THE TURNAROUND STRATEGY.
I THINK FROM OUR POINT
OF VIEW, AND CERTAINLY
MY POINT OF VIEW-- IT IS
VERY IMPORTANT THAT
WE HAVE A SCHOOL TURNAROUND
STRATEGY THAT THIS BOARD
SUPPORTS AND HELPS DEFINE,
THAT MIKE SUPPORTS AND
HELPS ANIMATE, AND HELPS
PULL THE TRIGGER ON,
CERTAINLY, AND THAT
HOPEFULLY, THE GOVERNOR
AND THE LEGISLATURE SUPPORT,
AS WELL, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY,
IS EFFECTIVE.
THAT IS GOING TO BE EFFECTIVE.
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR
ALLOWING KIDS NOT TO LEARN
IN SCHOOLS THAT ARE FAILING.
SO THAT'S GOT TO BE
THE POINT OF ALL OF THIS.
AND I DO THINK
IT MAKES A TON OF SENSE
TO DEFINE A WAY THAT
ISDs, OTHER SCHOOL DISTRICTS,
EVEN CHARTER SCHOOLS,
IF THEY HAVE A RECORD AND
ABILITY OF DELIVERING ON
TURNING AROUND SCHOOLS,
AND DELIVERING EDUCATION
PERFORMANCE, THAT THOSE
ENTITIES WOULD BE POTENTIALLY
GOOD VEHICLES TO ABSORB
UNDERPERFORMING SCHOOLS.
BUT AGAIN, THEY WOULD NEED
QUALITY EXPECTATIONS,
QUALITY CONTROLS.
WE DON'T WANT BAD PERFORMERS
WHO DON'T HAVE AN ABILITY
TO TURN AROUND SCHOOLS,
INHERITING THESE SCHOOLS.
SO THINK THE OPPORTUNITY--
AND IT MAY MAKE SENSE TO
LET THE EAA DO ITS WORK
FOR A LITTLE WHILE LONGER
WITH THE SCHOOLS IT HAS, TO...
HELP MAKE MORE HEADWAY
ON ACHIEVEMENT.
SO I THINK WE SHOULD HELP
DEFINE AND CALL FOR
THE NEEDED LEGISLATION THAT
PUTS THIS KIND OF REGIME
IN PLACE, THAT ALLOWS
EFFECTIVE TURNAROUND
PUBLIC ENTITIES TO ABSORB
SCHOOLS, OR HELP DEFINE
AND MAKE SURE MIKE HAS
THE CRITERIA AND OR
THE ABILITY TO SET THOSE
EXPECTATIONS HIMSELF
THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT.
SO I WOULD PROPOSE WE COME
BACK AFTER LUNCH AND TALK
A BIT ABOUT WHAT OUR
POLICY GUIDELINES HERE IS.
BUT I DO THINK THERE IS A
PATH THAT I THINK ALL OF US
COULD PROBABLY SUPPORT,
THAT WOULD BE AN EFFECTIVE
PATH IN THAT ARENA.
>> THANKS JOHN.
CASANDRA, PLEASE.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION, SO...
I'M ONE OF THE FOLKS
WHO WAS VERY CONFUSED
BY THE PRESS RELEASE.
AND I NEVER WOULD HAVE
TAKEN FROM IT, WHAT YOU
HAVE INDICATED IT WAS
SUPPOSED TO MEAN.
AND PART OF THE REASON I
THINK THAT I AM SO
CONFUSED IS BECAUSE I
DON'T UNDERSTAND
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
THE REFORM DISTRICT
AND THE EAA.
I MEAN I THINK OF THEM
AS THE SAME THING.
PRIMARILY BECAUSE I HAVE
SEEN THIS TRANSFER AGREEMENT,
WHICH ESSENTIALLY TRANSFERS
THE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
OVER AND SAYS, "ANY SCHOOL
GOING INTO THE REFORM
DISTRICT IS AUTOMATICALLY
TRANSFERRED TO THE AUTHORITY.
SO THAT'S WHY I'M CONFUSED,
BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE
WE'RE CALLING THE SAME THING
BY THREE OR FOUR
DIFFERENT NAMES.
AND SO I'M CURIOUS TO KNOW,
IN YOUR TALKING ABOUT
OTHER ENTITIES, HOW DOES
THIS TRANSFER AGREEMENT
WORK IN CONJUNCTION
WITH THAT VISION?
>> WELL, FIRST OF ALL,
THE TRANSFER AGREEMENT,
WHICH WAS TO AN ENTITY
CREATED BY EASTERN MICHIGAN
AND DETROIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
SO I MEAN, IT IS A
CONVOLUTED WAY, FRANKLY,
COMPARED TO--
[OVERLAPPING CHATTER]
>> THAT'S THE ONLY--
>> YEAH.
>>SHE'S TALKING ABOUT
THE TRANSFER.
>> I'M TALKING ABOUT--
>> I KNOW, I'M GETTING TO THIS.
>> YEAH.
>> WHAT, DEB?
>> JUST TO CLARIFY ON
THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN
THE INTER-LOCAL AGREEMENT
AND THE TRANSFER--
>> YEAH, SO AT ANY RATE,
THERE IS AN ENTITY WITHIN
THE INTER-LOCAL AGREEMENT
WHICH CAN BE DONE BY ANY
KIND OF ENTITIES THAT ARE
PUBLIC ENTITIES.
PUBLIC SCHOOLS, UNIVERSITIES...
>> QUESTIONABLE, I THINK.
IN MY MIND,
IT'S VERY QUESTIONABLE.
>> IT'S NOT
LEGALLY QUESTIONABLE.
I MEAN, I WOULD AGREE THAT--
I MEAN, IF I COULD
JUST BE BLUNT.
I ASKED THE BOARD TO BE
CLEAR ABOUT CODIFICATION.
I THOUGHT JOHN DID A GOOD
JOB ON TRYING TO GET US
TO AGREE ON WHAT
CODIFICATION SHOULD BE.
WE'VE BEEN SAYING FOR AT
LEAST TWO YEARS,
"THIS NEEDS TO BE CODIFIED.
DON'T LEAVE US WITH
INTER-LOCAL AGREEMENTS."
SO I AGREE WITH THE SPIRIT
OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
I DON'T THINK IT'S THE WAY
TO RUN AN AIRLINE.
WE SHOULDN'T BE DOING IT
BY INTER-LOCAL AGREEMENTS.
BUT WE'VE BEEN ON--
I DON'T KNOW HOW ELSE TO
BE CLEARER THAT WE DIDN'T
WANT INTER-LOCAL AGREEMENTS,
BUT I HAVE TO HAVE A WAY
WITH DEB AND THE TEAM HERE
TO TAKE SCHOOLS THAT ARE
IN THE SCHOOL REFORM DISTRICT
AND ACTUALLY HAVE THEM OPERATED.
THEY ARE NOT GOING
TO BE OPERATED BY BEING
IN THE DISTRICT HERE.
SO THAT'S WHY WHEN
THIS TOOK ITS COURSE--
YOU KNOW, AND I THINK
THERE'S A PLACE FOR IT,
A POTENTIAL PLACE FOR IT--
BUT IT SHOULD BE AMONG AN
ARRAY OF ALTERNATIVES
THAT ARE CODIFIED, AND BY
CODIFIED, I MEAN LET THE LAW.
SO, I MEAN, TO CASANDRA'S
POINT, THAT'S CORRECT.
RIGHT NOW THAT IS
OUR ONLY ENTITY.
BUT TO BE BLUNT, WE COULD
CANCEL THE TRANSFER THING.
IF WE COULD TURN AROUND
AND GET ISDs AND OTHERS
THROUGH SOME AUTHORITY
THAT EITHER WE HAVE ON OUR OWN,
WHICH I ADMIT IS 50/50
AND WATCHING WHAT
THE AG MAY SAY TO US.
OR, GET CODIFICATION THAT
WOULD PUT THESE OTHER
ENTITIES AS POSSIBILITIES,
THEN WE WOULD BE ABLE TO
CANCEL THAT AGREEMENT AND
TURN AROUND AND BE ABLE
TO USE THE OPTION TO SERVE
THE DISTRICT BEST.
SO, I MEAN, I DO THINK
THAT'S WHY IT IS WORTH
TALKING ABOUT, BECAUSE
TO EVERYONE IT CAN SEEM
LIKE THE SAME THING.
>> RIGHT.
>> IT JUST REALLY ISN'T.
THE 2009 LAW CREATED THIS,
AN INTER-LOCAL AGREEMENT,
IN ORDER TO HAVE
SOME PLACE TO OPERATE.
CREATED THAT ENTITY,
AND FOR TWO YEARS, WE AS
A DEPARTMENT HAVE BEEN
PUSHING FOR GETTING IT
CODIFIED SO THAT WE HAVE
MORE OPTIONS.
AND I AM NOT SAYING
THIS DISRESPECTFULLY.
I AM JUST SAYING IT.
I THINK THE BOARD DID
THE BEST THEY COULD AND DIDN'T
COME TO AGREEMENT ON--
>> WELL, I THINK NOW
WE DO HAVE A CHANCE TO
CHANGE THE LEGISLATION
BASED ON A BETTER GAME PLAN.
>>SORRY.
>>I'M SORRY.
>>SORRY, ABSENT
CODIFICATION, THOUGH.
YOUR PRESS RELEASE SEEMS
TO INDICATE THAT YOU ARE
GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH
PUTTING SCHOOLS INTO
THE REFORM DISTRICT,
WHICH IN MY MIND AUTOMATICALLY
THEN MEANS THE EAA.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE
THINKING AS WELL?
>> NO, I'M THINKING THAT
EITHER THROUGH CODIFICATION
OR OUR OWN AUTHORITY,
WE'LL HAVE OTHER ENTITY OPTIONS.
AND IF WE DON'T, WE NEED
TO GIVE OURSELVES...
THIS IS WHY TO BE VAGUE ABOUT--
TO BE BLUNT, TO BE VAGUE
ABOUT WHEN IN 2014.
BUT THAT WILL HAVE BEEN
FIVE YEARS IN TO A TIME
THAT WE HAVE A HANDFUL OF
SCHOOLS, WHERE THEY'RE
NOT ONLY FLAT-LINING,
THEY'RE ACTUALLY GOING DOWN.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION
REGARDING THE TRANSFER
AGREEMENT, TOO,
IN THE SAME VEIN.
NOW, THE TRANSFER
AGREEMENT WAS SIGNED BY
COVINGTON AND DEB CLEMMONS
IN NOVEMBER 2011, RIGHT?
NOVEMBER 1st--
>> WHATEVER.
>> COVINGTON SIGNED IT,
AND I THINK, A FEW DAYS LATER,
DEB SIGNED IT.
SO, IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY
REFERENCE TO ANY OTHER
OPTION EXCEPT THE EAA.
SO MY QUESTION IS, WHY
WOULD YOU INSTRUCT DEB TO
SIGN A DOCUMENT THAT SEEMS
TO BE EXCLUSIVE TO THE EAA
AND NOW SAY IT SHOULD BE MORE?
SO WHY WASN'T THIS
ENVISIONED PRIOR TO NOW?
I MEAN, IT'S BEEN A COUPLE OF
YEARS SINCE NOVEMBER OF 2011.
>> NOW, THAT'S NOT ACCURATE.
THE BOTTOM LINE IS EXACTLY--
>> THAT'S NOT ACCURATE?
>> YOU WANT ME TO SAY WHAT'S
NOT ACCURATE, OR DO YOU
WANT TO INTERRUPT ME?
>> YEAH--
>> WHAT'S NOT ACCURATE
IS EXACTLY THE SAME TIME
THAT WE WERE TRYING TO PUT
SOMETHING TOGETHER WHERE
WE COULD ACTUALLY OPERATE
SCHOOLS, WE WERE ACTUALLY
CALLING, AT THE SAME TIME,
FOR CODIFICATION, OVER AND
OVER, SO THAT WE--
>> I'M TALKING ABOUT
NOVEMBER OF 2011.
IN NOVEMBER 2011.
THE TRANSFER AGREEMENT
MAKES NO MENTION OF, AS
LISA AND MAYBE I MISSED IT,
OF THE ISDs.
SO IF THIS IS SUCH AN
IMPORTANT PART
OF WHAT SHOULD BE,
THEN WHY WASN'T IT IN
THE 2011 TRANSFER AGREEMENT?
WHY WASN'T THERE
SOMETHING ELSE?
WHY WASN'T THE WORDING
DIFFERENT THAN SORT OF AN
EXCLUSIVE UNDERSTANDING--
>> IT NEVER OCCURRED TO US
UNTIL THE BOARD--
EVEN THE BOARD HAD
ITS OWN DISAGREEMENT
OF CODIFICATION.
IT NEVER OCCURRED TO US
THAT THIS WOULDN'T BE
CODIFIED IN TIME TO BE CLEAR.
WE HAD TO HAVE SOMETHING--
IT'S A LITTLE BIT--
I KNOW THIS IS A STRETCH ON
AN ANALOGY, BUT IT'S A
LITTLE BIT LIKE WHY WE'RE
ON THE SMARTER BALANCE - -
BEING PERCEIVED TO HAVE
ONLY ONE OPTION, WHEN WE
ARE REALLY NOT.
WE ARE JUST SAYING THAT
THE ONLY ONE WE HAVE
IN OUR HIP POCKET
IS THE SMARTER BALANCE.
IF ACT COMES, GOOD.
IF OTHERS COME, GOOD.
AT THAT TIME, OUR ONLY
OPTION UNDER THE LAW AS WE
UNDERSTOOD IT WAS THAT--
>> WHY WASN'T IT MADE KNOWN
TO THE BOARD?
>> WHY, WHAT?
>> WHY WASN'T THE TRANSFER
AGREEMENT MADE KNOWN
TO THE BOARD?
>> WELL, TWO THINGS.
FIRST OF ALL, I THINK IT WAS.
BUT EVEN IF IT WASN'T--
>> IT WASN'T, NO.
>> IT WASN'T.
>> BUT EVEN IF IT WASN'T,
THIS IS AN OPERATIONAL
ENTITY THAT IS GIVEN TO
THE DEPARTMENT, NOT TO
REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS
ON A BOARD.
ON PURPOSE.
THIS COULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN
TO THE STATE BOARD TO RUN.
IN FACT, LAST WEEK,
EVERY NIGHT I WENT HOME
I THOUGHT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN
BETTER IF IT HAD BEEN
GIVEN TO THE STATE BOARD
RATHER THAN ME.
BUT IT WASN'T.
IT WAS GIVEN TO ME,
AND DEB, AND THE DEPARTMENT.
NOT THE BOARD.
>> THIS IS A LARGE POLICY
>> NOT THE IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE LAW.
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LAW
IS NOT A POLICY ISSUE.
>> BUT WHY NOT EVEN NOTIFIED?
WHY NOT PUT IT ON THE AGENDA?
>> THAT WAS THEN, THIS IS NOW.
WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY NOW
TO DO BETTER.
>> OKAY, I AGREE.
>> THAN WHAT WAS DONE BEFORE.
AND A LOT OF THINGS HAVE
EVOLVED, INCLUDING THE EAA
AND ALL THE ISSUES IT GOT INTO,
AND THE PERFORMANCE OF IT--
>> RIGHT.
>> WHICH MANY HAVE
QUESTIONED AND HAVE
CONCERNS ABOUT.
SO NOW WE HAVE A NEW OPPORTUNITY
TO WORK TOGETHER
TO TRY TO DEFINE
EFFECTIVE TURNAROUND
STRATEGY, AND LET'S TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF--
>> RIGHT, RIGHT.
MY ONLY POINT IN BRINGING
IT UP IS THAT I THINK WE
SHOULD ALL BE FULLY INFORMED.
AND WHEN QUESTIONS ARE ASKED
ABOUT WHY IS THE RECOVERY
DISTRICT AND THE EAA
BEING USED INTERCHANGEABLY,
THAT SOMEBODY WOULD HAVE
MENTIONED THAT THERE
IS A TRANSFER AGREEMENT.
THAT MAKES THAT CLEAR,
AND THAT WAS NOT MADE CLEAR.
AND THAT'S ALL I WOULD
LIKE TO JUST HAVE--
TO BE FULLY INFORMED--
>> IT LOOKS LIKE IT WAS CLEAR
TO YOU FROM THE WAY YOU NODDED.
>> INFORMATION AND TRANSPARENCY
>> IT LOOKS LIKE IT WAS
CLEAR TO ONE BOARD MEMBER.
>> I WOULD ENCOURAGE-- LET'S--
>> YOU WEREN'T ON
THE BOARD AT THAT TIME
IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.
>> I'VE BEEN ON THE BOARD
FOR A YEAR AND I HAVEN'T
BEEN MADE KNOWN.
I'VE ASKED POINTEDLY--
>> YOU WEREN'T ON
THE BOARD IN 2011.
BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS,
YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE NOT GOING
TO TAKE ME IN GOOD FAITH
THAT FROM THE BEGINNING,
WE HAVE PUSHED FOR
CODIFICATION THAT INCLUDED
ISSUES BEYOND THE EAA,
AND YOU DIDN'T.
YOU DIDN'T.
I'M GLAD TO HEAR THAT YOU
ARE CONSIDERING THAT TODAY,
BECAUSE WE COULD USE
THE SUPPORT TO GET IT CODIFIED.
AND FROM THE VERY
BEGINNING, WE HAVE BEEN
INTERESTED IN HAVING OTHER
OPTIONS INCLUDING ISDs.
ONE OF THE REASONS,
AND I DON'T KNOW IF HAVE
TO EXPLAIN EVERYTHING HERE,
BUT ONE OF THE REASONS
THAT WE PUSHED FOR
CONSOLIDATION OF ISDs,
TO THE DISMAY OF MANY PEOPLE
IN THE FIELD AND EVEN HERE,
IS BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT ALL
SITUATED TO HANDLE THIS.
>> I'M NOT--
>> SO ONE OF THE REASONS
TO TRY TO LAY--
>> I'M NOT DISAGREEING WITH
ALL THAT YOU ARE SAYING, MIKE.
FORGIVE ME.
ALL I AM SAYING IS,
IF THERE IS INFORMATION LIKE
THIS TRANSFER AGREEMENT
OUT THERE.
IF THERE'S DEALS THAT
ARE BEING MADE OR THINGS--
>> IT'S NOT A DEAL.
>> I WOULD JUST HAVE
EXPECTED IT TO BE BROUGHT
FORWARD AND ESPECIALLY
WITHIN THE LAST FEW MONTHS
WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
THIS LEGISLATION.
AND IT WAS NOT MADE KNOWN
TO THE MAJORITY OF
THE PEOPLE ON THE BOARD.
>> THE LAWS--
>> THAT IS ALL I'M SAYING.
>> WE CARRY OUT LAWS EVERY DAY
IN WAYS THAT AREN'T
APPARENTLY AS OF INTEREST
TO YOU AS THIS ONE IS.
BUT EVERY DAY, WE CARRY OUT
LAWS IN THIS DEPARTMENT,
AND I DON'T KNOW WHERE
WE WOULD BEGIN AND END ON
EVERY NUANCE OF TRYING
TO CARRY OUT A LAW.
>> I-- OKAY.
>> NO, I'M SERIOUS.
>> YOU KNOW I SPECIFICALLY
ASKED YOU ABOUT THIS, AND--
>> WELL, YOU'RE A
SINGLE BOARD MEMBER,
NUMBER ONE.
AND I DO MY BEST, EVEN ON A
SATURDAY NIGHT, TO RESPOND
TO EMAILS OVER AND OVER
AND OVER, AND I'M NOT
GOING TO CONTINUE TO DO THAT.
--I CAN'T BE AT A SPOT
WHERE I AM FEELING THAT--
>> I'M FEELING IT TOO.
>> WELL, YOU'RE FEELING IT, TOO.
AND I DON'T KNOW.
IF YOU CAN'T ACCEPT THAT
THERE IS A LAW IN 2009
THAT WAS PUT INTO PLACE
THAT WE'VE HAD FOUR YEARS
NOW TO WORK ON, AND TAKE
AT LEAST SOME RESPONSIBILITY
THAT THE BOARD COULDN'T COME
TO CONSENSUS ON WHAT
CODIFICATION, THAT IN
SPITE OF OUR CONTINUED
ATTEMPT TO GET YOU TO DO SO,
I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO SAY.
>> YOU WANTED US TO COME--
OH, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT
THE LEGISLATION TO CODIFY--
>> TO SUPPORT CODIFICATION.
THE BOARD WAS SPLIT ON
SUPPORTING CODIFICATION.
>> BECAUSE WE'RE NOT--
BECAUSE THE EAA IS NOT PROVEN.
>> BUT CODIFICATION COULD
HAVE INCLUDED ALL OF
THE THINGS WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT NOW, WHICH WE SAID
AT THE TIME.
>> LOOK, I DON'T THINK--
>> WE'RE--
>> THESE ISSUES WERE NOT PART
OF THAT DISCUSSION, AND THERE
WASN'T AS MUCH DISCUSSION
AS THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN
ABOUT THE RIGHT STRATEGY.
ALL THAT BEING SAID, WE DO
HAVE A GOOD OPPORTUNITY
NOW TO WORK TOGETHER,
AND WE NEED TO ON THESE BIG
ISSUES TO SHAPE AN APPROACH
AND TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY
TO FIGURE OUT,
YOU KNOW, WHAT NEEDS
FIXING, AND LEGISLATION,
AND AGREEMENTS.
AND I THINK THAT WE WOULD
BE WELL SERVED TO COME
BACK AND TALK ABOUT ALL
OF THESE ISSUES AFTER LUNCH,
AND SEE WHAT IS THE NATURE
OF THE CHANGES WE WANT
TO PUT TOGETHER.
>> I THINK, DAN,
YOU WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING.
>> I DID.
I JUST HOPE THAT, I MEAN...
I REALLY WANT THIS TO BE
A PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATION,
ALL RIGHT?
IT WOULD BE EXHAUSTING
FOR ALL OF US, I IMAGINE,
IF WE SIT HERE AND POINT
FINGERS AT EACH OTHER
ABOUT STUFF THAT HAS
HAPPENED, WHETHER IT WAS
YESTERDAY, OR FOUR YEARS AGO,
THREE YEARS AGO,
TWO YEARS AGO, OR WHATEVER.
IT IS ALL EQUALLY BEHIND US,
AND I JUST, I AM CONCERNED
THAT IT WILL BE
A REALLY UNPRODUCTIVE
CONVERSATION IF THAT'S
THE TENOR OF IT.
AND I GET THAT WE HAVE CONCERNS
THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED.
I JUST HOPE THAT WE CAN
FIGURE OUT HOW TO ADDRESS
THOSE IN THE CONTEXT OF
FUTURE ACTIONS AS OPPOSED
TO CONVERSATION ABOUT
WHAT HAS BEEN.
WHETHER IT WAS WHAT
THE BOARD DID OR WHAT MIKE DID.
THEY'RE BOTH GONE.
THERE IS NOTHING WE CAN DO
ABOUT THOSE.
BUT WE CAN DO SOMETHING
ABOUT TODAY, AND TOMORROW,
BASED ON WHAT WE DO TODAY.
SO I JUST WOULD ENCOURAGE
ALL OF US TO FOCUS OUR
CONVERSATION ON "WHAT DO
WE WANT TO CREATE TODAY?"
THAT WILL MAKE SURE,
WHETHER IT IS TRANSPARENCY
IN COMMUNICATION POLICIES,
WHETHER IT'S...
REINFORCEMENT, "HEY,
WE REALLY NEED YOU TO GET
TO A DECISION ON THIS."
WHATEVER IT IS THAT
WE NEED TO CREATE TO GO
FORWARD SO THAT THIS WORKS,
LET'S CREATE THAT.
LET'S CREATE THAT.
>> CAN I-- I COMPLETELY
AGREE WITH YOU.
I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE
COMING FROM, BUT I JUST
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
HAVE ALL OF THE INFORMATION
SO THAT WE CAN
MAKE GOOD DECISIONS.
>> YES.
LET'S CREATE THAT.
LET'S CREATE THAT.
>> BUT WHEN YOU LOOK
AT STUFF, LIKE THIS,
THAT'S BEEN SIGNED AND
YOU DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT.
THAT'S PART OF THE EQUATION.
WE HAVE TO KNOW THIS STUFF
>> SURE IT IS.
SO, LET'S CREATE TODAY,
THE POLICY THAT SAYS:
IF YOU ENTER INTO A CONTRACT
DEPARTMENT, WE WANT TO KNOW IT.
JUST CREATE A LIST OF IT.
[OVERLAPPING CHATTER]
>> HOLD ON, HOLD ON.
I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S
THE RIGHT IDEA.
I'M JUST SAYING,
IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT.
IF THAT IS WHAT WE WANT.
IF THAT'S WHAT ANYONE WANTS,
THEN LET'S PUT THAT
ON THE TABLE AS A
POSSIBILITY GOING FORWARD,
AS OPPOSED TO POINTING BACK
TO TWO OR THREE YEARS
AGO AND SAYING,
"WHY DIDN'T YOU?"
THAT'S JUST NOT A
PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATION
FOR ANY OF US.
IT JUST ISN'T.
AND WE KNOW IT ISN'T.
SO LET'S NOT GO THERE.
LET'S NOT WASTE
EVERYBODY'S TIME.
>> I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT,
BUT I WANTED TO ASK
A QUESTION ABOUT
ALTERNATIVES TO THE DISTRICT.
IF THERE'S A HANDFUL
OF SCHOOLS THAT ARE NOT--
YOU SAID MOST OF THEM
ARE GOING UP.
MOST OF THE BOTTOM 5%
ARE GOING UP.
AND IT'S JUST A HANDFUL,
MAYBE A FEW, TEN OR LESS,
OR MAYBE TEN PLUS A FEW MORE.
I DON'T KNOW.
IS THERE ANYWAY THAT THE STAFF
OF THE DEPARTMENT OR YOU
COULD DELEGATE ISDs
TO JUST GO INTO THOSE SCHOOLS
AND NOT PUT THEM IN
A SEPARATE DISTRICT?
BUT JUST WORK INTENSIVELY
IN THOSE SCHOOLS IN
THEIR PRESENT DISTRICT?
>> THAT'S, FIRST OF ALL,
IS GOING ON FOR THE LAST
THREE YEARS.
SECONDLY, IT'S NOT WHAT
THE LAW CALLS FOR.
THE LAW CALLS FOR,
AT THE END OF THREE COHORTS,
TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT
WHETHER OR NOT.
I MEAN, IF I HAD TO DECIDE
RIGHT NOW, PROBABLY WHAT
WOULD WE DO, TO BE ENTIRELY
SAFE, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE
OF THE CONTROVERSY THAT I THINK
THERE IS UNNECESSARY AND
UNFAIR BLAME BEING PUT HERE,
BY THE WAY, BECAUSE I
HAVEN'T EVEN HEARD AN
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE FACT
THAT THE BOARD HAD TREMENDOUS
OPPORTUNITIES THE LAST TWO YEARS
TO ENCOURAGE CODIFICATION
OF THIS, AND WHEN YOU DIDN'T
YOU LEAVE US WITH
VERY FEW OPTIONS.
BUT, I'M WITH DAN.
I GUESS WE MOVE ON
AND TRY TO FIND THAT WAY.
BUT THIS ISN'T BECAUSE
THE DEPARTMENT HASN'T FROM
DAY ONE BEEN INTERESTED
WITH HAVING MULTIPLE
OPPORTUNITIES TO DO THAT.
WE JUST DIDN'T UNDER THE LAW.
NOW, IF WE CAN GET AN
INTERPRETATION FROM
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
GIVEN THAT THE LAW--
TO BE VERY CANDID, IT NEVER
OCCURRED TO US THIS
WOULDN'T BE CODIFIED
BEFORE D-DAY.
IT NEVER OCCURRED TO US.
WHY WOULD ANYONE THINK,
EVEN WITHOUT YOUR
SUPPORT, FRANKLY.
THAT'S WHY SOMETIMES WHEN
WE'RE AT ODDS, IT'S BECAUSE
I WAS THERE BEHIND THE SCENES
ALONG WITH WENDY, MARTY,
AND EVERYONE ELSE
TRYING TO GET CODIFICATION.
AND WE WOULD HAVE FELT
A LOT BETTER IF WE WERE
GOING FOR CODIFICATION
WITH THE BOARD'S SUPPORT.
>> CODIFICATION OF THE EAA
WHICH PEOPLE DIDN'T--
>> NO.
NO.
THE CODIFICATION COULD BE
EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT RIGHT NOW, WHICH IS
CODIFICATION THAT WOULD ALLOW
FOR A NUMBER OF ENTITIES.
>> WELL, I THINK THAT IF
THAT'S THE CASE, WHICH I
CERTAINLY DIDN'T KNOW OR UND--
>> OR DIDN'T UNDERSTAND.
>> LACK OF COMMUNICATION.
>> ALWAYS ON OUR PART,
I DON'T KNOW.
COMMUNICATION'S TWO WAYS.
>> WE CERTAINLY DID NOT SEE--
I DID NOT SEE OR ASSUME
THAT THAT WAS PART
OF THE CONVERSATION
AROUND CODIFICATION.
I'M FOR CODIFICATION
OF THE EAA SO IT CAN WORK.
BUT I THINK WE DO HAVE
A NEED NOW TO DEFINE
CODIFICATION TO INCLUDE
SOME EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVES.
AND LET'S TRY TO PROMOTE
THAT, AND MAKE THAT HAPPEN.
GIVEN THE EXPERIENCE
WITH THE EAA,
THAT COULD BE A WIN-WIN-WIN
FOR EVERYBODY.
>> I NEED TO SAY WHEN WE
HAVE THE DISCUSSION FOR
DAN ABOUT WHAT CONTRACTS
AND ALL THAT.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO
HAVE A SERIOUS CONVERSATION.
WE HAVE, AS IMPORTANT--
MAYBE NOT TO YOU, WITH
YOUR PARTICULAR INTERESTS,
BUT AS IMPORTANT,
AND I COULD MAKE A CASE--
MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES THAT WE
DEAL WITH CONTRACTS EVERY DAY.
AND THAT'S THE AUTHORITY
THAT I HAVE AS
STATE SUPERINTENDENT.
I MEAN, I DISSOLVED
TWO DISTRICTS.
AND IT WASN'T GIVEN
TO THE STATE BOARD.
AND I CERTAINLY DIDN'T WANT IT.
I WOULD HAVE BEEN HAPPY FOR IT
TO BE GIVEN TO THE STATE.
THAT WAS FAR MORE
INTENSE THAN THIS.
THAT WAS FAR MORE INTENSE
THAN ANYTHING WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT NOW.
AND I'M JUST SAYING,
SO WE CARRIED THAT OUT.
AND I'M HAPPY TO NOT CARRY
SOME OF THIS OUT.
I WOULD BE HAPPY
FOR OTHERS TO HAVE SOME
OF THE RESPONSIBILITY.
I THINK THAT, AT LEAST AT
THAT TIME, THE THINKING
BEHIND THE LAW WAS TO NOT
INADVERTENTLY POLITICIZE IT.
SO THAT'S WHY IT WASN'T
GIVEN TO A GOVERNOR.
THAT IS WHY IT WASN'T
GIVEN TO A STATE BOARD.
THAT IS WHY IT WASN'T
GIVEN TO A LEGISLATURE.
AND I CAN SAY, I MEAN,
I'M PROUD OF THE FACT THAT,
AS A DEPARTMENT, WE WORKED
WELL WITH GOVERNOR GRANHOLM.
WE WORK WELL WITH
GOVERNOR SNYDER.
WE TRY TO MAKE THINGS WORK.
AND WE DON'T ALWAYS
DO IT PERFECTLY.
AND WE DON'T ALWAYS GET
THE WAY WE WOULD LIKE IT
TO BE DONE, BECAUSE OF THE...
EDGE OF THE CLIFF THAT
WE'RE ON EVERY DAY--
THE BOARD, THE GOVERNOR,
THE LEGISLATURE, PUBLIC OPINION.
IT'S SOMETHING WE TRY TO
NAVIGATE WITH GOOD FAITH,
AND MAYBE DON'T ON
EVERY INSTANCE.
YESSIR.
>> I RECALL IN 2011.
FIRST OFF, THAT WHEN
THE AGREEMENT WAS MADE,
THERE'S NOTHING IN
THE CONTRACT THAT
WE WEREN'T AWARE OF.
>> THANK YOU.
>> SECOND--
>> THAT-- PLEASE.
THAT MAY BE TRUE FOR YOU BUT--
>> YOU KNOW, WE EACH HAVE
A CHANCE TO TALK.
AS CHAIR I MAY BE--
>> HE'S USING THE WORD "WE,"
AND I JUST WANT
TO CLARIFY THAT--
>> WELL, YOU DIDN'T.
HE DID.
SO THERE'S OBVIOUSLY
SOME DISSIDENCE HERE.
>> OKAY.
I DO RECALL YOUR ADVOCATING
FOR CODIFICATION,
AND I DIDN'T SEE THE NEED
OR THE PURPOSE AT THE TIME,
AND, TWO YEARS EXPERIENCE,
I THINK I CAN UNDERSTAND NOW.
YOU HAD ANTICIPATED ISSUES
THAT I DID NOT SEE AT THE TIME.
SO...
AND I WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED
IF OTHERS ON THE BOARD
HAVE ALSO...
SEE COMPLEXITIES NOW THAT
WE DIDN'T SEE EARLIER.
SO, WHEN THE SITUATION
IS UNCLEAR...
AS IT'S EVOLVING--
WE HAD POSSIBILITIES MAYBE
TWO YEARS AGO THAT WE HAVE
ELIMINATED NOW.
AS CONDITIONS CHANGE,
AND IT'S NOT CLEAR,
IT IS HARD TO BE CLEAR
IN COMMUNICATING OR
DISCUSSING IT, BECAUSE
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT IS,
WHAT THE LAW CALLS FOR,
POSSIBILITIES.
I THINK KATHY'S COMMENT
ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHETHER
IT WAS GOOD LAW, WELL IT'S
IN LAW-- IS A GOOD POLICY,
WELL, YOU AGREED WITH HER
THAT IT WAS NOT.
>>I DO AGREE WITH HER.
I AGREE WITH KATHY ON THAT.
>> SO I'M JUST SAYING
THAT THERE IS
AMPLE OPPORTUNITY FOR
CONFUSION HERE, AND I
THINK THAT WE NEED TO BE
PATIENT WITH ONE ANOTHER
AS WE TRY TO TALK ABOUT
SOME OF THESE ABSTRACT
ISSUES, AND EVEN MORE
TRICKY POSSIBILITIES, WHICH...
WE DISCUSSED.
>> OKAY.
LAUREN.
AFTER LUNCH.
[BANGS GAVEL]
WELL, LET'S SEE.
WE'RE GOING INTO--
I GUESS I DIDN'T NEED
TO DO THAT.
WE'RE GOING TO GO INTO
THE FIRST ITEM.
NOT THE FIRST ITEM,
BUT THE DISCUSSION ITEMS.
A IS-- LET'S SEE.
SUSAN AND JEREMY ARE GOING
TO JOIN AS AT THE TABLE.
AND THIS IS ALL GOOD NEWS.
THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY,
AND HOPEFULLY, MAYBE WITH
SOME UNDERSTANDING BY
THE END OF THE WEEK OF
WHETHER OR NOR WE RECEIVE--
AND LISTEN TO THE NUMBER--
A $52.5 MILLION GRANT.
SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT
THE $65 MILLION THAT I DO
APPRECIATE THE GOVERNOR,
THE LEGISLATURE, THE BOARD
SUPPORTING GOING INTO
EARLY CHILDHOOD,
THIS IS ANOTHER GREAT
OPPORTUNITY FOR--
IT'S A RACE TO THE TOP
EARLY LEARNING CHALLENGE.
I JUST WANT TO SAY, SUSAN
AND JEREMY AND THEIR TEAM
HAVE DONE AN UNBELIEVABLE JOB.
I THINK SITUATING US--
THE DOWNSIDE OF THE BOARD
MEETING BEING TODAY,
AS OPPOSED TO HOPEFULLY
AFTER WE GET IT, IS I COULD
BUILD THE HECK UP OUT OF THIS,
AND WE DON'T GET IT.
SO, LET'S TAKE A DEEP BREATH.
BUT I AM MORE AND MORE
CONFIDENT ABOUT
THE QUALITY OF THIS.
ARNE DUNCAN CALLED ME ON
A SEPARATE ISSUE LAST WEEK,
AND TALKED ABOUT THIS
A LITTLE BIT IN PASSING.
BUT IT DOES A FEW THINGS.
THIS IS CERTAINLY WHAT IT
IS CALLED IS IMPROVING
EARLY LEARNING AND
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
FOR YOUNG CHILDREN BY
SUPPORTING THE STATE'S
EFFORTS TO, ONE,
INCREASE THE NUMBER
PERCENTAGE OF LOW-INCOME
AND DISADVANTAGED CHILDREN
IN EACH AGE GROUP OF
INFANTS, TODDLERS, AND
PRE-SCHOOLERS, WHO ARE
ENROLLED IN HIGH QUALITY
EARLY LEARNING PROGRAMS--
AND TWO, TO DESIGN AND
IMPLEMENT AN INTEGRATED
SYSTEM OF HIGH QUALITY
EARLY LEARNING PROGRAMS
AND SERVICES.
WE'RE ELIGIBLE TO APPLY FOR
$52.5 MILLION, WHICH WE DID.
JEREMY AND SUSAN ARE BOTH
HERE TO FILL US IN ON THAT,
AND HOPEFULLY WE WILL HAVE
SOME GOOD NEWS DURING
THE HOLIDAY SEASON.
>> THANK YOU SUPERINTENDENT
FLANAGAN AND THE BOARD.
IT IS A PLEASURE TODAY
TO PRESENT A HIGH LEVEL
OVERVIEW OF THE RACE TO THE TOP
EARLY LEARNING CHALLENGE.
BUT FIRST, I'D LIKE YOU TO
PONDER THIS QUESTION.
AS YOU'RE PONDERING THINGS,
I'LL GIVE YOU A DIFFERENT TYPE
OF QUESTION.
HOW WOULD THE LIVES OF AT-RISK
CHILDREN BE DIFFERENT IF WE
INVESTED IN HIGH QUALITY EARLY
LEARNING PROGRAMS FROM BIRTH?
PLEASE WATCH THIS VIDEO AND
HEAR FROM THE CHILDREN
THEMSELVES ABOUT THE IMPACT
THIS WOULD HAVE.
[VIDEO PRESENTATION]
>> SO...
SORRY.
THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE.
WE KNOW HOW TO DO EVERYTHING
THAT WAS SHOWN.
QUALITY HOME VISITATION
PROGRAMS, FAMILY SUPPORT,
QUALITY PRESCHOOL, AND MOVING
CHILD CARE FROM CHILD STORAGE
TO AN EARLY LEARNING
ENVIRONMENT.
WE HAVE THE CAPABILITY OF
DOING ALL OF THAT.
SO, IN THINKING ABOUT THAT AND
LOOKING AT WHERE WE NEED TO GO
IN EARLY CHILDHOOD
IN MICHIGAN-- THANK YOU.
I HAVE SEEN THAT VIDEO
A MILLION TIMES, BUT IT JUST--
THE KIDS TELL THE STORY.
OVER 1,400 PEOPLE IN MICHIGAN
WEIGHED IN WHILE WE DEVELOPED
THE OFFICE OF GREAT START
PLAN, AND WE DEVELOPED GUIDING
PRINCIPLES TO REALLY GUIDE
ALL OF OUR WORK, AND THIS IS
WHAT IS GUIDING ALL OF THE WORK
IN OFFICE OF GREAT START, AND
ALSO THE PREPARATION FOR
THE RACE TO THE TOP
APPLICATION.
PRINCIPLE NUMBER ONE:
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES ARE
THE HIGHEST PRIORITY.
WE ARE NOT ABOUT THE SYSTEM
AND ADULTS-- WE ARE ABOUT
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES.
PRINCIPLE TWO: PARENTS AND
COMMUNITIES MUST HAVE A VOICE.
OVER AND OVER, WE HEARD PARENTS
SAYING, "WE WANT TO HELP.
WE WANT TO WEIGH IN.
WE NEED TO BE INFORMED.
LET US HELP DEVELOP
OUR SERVICES."
COMMUNITIES-- COMMUNITIES
NEED TO HAVE A VOICE IN
DEVELOPING SERVICES.
WHAT SERVICES LOOK LIKE IN
IRON MOUNTAIN, MICHIGAN MAY BE
QUITE DIFFERENT FROM
WHAT THEY'D LOOK LIKE IN
DETROIT, AND EACH COMMUNITY
NEEDS TO COME TOGETHER TO
DEVELOP ITS SERVICE SYSTEM.
PRINCIPLE THREE: CHILDREN WITH
THE GREATEST NEEDS MUST BE
SERVED FIRST.
WITH LIMITED RESOURCES,
WE NEED TO TARGET CHILDREN
WHO ARE MOST AT RISK OF NOT
ACHIEVING THE FOUR OUTCOMES
FOR THE OFFICE OF GREAT START.
PRINCIPLE FOUR:
QUALITY MATTERS.
AGAIN, OVER AND OVER WE HEARD
FROM PARENTS THAT THEY WANT
QUALITY PROGRAMS, AND WE NEED
TO INVEST IN QUALITY PROGRAMS
THAT DELIVER OUTCOMES.
PRINCIPLE FIVE: INVEST EARLY.
WHAT PEOPLE SAID FREQUENTLY IS
INVEST AND PREVENTION, EARLY
INTERVENTION, RATHER THAN
REMEDIATION.
PRINCIPLE SIX: EFFICIENCIES
MUST BE IDENTIFIED AND
IMPLEMENTED.
WE NEED TO BE MUCH MORE
EFFICIENT IN HOW WE DELIVER
SERVICES AND REDUCE THE AMOUNT
OF FUNDING THAT IS GOING INTO
ADMINISTRATION SO MORE AND
MORE DOLLARS CAN ACTUALLY GO
INTO DIRECT SERVICES.
AND FINALLY, WE NEED TO
IMPLEMENT OPPORTUNITIES TO
COORDINATE AND COLLABORATE.
WHAT THAT SIMPLY MEANS IS THAT
OUR SERVICE DELIVERY SYSTEM
HAS TO TALK TO EACH OTHER,
WHETHER IT'S DEPARTMENT OF
HUMAN SERVICES, MICHIGAN
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY HEALTH.
WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT BETTER
WAYS TO WORK WITH EACH OTHER
ON BEHALF OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILIES.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: AS WITH
EVERYTHING IN EARLY CHILDHOOD,
THIS WAS A GROUP PROJECT,
GIVEN THE FACT THAT EARLY
CHILDHOOD COVERS A NUMBER OF
DIFFERENT SERVICE AREAS.
FIRST, ACKNOWLEDGE
THE KELLOGG FOUNDATION.
THE KELLOGG FOUNDATION
PROVIDED FUNDING TO DEVELOP
THIS GRANT-- FOR THE WRITING,
AND FOR THE RESEARCH, AND
PULLING THIS GRANT TOGETHER.
SECOND, PUBLIC SECTOR
CONSULTANTS.
PUBLIC SECTOR CONSULTANTS WERE
CONTRACTED WITH TO DEVELOP
THIS GRANT.
THEY DID THE WRITING, THEY DID
THE RESEARCH, THEY DID
THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT OF
THIS GRANT, AND SPENT
AN INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF HOURS
WORKING TO COMPLETE
THIS APPLICATION.
MICHELLE RICHARD IS HERE,
WHO WAS THE LEAD PERSON FROM
THE PUBLIC SECTOR CONSULTANTS
ON THIS, AND WHETHER SHE
KNOWS IT OR NOT, SHE HAS
BECOME AN EARLY CHILDHOOD STAR
IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF
THIS APPLICATION.
THEN, THE MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT
OF COMMUNITY HEALTH, MICHIGAN
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
EARLY CHILDHOOD INVESTMENT
CORPORATION, MICHIGAN
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, AND
THE CENTER FOR EDUCATIONAL
PERFORMANCE AND INFORMATION.
JUST SO YOU KNOW, WE FOUND OUT
AND ACTUALLY HAD
THE APPLICATION ON AUGUST 28th,
AND IT NEEDED TO BE TURNED IN
BY OCTOBER 16th --
THAT'S SEVEN WEEKS.
ALL OF THE ENTITIES THAT
I JUST MENTIONED CAME TOGETHER,
DEVOTED STAFF, DEVOTED THEIR
EXPERTISE TO WORK TOGETHER TO
DEVELOP THIS APPLICATION, AS
WELL AS PLAN SERVICES THAT
THEY WILL BE IMPLEMENTING IF
IN FACT WE ARE SUCCESSFUL IN
RECEIVING THIS GRANT.
IT WAS AN INCREDIBLE EFFORT BY
A LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE, AND
I NEED TO ACKNOWLEDGE RIGHT
OFF THE TOP THAT THE PERSON
WHO WAS LEADING THIS EFFORT
WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF ED
WAS JEREMY, AND THANK YOU TO
JEREMY AND HIS FAMILIES FOR
GIVING HIM FOR SEVEN WEEKS OF
HIS LIFE.
NEXT, AS MIKE SAID, THE RACE
TO THE TOP EARLY LEARNING
CHALLENGE GRANT FOCUSES ON, AS
YOU CAN SEE, AND MIKE HAS
ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THAT--
I WANT TO REMIND YOU THAT
MICHIGAN APPLIED FOR
THIS GRANT IN 2011 AND WAS
UNSUCCESSFUL.
HOWEVER, A LOT HAS CHANGED IN
EARLY CHILDHOOD IN MICHIGAN
SINCE THEN.
FIRST, IN EARLY 2012,
THE LEGISLATURE APPROVED
A SUPPLEMENTAL ALLOCATION FOR
EARLY CHILDHOOD THAT ALLOWED
MICHIGAN TO START OUR QUALITY
RATING SYSTEM, WHICH IS ONE OF
THE CORNER PIECES OF
THE RACE TO THE TOP APPLICATION.
IT ALSO PERMITTED THE MICHIGAN
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION TO
START THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
A KINDERGARTEN
ENTRY ASSESSMENT.
ALSO, KELLOGG FOUNDATION
PROVIDED A GRANT TO
THE DEPARTMENT TO START
THE WORK ON AN EARLY CHILDHOOD
DATA SYSTEM.
ADDITIONALLY, THE OFFICE OF
GREAT START REPORT WAS
DEVELOPED, WHICH PROVIDED
A DIRECTION FOR EARLY CHILDHOOD
WORK IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
AS WELL AS-- THIS LAST YEAR,
WE WERE FORTUNATE THAT
THE LEGISLATURE AND GOVERNOR
APPROVED A $65 MILLION
INCREASE IN THE GREAT START
READINESS PROGRAM.
ALSO, SINCE 2011 THERE HAS
BEEN WHAT I CALL A GELLING AND
CONSOLIDATION OF SUPPORT FOR
EARLY CHILDHOOD IN THE STATE
OF MICHIGAN.
FROM THE STATE BOARD OF
EDUCATION, TO THE GOVERNOR,
TO THE LEGISLATURE,
TO THE PEOPLE'S GROUP,
TO THE DEPARTMENTS,
PEOPLE ARE COMING TOGETHER
AND ACKNOWLEDGING THE NEED
FOR US TO MOVE FORWARD IN
EARLY CHILDHOOD.
AS MIKE SAID, MICHIGAN WAS
ELIGIBLE TO APPLY FOR
$52.5 MILLION STARTING
HOPEFULLY JANUARY 1, 2014,
AND AS YOU CAN EXPECT, WE
APPLIED FOR ALL THAT AMOUNT.
JUST SO YOU KNOW THAT THIS IS
JUST ONE PIECE OF THE EARLY
CHILDHOOD PUZZLE.
IT IS A SIGNIFICANT PIECE,
BUT IT IS ONLY ONE PIECE.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE SLIDE,
REMEMBER THAT MICHIGAN'S EARLY
CHILDHOOD OUTCOMES ARE
CHILDREN BORN HEALTHY,
CHILDREN HEALTHY, THRIVING,
AND DEVELOPMENTALLY ON TRACK
FROM BIRTH TO 3rd GRADE,
DEVELOPMENTALLY READY TO
SUCCEED AT SCHOOL AT THE TIME
OF SCHOOL ENTRY, AND PREPARED
TO SUCCEED IN 4th GRADE AND
BEYOND BY READING PROFICIENTLY
BY THE END OF 3rd GRADE.
GIVEN THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES,
THE SYSTEM'S RECOMMENDATION,
AND THESE OUTCOMES, THAT IS
WHAT GUIDED US IN THE
PREPARATION OF THIS GRANT.
AS I SAID, THIS IS JUST ONE
PIECE OF THE EARLY CHILDHOOD
PUZZLE.
THIS ISN'T THE SILVER BULLET.
THIS ISN'T THE ANSWER TO
ALL THINGS.
THIS GRANT, IN FACT, AS
ANYTHING THAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT ASKS YOU TO DO,
SOMEWHAT SCRIPTS AND GUIDES
YOU IN WHAT THE FOCUS IS OF
THE GRANT-- NOT ALL BAD
THINGS, BUT IT'S NOT THE WHOLE
ENCHILADA OF WHAT WE NEED FOR
EARLY CHILDHOOD.
IN FACT, A MAJOR PIECE OF IT
IS THE MICHIGAN QUALITY
RATING SYSTEM, AND WE WROTE
ABOUT THAT-- HEALTH
AND FAMILY ENGAGEMENT,
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT, AND
THE UTILIZATION OF DATA
TO DETERMINE OUTCOMES FOR
CHILDREN.
AGAIN, THIS APPLICATION WILL
MOVE THE NEEDLE ON EARLY
CHILDHOOD, BUT WE ARE GOING TO
HAVE TO DO ADDITIONAL WORK TO
ADDRESS ALL OF THE FOUR
OUTCOMES.
AGAIN, THIS WILL SPEED THINGS
UP, BUT IT IS NOT THE ANSWER
FOR ALL.
AGAIN, AS I MENTIONED,
THIS GRANT APPLICATION WAS
DEVELOPED COLLABORATIVELY
ACROSS PARTNER AGENCIES, AND
EACH PARTNER AGENCY HAS TASKS
AND WORK THAT HAVE BEEN
IDENTIFIED THAT THEY WILL NEED
TO DO IF IN FACT WE ARE
SUCCESSFUL IN RECEIVING
THE GRANT.
ADDITIONALLY...
WE LOOKED AT,
"WHERE ARE THE CHILDREN?"
AND JEREMY WILL TALK TO YOU
ABOUT THE GRANT, AND HOW WE
USED DATA TO REALLY INFORM AND
TARGET OUR GRANT REQUEST.
>> SO TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT
OF A BACKDROP ON
THE APPLICATION ITSELF,
THE CORNERSTONE OF THE FIRST
PART OF THE APPLICATION IS
A LARGE NUMBER OF DATA TABLES.
I AM JUST GOING TO PROVIDE YOU
WITH A SNAPSHOT.
AS A DEFINITION PROVIDED FOR
THIS APPLICATION IS THAT LOW
INCOME CHILDREN ARE DEFINED AS
HAVING AN INCOME OF 200% OF
POVERTY AND BELOW.
LOOKING AT THE FIRST PIECE OF
THE DATA TABLE, WE SEE THAT IN
MICHIGAN THERE ARE ROUGHLY
181,000 CHILDREN UNDER AGE
THREE TO KINDERGARTEN ENTRY
THAT ARE LIVING IN 200% OF
POVERTY OR BELOW, SO NEARLY
50% OF KIDS IN THIS AGE RANGE.
WE EXPAND FROM BIRTH TO
KINDERGARTEN ENTRY AND
THAT NUMBER GOES UP TO
375,000 AND JUMPS UP TO
ABOUT 54%.
SO THERE IS A LARGE NUMBER OF
CHILDREN THAT FALL INTO
THE DEFINITION BASED ON
POVERTY ALONE.
THE APPLICATION ALSO ALLOWS
FOR YOU TO LOOK AT OTHER
CHILDREN WHO MAY BE AT RISK,
INCLUDING CHILDREN WITH
DISABILITIES, ENGLISH LANGUAGE
LEARNERS, MIGRANT OR HOMELESS,
FOSTER CARE, AND OTHER STATE
DEFINED OPPORTUNE
POPULATIONS.
LOOKING AT THE FRAME OF
OUR APPLICATION, WE WERE
CHARGED WITH DEVELOPING
AN AMBITIOUS YET
ACHIEVABLE GOAL.
WE HAVE SIX OVERARCHING GOALS
FOR THE APPLICATION.
SUSAN MENTIONED THE FOUR AREAS
IN WHICH WE WERE ABLE TO
WRITE TO.
THE FIRST IS INCREASING ACCESS
FOR CHILDREN WITH HIGH NEEDS
TO HIGH QUALITY EARLY LEARNING
PROGRAMS, INCLUDING CHILD
CARE, PRESCHOOL, HEAD START,
AND OTHERS AS A BASIC
FUNDAMENTAL FOR ENSURING THAT
CHILDREN ARE ACCESSING
QUALITY.
SECOND, THERE WERE INCREASING
OPPORTUNITIES FOR LICENSED AND
UNLICENSED SUBSIDIZED HOME
CARE PROVIDERS TO IMPROVE
THE QUALITY OF THEIR PROGRAMS.
IN MICHIGAN, WE HAVE OVER
11,000 LICENSED PROGRAMS THAT
PROVIDE EARLY LEARNING IN
THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND
OVER 50% OF THOSE ARE IN
HOME-BASED CARE, SO A FOCUS OF
THE APPLICATION IS TO SUPPORT
THOSE INDIVIDUALS TO RAISE
THEIR QUALITY AND IMPROVE
OUTCOMES FOR CHILDREN.
THE THIRD IS TO ENSURE THAT
MANY MORE FAMILIES UNDERSTAND
AND ARE MEANINGFULLY ENGAGED
IN THEIR CHILDREN'S EARLY
LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT.
THIS HAS A BROAD RANGE, WHICH
I WILL GET INTO IN A SLIDE
FURTHER ON, BUT WE WANT TO
ENSURE THAT WE ARE
NOT ONLY PROVIDING THEM WITH
THE RESOURCES AND OPPORTUNITIES
TO CONNECT WITH HIGH QUALITY
SERVICES, THAT THEY HAVE
ALL THE INFORMATION
AT THEIR DISPOSAL TO MAKE
THE CHOICES IN WHICH THEY FEEL
ARE APPROPRIATE, AND
THEY HAVE VOICE IN BUILDING
OUR EARLY CHILDHOOD SYSTEM.
FOUR IS THAT WE INVOLVE MANY
MORE FAMILIES AND PROVIDERS IN
EFFORTS TO IDENTIFY AND
PROMOTE CHILDREN'S PHYSICAL,
SOCIO-EMOTIONAL HEALTH AND
FAMILY ENGAGEMENT.
FIFTH IS THAT WE EXPAND
EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES,
PARTICULARLY FOR THOSE
HOME-BASED PROVIDERS WHO
I MENTIONED, BUT THAT IT IS
ACCESSIBLE TO ALL, PROVIDING
EARLY LEARNING SERVICES SO
THAT WE ARE RAISING THE STAFF
QUALIFICATIONS, WHICH WE KNOW
IS AN INDICATOR THAT LEADS TO
IMPROVED OUTCOMES.
LASTLY, THAT WE BUILD AN EARLY
LEARNING DATA SYSTEM THAT
PROVIDES ANONYMOUS AND
AGGREGATED INFORMATION IN
CHILDREN ACROSS DEPARTMENTS
AND PROGRAMS, AND WILL ALLOW
US TO ASSESS PROGRAMS' VALUE
TO PARENTS AND CHILDREN, AND
TO LOOK MUCH DEEPER INTO
THE INVESTMENTS THAT WE MAKE
IN EARLY CHILDHOOD.
I WANTED TO LOOP BACK TO--
SUSAN STARTED WITH THE GUIDING
PRINCIPLES THAT CAME FROM THE
OFFICE OF GREAT START REPORT.
THESE ARE THE SYSTEM
RECOMMENDATIONS, SO
WHAT I AM GOING TO DO IS
QUICKLY WALK US THROUGH THE SIX
RECOMMENDATIONS AND HIGHLIGHT
SOME OF THE ACTIVITIES THAT WE
WROTE INTO THE RACE TO THE TOP
APPLICATION.
FIRST IS THAT WE ARE BUILDING
LEADERSHIP WITHIN THE SYSTEM.
SO WITHIN THE APPLICATION, AS
SUSAN MENTIONED, THIS WAS
DEVELOPED COLLABORATIVELY
ACROSS AGENCIES, ACROSS
THE STATE GOVERNMENT.
THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY IN
THE APPLICATION TO BUILD
THE FOUNDATION OF AN OFFICE OF
GREAT START ADVISORY BODY
ACROSS AGENCIES.
THAT WAS DEFINED IN THE OFFICE
OF GREAT START REPORT THAT WE
PRESENTED IN JUNE.
THERE IS ALSO A GREAT
OPPORTUNITY TO BETTER INVOLVE
PARENTS AND PROVIDERS IN
PROVIDING A BETTER VOICE TO
THE SYSTEM.
THE SECOND RECOMMENDATION IS
THAT WE SUPPORT PARENTS'
CRITICAL ROLE.
IN RACE TO THE TOP, GREAT START
TO QUALITY, WHICH IS
OUR TIERED QUALITY RATING
IMPROVEMENT SYSTEM, A MAJOR
FOCUS IS TO PROVIDE CONSUMER
INFORMATION TO PARENTS IN
THEIR SELECTION OF EARLY
LEARNING PROGRAMS, SO THAT IS
A MAJOR FOCUS OF
THE APPLICATION.
OBVIOUSLY, WE WANT TO GET
THE APPROPRIATE INFORMATION
IN THEIR HANDS.
WE HAVE ADDITIONAL DOLLARS
BUILT INTO GOING INTO
A COMPETITIVE GRANT PROGRAM FOR
PARENTS AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES
TO EXPAND ON THE BRANCH OF
TRUSTED ADVISORS, WHICH WAS
IDENTIFIED IN OUR REPORT, AND
GREATER FOCUS FOR PROVIDERS
WHO ARE CONNECTING WITH
FAMILIES TO PROVIDE SUPPORTS
AROUND FAMILY ENGAGEMENT AND
CONNECTING THEM TO EARLY
CHILDHOOD SERVICES.
THE THIRD RECOMMENDATION IS TO
ENSURE QUALITY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY.
THE MAJOR FOCUS OF
THE APPLICATION IS TO PROVIDE
GREATER OPPORTUNITIES TO RAISE
THE BAR ON QUALITY, AND THAT
WE HAVE INFORMATION
AT OUR DISPOSAL TO ENSURE THAT
QUALITY IS NOT ONLY TAKING
PLACE, BUT IT'S LEADING TO
OUTCOMES AND SUPPORTING
OUR INVESTMENTS.
FOURTH IS ENSURE COORDINATION
AND COLLABORATION, AGAIN,
DOING THIS ACROSS AGENCIES,
DOING THIS WITHIN LOCAL
COMMUNITIES AND ENSURING THAT
WE ARE PROVIDING VOICE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR FAMILIES AND
PROVIDERS TO GIVE DIRECTION TO
THIS WORK.
THE FIFTH RECOMMENDATION IS
THAT WE ARE USING FUNDING
EFFICIENTLY TO MAXIMIZE
OUTCOMES.
AS SUSAN MENTIONED, THIS ISN'T
THE SILVER BULLET.
THE FOCUS OF THIS APPLICATION
IS TO DEVELOP THE SYSTEM --
IT IS A ONE TIME INVESTMENT
OVER THE COURSE OF FOUR YEARS
SO THAT WE HAVE A STRONGER
SYSTEM MOVING FORWARD.
IN THE APPLICATION, AGAIN,
A GREAT INVESTMENT IN
GREAT START TO QUALITY AIMS AT
RAISING QUALITY IN INDIVIDUAL
PROGRAMS, INCREASE AWARENESS
AROUND THE IMPORTANCE OF
EARLY LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT,
HEALTH AND FAMILY ENGAGEMENT,
AND EXPAND ON HIGH QUALITY
SERVICES FOR LOW INCOME
CHILDREN AND OTHER AT-RISK
CHILDREN.
LASTLY, THAT WE ARE INVESTING
IN QUALITY.
WE ARE GOING TO SUPPORT
PROVIDERS WHO INCREASE THEIR
QUALITY WITH INCENTIVES TO
PARTICIPATE WITH QUALITY
IMPROVEMENT GRANTS, SUPPORTS
ON INDIVIDUAL COORDINATION AND
COLLABORATION, SUPPORTS ON
QUALITY IMPROVEMENT, AND
SCHOLARSHIPS TO RAISE STAFF
QUALIFICATIONS AND
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT.
AND TO GLOSS BACK PAST
THE PIECE ABOUT COORDINATION
AND COLLABORATION BUT
COMES BACK TO INVEST IN QUALITY
IS THAT WE ARE CONNECTING TO
OTHER PARTS OF THE SYSTEM--
SEVERAL COMPONENTS OF
INVESTMENT IN THIS APPLICATION
WILL GO INTO PATHWAY TO
POTENTIAL COMMUNITIES,
WHICH ARE COMMUNITIES THAT ARE
SUPPORTED THROUGH A BUSINESS
DELIVERY MODEL WITH
THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN
SERVICES.
SO, WE WILL CONNECT WITH
BETTER WITH DCH-- DEPARTMENT
OF COMMUNITY HEALTH, TO
ENSURE THAT WE ARE CONNECTING
TO THE HIGHEST NEEDS FAMILIES.
LASTLY, AND IN CLOSING,
JUST A REMINDER THAT
THIS APPLICATION, AS SUSAN
MENTIONED-- EACH AGENCY HAS
A COMPONENT WHICH THEY WILL
BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
IMPLEMENTATION, THAT WE WILL
BE WORKING COLLABORATIVELY TO
ENSURE THE SUCCESSFUL
IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS GRANT,
AND THAT WE WILL BE UTILIZING
CHAMPIONS WITHIN THESE
AGENCIES, BUT ALSO CONTINUING
WITH ONGOING STAKEHOLDER
ENGAGEMENT-- FAMILIES,
PROVIDERS, LOCAL COMMUNITIES--
TO ENSURE THAT WE ARE
TAKING THE CORRECT APPROACH IN
IMPLEMENTATION, NOT ONLY IN
THE WORK FOR RACE TO THE TOP,
BUT THE WORK ACROSS
THE GOVERNMENT WITH
THE FOUR OUTCOMES.
>> MIKE.
>> QUESTIONS?
DAN, RICHARD.
>> YOU KNOW WHAT, I AM GOING
TO RE-QUEUE.
I'VE GOT A FEW, SO
I'LL JUST ASK ONE AND THEN
GET BACK IN LINE.
ONE, THANK YOU--
APPRECIATE THE TOPIC.
I-- SO FOLKS KNOW,
I CARE DEEPLY ABOUT THIS ISSUE
AT THIS TABLE.
I THINK THIS IS ONE OF
THE MOST-- I THINK THIS IS--
IN FACT, IF I HAD TO PICK
ONE TURNAROUND STRATEGY,
THIS WOULD BE THE TURNAROUND
STRATEGY.
SO THANK YOU, AND DON'T
APOLOGIZE FOR YOUR TEARS ON IT.
I THINK THEY ARE COMPLETELY
APPROPRIATE.
>> WELL, I CAN SEE IT.
WE CAN DO THIS.
>> YEAH.
IT'S RIGHT THERE, IT'S RIGHT
THERE, RIGHT?
>> MMM-HMM.
>> SO, I THINK WHAT I WOULD
LIKE TO DO IS ASK ABOUT--
SO APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK THAT
THE DEPARTMENT WOULD UNDERTAKE
IF THE DEPARTMENT IS
THE RECIPIENT OF THE GRANT,
AND THAT TAKES THE SHAPE OF
EXECUTION AND IMPLEMENTATION
ISSUES.
I'M STRUCK BY THE FACT--
OR STRUCK BY THE THOUGHT THAT
THERE ARE STILL KIND OF POLICY
ISSUES THAT THE LEGISLATURE
PROBABLY NEEDS TO DEAL WITH
THAT IMPACT THE ABILITY OF
THE DEPARTMENT TO EXECUTE.
AND I'D JUST LIKE
YOUR REACTION TO THOUGHTS ON
SOME SPECIFIC ONES.
>> ON THE POLICY?
ARE YOU GOING TO ASK SPECIFIC
POLICY?
>> MMM-HHMM.
>> FROM A PROCEDURAL
PERSPECTIVE, WE HAD TO SUBMIT
THE APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
ABOUT POLICY IMPLICATIONS.
SO IT HAS BEEN LOOKED AT BY
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE.
>> OH NO, I GET THAT.
>> I THINK WHAT DAN'S ASKING
IS DO YOU NEED ANY LEGISLATION?
DO YOU NEED ANY
STATUTORY THING?
>> SPECIFICALLY, TWO THINGS
I'M CURIOUS ABOUT JUST
YOUR REACTION TO AS POTENTIAL
LEGISLATIVE IDEAS.
ONE IS AROUND-- SO GREAT
START TO QUALITY, IT SEEMS
TO ME, WHICH IS THE QUALITY
RATING AND IMPROVEMENT SYSTEM--
IS THE IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY.
I MEAN, IT IS THE FOUNDATION
FOR IT.
BUT AS I UNDERSTAND IT,
PARTICIPATION IN GREAT START
TO QUALITY IS NOT MANDATORY.
WOULDN'T IT BE HELPFUL TO
THE DEPARTMENT IF THERE WERE
LEGISLATION THAT WAS PASSED
THAT MADE PARTICIPATION IN
GREAT START TO QUALITY
MANDATORY?
>> THERE'S NO MONEY TO DO IT.
>> POSSIBLY.
THERE ARE DIFFERENT WAYS
OF WHAT I CALL
"SKINNING THAT CAT."
SOME PEOPLE LOOK AT IT AND
DO A MANDATORY.
SOME OTHER PEOPLE AND OTHER
APPROACHES LOOK AT IT BY WHAT
I CALL, "COSTING" AND SAYING
THEY WILL ONLY PAY FOR
THIS LEVEL OF SERVICE.
AND THERE IS DIFFERENT
APPROACHES TO QUALITY.
>> TELL US MORE ABOUT
THE COSTING?
I'M SORRY, I'M JUST NOT QUITE
FOLLOWING.
>> WELL, IN SOME STATES THEY
SAY THAT THEY WILL NOT --
WE HAVE A FIVE STAR SYSTEM.
THEY WILL SAY, "WE WILL NOT
PAY FOR ANY SERVICES THAT ARE
DELIVERED IN ANYTHING BUT
A THREE AND HIGHER.
>> AH-- SO WE WON'T
SUBSIDIZE CARE UNLESS
YOU ARE PARTICIPATING --
>> AND YOU'RE AT THIS LEVEL.
THERE'S DIFFERENT WAYS TO
APPROACH WHAT I CALL NOT
NECESSARILY MANDATORY, BUT
GETTING MORE PEOPLE INVOLVED.
>> AND YOU DON'T NEED
LEGISLATION IN ORDER TO
DO THAT?
BECAUSE--
>> YEAH, YOU WOULD NEED
LEGISLATION TO DO THAT.
>> OKAY.
SO THAT'S ACTUALLY TO
MY SECOND QUESTION, BUT IF
THAT'S ALL RIGHT, SINCE WE'VE
GONE RIGHT INTO IT, I'LL JUST
ASK IT NOW.
>> COULD I?
>> SURE.
>> PART OF WHAT I CALL
THE REALITY OF OUR SITUATION IN
MICHIGAN RIGHT NOW IS WE
REALLY NEED TO HAVE THIS RACE
TO THE TOP APPLICATION, WITH
ALL OF THESE INCENTIVES AND
ET CETERA BUILT IN TO IMPROVE
QUALITY, FOR THE NEXT COUPLE
THREE YEARS AT LEAST BEFORE WE
CAN ACTUALLY GET TO THE POINT
WHERE I THINK WE-- IT WOULD
BE REASONABLE TO EITHER LOOK
AT A MANDATORY OR A PAYMENT
INCENTIVE.
THAT WE ARE NOT AT THE POINT,
RIGHT NOW, WHERE WE WOULD HAVE
ENOUGH SUPPLY AND ENOUGH
QUALITY TO MOVE
IN THAT DIRECTION
IN A COMFORTABLE WAY.
>> WELL, SO MAYBE THE FLIP SIDE
OF THAT COIN IS THAT WE DO
SUBSIDIZE AS A STATE, BUT
UNLICENSED CARE AS WELL, RIGHT?
>> AND SOME STATES DO NOT--
>> RIGHT.
>> DO NOT SUBSIDIZE--
>> SO MAYBE THE FLIP SIDE HERE,
IN THE MEANTIME WHILE WE'RE
WAITING FOR ENOUGH FOLKS TO--
I DON'T KNOW.
THAT'S INTERESTING.
I DON'T KNOW IF I AGREE--
WE'LL HAVE TO TALK ABOUT IT
OFFLINE SO I CAN LEARN MORE,
BUT WOULDN'T IT ALSO BE
HELPFUL THEN, IN THE MEANTIME,
FOR US AS A STATE TO STOP
SUBSIDIZING UNLICENSED CARE?
>> POSSIBLY.
HOWEVER, IF YOU REALLY START
DIGGING DEEP, FAMILIES NEED TO
HAVE EQUAL CHOICE.
AND IF YOU START LOOKING IN
A LOT OF SITUATIONS WHERE
PEOPLE ARE PREFERRING
UNLICENSED CARE, IT IS BECAUSE
THEY WANT THEIR CHILD
WITH A FRIEND OR FAMILY MEMBER.
>> SURE.
>> AND SO, TO ME, I THINK YOU
COULD-- I THINK WE NEED TO BE
CAREFUL IN LOOKING AT POLICIES
LIKE THAT, AS FAR AS WHO ARE
WE LEAVING OUT AND WHAT I
CALL ULTIMATE CHOICE, FAMILY
CHOICE AND, "WHO IS TAKING
CARE OF MY CHILD?"
SO I THINK IT IS
A COMPLICATED ISSUE.
WHEN WE LOOK-- WELL,
I'LL JUST STOP RIGHT THERE.
>> OKAY.
>> I THINK, IF I COULD JUST
MAKE AN OBSERVATION ABOUT
OCCASIONAL TENSION BETWEEN
BOARD AND DEPARTMENT, IS NOT
MANY BOARD YEARS AGO, SUSAN
WOULD BE PEPPERED BECAUSE OF
NON-AGREEMENT BY THE MAJORITY
OF THE BOARD ON EVEN ME
SIGNING THAT APPLICATION.
JUST AN OBSERVATION--
THINGS CHANGE.
AND I THINK THAT DEPARTMENT AT
THAT TIME-- I DON'T REMEMBER
WHO WAS SUPERINTENDENT--
WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THIS WAS
A GOOD IDEA, BUT I'M JUST
SAYING.
THE WAY ELECTION CYCLES WORK
IS, I THINK, AT THAT POINT IN
TIME, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ONE
THAT WE WOULD HAVE BEEN HARD
PRESSED AS TO, "WHY DID YOU
SIGN THAT?"
AND "WE DON'T NECESSARILY
AGREE."
SO, I'M ONLY TRYING TO USE
A MOMENT, AND ACTUALLY
CONSTRUCTIVELY TO SAY WHY SOME
OF THAT TENSION IS ABOUT AT
TIMES BETWEEN THAT.
I THINK IT WAS RICHARD AND
THEN LUPE.
>> OKAY.
WELL, I DEEPLY APPRECIATE
THE PASSION AND COMMITMENT
YOU BRING TO THIS WORK.
SO, I DO WANT TO ECHO THAT.
IT IS NOTHING TO BE
ASHAMED OF.
JUST IF I'M UNDERSTANDING HERE
CORRECTLY, WE ARE APPLYING FOR
A GRANT FOR $52.5 MILLION,
AND WE ARE GOING TO SERVE
HALF A MILLION KIDS.
OVER FOUR YEARS, THAT WORKS
OUT TO $26.25 A YEAR PER KID.
OR ARE WE GOING TO-- I MEAN
ARE THE HALF MILLION KIDS
LISTED HERE JUST AS-- AMONG
THEM WE ARE GOING TO FIND
THE ONES WITH THE GREATEST
NEED, OR--
MAYBE YOU COULD
SHARE YOUR THINKING ON
HOW THIS IS GOING TO BE
FOCUSED OR TARGETED OR WHO--
>> SURE.
SO SOME OF THE COMPONENTS FOR
THE RACE TO THE TOP,
FOR EXAMPLE THE RATING SYSTEM,
IS REALLY GOING TO ADDRESS
THE LARGE NUMBER OF KIDS WHO
HAVE PARTICIPATED IN PROGRAMS
THAT ARE-- IF THOSE PROGRAMS
ARE PARTICIPATING IN IMPROVING
THEIR QUALITY.
THE DOLLARS ARE NOT
TARGETED, FOR EXAMPLE, AT
EACH INDIVIDUAL CHILD.
THEY ARE MORE FOR THE
SYSTEMATIC PIECES THAT WILL
TOUCH THOSE CHILDREN, ALTHOUGH
THERE ARE COMPONENTS WITHIN
THE APPLICATION THAT ARE
TARGETED FOR SPECIFIC
CHILDREN.
FOR EXAMPLE, SOME SCHOLARSHIPS
FOR CHILDREN FOR UP TO AGE 3,
WHICH WE KNOW IS AN ACCESS
ISSUE, TO EXPLORE AS
AN OPPORTUNITY TO ENSURE THAT
CHILDREN ARE ENTERING INTO
HIGH QUALITY PROGRAMS AT
AN EARLIER AGE.
IT IS NOT GOING TO COME CLOSE
TO TOUCHING THE 200,000
CHILDREN THAT ARE SEEING
THAT AGE BRACKET.
IT IS GOING TO BE MORE FOCUSED
TOWARDS AN INDIVIDUAL NUMBER
OF CHILDREN AND STRATEGIES TO
LOOK AT IN THE FUTURE.
SO UNFORTUNATELY, ALL 200,000
CHILDREN AREN'T GOING TO BE
TOUCHED BY THESE DOLLARS
DIRECTLY, BUT THROUGH A SYSTEM
WE HOPE TO BE ABLE TO TOUCH AS
MANY OF THEM AS POSSIBLE.
>> OKAY.
I GUESS A QUESTION WHICH
REFLECTS MY CONCERN, ONE OF
MY CONCERNS ABOUT--
A CATEGORICAL CONCERN ABOUT
PROGRAMS LIKE THIS.
TITLE-- WHAT IS IT-- TITLE II,
TITLE I, HAS-- YOU KNOW,
THE PRINCIPLE IS TO SUPPLEMENT
NOT SUPPLANT SCHOOL SERVICES,
AND MY CONCERN FOR
EARLY CHILDHOOD KINDS OF
INITIATIVES-- WHAT--
HOW DO WE KNOW THAT WE ARE
SUPPLEMENTING NOT SUPPLANTING
PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY,
PARENTAL SERVICES, ET CETERA,
ET CETERA?
[OVERLAPPING CHATTER]
OH YEAH, THERE'S
A REAL DANGER OF--
>> NO, I'M SAYING I GET IT.
I'M WONDERING
WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS ARE.
I MEAN, HOW WOULD YOU KNOW?
SKETCH OUT SOME CRITERIA
FOR ME RICHARD, BECAUSE
THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
>> ALL I KNOW IS MY WORK ON
THE GROUND.
I KNOW OF SOME FAMILIES
WHERE-- YEAH, SOMEONE ELSE
IS FEEDING THEIR CHILD,
SO THEY CONTINUE TO FEED
THEIR HABIT, AND--
THERE'S ALWAYS THE,
YOU KNOW, "WE SHOULDN'T BLAME
THE CHILD BECAUSE OF
THE PARENT," BUT THEN
WE LEAVE THE CHILD
IN THE CARE OF A PARENT
WHO IS PERHAPS UNFIT,
OR AT LEAST UNFIT
PART OF THE TIME.
WHEN THE CHILD'S LEG IS CHEWED
OFF BY THE DOG AFTER A DRUNKEN
SPREE THAT-- WE REMOVE
THE CHILD FROM THE SITUATION.
PART OF MY CONCERN, TOO, IS
THAT WE HAVE HAD A LONG
HISTORY OF PUTTING MONEY INTO
EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAMS,
NOTABLY HEAD START, WHICH HAVE
BEEN A BIG MONEY SUCK,
AND MANY PEOPLE HAVE--
MANY STUDIES HAVE SUGGESTED
THAT THEY ARE INEFFECTIVE.
SO WHAT ARE WE DOING
DIFFERENTLY THIS TIME IS,
I GUESS, PART OF THE QUESTION
THAT I'M RAISING.
>> AND I APPRECIATE,
BY THE WAY-- THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT I REALLY DO
RESPECT IN THE BOARD IS THAT
YOU CAN HAVE DIFFERENCES OF
OPINIONS AND DO IT
IN AN APPROPRIATE WAY AND
NOT HAVE TO MAKE FACES AND
EVERYTHING, WHERE PEOPLE AGREE
TO DISAGREE.
IT ALMOST MAKES MY POINT,
THOUGH, THAT 15 YEARS AGO,
CLEARLY THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN
A MAJORITY VIEW HERE, AND WE
WOULD BE AT SOME ODDS OF
EVEN SIGNING THE APPLICATION.
I DON'T MEAN THAT
DISRESPECTFULLY.
I MEAN, IT IS JUST WITH
DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW ON
THAT, AND I DON'T THINK WE
WOULD KNOW TO ANSWER.
I THINK THAT IS WHY YOU'RE
LOOKING AT EACH OTHER.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE
SUPPLANT/ SUPPLEMENT PIECE
WOULD BE, BUT MAYBE WE CAN
CONTINUE THAT AS WE GO ON HERE.
>> SURE.
>> SO I THINK LUPE WAS NEXT,
AND THEN I THINK IT WAS
CASANDRA AND KATHLEEN,
AND WE'LL GO BACK TO--
>> WELL, I CRIED TOO.
THIS AGE IS SO IMPORTANT,
AND IF WE GET THIS AGE EDUCATED
AND TAKEN CARE OF, THEN
WE WON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT
3rd GRADE RETENTION AND HIGH
SCHOOL RETENTION, AND SO ON.
SO I AM JUST TOTALLY THRILLED
WITH THE WORK THAT BOTH OF YOU
DID, AND I AM REALLY EXCITED
ABOUT THE INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL
COOPERATION.
AND I KNOW THE GOVERNOR IS
VERY MUCH INTO EARLY
CHILDHOOD.
EVEN THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE,
BOLGER CAME IN EARLY ON AND
SAID THAT HE WAS VERY MUCH IN
SUPPORT OF EARLY CHILDHOOD.
I KNOW MICHIGAN EDUCATION
ASSOCIATION IS VERY MUCH.
I KNOW GRAND RAPIDS PUBLIC
SCHOOL BOARD IS-- I KNOW
THE STATE IS VERY MUCH
IN SUPPORT OF
THIS WORK THAT YOU DO.
NOW, WHEN ARE WE GOING TO
FIND OUT WHEN WE'RE
GOING TO GET THE GRANT?
[LAUGHTER]
>> RIGHT TO THE QUICK.
>> FRIDAY, WE HOPE.
>> WE'RE SUPPOSED TO FIND OUT
THIS WEEK.
>> CALL ME AND LET ME KNOW
RIGHT AWAY.
THIS IS A GREAT PROGRAM,
AND I HAVE A FOUR YEAR OLD
GRANDDAUGHTER, AND SHE HAS
BEEN GOING TO A PRIVATE
PRESCHOOL-- EARLY CHILDHOOD.
AND KNOW THAT THESE CHILDREN
ARE READY TO BE PART OF
THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM, AND SO
WE ARE GOING TO GET THEM
EARLY ON, AND THEN WE DON'T
HAVE TO BE FIGHTING ABOUT
ALL THESE OTHER THINGS THAT
PEOPLE ARE THINKING ABOUT.
SO, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
THE WORK THAT YOU PUT INTO
THIS, AND I WANT TO THANK--
I HOPE I GET CONTACTS SO I CAN
WRITE A NOTE TO ALL THESE
OTHER PEOPLE THAT YOU HAVE
HERE, ALL THESE OTHER GROUPS,
BECAUSE THIS IS REALLY DYNAMIC.
THANK YOU.
>> LET'S GET YOU
THAT INFORMATION, LUPE.
WE'LL DO THAT.
THANK YOU.
I THINK IT'S CASANDRA, AND
THEN IT WAS KATHLEEN,
THEN MICHELLE.
>> SO I, TOO, AM VERY MUCH
INTERESTED IN EARLY CHILDHOOD
EDUCATION AND I THINK
IT'S GREAT THAT WE HAVE
THIS OPPORTUNITY, BUT I HAVE TO
JUST ASK THE QUESTION, AND
YOU MAY HAVE ALREADY ANSWERED
THIS, BUT THE LAST SEVERAL
GO-AROUNDS WITH RACE TO
THE TOP, WE'VE APPLIED, AND
AS PART OF THAT APPLICATION
WE'VE BEEN MANDATED-- TO EVEN
QUALIFY TO APPLY-- TO CHANGE
LAWS, CREATE EDUCATION REFORM,
CHANGE POLICIES, AND THEN
WE END UP WITH NO MONEY.
AND SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS,
DID WE HAVE TO DO ANY OF THAT
IN ORDER TO QUALIFY TO APPLY
FOR THIS?
AND IF SO, WHAT DID WE HAVE TO
DO, OTHER THAN SOMETHING WE'VE
ALREADY WANTED TO DO?
>> WELL, THAT'S-- THE LAST
PART IS THE TRUTH.
WHEN WE LOST THE RACE TO
THE TOP LAST TIME, THE STATE
CONTINUED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH
IMPLEMENTING SOME OF
THE STRATEGIES THAT WERE IN
THE RACE TO THE TOP
FIRST APPLICATION FOR EARLY
LEARNING, LIKE THE QUALITY
RATING SYSTEM,
THE KINDERGARTEN ENTRY
ASSESSMENT, THE STANDARDS,
THE GSRP.
I MEAN, A NUMBER OF PIECES
HAVE BEEN MOVING FORWARD.
THIS WOULD GIVE A LOT
MORE OXYGEN FOR WORK
WE ALREADY ARE DOING.
WE DID NOT WHAT I CALL
BASTARDIZE ANY OF OUR CURRENT
WORK, AND THAT'S PART OF--
I KNOW IT MIGHT BE BORING FOR
YOU ALL, BUT THAT'S PART OF
WHY DOING THE OFFICE OF GREAT
START REPORT AND HAVING
1,400 MICHIGANDERS WEIGH IN ON
WHAT THEY WANT TO SEE IN EARLY
CHILDHOOD SERVES AS OUR BASIS
FOR DOING ANY OF THIS.
SO WE'RE ALWAYS GOING BACK TO
THAT AND SAYING, "HOW CAN WE
STAY TRUE TO THAT BUT LOOK AT
THIS OPPORTUNITY?"
BECAUSE I'M SURE YOU ALL KNOW
THIS: SOMETIMES MONEY IS NOT
WITHOUT STRINGS OR WHAT I CALL
"UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES"
THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT IS
NOT GOOD FOR MICHIGAN.
SO WE LOOKED REALLY CAREFULLY
AT ALL OF THESE PIECES AND
FIGURED OUT, WELL, HOW CAN WE
IN FACT IMPROVE AND EXPAND ON
OUR EXISTING WORK?
AND PART OF THE BEAUTY OF
ALL THIS IS LOOKING AT HOW
THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
HEALTH CAME TO THE TABLE,
THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN
SERVICES TO, WHAT I CALL,
EXPAND OUT HOW WE ARE
LOOKING AT EARLY CHILDHOOD
IN SUPPORTIVE WAYS, AND
PROGRAMS THAT THEY THOUGHT
WE NEEDED TO EXPAND.
SO WE DID NOT GO DOWN A PATH
TO CHASE THE MONEY
IS THE SHORT ANSWER.
>> THANK YOU.
>> KATHLEEN AND THEN MICHELLE.
>> WELL, I WANT TO THANK YOU,
TOO.
I'VE SAID THIS BEFORE, BUT
WE'VE BEEN PUSHING FOR THIS
FOR MANY, MANY YEARS AND
AS DAN SAID, THIS IS
THE MOST IMPORTANT.
I REMEMBER WHEN WE WERE DOING
HIGH SCHOOL REFORM AND HAD
AN ISD SUPERINTENDENT SITTING
WHERE YOU WERE.
AND WE ASKED, "WHAT WOULD YOU
DO TO IMPROVE-- IF YOU COULD
WAVE A MAGIC WAND, WHAT WOULD
YOU DO TO IMPROVE HIGH SCHOOL
GRADUATION RATES?"
AND HE SAID, "DEVELOP A HIGHLY
EFFECTIVE, HIGH QUALITY EARLY
CHILDHOOD PROGRAM."
>> MMM-HMM.
>> THIS IS NOT NEW.
SO I'M GOING TO FOLLOW-UP
CASANDRA'S QUESTION.
I HOPE WE GET THIS.
I THINK WE SHOULD GET THIS.
THIS IS A VERY THOROUGH--
>> WE'RE GOING
TO GET THIS, KATH.
>> WE'RE GOING TO GET THIS.
[LAUGHTER]
>> I DON'T WANT TO BRING UP
THE POSSIBILITY OF
NOT GETTING IT, BUT IF WE DO
NOT GET IT, WILL WE STILL
CONTINUE TO-- I HOPE WE'LL
STILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH
THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
HEALTH--
>> OH YEAH.
>> AND HUMAN SERVICES,
AND KEEP THAT GOING.
I MEAN, WE HAD THAT BEFORE--
I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED
TO IT, BUT I'M GLAD WE'RE
DOING IT AGAIN.
SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT
I WOULD PUSH, BECAUSE THIS IS
SO, SO CRITICAL.
YOU KNOW, WHEN I THINK BACK--
I'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR
SEVERAL YEARS, AND I THINK
BACK WHEN I WORKED FOR
THE SENATE AND WE WERE
PROMOTING EARLY CHILDHOOD
EDUCATION AND THE ROADBLOCKS
THAT WERE THROWN IN THE WAY
BY SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF
THE SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE
AT THE TIME AND OTHER PEOPLE,
AND PUTTING ON A CONFERENCE
AT KELLOGG CENTER ON EARLY
CHILDHOOD AND QUOTING
THE HIGH SCOPES STUFF.
SO IT'S ABOUT TIME WE GOT
THE GRANT.
I MEAN, IF THEY DON'T KNOW
THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON
THIS FOR A LONG TIME, AND BEEN
IMPROVING IT ALL ALONG -- SO
THANKS FOR ALL THE WORK YOU'RE
DOING TO MAKE IT BETTER.
>> ONE THING I SHOULD--
ONE THING I SHOULD SAY:
SOME OF THE GRANT WILL HELP
ALL CHILDREN, BUT THE VAST
MAJORITY OF THE GRANT'S FOCUS
ARE ON CHILDREN WHO ARE
AT-RISK, RECEIVING CHILD
SUBSIDY AT 121% OF THE FEDERAL
POVERTY LEVEL.
AND SO, THAT-- IF YOU WANT TO
THINK ABOUT-- IT'S NOT
THE 500,000 THAT RICHARD SAID.
IT'S REALLY A LOT OF WORK IN
TRYING TO WORK WITH THAT
POPULATION, AS WELL AS
THE LINKAGE TO THE PATHWAYS TO
POTENTIAL THAT DHS HAS DONE,
WHICH IS IN ALL THE SCHOOLS.
>> YEAH, THIS IS NOT NEW, BUT,
BY THE WAY, WE HAVE A TEAM
HERE THAT GETS IT DONE NOW.
THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE.
I MEAN, IT'S NOT NEW,
BUT WE GET IT DONE.
MICHELLE WAS NEXT.
>> IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TOO,
BECAUSE SO MANY OF THE
CHILDREN COME SO FAR BEHIND
AND THEN-- WE CAN'T EXPECT
THE SCHOOLS TO CATCH THEM UP
IF THEY ARE SO FAR BEHIND
WHEN THEY START.
I MEAN, IT'S PRACTICALLY
IMPOSSIBLE.
SO THIS IS CRITICAL FOR
EVERYTHING WE WANT TO DO.
>> YUP.
MICHELLE, THEN DAN.
>> I THINK THE WORK YOU DO IS
JUST WONDERFUL.
I REALLY APPRECIATE IT, AND I
LIKE HOW IT-- IT JUST SEEMS
VERY THOUGHTFUL, AND I LIKE
THE WAY THAT PARENTS ARE
INCLUDED AND PART OF
THIS COLLABORATION.
I READ THROUGH THE SUMMARY OF
THE SUBMISSION, I GUESS,
AND I JUST HAD A COUPLE
OF QUESTIONS.
ONE, THERE WAS A-- BEFORE
I EVEN DO THAT, I WAS REALLY
STRUCK AT THE OVER 50% OF KIDS
THAT ARE CONSIDERED LOW
INCOME, YOU KNOW.
AND I KNOW IN MICHIGAN, IN
LOOKING AT SOME OF THE WORK
THAT OTHERS HAVE DONE, THAT
ONE THING THAT MAKES US UNIQUE
IS THAT WE HAVE SO MANY
CONCENTRATED AREAS OF VERY
HIGH POVERTY, AND-- I THINK
WE BROKE THAT OUT AND LOOKED
AT, YOU KNOW, DETROIT OR
PONTIAC OR MAYBE
GRAND RAPIDS-- THAT IT WOULD
BE WELL OVER 50%.
SO I THINK THAT THAT IS
PART OF THE ROOT OF
THE PROBLEM-- HOW TO
DEAL WITH THAT.
A QUESTION I HAVE IS THAT
OFTEN TIMES KIDS THAT ARE IN
POVERTY ARE VERY TRANSIENT.
IS THERE ANYTHING IN HERE THAT
SORT OF ADDRESSES THE FACT
THAT THERE MAYBE SOME WAY TO
TRACK THEM?
BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THEY ARE
COLLECTING DATA-- AND TO JUST
SORT OF ENSURE THAT THEY ARE
CONTINUING, EVEN IF THEY ARE
MOVING FROM ONE CITY TO
THE NEXT IN THE STATE.
IS THERE ANY WAY TO SORT OF
DEAL WITH THAT ISSUE
OF TRANSIENCE?
>> NOT SPECIFICALLY, BUT THAT
IS PART OF THIS WHOLE NOTION
OF COORDINATE AND COLLABORATE.
>> RIGHT.
>> AND THAT PEOPLE NEED TO BE
REFERRING AS PEOPLE ARE MOVING
ON TO THE NEXT QUALITY
SETTING.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT IT, IN
PARTICULAR WITH HOMELESS KIDS
AND TRANSIENT CHILDREN, PART
OF THE ONLY STABILITY THAT
SOME GET IS A QUALITY
CHILDCARE STABLE ENVIRONMENT.
AND SO, WE NEED TO-- AND
THAT'S PART OF THE WORK WITH--
AND WHY IT IS GOOD THAT
WE ARE WORKING WITH PATHWAYS TO
POTENTIAL AND THE DHS PROJECT,
IN THAT WE NEED TO BE
MUCH MORE AGGRESSIVE IN
MAKING SURE THAT CHILDREN HAVE
THAT STABILITY, AND THAT
CONTINUES, BECAUSE THAT MAY BE
THE ONLY EIGHT HOURS OF
STABILITY FOR THAT CHILD.
AND WE ARE NOT AS INTENTIONAL
AS MAYBE WE'D LIKE TO BE
ON THAT.
>> RIGHT.
AND JUST ONE OTHER QUESTION.
SO LIKE THE OTHER RACE TO
THE TOP, SO THERE'S GOING TO
BE A GRADING OF THEM
OF SOME SORT?
AND SO WHAT IF THERE--
BECAUSE THERE ALWAYS WILL BE
A BOTTOM 5%, BECAUSE THERE IS
ALWAYS A BOTTOM 5%, YOU KNOW,
IF YOU GRADE IN THAT WAY.
SO IS THERE GOING TO BE
SOME-- WHAT ARE THE NEGATIVE
REPERCUSSIONS, AND WHAT IS
THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING
IF SOMEBODY IS NOT PERFORMING?
>> THERE'S NOT SOMETHING
LIKE THAT IN THIS.
>> OKAY, OKAY.
>> THERE'S NOT A BOTTOM 5%
>> THERE'S NO FED THAT WILL
FIRE EVERYBODY, OKAY.
>> NO.
>> OKAY.
>> THERE'S NOTHING LIKE THAT.
[LAUGHTER]
>> OKAY, THANK YOU.
>> DAN.
>> WITH RESPECT TO
MY COLLEAGUE TO THE LEFT, WHO
HAS LET ME KNOW THAT I'VE
ALREADY SPOKEN ON THE SUBJECT.
SO REALLY QUICKLY--
>> WILL THE CHAIR PLEASE
ACKNOWLEDGE--
>> THANK YOU, MA'AM.
THANK YOU.
[LAUGHTER]
>> REALLY QUICKLY, I JUST
DON'T WANT TO LET THIS GO
WITHOUT AT LEAST OFFERING
A COUNTERVAILING PERSPECTIVE.
ALL OF THOSE DOLLARS WE SPENT
ON HEAD START AND SO ON,
WE NOW DO HAVE LONGER TERM
STUDIES WHICH SUGGEST THAT
HIGH QUALITY CARE, WHILE THERE
MAY BE A QUOTE UNQUOTE,
"WASH-OUT EFFECT" IN
3rd GRADE, YOU ARE NOT SEEING
MUCH HIGHER SCORES
IN 3rd GRADE, AT LEAST
CONSISTENTLY YOU DO SEE
MUCH LOWER RATES OF
SPECIAL EDUCATION--
ONE, TWO, MUCH LOWER RATES OF
RETENTION AND HIGHER RATES OF
GRADUATION ON TIME.
THREE, YOU SEE MUCH LOWER
RATES OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT AND
INCARCERATION FOR THOSE KIDS,
YEARS LATER WHEN THEY
ARE ADULTS.
ALL OF THE BENEFIT OF THOSE
PROGRAMS, WHICH I THINK WE ARE
NOW STARTING TO REFER TO AS
EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
DIVIDEND, SUGGEST THAT
THE DOLLARS THAT WE SPEND ON
EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
ARE WELL WORTH IT.
SO I JUST WANT TO OFFER
THAT COMPETING PERSPECTIVE.
I WANT TO COMPLIMENT
THE DEPARTMENT ON WHAT IS
OBVIOUSLY AN INTENTIONALITY
AROUND USING THAT EVIDENCE TO
FOCUS THESE PROGRAMS ON WHERE
THEY ARE NEEDED MOST.
THE EVIDENCE HERE IS NOT THAT
MIDDLE CLASS AND HIGH--
YOU KNOW, KIDS THAT COME FROM
UPPER INCOME FAMILIES NEED
THIS SUPPORT.
IT IS THE KIDS WHO ARE AT
200% OF POVERTY OR BELOW.
SO I REALLY APPRECIATE
THE FOCUS THAT THE DEPARTMENT
HAS BROUGHT TO USING THIS DATA
TO INFORM ITS PRACTICE.
AND THIRD, I JUST WANT TO
ENCOURAGE US AS A BODY TO TAKE
ON THE CHALLENGE OF FIGURING
OUT WHAT MIGHT MAKE SENSE IN
THE WAY OF RECOMMENDATIONS TO
THE LEGISLATURE AROUND CHANGES
IN STATE LAW THAT WOULD
ACCELERATE OUR PROGRESS
AS A STATE.
I OFFERED TWO BEFORE--
I DON'T KNOW IF THOSE ARE
RIGHT, AND SUSAN DISAGREED
WITH SOME OF THEM OR OFFERED
SOME MORE NUANCED
UNDERSTANDING OF THEM.
I HAVE A LOT MORE LEARNING
TO DO, AS I THINK WE ALL DO,
ON THIS, BUT I REALLY THINK
THAT IF WE WANT TO PLAY
THE ROLE OF HELPING TO LEAD
THE CONVERSATION AROUND PUBLIC
EDUCATION IN THIS STATE,
THIS IS A PLACE WHERE
WE SHOULD DOUBLE DOWN.
WE SHOULD WEIGH IN ON FIGURING
OUT WHAT KIND OF STATE POLICY
WOULD ADVANCE OUR EARLY
CHILDHOOD EDUCATION EFFORTS.
>> AND MAYBE BEFORE WE GO TO
THE NEXT ITEM, I WILL USE THIS
RATHER THAN THE AFTERNOON AS
AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAY
IT'S WHY WE ARE GOING TO CONCERT
AN EFFORT HERE TO GET SPECIFIC
AND HIGH QUALITY READING
MATERIALS TO KIDS IN LOW
INCOME FAMILIES, BECAUSE
WE KEEP TALKING ABOUT IT, AND
WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY HERE,
I THINK, TO GET SOMETHING DONE.
THROUGH A CULTURE OF
READING-- WE HAVE THE LIBRARY
ACROSS THE STREET.
WE HAVE PRIORITY SCHOOLS HERE.
WE CAN LINK THEM UP IN A WAY
THAT'S GOING TO BE
THOUGHTFULLY DONE, AND
ACTUALLY THEN DO IT.
BECAUSE A BIG PIECE OF THIS
IS-- THERE'S NOTHING
WORSE THAN, IN MY MIND,
WELL-INTENTIONED BARNES AND
NOBLE TAKING CRAPPY OLD BOOKS
AND GIVING THEM TO POOR KIDS.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE TEND TO DO.
"LET'S ALL FEEL GOOD AT
THE HOLIDAYS BY COLLECTING
A BUNCH OF CRAPPY OLD BOOKS."
AND THEY MAY OR MAY NOT BE
APPROPRIATE, THEY MAY BE
FALLING APART, AND THAT'S
WHAT THE POOR KIDS
ARE GOING TO GET.
SO OUR INITIATIVE YESTERDAY
WAS TO TRY TO TARGET, NOT ONLY
FOR REAL REASONS, SOME MONEY
TO GO TO THOSE KIDS AND THEIR
FAMILIES, BUT ACTUALLY TO
SYMBOLICALLY SAY,
"THERE'S STUFF THAT HAS TO
BE DONE BEYOND POLICY."
BUT I REALLY APPRECIATE, AND
WE'RE GOING TO TAKE UP
YOUR OFFER TO THINK ABOUT
SOME POLICY SUGGESTIONS,
BECAUSE THERE'S CERTAINLY
AN APPROPRIATE PLACE
FOR THAT, TOO.
OKAY, GREAT.
THANK YOU, GUYS.
I APPRECIATE IT.
AND NEXT UP IS JOSEPH AND VINCE.
I WANT TO JUST SAY, I GET
A CHANCE-- AS A DEPARTMENT
HEAD, NOT AS STATE
SUPERINTENDENT-- TO GIVE OUT
COINS, AND THESE ARE COINS
THAT YOU GIVE FOR KIND OF
SERVICE ABOVE AND BEYOND.
AND JUST TO TAKE THE TENSION
DOWN ON VINCE A LITTLE BIT,
I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW--
FOR MY POINT OF VIEW--
THE LEGISLATURE TO GIVE SUCH
A SHORT DEADLINE TO
GET THIS DONE.
AND WE LITERALLY GOT IT DONE
WITHIN A MINUTE.
IT WAS AT 11:59 PM ON SUNDAY,
DECEMBER 1 THAT THEY RECEIVED
THE REPORT THAT YOU ARE GOING
TO HEAR MORE ABOUT.
HAVING DONE THAT, THE REASON
IT GOT DONE-- JOSEPH
TO A DEGREE WOULD BE
THE FIRST ONE TO SAY THAT
VINCE LED THIS EFFORT.
AND TO TRY TO BRING A LITTLE
BIT OF THE TENSION DOWN,
BECAUSE IT WAS A VERY TOUGH
WEEK, WHEN WE REVIEWED THIS IN
ITS FINAL FORM, I ASKED KAREN
TO GET HOLD OF VINCE AND
HIS TEAM AND BRING HIM UP
BECAUSE I HAD A PROBLEM WITH
THE REPORT.
AND THIS WAS JUST BEFORE
WE WERE READY TO SEND IT.
AND I WOULDN'T SIGN OFF ON IT.
AND VINCE CAME UP, AND
IN A VERY STOIC WAY WITH
HIS TEAM, WAS LOOKING AND
WAITING FOR, "UH-OH.
WE'RE AT THE LAST MINUTE HERE,
AND SUDDENLY HE'S GOT
A PROBLEM WITH THIS REPORT?"
AND I DIDN'T MAKE HIM SUFFER
LONG, BUT I SAID, "THE REAL
REASON YOU'RE UP HERE IS
I WANT TO GIVE YOU ONE OF
THE FEW COINS I'M ABLE TO
GIVE OUT ON BEHALF OF
THE DEPARTMENT FOR
THIS EXCELLENT WORK," AND
THEN EVERYONE, OUT OF RELIEF,
AND ALSO GENUINE--
[APPLAUSE]
YOU HANDLED IT WELL, VINCE.
BUT THE WHOLE REPORT--
I CAN'T THANK YOU ENOUGH FOR IT,
AND THIS IS THE OPPORTUNITY
FOR THE BOARD-- AND JOHN
LAY THE GROUNDWORK, I THOUGHT
BEAUTIFULLY, LAST MEETING TO
TRY TO SET US UP FOR WHAT WE
NEEDED TO DO BETWEEN THE TWO
MEETINGS, UNFORTUNATELY.
SO THE TIMING WAS A LITTLE BIT
OFF, BUT AGAIN, I THINK
THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN
ABLE TO SAY JANUARY 1 WOULD
HAVE BEEN FINE.
I'M NOT SURE IF THEY--
WELL, THEY ARE READING IT NOW,
PROBABLY.
I THINK THAT'S WHY
THEY ARE HOME.
THEY ARE READING THIS NOW.
[LAUGHTER]
SO PLEASE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE.
WE DO APPRECIATE
THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE
WITH YOU A KIND OF OVERVIEW
TODAY, OF THE REPORT.
I AM GOING TO WALK THROUGH
HOW IT WAS DEVELOPED AND TALK
A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT IS,
AND ALSO WHAT IT ISN'T,
WHAT WE THINK ABOUT NEXT STEPS
AND GOING FORWARD, AND HOW TO
USE THAT RICH INFORMATION
WE RECEIVED AS A RESULT
OF THIS PROCESS.
IN TERMS OF MATERIALS, WHAT WE
ENDED UP DEVELOPING AND
PUTTING TOGETHER TO MEET
THIS REQUIREMENT AND
THIS PURPOSE WAS THE ACTUAL
REPORT, THE SURVEY, THE POLLED
RESPONSES FROM ALL CIVIC
PROVIDERS THAT RESPONDED TO
THE SURVEY WE INCLUDED
WITH THE REPORT.
AND THEN A CROSSWALK, WHICH
I'LL SPEAK A LITTLE BIT MORE
ABOUT IN DEPTH THROUGHOUT
THE PRESENTATION HERE SO THAT
EVERYONE CAN SEE EXACTLY
WHICH SURVEY QUESTIONS WE USED
AS WE THOUGHT ABOUT
THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES
AND ELEMENTS THAT WE WERE
THINKING OF.
SO EVERYWHERE THAT WE HAVE
MADE THE REPORT AVAILABLE,
WE HAVE ALSO MADE ALL THOSE
OTHER MATERIALS AVAILABLE,
SO EVERYONE HAS THE SAME
RESOURCES WE DID AND CAN
MINE THAT AND LOOK AT
THAT INFORMATION.
AND THAT INFORMATION WAS
PROVIDED TO YOU
ELECTRONICALLY.
WE ARE ALWAYS HAPPY TO--
IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE A HARD
COPY-- THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS
LIKE IF YOU NEED KINDLING FOR
YOUR YULE LOG OR SOMETHING,
HOLIDAYS-- WE CAN
MAKE THAT HAPPEN, JUST PLEASE
LET US KNOW.
SO IN TERMS OF HOW WE GOT
HERE, WE HAD THE FINAL
RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE
LEGISLATURE ON OCTOBER 29th
THAT REQUIRED A DEVELOPMENT OF
A REPORT ON OPTIONS.
ALIGNED THAT WITH THE COMMON
CORE STATE STANDARDS.
THE RESOLUTION WAS
FUNDAMENTALLY ABOUT ALLOWING
THE DEPARTMENT TO PROCEED WITH
THE IMPLEMENTATION THAT WE
HAVE DONE OVER THE PAST THREE
YEARS ALONG THE COMMON CORE
STANDARDS AND PARTICIPATING IN
ASSESSMENT DEVELOPMENT
ACTIVITIES.
HAD THE DUE DATE OF DECEMBER
1, AND IT ALSO INCLUDED SOME
SPECIFIC PREFERENCES
IN THERE-- NOT REQUIREMENTS--
THAT MICHIGAN'S ASSESSMENT
SYSTEM HAD TO HAVE THESE THINGS.
BUT AS WE LOOKED AT OPTIONS,
PREFERENCES FOR THESE TYPES OF
ELEMENTS AROUND COMPUTER
ADAPTIVE TESTING, GETTING
REAL TIME RESULTS VERY QUICKLY
IN THE HANDS OF EDUCATORS,
MULTIPLE ADMINISTRATIONS
THROUGHOUT THE YEAR TO SUPPORT
LOOKING AT THINGS LIKE STUDENT
GROWTH, AND APPROPRIATE FOR
USE IN INDIVIDUAL EDUCATOR
EVALUATIONS.
SO THOSE WERE THINGS ON
OUR MIND AS WE THOUGHT
ABOUT THE SURVEY, AND
WHAT THIS REPORT WOULD NEED TO
LOOK LIKE AS IT CAME TOGETHER.
AS MIKE DESCRIBED,
THE TIMELINE IN THERE--
ONE CHALLENGE FOR US WAS
IT DIDN'T ALLOW US TO HAVE
THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE
STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT.
SO NORMALLY ON A TOPIC LIKE
THIS, WE HAVE AN ED ADVISORY
COMMITTEE AND AN ADDITIONAL
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
THAT DID NOT HAVE
AN OPPORTUNITY TO
WEIGH IN ON THIS.
WE THOUGHT THE FAIREST THING
TO DO WOULD BE DEVELOP
A SURVEY THAT COVERED
THESE THINGS LIKE
THE PREFERENCES AND
RESOLUTIONS AND A LOT OF
THINGS ON OUR EXPERIENCE OF
WHAT STATES HAVE TO CONTEND
WITH AND DEAL WITH AND BE
ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE AS PART OF
A LARGE SCALE, HIGH STAKES
ASSESSMENT PROGRAM.
AND SO WE BUILT THIS SURVEY,
AND ON OUR BID FOR MICHIGAN
SITE, WHERE ALL COMPANIES AND
SERVICE PROVIDERS THAT ARE
INTERESTED IN DOING BUSINESS
FOR THE STATE OF MICHIGAN GO
AND REGISTER AS ELIGIBLE TO DO
BUSINESS HERE, AND ALL THOSE
TYPES OF THINGS-- ONE OF
THE CATEGORIES THAT THEY CAN
CHECK IS EDUCATIONAL TESTING.
SO THERE ARE 185 OF
THESE ENTITIES THAT CHECKED
THAT BOX, WHICH INDICATED THAT
THEY WANTED TO BE MADE AWARE OF
ANY OPPORTUNITIES TO
PARTICIPATE IN STATE
PROCUREMENT ACTIVITIES
AROUND EDUCATIONAL TESTING.
SO AS PART OF DEVELOPING
THIS SURVEY AND PUTTING IT ON
THIS SITE, ALL OF THEM RECEIVED
A NOTIFICATION THAT THERE WAS
AN OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE
IN LIKE A WITNESS REQUEST FOR
INFORMATION, AND THEY ALL HAD
THE SAME OPPORTUNITY TO
PARTICIPATE IN THAT.
THE ONLY EXCEPTIONS TO THAT
WERE THE TWO LARGE ASSESSMENT
CONSORTIA-- SMARTER BALANCED
AND PARCC, WHO ARE NOT
COMPANIES, OR TESTING
COMMUNITIES, OR ENTITIES
LIKE THAT.
BUT THEY ARE WORKING ON
THIS PROJECT, AND EVERYONE IS
WELL AWARE OF THEM.
WE HAVE BEEN PARTICIPATING, OF
COURSE, IN SMARTER BALANCED
FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS.
AND SO WE SENT A SURVEY TO
THEM INDIVIDUALLY AND MADE
SURE THEY WERE AWARE OF IT,
BUT THEY WERE GIVEN THE EXACT
SAME DEADLINE AND TIME FRAME
AND SURVEY QUESTIONS THAT
EVERYBODY ELSE RECEIVED.
>> AND JUST TO-- WE DID,
IN ADDITION TO POSTING IT ON
THE BID FOR MICHIGAN WEBSITE,
WE DID LOOK AT-- SPECIFICALLY
DID SOME RESEARCH ON WHO IS
DEVELOPING-- ANY SPECIFIC
COMPANIES THAT ARE DEVELOPING
COMMON CORE BASED ASSESSMENTS.
AND WE SPECIFICALLY CALLED TO
THEIR ATTENTION THE SURVEY,
NOT JUST ON THE BID FOR
MICHIGAN WEBSITE.
ANYONE WHO HAD BEEN IDENTIFIED
AS ACTUALLY DOING THIS WORK
ALSO RECEIVED A SPECIFIC
INVITATION TO RESPOND TO
THE SURVEY.
>> BUT EVERYBODY GOT THE SAME
SURVEY WITH THE SAME DEADLINE
TO PARTICIPATE HERE.
AND WE ALSO, IN ADDITION TO
THE PREFERENCES EXPRESSED IN
THE REVOLUTION-- RESOLUTION--
[LAUGHTER]
OUR-- LITTLE SLIP THERE.
>> AN INTERESTING ONE.
>> AN INTERESTING ONE.
THERE WERE SOME OF MY STAFF
READY TO REVOLT AS THIS WAS
COMING TOGETHER, SO WHEREVER
THAT COMES FROM.
BUT OUR STAFF EXPERIENCE--
BUT WE ALSO HAD FOUR KEY
DOCUMENTS WE USED AS PART OF
THE JUSTIFICATION FOR ALL
THE QUESTIONS THAT WE ASKED.
THE FIRST TWO-- THE STANDARDS
FOR EDUCATIONAL AND
PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING,
AND THEN THE STANDARDS FOR
AN ASSESSMENT PEER REVIEW
GUIDANCE PROVIDED BY THE US
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.
WE'VE HAD THOSE DOCUMENTS
FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS.
THEY ARE JUST SEMINAL
DOCUMENTS FOR US IN TERMS OF
DOCUMENTING TECHNICAL QUALITY
AND A NUMBER OF ASPECTS AROUND
ALIGNMENT, SCORING, REPORTING
FOR THESE HIGH STAKES, LARGE
SCALE ASSESSMENT SYSTEMS.
THE OTHER TWO DOCUMENTS
THAT WE USED ARE NEW--
JUST PRODUCED IN 2013.
THE FIRST ONE THERE WAS
THE COUNCIL OF CHIEF STATE
SCHOOL OFFICERS-- SO MIKE'S
MEMBERSHIP ORGANIZATION THAT
HE AND ALL THE STATE
SUPERINTENDENTS BELONG TO.
THEY PRODUCED A DOCUMENT
AROUND ASSESSMENT QUALITY
PRINCIPLES TO HELP INFORM WHAT
THEY, AS EDUCATION LEADERS
ACROSS THE COUNTRY, EXPECT TO
SEE IN THESE NEXT GENERATION
ASSESSMENT SYSTEMS.
AND THEN THIS OPERATIONAL BEST
PRACTICES FOR STATEWIDE
PROGRAMS WAS A DOCUMENT
DEVELOPED JOINTLY BY THE
COUNCIL OF CHIEF STATE SCHOOL
OFFICERS AND THE ASSOCIATION
OF TEST PUBLISHERS, AS A JOINT
AGREEMENT ON WHAT BEST
PRACTICES ARE FOR THINGS LIKE
TECHNICAL QUALITY AND
DOCUMENTING RELIABILITY AND
VALIDITY-- THINGS LIKE THAT
FROM KIND OF BOTH SIDES OF
THE FENCE THERE.
SO ALL OF THESE WERE USED AS
WE DETERMINED WHICH QUESTIONS
TO ASK AND HOW TO FRAME THEM,
AND ALSO WHICH CATEGORIES
THE QUESTIONS WOULD BE USED
TO INFORM.
I CAN'T READ THAT THERE, BUT
JUST TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO
THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS SECTION
IN THE PAGE ON THE REPORT
THERE, WE HAD MANY STAFF
AROUND THE DEPARTMENT INVOLVED
IN THAT KIND OF FOUR WEEK
PROCESS WE ENGAGED IN
TO PUT THIS TOGETHER.
JUST AMAZING CROSS-OFFICE
COLLABORATION.
WE HAD OUR DIVISION-- JUST
A WONDERFUL COLLABORATION WITH
LINDA FORWARD'S OFFICE OF
EDUCATIONAL IMPROVEMENT AND
INNOVATION AROUND MUCH OF
THE CONTENT PIECES.
IN PARTICULAR, IN
OUR DIVISION, WE HAD PAT KING
AND SHANNON VLASSIS
AND ANDY MIDDLESTEAD
IN OUR OFFICES.
WE JUST CAN'T SAY ENOUGH ABOUT
WHAT THEY DID FOR THE PROJECT
MANAGEMENT AND ALL THE LAYOUT
ISSUES, AND MAKING THIS THING
INTERPRETABLE AND COME
TOGETHER.
BUT IT DID PUT A NUMBER OF
THINGS AT RISK BECAUSE
ALL THESE PEOPLE WERE THEN,
FOR A SUBSTANTIVE PART OF
NOVEMBER AND LATE OCTOBER,
WORKING TOWARDS THIS.
SO THERE WAS A LOT OF
CHALLENGES AROUND THAT,
AS MIKE MENTIONED.
TO LOOK AT MORE DETAIL ON
THE TIME FRAME THERE.
SO THE HOUSE PASSED THEIR
RESOLUTION THAT HAD THIS
INDICATION OF A REPORT IN IT
ON SEPTEMBER 30th, OR RIGHT
AROUND, THE 29th I BELIEVE IT
WAS, BEFORE THE OCTOBER 1
DEADLINE THAT THEY HAD
ORIGINALLY SET.
THE SENATE DIDN'T PASS
A RESOLUTION UNTIL OCTOBER 24th,
BUT IT DID INCLUDE
THIS INDICATION OR
REQUIREMENT FOR A REPORT.
SO AT THAT POINT, WE KNEW,
"OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO
PUT THIS TOGETHER, SO LET'S
GET STARTED ON GENERATING
THE SURVEY TO GIVE TO EVERYONE
THE SAME OPPORTUNITY TO
RESPOND TO IT."
SO WE POSTED THE SURVEY ON
OCTOBER 30th, A TWO WEEK
DEADLINE FOR PEOPLE TO PROVIDE
THEIR RESPONSES, AND THEN WE
HAD TWO WEEKS TO CONSOLIDATE
THE QUESTIONS INTO CATEGORIES,
REVIEW THE RESPONSES AND
ASSIGN VARIOUS RATINGS THAT
YOU WILL SEE FOR EACH
CATEGORY.
THE CATEGORIES THAT WE PUT
THESE OVER 70 QUESTIONS INTO
ARE, AGAIN, ONES THAT WE FEEL
ARE VERY DEFENSIBLE,
APPROPRIATE.
THEY ARE BASED ON THOSE
DOCUMENTS THAT DRIVE OUR
UNDERSTANDING OF BEST
PRACTICES, AND ALSO OUR
EXPERIENCE ABOUT STATE NEEDS,
AND WHERE WE NEED TO
DEMONSTRATE THE MOST EVIDENCE
OVER TIME AS THESE ASSESSMENT
TOOLS BEING APPROPRIATE FOR
THE ACCOUNTABILITY OR OTHER
PURPOSES TO WHICH THEY ARE
APPLIED.
SO WE HAD CATEGORIES AROUND
CONTENT AND ITEM TYPES,
OPPORTUNITIES FOR MISSION
INVOLVEMENT THROUGH
THE GOVERNANCE PIECE, AND
BEING ABLE TO SEE INSIDE
THE BLACK BOX FOR
TRANSPARENCY ISSUES,
DESIGN ISSUES.
BEING ABLE TO ENSURE
TEST SECURITY.
SCORING AND REPORTING
PRACTICES THAT ARE GOING TO BE
A SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT OVER
WHAT WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO
OFFER IN STATE WIDE TESTING
TO DATE.
GETTING AN INDICATION AT
A HIGH LEVEL AROUND COST--
BOTH FOR THE STANDARD PRODUCTS
AND WHERE WE MIGHT NEED TO SEE
SOME ADDITIONAL FEATURES.
I'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ON
THAT IN A MINUTE HERE.
ACCESSIBILITY-- WE HAD
QUESTIONS SPECIFIC TO WHETHER
OR NOT THESE PRODUCTS THAT
WERE BEING DESCRIBED IN
THE SURVEY MET THE NEEDS FOR
OUR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
AND ENGLISH LEARNERS SEPARATELY.
SO WE REALLY WANTED TO GET
A SENSE THAT THESE SERVICE
PROVIDERS HAD REALLY
CONSIDERED THOSE POPULATIONS
AND HAD CONCRETE PLANS TO
ADDRESS THEIR NEEDS.
AND THEN TECHNICAL
REQUIREMENTS AND ALSO
RESOURCES TO SUPPORT FORMATIVE
ASSESSMENT PROCESS.
THIS IS SOMETHING WE BELIEVE
VERY STRONGLY IN HERE THAT WE
ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO TAKING
STATEWIDE AS PART OF THE NEXT
GENERATION ASSESSMENT SYSTEM.
AS WE LOOKED AT THESE
CATEGORIES AND THOUGHT ABOUT
THE SURVEY QUESTIONS AND
ORGANIZED THEM BOTH IN
THE SURVEY AND THEN ACROSS
THE CATEGORIES WE JUST
DESCRIBED, AS WE PUT THE TABLE
OF CONTENTS TOGETHER, WE REALLY
WANTED TO TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY
TO HAVE THE REPORT LAID OUT IN
A WAY THAT WAS VERY CONSISTENT
WITH WHERE WE HAVE BEEN HEADED
IN TERMS OF LARGE--
OUR PROGRAMS FOR THE PAST THREE
YEARS, WITH SMARTER BALANCED
AND OTHER OPPORTUNITIES--
IS THAT WE REALLY FUNDAMENTALLY
BELIEVE THAT THIS OPPORTUNITY
TO DEVELOP A MORE BALANCED
ASSESSMENT SYSTEM IS SOMETHING
THAT CANNOT BE MISSED.
SO THAT INCLUDES THESE THREE
BIG CATEGORIES OF SUMMATIVE
ASSESSMENTS-- THESE KIND OF
SNAPSHOTS-- HIGHLY SECURE,
HIGH STAKE ASSESSMENTS,
INTERIM ASSESSMENTS THAT ARE
MORE FLEXIBLE AND CAN BE
ADMINISTERED MULTIPLE TIMES
A YEAR TO SUPPORT MEASURING
STUDENT GROWTH AND THINGS LIKE
THAT, AND THEN THE FORMATIVE
ASSESSMENT RESOURCES
THAT I JUST DESCRIBED HERE.
SOME OF THE CATEGORIES, WE
WANTED TO KNOW SEPARATELY HOW
THOSE PLAYED OUT ACROSS THEIR
SUMMATIVE OR INTERIM PRODUCTS
THAT THEY WERE PUTTING
TOGETHER.
OTHER THINGS MADE SENSE TO BE
CONSOLIDATED, SO LIKE
ACCESSIBILITY FEATURES,
TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS--
SOME OF THOSE THINGS WOULD BE
THE SAME FOR EACH COMPONENT,
SO THOSE WERE CONSOLIDATED
INTO ONE SECTION OF
THE REPORT THERE.
IN ADDITION TO THOSE PRIMARY
CATEGORIES WITH TWO SUMMARY
SECTIONS THAT WE WILL BOTH
DEAL WITH HERE IN JUST
A SECOND WHERE WE PUT
TOGETHER-- TO SUM UP WHAT WE
FELT VERY STRONGLY WE WERE
LEARNING FROM THE REPORT AROUND
IMPLICATIONS FOR LOCAL SCHOOLS
AND DISTRICTS, AND ALSO
OUR OVERALL CONCLUSIONS ABOUT
WHAT WE THINK IS NEXT
IN THIS CONVERSATION.
A FEW NOTES ABOUT THE RATING
SYSTEM THAT WE PUT
IN PLACE HERE.
THE TIMELINE DID NOT PERMIT
BOTH THE SERVICE PROVIDERS WHO
WERE RESPONDING TO THE SURVEY
TO GIVE US EVERY LAST BIT OF
EVIDENCE ON EVERY LAST BIT
OF TOPIC.
THAT WAS A LARGE TASK THEY HAD
TO DO TO RESPOND TO US-- OVER
70 QUESTIONS IN TWO WEEKS ON
VERY COMPLEX TOPICS.
SO WE ARE VERY APPRECIATIVE OF
THE 12 SERVICE PROVIDERS THAT
ARE REPRESENTED IN THE REPORT
THAT TOOK THE TIME TO REALLY
TRY TO SHOW US WHAT THEY WERE
DEVELOPING, AND IN RESPONSE TO
THOSE QUESTIONS THERE.
BUT THERE WASN'T TIME, EVEN
WITH THE LARGE VOLUME OF
EVIDENCE THAT WE RECEIVED, TO
REALLY EVALUATE THE QUALITY OF
WHAT THEY PUT IN, TO REALLY
COMPARE ACROSS SERVICE
PROVIDERS.
THAT WAS NOT THIS EXERCISE IN
TERMS OF LOOKING AT OPTIONS.
SO STAFF WERE DIRECTED TO
ABSOLUTELY NOT COMPARE
EVIDENCE FROM THIS COMPANY
VERSUS THIS COMPANY.
JUST LOOK AT THE QUESTION,
LOOK AT THE RESPONSE PROVIDED
AND ANY ACCOMPANYING EVIDENCE,
AND THEN ASSIGN THE RATING
THAT I WILL SHOW YOU HERE IN
JUST A BIT HERE.
AND THE OTHER CRITICAL CAVEAT
TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT THE VAST
MAJORITY OF THINGS WE LEARNED
ABOUT FROM THIS PROCESS ARE IN
VARIOUS STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT.
AND SO A LOT OF THE THINGS
AROUND EVIDENCE OF APPROPRIATE
USE OF THE COURTS, AND
THE DATA FILES AND WHAT THOSE
LOOK LIKE, AND WHERE STANDARDS
ARE SET, CUT SCORES AND THINGS
LIKE THAT-- THAT EVIDENCE
DOESN'T EXIST YET, SO WHAT
WE'RE LOOKING FOR IN THOSE
CASES ARE CLEAR UNDERSTANDING
THAT WE ARE ON THE SAME PAGE
IN TERMS OF HOW WE DEFINE
THOSE THINGS AND THAT THEY
HAVE A CLEAR PLAN AT LEAST TO
PRODUCE THAT EVIDENCE AND HAVE
THAT AVAILABLE AT SOME POINT
IN THE FUTURE.
SO IN LIGHT OF THOSE THINGS,
THE RATINGS THAT ARE
REPRESENTED IN OUR REPORT ARE
A LOT MORE TO DO ABOUT WHICH
SOLUTIONS, AS BEST WE CAN
TELL, APPEAR TO BE ON TRACK
TO BE THINKING ABOUT
THESE IMPORTANT FACTORS AND
PRODUCING REAL CONCRETE PLANS
TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE THAT WE
THINK HAS A GREAT CHANCE OF
MEETING OUR STATE
REQUIREMENTS.
AND SO AS WE THOUGHT ABOUT
THE CATEGORIES AND HOW TO
DISPLAY THAT IN A REASONABLE
WAY, WE THOUGHT THREE LARGE
BUCKETS IS THE WAY TO GO HERE,
RATHER THAN TRY TO PARSE THIS
OUT INTO FIVE CATEGORIES OR
SEVEN CATEGORIES OR TEN
CATEGORIES WHERE WE DIDN'T HAVE
ALL THE TIME AND THE EVIDENCE
TO GO INTO THESE VARIOUS
NUANCES.
SO PEOPLE GOT FULL CREDIT IF
IT WAS CLEAR TO US THAT THEY
UNDERSTOOD THE TOPIC AND HAD
AT LEAST A PLAN, IF NOT STRONG
EVIDENCE THAT THEY WERE GOING
TO BE ABLE TO MEET
THAT REQUIREMENT OR THAT NEED.
PARTIAL CREDIT OR THE HALF
CIRCLE IF THEY THOUGHT
IT WAS-- IF WE COULDN'T REALLY
TELL-- THEY ADDRESSED IT, BUT
MAYBE THEY DIDN'T HAVE MUCH
EVIDENCE OR MUCH OF A PLAN
THERE, SO WE JUST COULDN'T
REALLY SAY IF THEY COULD
DO THAT.
AND THEN THIS OTHER BIG BUCKET
HERE IS THAT IT WAS PRETTY
CLEAR TO US THAT THEY
EITHER DIDN'T UNDERSTAND
THE REQUIREMENT OR DIDN'T HAVE
ANY PLAN AT ALL, AS FAR AS WE
COULD TELL, TO MEET THAT BASED
ON WHAT THEY WERE ABLE TO
PROVIDE US THROUGH
THE SURVEY HERE.
>> AND ANOTHER CONSIDERATION
THERE IS THAT WE-- I THINK AS
YOU CAN SEE HERE, THIS IS
THE REPORT, AND THESE ARE
THE APPENDICES.
SO WE DID INCLUDE ALL OF
THE RESPONDENTS' SURVEY
RESPONSES SO THAT EVERYONE CAN
SEE EXACTLY WHAT
THE CORPORATIONS-- THE SERVICE
PROVIDERS OR THE CONSORTIA
PROVIDED AS THE RESPONSES.
JUST TO MAKE-- BECAUSE AGAIN,
WE DID NOT HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO GO THROUGH ALL
OF THE RIGOROUS PROCESS THAT
WE WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE
GONE THROUGH, AND IF ANYONE
DOES HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT
THOSE, THEY CAN GO DIRECTLY TO
THE DATA.
>> AS WE THOUGHT ABOUT HOW TO
PRESENT THIS INFORMATION--
AGAIN, IT IS A LOT OF
INFORMATION THAT IS
CONSOLIDATED ON A SHORT
TIME FRAME.
WE THOUGHT ABOUT THINGS LIKE
EASE OF USE AND HOW TO
MAKE IT-- YOU KNOW, ELIMINATE
THE JARGON, AND REALLY KEEP
THE NARRATIVE JUST-- "HERE'S
WHAT WE ASKED ABOUT, AND HERE
IS WHAT WE GOT, AND THERE'S
WHAT WE THINK ABOUT THAT,"
VERSUS TRYING TO DO SOME OVERLY
INTERPRETIVE THING, WHICH
AGAIN, WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH
MORE TIME CONSUMING THERE.
ONE-- MAKE SURE THAT WAS
CONSISTENT WITH THE CAVEATS
WE DESCRIBED, BUT AS JOSEPH
MENTIONED, WE REALLY WANTED
TO GIVE EVERYBODY
THE WHOLE BALL OF WAX.
SO THIS REPORT REPRESENTS HOW
WE, IN THE DEPARTMENT,
SLICED AND DICED THE DATA AND
CONSOLIDATED THE CATEGORIES,
AND WEIGHED THE EVIDENCE.
OTHER PEOPLE MAY HAVE
DIFFERENT PREFERENCE
FOR HOW TO LOOK AT THAT.
THEY HAVE ALL THE SAME
MATERIALS THAT WE USED,
AND ARE ABLE TO DO THAT.
LAST WEEK, THERE WAS A NICE
BLOG ARTICLE FROM AN EDUCATION
WEEK REPORTER WHERE SHE
POINTED OUT EXACTLY WHAT WE
HAD HOPED WOULD HAPPEN THERE,
THAT THE APPENDICES--
THE SURVEY RESPONSES-- ARE AT
LEAST AS USEFUL AS THE RATINGS
AND THE CATEGORIES BECAUSE
THOSE ARE BROAD CATEGORIES AND
BIG BUCKETS, BUT ANYBODY CAN
REALLY DIVE IN AND SEE WHAT
PEOPLE ARE COMING UP WITH, AND
TALK ABOUT THEM AS IT MAKES
SENSE TO THEM.
SO HERE'S JUST A SNAPSHOT OF
WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.
WE WANTED TO PRESENT THIS KIND
OF CONSUMER REPORT TYPE TABLE
WITH THOSE THREE CATEGORIES.
INTRODUCTION-- JUST WHY THESE
FEATURES, AND REQUIREMENTS ARE
IMPORTANT-- WHAT ARE WE
LOOKING FOR THERE, AND WHO DID
OR DID NOT APPEAR TO MEET
THOSE REQUIREMENTS BASED ON
THE RESPONSES AND THE EVIDENCE
THAT WE WERE GIVEN.
WE DON'T HAVE TIME
THIS MORNING, OBVIOUSLY, TO GO
THROUGH THE WHOLE REPORT PAGE
BY PAGE AND LOOK AT ALL THOSE
CATEGORIES, BUT WE DID WANT TO
HIGHLIGHT THREE AREAS BECAUSE
OF HOW IMPORTANT THEY WERE
EITHER IN THE HEARINGS AROUND
COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION OR
THINGS THAT WE THOUGHT OF AS
WE'VE BEEN ON, AGAIN, THIS
3 1/2 YEAR DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
FOR COMMON CORE AND WORKING ON
THE CONSORTIA PIECES
LIKE THAT.
SO THIS IDEA OF--
FUNDAMENTALLY THE RESOLUTION,
AGAIN, WAS ABOUT BEING ABLE TO
MOVE FORWARD WITH IMPLEMENTING
THE COMMON CORE.
SO THIS ISSUE-- THE QUESTIONS
WE ASKED AROUND CONTENT
ALIGNMENT AND ITEM TYPE
ALIGNMENT IS REALLY, FROM
THE ASSESSMENT PERSPECTIVE,
WHERE THE RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD
ON HOW THAT LOOKS IN TERMS OF
THE TESTING PROGRAM.
SO WE WANTED TO SEE SOME
EVIDENCE THAT ALL THE MAIN
CONSTRUCTS WERE ADDRESSED,
CLEARER ITEMS FOR MATH, READING,
LISTENING, SPEAKING--
THOSE PIECES WERE THERE.
THAT THE SERVICE PROVIDERS, AS
THEY WERE DEVELOPING THEIR
TEST DESIGN AND THEIR
BLUEPRINTS, WERE STRONGLY
AWARE OF THE REAL RIGOROUS
THEMES THROUGHOUT THE COMMON
CORE STANDARDS THAT WE KNOW
ARE JUST ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL
FOR CAREER AND COLLEGE READY
STUDENTS: COMMUNICATING
REASONING, THE PROBLEM
SOLVING, THE BASIC RESEARCH
SKILLS-- SOME OF THOSE TYPES
OF THINGS.
WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT
THEY HAD EVIDENCE THAT
QUALIFIED TEACHERS WERE
INVOLVED WITH WRITING AND
REVIEWING THE ITEMS FOR
APPROPRIATENESS, DIVERSITY,
ACCESSIBILITY-- THINGS LIKE
THAT-- SOMETHING WE FEEL VERY
STRONGLY ABOUT AND ARE VERY
PROUD OF HOW WE PLAYED THAT
OUT IN MICHIGAN OVER THE LAST
FEW YEARS.
AND THEN THIS ISSUE OF
AN ARRAY OF ITEM TYPES.
SO WE WANTED TO SEE THAT THEY
REALLY UNDERSTOOD WHAT WE
BELIEVE AND HAVE A LOT OF
CONSENSUS ACROSS STATES, THAT
SHOW US THAT YOU REALLY
UNDERSTAND THAT MEASURING
SOMETHING LIKE COMMUNICATING
REASONING WITH MULTIPLE CHOICE
ITEMS WAS POOR AT BEST.
YOU KNOW, LET'S TALK ABOUT
SOME CONSTRUCTED RESPONSE, AND
TECHNOLOGY ENHANCED ITEMS, AND
GIVE US, AS BEST YOU CAN, AT
THE STAGE, KIND OF HOW ARE YOU
THINKING ABOUT THOSE THINGS.
WHAT WE CAME UP WITH HERE,
AGAIN-- WHAT WE LEARNED ON
THIS ISSUE OF CONTENT
ALIGNMENT AND ITEM TYPE
ALIGNMENT IS MANY SERVICE
PROVIDERS EARN PARTIAL CREDIT
HERE.
ALMOST ALL OF THEM RESPONDED
TO THIS ISSUE.
NOBODY EARNED FULL CIRCLES
ACROSS THE BOARD, ALTHOUGH TWO
WERE PRETTY CLOSE.
AND AGAIN, THE EVIDENCE WE
HAVE TO GO ALONG WITH
REPRESENTS THESE ENTITIES'
CLEAR INTENT TO MEET THESE
REQUIREMENTS, AND WE CAN SEE
THAT THEY HAVE A PLAN TO DO SO
THAT MATCHES WHAT WE THINK
MAKES SENSE.
IT WAS NOT AN EVALUATION OF
WHAT HAS BEEN EXECUTED.
AGAIN, A LOT OF THESE THINGS
HAVEN'T BEEN BUILT YET,
AND THE REAL TRUTH WILL BE
AFTERWARDS WHEN WE HAVE
THE BEFORE, AND THE DURING,
AND THE AFTER.
LOCAL IMPLICATIONS-- THIS IS
ONE THAT WE PUT TOGETHER AS
KIND OF A SUMMARY PIECE, BUT
AROUND SPECIFIC ISSUES THAT WE
HAVE LEARNED OVER THE PAST
FEW YEARS.
WE'VE BEEN PILOTING ONLINE
TESTS IN SUPPORT OF MOVING
ONLINE WITH OUR STATEWIDE
ASSESSMENTS FOR THE LAST
FOUR YEARS.
WE HAVE LEARNED A TREMENDOUS
AMOUNT ABOUT SOME CHALLENGES
WE HAVE IN OUR LOCAL DISTRICTS
AND FOR THE STATE SYSTEMS ON
WHAT THAT IS GOING TO TAKE AND
WHAT THAT NEEDS TO LOOK LIKE.
SO WHAT WE DID WAS WE
CONSOLIDATED THESE FOUR
CATEGORIES, AND THEN LOOKED AT
SURVEY QUESTIONS THAT WE
THOUGHT MADE SENSE THAT
CONTRIBUTED THERE, BECAUSE WE
KNOW THAT THESE FOUR THINGS
ARE GOING TO BE ABSOLUTELY KEY
TO MAKING ONLINE ASSESSMENT
WORK ACROSS OUR STATE,
ESPECIALLY FOR TESTS THAT ARE
GOING TO BE USED FOR HIGH
STAKES PURPOSES,
LIKE ACCOUNTABILITY AND
THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO THE TEST SECURITY ASPECT--
WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT
ENOUGH ITEMS OR ENOUGH
VERSIONS OF THE TEST WERE
AVAILABLE TO HANDLE
A SECURITY BREACH.
THE DESIGN-- WE STRONGLY
AGREE WITH THE PREFERENCE
EXPRESSED IN THE RESOLUTION
AND OTHER LEGISLATORS THAT
HAVE SPOKEN AROUND
THE PREFERENCE FOR COMPUTER
ADAPTIVE TESTING THAT'S BOTH
STRONG IN TERMS OF SECURITY
AND ALSO MORE PRECISE
ESTIMATES OF STUDENT
ACHIEVEMENT, AND THINKING
ABOUT GROWTH.
PLATFORM--
>> I DID WANT TO CHIME IN
ON THE TEST SECURITY AND
THE TEST DESIGN.
THE TEST SECURITY IS A BIG
ISSUES BECAUSE IF THERE IS
A SECURITY BREACH, THEN IT IS
IMPERATIVE THAT YOU HAVE
SOMETHING TO FALL BACK ON.
IF YOU DON'T HAVE SOMETHING TO
FALL BACK ON, THAT WHOLE
TESTING SEASON IS BLOWN--
YOU CAN'T MOVE FORWARD.
AND ON THE TEST DESIGN, IF YOU
HAVE ENOUGH FORMS, YOU CAN
SPREAD OUT THE TEST WINDOW.
IF YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH
FORMS, YOU HAVE TO COMPRESS
THAT TEST WINDOW SO THAT
ALL STUDENTS ARE TESTING ON
THE SAME DAY, SAME TOPIC,
SO THAT YOU CAN ADDRESS THAT
ISSUE OF TEST SECURITY.
AND THAT HAS A REALLY LARGE
IMPLICATION FOR LOCAL
DISTRICTS.
IF YOU ARE ABLE TO SPREAD THAT
OUT USING A LARGE NUMBER OF
TEST FORMS OR COMPUTER
ADAPTIVE TESTING-- EITHER WAY
WILL GET YOU THERE-- THEN YOU
ARE ABLE TO SAY, "YES,
YOU CAN SPREAD THAT OUT OVER
THE ENTIRE 10 WEEK WINDOW, OVER
THE ENTIRE 12 WEEK WINDOW,
OVER THE ENTIRE 6 WEEK
WINDOW."
BUT IF YOU ARE SAYING,
"WE ONLY HAVE A VERY LIMITED
NUMBER OF FORMS AVAILABLE,"
YOU'VE REALLY GOT TO LIMIT THE
TIME THAT THE STUDENTS HAVE TO
SIT DOWN AND TAKE THE TEST TO
MAINTAIN SECURITY, AND SO ON.
AND THAT REALLY HAS A LARGE
IMPACT ON THE NUMBER OF
DEVICES THAT A LOCAL DISTRICT
HAS TO HAVE IN ORDER TO BE
ABLE TO TEST ONLINE.
SO IT REALLY LIMITS--
THAT LARGE NUMBER OF FORMS OR
COMPUTER ADAPTIVE TESTING
ALLOWS YOU TO TAKE ADVANTAGE
OF THE RELATIVELY SMALL NUMBER
OF DEVICES THAT EXIST IN SOME
DISTRICTS THAT WOULD NOT BE
ABLE TO MOVE ONLINE WITH
THIS ASSESSMENT IF IT WERE
RESTRICTED TO A SMALL NUMBER
OF FORMS.
>> JOSEPH, WOULD YOU MIND
MENTIONING THAT DURING
OUR MEETING, IT WENT FROM WHAT
PERCENT TO WHAT PERCENT OF
THE DISTRICTS THAT ARE READY,
BASED ON THAT ISSUE?
>> SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE
DOCUMENT-- LET ME TAKE
A LOOK AT--
>> EVEN ROUND NUMBERS,
I'M JUST--
>> YEAH, IT REALLY
IS ABOUT BANDWIDTH
REQUIREMENTS, WHERE THAT HITS.
THE BANDWIDTH REQUIREMENTS
REALLY LOOK AT HOW MUCH
BANDWIDTH YOU NEED
PER STUDENT WHO IS TAKING
THE TEST.
AND IF YOU HAVE TO RESTRICT
FROM A LARGE WINDOW TO A SMALL
WINDOW, THEN YOU START HAVING
PROBLEMS WITH BANDWIDTH, BUT
JUST IN GENERAL BANDWIDTH,
WE LOOKED AT-- THE BANDWIDTH
REQUIREMENTS RANGED FROM
SLIGHTLY LESS THAN 25 KB PER
STUDENT PER SECOND TO 150 KB
PER STUDENT PER SECOND, AND
THAT RANGE LED US FROM
APPROXIMATELY 75% OF OUR
SCHOOLS BEING READY TO
ADMINISTER ONLINE ASSESSMENT,
TO AT THE TOP END, LESS THAN
3% OF OUR SCHOOLS BEING READY
FOR ONLINE ASSESSMENT.
SO MICHIGAN IS VERY, VERY
SENSITIVE TO BANDWIDTH
REQUIREMENTS.
>> MMM-HMM.
THAT IS WHY I WANTED THE BOARD
TO HEAR THAT.
THANK YOU.
>> THE FOURTH PIECE THERE THAT
GOES ALONG WITH DEVICES PIECE
THERE IS THAT WE DON'T
REQUIRE, WITH OUR LOCAL
CONTROL, THAT EVERYBODY HAVE
THE SAME DEVICES.
WE DON'T REQUIRE THAT
EVERYBODY HAVE iPADS OR THAT
EVERYBODY HAVE CHROMEBOOKS.
WE HAVE EVERY CONFIGURATION
IMAGINABLE ACROSS OUR
DISTRICTS AND SCHOOLS FOR
DEVICES AND THINGS LIKE THAT,
SO THE PLATFORM AVAILABILITY--
WE NEED THE WIDEST POSSIBLE
ARRAY OF-- YOU KNOW, FOR
THESE THINGS TO WORK ON
THE WIDEST POSSIBLE ARRAY OF
DEVICES, WHICH GOES ALONG WITH
THE BANDWIDTH, AND THE NUMBER
OF DEVICES THAT JOSEPH JUST
DESCRIBED.
SO AS WE LOOK HERE ON THIS
SPECIFIC ISSUE AROUND
THE LOCAL IMPLICATIONS, WHAT WE
WERE STRUCK BY WAS ACROSS
THESE PIECES, THAT WE ARE
QUITE LIMITED RIGHT NOW
IN OPTIONS.
BUT WHAT THIS ALSO HIGHLIGHTS
IS SOMETHING THAT WE HOPE, AND
WE HAVE SOME INDICATION THAT
THIS IS GOING TO BE ANOTHER
STRONG USE OF THIS REPORT,
IS THAT ALL SERVICE PROVIDERS
TAKE THIS AS A SNAPSHOT OF
WHAT STATES NEED AND WHERE
THEY ARE COMING FROM, AND WORK
AS THESE THINGS ARE STILL IN
DEVELOPMENT TO IMPROVE WHAT
THEY ARE OFFERING, SO THAT
MORE OPTIONS ARE AVAILABLE AND
WE HAVE OPPORTUNITIES FOR
COMPETITIVE BIDDING,
AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
THE FINAL ONE THAT WE LOOKED
AT THERE WAS CONTROL OVER
STUDENT DATA, WHICH CLEARLY
WAS A CENTRAL THEME IN A LOT
OF THE HEARINGS.
THIS WAS IS SIGNIFICANT ALSO
BECAUSE IT IS THE ONLY
CATEGORY THAT IS BASED ON
ONE SURVEY QUESTION.
YOU KNOW, "WILL MICHIGAN
RETAIN SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE
OWNERSHIP OVER ITS STUDENT
DATA?"
AND THEN THIS ONE, THERE IS
NOT HALF CIRCLES HERE.
THIS IS PRETTY MUCH A YES OR
A NO TYPE OF RESPONSE, AND
AGAIN, THE REVEALING ABOUT
WHAT OPTIONS WE HAVE ON
THAT FRONT, BECAUSE THAT IS
GOING TO CONTINUE TO BE--
AS IT SHOULD-- A CORE ISSUE
GOING FORWARD.
SO THERE IS A CONCLUSIONS
PIECE THERE.
WHILE A LOT OF THE OPTIONS MAY
BE VIABLE FOR A VARIETY OF
CATEGORIES, THERE IS REALLY
ONLY ONE THAT WE FEEL HAS
SUFFICIENT DOCUMENTATION AND
EVIDENCE ACROSS ALL THE
CATEGORIES THAT YOU SEE THERE,
AND THAT IS THE SMARTER
BALANCED ASSESSMENT SYSTEM
THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON.
AND AS WE MENTIONED IN
THE REPORT, THIS HAS BEEN
DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED BY
STATE ASSESSMENT FOLKS WHO
HAVE HAD TO LIVE WITH
ALL THE DIFFERENT EVIDENCE
REQUIREMENTS AND CATEGORIES
EVER SINCE NCLB THAT HAVE
REALLY DEFINED WHAT
A STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
USED FOR HIGH STAKES PURPOSES
NEED TO LOOK LIKE.
SO THAT'S THE ONE THAT THIS
KIND OF SUMMATION HERE WITH
OUR CONCLUSIONS, THAT THIS
REPORT, AGAIN, IS A WONDERFUL
RESOURCE FOR WHAT IS AVAILABLE
AND WHAT IS EMERGING FOR
ASSESSMENT OPTIONS ALIGNED
WITH THE COMMON CORE, BUT
A LOT OF THESE THINGS ARE
UNDER DEVELOPMENT.
WE HAVE CURRENT CONTRACTS IN
PLACE THROUGH THE SPRING OF
2016, WHICH IS-- THE
CONTRACTUAL PIECE IS ANOTHER
ISSUE THE RESOLUTION
KIND OF DUG INTO.
SO WE RECOMMEND SEEING THROUGH
THOSE CONTRACTS-- THAT GETS
US-- DESIGNED TO ALLOW US TO
ADMINISTER SMARTER BALANCED IN
SPRING 2015.
BUT THEN ALL OF THE CONTRACTS
EXPIRE IN THE SPRING OF 2016,
SO THAT WE CAN USE THIS
INFORMATION, IN ADDITION TO
WHAT ELSE GETS DEVELOPED AND
WE LEARN AS THESE THINGS
BECOME OPERATIONAL, TO DEVELOP
A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TO GO
OUT AGAIN AND HAVE FOUR
ASSESSMENTS IN SPRING 2016
THAT HOPEFULLY WILL MEET OUR
NEEDS ACROSS ALL THESE
DIFFERENT CATEGORIES.
>> GREAT, THANK YOU GUYS.
BY THE WAY, I SENT THIS TO
MY COUNTERPARTS, AND THEY JUST
CAME BACK UNSOLICITED WITH
KUDOS THAT I PASSED ON
TO THE TEAM HERE.
IT IS REALLY HELPFUL TO WHAT
THEY ARE TRYING TO DO IN
OTHER STATES.
DEB DELISLE, DEPUTY SECRETARY,
ASKED ME YESTERDAY FOR COPIES
BECAUSE SHE HAS HEARD SUCH
GOOD REVIEWS ABOUT IT.
AND THANK YOU FOR THAT.
AND YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP FIRST
TODAY, WHICH WE'LL ACKNOWLEDGE
BECAUSE I THINK I SKIPPED YOU
EARLIER WHEN YOU HAD YOUR HAND
UP, AND I APOLOGIZE.
>> WELL, I'VE BEEN
MONOPOLIZING
THE CONVERSATION, SO.
[LAUGHTER]
I WANT TO FIRST, ON BEHALF OF
THE GOVERNOR, COMPLIMENT
THE BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR
ADOPTING COMMON CORE.
SECOND, I WANT TO REALLY
APPLAUD YOU INDIVIDUALLY AND
COLLECTIVELY, IN WORKING WITH
OUR LEGISLATURE TO MAKE IT
REALITY.
I DO-- I HONESTLY ASK MYSELF,
"WHAT NEXT?"
AND SMARTER BALANCED VERSUS
ANY OTHER TOOL FOR ASSESSMENT
STRIKES ME THAT YOU NEED
PREPARATORY TIME AFTER
THE ASSESSMENT TOOL IS USED,
BEFORE LINKING IT IN A HIGH
STAKES WAY TO THINGS LIKE
EVALUATION OF EDUCATORS--
THAT WE'RE THROWING AN AWFUL
LOT AT THE EDUCATIONAL
COMMUNITY IN A VERY SHORT
PERIOD OF TIME.
AND I KNOW THAT EDUCATORS HAVE
BEEN WHIPPED SOFT BY ONE
ASSESSMENT AFTER ANOTHER, AND
THE RUG GETS PULLED OUT FROM
UNDERNEATH OF THEM EVERY THREE
TO FOUR YEARS.
AND THAT IS SORT OF WHY I WAS
ABLE TO CONVINCE A FEW
LEGISLATORS TO EMBRACE COMMON
CORE, WITH A VIEW THAT IF 45,
46 STATES HAVE ADOPTED IT, AND
PROBABLY A COMPARABLE NUMBER
ADOPTING THE SMARTER BALANCED
ASSESSMENT, WE HAVE MORE
SECURITY AND STABILITY.
I THINK WE CAN STOP PULLING
THIS RUG OUT FROM UNDERNEATH
EDUCATORS EVERY SHORT PERIOD
OF TIME.
BUT I INTRODUCE THIS NOTE OF
CAUTION, THAT IT MAY TAKE
A COUPLE OF YEARS AFTER
SMARTER BALANCED COMES INTO
PLACE BEFORE WE WOULD PUT
A LOT OF...
FOCUS UPON USING IT
AS AN EVALUATION TOOL
OF TEACHERS.
JUST A NOTE OF CAUTION.
>> THANK YOU.
JOHN, THEN KATHLEEN, THEN DAN.
>> I WANT TO APPRECIATE,
CRAIG, YOUR COMMENT, AND ALSO
THIS WAS A GOOD OPPORTUNITY
AND EXAMPLE OF WHERE WE CAN
WORK TOGETHER ACROSS PARTY
LINES-- GOVERNOR, STATE
BOARD, OTHERS ON THE RIGHT
EDUCATIONAL AGENDA.
SO IT WAS NICE TO DO THAT
TOGETHER, AND I WANTED TO
THANK THE WHOLE TEAM AND
THE INCREDIBLE WORK UNDER
IMPOSSIBLE DEADLINES AND
THE EXCELLENT PRODUCT
THAT YOU ALL PRODUCED.
AS UN-FUN AS IT WAS, AND
SEEMINGLY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO
HAVE THOSE COMMON CORE CAUSE
HEARINGS AND TO RUN THE TOM
McMILLAN GAUNTLET, IT ACTUALLY
ENDED UP BEING A VERY GOOD
THING, BECAUSE IT SMOKED OUT
THE COMMON SENSE AND GOOD
EDUCATION PRACTICE BEHIND
THE COMMON CORE, AND
IT DEMONSTRATED THE BROAD AND
DEEP SUPPORT-- FROM TEACHERS
TO BUSINESS COMMUNITY,
REPUBLICANS, DEMOCRATS--
FOR ADVANCING THE STANDARDS.
THIS EXPECTATIONS, I'M SURE
WAS PAINFUL, BUT WHAT YOU HAVE
PRODUCED HERE IS SIMILARLY
VERY USEFUL AND FRUITFUL IN
THAT IT IS, AS WE DISCUSSED
AND AS I CERTAINLY HOPED,
LAYING OUT--
WITH ITS IMPERFECTIONS--
YOU COULDN'T DO EVERYTHING
YOU WANTED, BUT-- LAYING OUT
THE FACTS, AND LETTING THEM
SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES ABOUT
WHAT THESE VARIOUS ASSESSMENTS
DO AND DON'T DO.
AND HOPEFULLY THAT IS NOT ONLY
HELPFUL TO US AND OUR
LEGISLATURE AND ALL THAT
REASSURES US THAT WE ARE
MAKING GOOD DECISIONS ABOUT
HOW TO PROCEED ON THE TESTING
PIECE, THAT IT SOUNDS LIKE IT
IS PROVIDING THE SERVICE TO
THE FIELD OF ASSESSMENTS ABOUT
HOW TO THINK ABOUT THESE TYPES
OF TESTS AND WHAT THEY DO AND
DON'T DO, AS EVERYBODY IS
TRYING TO IMPLEMENT THE RIGHT
ASSESSMENT.
SO AGAIN, GREAT JOB.
>> KATHLEEN, AND THEN DAN.
>> WELL, THANKS.
I THINK THIS IS AN AMAZING
PIECE OF WORK-- JUST
TERRIFIC.
BUT I THINK IT IS VERY
VALUABLE FOR THE LEGISLATURE,
AS WELL AS FOR US, TO SEE HOW
COMPLEX-- I MEAN, WE HAD AN
UNDERSTANDING OF IT, I THINK.
BUT NOT AS COMPLETE-- HOW
COMPLEX ALL THESE THINGS ARE.
SOME LEGISLATORS JUST THINK
YOU JUST GO OUT AND BUY A TEST
FROM SOME COMPANY, AND THERE'S
NOTHING TO IT.
WHAT DO YOU GO THROUGH ALL
THIS FOR?
AND I THINK YOU POINTED OUT
ALL THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT
HAVE TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT
THAT ARE COMPLICATED.
I THINK IT IS A GOOD PIECE TO
EDUCATE THE LEGISLATORS.
I WONDERED IF YOU HAVE GOTTEN
ANY INFORMAL REACTION TO IT.
YOU HAVEN'T HAD A COMMITTEE
DISCUSSION ABOUT IT YET, BUT
HAVE YOU HEARD ANY FEEDBACK
FROM IT?
>> NOT DIRECTLY FROM
THE LEGISLATURE,
AS FAR AS WE KNOW.
>> STAFF?
LEGISLATIVE STAFF?
>> WENDY?
>> THE LEGISLATIVE--
THE HOUSE EDUCATION POLICY
COMMITTEE AND THE SCHOOL AID
COMMITTEE HAS REQUESTED
A PRESENTATION BY JOSEPH AND
HIS TEAM.
AND WE ARE TRYING TO
SET THAT UP FOR JANUARY.
>> OKAY.
WELL, AT LEAST THEY RECOGNIZED
THAT THEY GOT IT.
THEY ASK FOR SOMETHING AND--
[LAUGHTER]
SOMEBODY RECOGNIZED THAT THEY
GOT IT.
THAT IS REALLY TERRIFIC
BECAUSE, AGAIN, I THINK THERE
ARE SO MANY PEOPLE WHO THINK
THAT EVERYTHING IN EDUCATION
IS EASY.
EVERYBODY KNOWS WHAT YOU'RE
SUPPOSED TO DO.
WE ALL WENT TO SCHOOL, SO WHAT
IS THERE TO DO?
AND THIS SHOWS HOW COMPLICATED
IT IS.
AND I APPRECIATED, CRAIG, YOU
RELATING IT TO EVALUATION,
BECAUSE WE ARE PUTTING
AN AWFUL LOT ON ONE TEST,
AND IT IS VERY SIGNIFICANT.
SO I HOPE THEY GO ALONG WITH
THE RECOMMENDATION, AND I
DON'T KNOW-- I GUESS THEY CAN
SAY, "WELL, WE WON'T FUND IT
IF YOU DON'T GO TO SOMEBODY
ELSE," BUT PRESUMABLY, WE'RE
SUPPOSED TO MAKE THOSE
DECISIONS.
I THINK THAT HAS TO BE
EMPHASIZED, TOO.
THEY SHOULD NOT BE PICKING
THE COMPANY PROVIDING
THE ASSESSMENTS.
THAT IS SOMETHING
THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
SHOULD BE DOING,
NOT THE LEGISLATURE,
IN MY ESTIMATION.
WELL, I THINK WE HAVE TO
EMPHASIZE, NICELY, BUT
EMPHASIZE IT.
[LAUGHTER]
SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I WAS VERY IMPRESSED
WITH THIS.
>> I THINK, KATH, YOU MAKE
AN IMPORTANT POINT.
THERE IS A LOT OF LOBBYING
GOING ON TO MAKE A DECISION
THAT MAY NOT BE THE BEST
DECISION, BECAUSE COMPANIES
HAVE CORPORATE INTERESTS IN
THIS.
SO RIGHT NOW, IN SPITE OF THIS
REPORT, IT IS ALREADY BEING
ATTACKED IN SOME CIRCLES
BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, SPECIAL
INTERESTS COME OUT THAT WANT
THIS TO GO A DIFFERENT WAY.
SO I DO THINK THAT
THIS DEPARTMENT IS THE EXPERT
AT THAT.
ULTIMATELY, THIS COMES DOWN TO
RFPs, WHERE THE DTMB ACTUALLY
AWARDS IT, BUT IT IS BASED ON
OUR GUIDANCE AND STUFF.
>> I WOULD ADD TO THAT, MIKE,
THAT IT WILL BE THE DEPARTMENT
AND BY PROXY THE STATE BOARD
OF EDUCATION THAT WILL BE
HOLDING THE BAG IF SOMETHING
GOES WRONG ON ASSESSMENT.
AND I THINK IT'S-- SO IN
ESSENCE, WHAT WE REALLY LOOKED
AT IS, "OKAY, IF WE ARE GOING
TO HAVE TO DEFEND THIS
ASSESSMENT, WHAT INFORMATION
DO WE NEED?"
WE NEED TO HAVE NO BLACK
BOXES.
WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO SAY,
YES, I WAS ABLE TO VERIFY THAT
THEY DID THE WORK ACCURATELY.
EVEN IF I NEVER HAVE TO DO IT,
I WAS ABLE TO VERIFY.
YES, MICHIGAN TEACHERS HAD
AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE INVOLVED.
THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WAS
IMPOSED ON MICHIGAN TEACHERS,
BUT DEVELOPED, AND REVIEWED
BY, AND IMPLEMENTED BY
MICHIGAN TEACHERS.
SO, THAT IS KIND OF THE WAY WE
APPROACHED ALL OF THIS.
ALL OF THIS WAS ABOUT WHAT DO
WE NEED AS A DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION TO BE ABLE TO DEFEND
THIS AS A QUALITY PRODUCT THAT
WE WOULD WANT IMPLEMENTED IN
SCHOOLS.
>> THANK YOU.
GOOD CLARIFICATION.
DAN, THEN RICHARD.
>> WE HAVE TO DO IT NOT SO
NICELY-- JUST DO IT.
[LAUGHTER]
>> DAN, THEN RICHARD.
>> TWO QUICK QUESTIONS, AND
ADDITIONAL THANKS FOR
A WONDERFUL REPORT.
I WILL ADMIT TO NOT READING IT
COVER TO COVER-- I READ
PORTIONS AND SKIMMED PORTIONS,
BUT IT WAS REALLY WONDERFUL--
VERY INFORMATIVE.
SO TWO QUESTIONS.
ONE IS, JUST REALLY QUICKLY--
IS THERE-- SO I'M ASSUMING
THERE IS A COMPANY UNDER
CONTRACT TO ADMINISTER SMARTER
BALANCED IN THE SPRING OF 2015
AND 2016 FOR THE STATE?
WHO IS THAT, AND WERE THEY
ALSO RESPONDENTS?
ARE THEY DEVELOPING
AN ASSESSMENT, AS WELL, THAT
IS ALIGNED WITH COMMON CORE,
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH?
WERE THEY PART OF THE POOL
THAT RESPONDED?
>> SO-- I ALWAYS BEGIN MY
RESPONSES WITH, "SO,"
AS MIKE HAS POINTED OUT BEFORE.
SO--
[LAUGHTER]
>> NOT IN A CRITICAL WAY.
I THINK IT IS CULTURAL.
>> JUST TEASING.
>> THAT DOES GET TO
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A TESTING
COMPANY AND THE CONSORTIUM.
THE CONSORTIUM IS A MEMBERSHIP
ORGANIZATION, AND BY PAYING
THE MEMBERSHIP FEE, YOU GET
ACCESS TO CONTENT THAT IS
DEVELOPED BY THE MEMBERSHIP
ORGANIZATION.
THE MEMBERSHIP ORGANIZATION
DOES HAVE CONTRACTS WITH OTHER
TESTING COMPANIES TO HELP THEM
WITH THE DEVELOPMENT, BUT IT
IS A MEMBERSHIP ORGANIZATION.
WE ARE STILL RESPONSIBLE FOR
CONTRACTING TO ADMINISTER,
SCORE, AND REPORT
THE ASSESSMENT.
SO WE HAVE A CONTRACT WITH
DATA RECOGNITION CORPORATION
TO DO THE PRINTING OF THE
PAPER VERSIONS OF THE TEST.
WE HAVE A CONTRACT WITH
MEASUREMENT INCORPORATED TO DO
THE SCORING OF BOTH THE PAPER
AND THE ONLINE VERSIONS OF
THE TEST.
SHIPPING, SCANNING, DATA
FILES, REPORTING-- AND WE ARE
CURRENTLY STILL WORKING OUT
THE FINAL DETAILS OF A
CONTRACT TO DO THE ONLINE
ADMINISTRATION FOR INDIVIDUAL
STUDENTS.
SO THAT WOULD BE ENGINE THAT
ACCEPTS THE RESPONSES, THAT
DISPLAYS THE QUESTIONS, AND
THEN TRANSMITS THAT DATA BACK
TO THE SCORING CONTRACTOR.
SO THOSE DO EXPIRE
AFTER THE SPRING
2016 ASSESSMENT.
SO YES, THEY ARE IN PLACE.
WE ARE IN THE FINAL STAGES OF
FINALIZING THE LAST ONE
OF THOSE.
SO IT IS ACTUALLY A THREE
CONTRACTOR CONSORTIUM, BUT
NONE OF THOSE THREE
CONTRACTORS ACTUALLY HAVE
ANY PRODUCTS THAT THEY ARE
PUTTING FORWARD AS COMMON CORE
ASSESSMENTS.
SO THEY ARE ESSENTIALLY
WORKING WITH STATES TO
ADMINISTER COMMON CORE
ASSESSMENTS THAT ARE NOT
THEIR OWN ASSESSMENTS.
>> OKAY, GREAT.
THE SECOND QUICK QUESTION IS--
SO APPRECIATE, REALLY DO
APPRECIATE THE-- I USE "SO"
A LOT AS WELL-- REALLY DO
APPRECIATE THE...
KIND OF SURVEY QUESTIONS
THAT WE ARE ASKING
ABOUT THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THESE
ASSESSMENTS THAT THESE VENDORS
ARE WORKING ON.
I'M CURIOUS ABOUT WHETHER
THERE WERE SURVEY QUESTIONS AS
WELL FOR THESE VENDORS ABOUT
HOW, IF AT ALL, THEY WERE
MINIMIZING CORRELATIONS TO
RACE AND GENDER AND THE LIKE.
WE KNOW THAT THESE TESTS ARE
VERY STRONGLY CORRELATED WITH
RACE AND GENDER, AND THAT
THAT'S TRULY THE ONE YOU
CONTROL FOR INCOME.
SOME OF THAT IS UNDOUBTEDLY
DUE TO THE TEST ITSELF, AND
SOME KIND OF TEST BIAS THAT IS
BUILT INTO IT, AND SOME OF
THAT IS UNDOUBTEDLY DUE TO
THE STUDENTS TAKING
THE ASSESSMENTS, BASED ON
THINGS LIKE STEREOTYPE
DIRECTING-- WHICH IS,
JUST TO REMIND EVERYBODY,
IF YOU REMIND WOMEN THAT
THEY ARE WOMEN BEFORE
THEY TAKE A MATH TEST, THEY DO
WORSE ON THE MATH TEST THAN IF
YOU DON'T REMIND THEM THAT
THEY ARE WOMEN.
IF YOU REMIND AFRICAN
AMERICANS THAT THEY ARE BLACK
BEFORE THEY TAKE ASSESSMENT,
THEY DO WORSE THAN IF YOU
DON'T REMIND THEM THAT THEY
ARE BLACK.
SO THERE IS SOMETHING VERY
STRONG AND POWERFUL BUILT INTO
THE STEREOTYPES, SUCH THAT IT
EVEN IMPACTS THE FOLKS
WHO ARE STEREOTYPED.
DID YOU-- I DON'T KNOW HOW
MUCH COULD BE DONE AROUND THAT
BY THE TESTING COMPANY, BUT
CERTAINLY, KIND OF TESTING
BIAS COULD BE ELIMINATED.
DID YOU INQUIRE ABOUT
THE MEASURES THAT THEY WERE
USING TO ELIMINATE TEST BIAS
IN THEIR ASSESSMENTS?
>> WE ABSOLUTELY DID.
WE HAD QUESTIONS IN THERE.
SO AS PART OF ALL OF OUR STATE
PROGRAMS, AGAIN, USED FOR HIGH
STAKES PURPOSES, WE HAVE
PROCESSES IN PLACE, WE HAVE
COMMITTEES OF EDUCATORS COME
TOGETHER, AND THEY LOOK AT
EVERY ITEM BEFORE IT IS PUT IN
FRONT OF STUDENTS AND THEN
AFTER IT IS PUT IN FRONT OF
STUDENTS, ONE,
AS A PILOT TYPE ITEM.
IT COMES BACK AND
THE COMMITTEES OF EDUCATORS
LOOK AT THOSE ITEMS TO MAKE
SURE THAT THERE IS NO INORDINATE
BIAS, OR ISSUES GOING ON WITH
THE ITEMS ON THAT FRONT.
THOSE COMMITTEES ARE VERY
SPECIFIC.
THEY REQUIRE PEOPLE TO
PARTICIPATE ON THEM WITH
SPECIFIC QUALIFICATIONS AND
SPECIFIC DATA PROCESSES AROUND
LOOKING AT THOSE ITEMS, AND
MAKING SURE THAT
REPRESENTATIVE GROUPS OF
STUDENTS REVIEW THEM,
AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO WE ASK QUESTIONS ON
ALL THOSE FRONTS.
SO ON THE POWERPOINT SLIDE,
THERE WAS A CONTENT AND ITEM
TYPE ONE, THE COLUMN AROUND
QUALIFIED EDUCATORS TO
PARTICIPATE IN ITEM WRITING
AND REVIEW PROCESSES IS ONE OF
SEVERAL SURVEY QUESTIONS
SPECIFIC TO THAT TOPIC TO MAKE
SURE THAT FROM A QUALITY
PERSPECTIVE, BUT ALSO TO
ELIMINATE ANY KIND OF BIAS,
STEREOTYPING-- THOSE TYPES OF
THINGS.
WE ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE
THOSE PROCESSES IN PLACE, SO WE
WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
HAD A CLEAR INDICATION THAT
ANY OF THESE PRODUCTS WERE
GOING TO HAVE COMPARABLE AND
RIGOROUS PRODUCTS IN PLACE
THAT ALSO PROVIDED
OPPORTUNITIES FOR MICHIGAN
EDUCATORS TO PARTICIPATE ON
THAT FRONT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> QUESTIONS?
RICHARD.
>> I JUST WANTED TO THANK YOU--
WHICH IS REDUNDANT-- FOR
YOUR THOROUGH WORK, AND JUST
OBSERVE THAT AN IMPORTANT PART
OF THAT IS BUILDING
CONFIDENCE, BUILDING TRUST IN
THE SYSTEM.
WE ALL HAVE TO BE CAREFUL
ABOUT WHAT WE SAY PUBLICLY,
BECAUSE THAT CAN UNDERMINE
TRUST, AND A LOT OF THE
OPPOSITION TO COMMON CORE
WAS BASED ON...
SENTIMENT RATHER THAN
NECESSARILY FACT BASED.
WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL THAT WE
ARE NOT IRRESPONSIBLE IN DOING
SIMILAR THINGS OURSELVES.
YOUR PROFESSIONAL WORK GOES
A LONG WAY TO HELPING
REESTABLISH TRUST IN
THE SYSTEM, SO THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT.
>> IT'S EILEEN.
>> YES, MA'AM.
>> HI.
I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT I
HAVE TREMENDOUS RESPECT FOR
EVERYTHING THAT WAS DONE BY
THE DEPARTMENT, AND
THIS DOCUMENT WAS STUNNING.
I AM STILL WADING THROUGH AND
REVELING AT THE AMOUNT OF
INFORMATION IT CONTAINS.
I AM CONCERNED ABOUT MAKING
SURE THINGS MOVE FORWARD
APPROPRIATELY FOR CHILDREN AT
THIS POINT, BECAUSE HAVING
SUCCESS WITH THIS COULD REALLY
MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN
EDUCATION.
WE SET THE STAGE FOR IT WITH
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND.
THERE WERE A LOT OF PROBLEMS
WITH THE WAY THE PROGRAM WAS
PUT TOGETHER, WITH THE
KNOWLEDGE BASE THAT WE HAD.
WE KNOW SO MUCH MORE NOW ABOUT
WHAT CAN WORK, AND I AM JUST
THRILLED THAT-- TO BE PART OF
THIS EFFORT, AND WILL SUPPORT
WHENEVER IT IS COMING BACK.
SO THANKS.
>> GREAT.
THANKS, EILEEN.
OKAY.
JOHN, WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO
SAY IN TERMS OF TIME?
>> CAN I HAVE ONE MORE?
JUST ONE LAST ONE?
I JUST WANT TO-- MY CONCERN
IS, AND I THINK IT IS GREAT,
AND I AM ALSO IN AMAZEMENT.
THIS IS INCREDIBLE THAT YOU
DID IT IN SUCH A SHORT PERIOD
OF TIME.
I ESPECIALLY LIKE THE VERY
EASY TO READ CONSUMER REPORTS,
ITEMS, AND SUCH.
SO-- AND THIS GOES TO CRAIG,
TOO.
MY CONCERN IS IF-- YOU KNOW,
I HEAR THE LEGISLATURE IS
GOING TO BE LISTENING TO THIS
IN JANUARY.
THIS WAS TO BE IMPLEMENTED IN
THIS COMING ACADEMIC YEAR--
IS THAT THE PLAN?
>> SPRING OF 2015.
>> SO NOT UNTIL SPRING OF
2015.
>> CORRECT.
>> SO-- WHICH IS THE NEXT
ACADEMIC YEAR, RIGHT?
OKAY.
IF IT GETS STRETCHED OUT AND
DELAYED, AND NOW THERE'S--
I'M WONDERING THE CHANCES OF
THAT GIVEN THE HISTORY OF IT.
IT SEEMS LIKE IT MIGHT BE.
BUT I AM ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT
THE EFFECT ON THE TEACHER
EVALUATION PORTION THAT YOU
MENTIONED, BECAUSE-- WHEN
DOES IT RAISE TO 40-50% OF
THEIR EVALUATION WILL BE BASED
ON STANDARDIZED TESTS.
WHEN DOES THAT HIT?
>> WELL, IT'S-- JUST
A CLARIFICATION: IT IS BASED
ON STUDENT GROWTH, A PORTION
OF WHICH WOULD BE
STANDARDIZED TESTS.
BUT AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS,
IT WOULD BE...
THE 2015-2016 SCHOOL YEAR
THAT IT WOULD RISE TO 50%.
THE MCEE RECOMMENDATIONS,
HOWEVER-- THAT IS CURRENT
WHY-- THAT'S AN ISSUE.
>> RIGHT.
>> THE MCEE RECOMMENDATIONS DO
INDICATE THAT IT SHOULD BE
DELAYED AT LEAST ONE MORE
YEAR, MAYBE TWO, WHICH WOULD
THEN GIVE SOME TIME FOR THIS
TO HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED
BEFORE IT IS REQUIRED TO BE
USED IN THAT FASHION.
>> RIGHT.
>> TO MICHELLE'S POINT,
THOUGH-- TO MICHELLE'S POINT,
WHAT IS IT NOW?
>> WHAT IS IT NOW?
IT IS 25% REQUIRED THIS YEAR.
>> OKAY--
>> THE CLARIFICATION IS
THE LAW IS THERE NOW.
>> YES, AND THEN NEXT YEAR IT
IS GOING TO RISE TO?
>> FORTY.
>> FORTY PERCENT.
SO WHEN YOU MENTIONED THAT,
YOU KNOW, THAT THERE IS
AN INTEREST IN DEALING WITH
THIS ISSUE, AND THE EFFECT ON
TEACHERS, IS IT THAT
THE GOVERNOR WOULD SUPPORT
BALL'S RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DELAY THE IMPLEMENTATION?
>> WELL, IT IS TRICKY, BECAUSE
WE DO HAVE A STATE LEGISLATURE
THAT PROBABLY IS GOING TO HAVE
TO OPEN UP THE STATUTE TO
FULLY IMPLEMENT DEB BALL'S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
SO THERE MUST BE AN ALIGNMENT
BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE AND
THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES ON
THE MEASUREMENT TOOL, THE IMPACT
ON EVALUATION, AND THE TIMING.
PLUS, THAT DOES NOT EVEN
INCLUDE THE COSTS, AND
THE APPROPRIATIONS THAT MAY BE
NECESSARY TO DO
THE EVALUATIONS, OBSERVATIONS,
TESTING, AND TECHNOLOGY.
>> AND THEN IT ALL-- YEAH,
THE TECHNOLOGY PIECE.
>> SO MY EARLIER POINT,
MICHELLE, WAS JUST, YOU KNOW,
SOMETIMES THE SYSTEMS CAN TAKE
ONLY SO MUCH CHANGE
AT ANY ONE TIME.
>> I AGREE.
>> I AGREE.
YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
[OVERLAPPING CHATTER]
>> HE HAS ENDORSED THEM IN
PRINCIPLE, BUT THERE IS ALWAYS
THE ISSUE, KATHY, OF THE COST.
SOME OF THE COST ESTIMATES OF
IMPLEMENTING IT WOULD PROVIDE
STICKER SHOCK FOR LEGISLATORS
AND OTHERS, SO WE'RE TRYING
TO-- IN THIS BUDGET
DEVELOPMENT SEASON, WE'RE
TRYING TO TAKE A CAREFUL LOOK
AT HOW TO KEEP THAT
STICKER SHOCK DOWN, BUT
AT THE SAME TIME MOVE BALL'S
REPORT FORWARD.
WE DON'T WANT TO DIE
IN THE BOX.
>> AND JUST-- THE REASON I
ASK JOSEPH TO CLARIFY IS THAT,
REMEMBER, EVEN WITHOUT
IMPLEMENTING THE BALL REPORT,
THERE IS A LAW IN PLACE--
[OVERLAPPING CHATTER]
>> AND WE THINK-- YOU KNOW,
A BIT BIASED PERHAPS, BUT WE
THINK WE HAVE A BETTER REMEDY
THAN THE LAW ENDED UP
WITH WHAT WE HAD IN
RACE TO THE TOP.
IT WAS PULLED OUT BY THE THEN
GOVERNOR, WHICH PUT US IN
A POSITION WHERE WE NOT ONLY
DIDN'T GET RACE TO THE TOP,
BUT AS A RESULT, IN MY VIEW,
GOT A LESS THOUGHT-OUT PIECE
OF LEGISLATION THAT JUST KIND
OF OVERNIGHT IMPOSED STUFF ON
DISTRICTS THAT WAS VERY
DIFFERENT AND-- I'M JUST
GOING TO SAY IT-- HAD
THE WISDOM FROM THIS DEPARTMENT
BEEN ACCEPTED AT THE TIME--
BECAUSE IF YOU WILL REMEMBER,
WE BOTH HAD TO SIGN IT--
I THINK WE WOULD BE IN
A BETTER PLACE.
THE ONLY REASON-- I BROUGHT
THIS UP TO THE ED ALLIANCE
A LITTLE BIT, TOO, BECAUSE BY
LOOKING BACK AT THE WHOLE
HISTORY THING, MAYBE YOU CAN
THINK DIFFERENTLY ABOUT HOW WE
MAKE DECISIONS.
BECAUSE HAD WE TAKEN THAT, WE
WOULD HAVE A BETTER, FAIRER
THING FOR TEACHERS RIGHT NOW
THAN WE ENDED UP WITH.
AND SO-- BY FAR.
YES, JOHN.
>> I JUST WANT TO NOTE,
PER CRAIG'S LAST COMMENT, IF I
RECALL, THIS BOARD, AS WE NOT
ONLY EMBRACE BUT ENDORSE
DEB BALL'S REPORT AND ENCOURAGE
LEGISLATION TO IMPLEMENT IT,
WE ARE NOTING VERY STRONGLY
THAT A KEY FEATURE OF IT IS
THESE KINDS OF FORMS AND
SUPPORT AND TRAINING REQUIRE
REAL RESOURCES TO IMPLEMENT,
AND THAT WE NEED TO PERSUADE
EACH OTHER AND THE LEGISLATURE
TO SUPPORT INVESTMENT IN
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF IT,
OTHERWISE IT BECOMES ANOTHER
DEMAND REFORM WITHOUT HELP FOR
TEACHERS.
PER THE POINT YOU MADE,
I THINK YOU ARE EXACTLY RIGHT,
CRAIG.
TEACHERS AND EDUCATORS ARE
REELING FROM CHANGE AND
DEMANDS, AND ARE NOT FEELING
ANY LOVE, SUPPORT OR HELP IN
MOVING THOSE CHANGES.
AND SOME OF THE TIMES, THAT IS
SEEN AS, "ARE WE PROVIDING ANY
RESOURCES, TOOLS, PROFESSIONAL
SUPPORT TO DO THIS?"
SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE
THAT POINT.
>> DAN.
>> JUST A QUICK FOLLOW-UP ON
MY LAST QUESTION.
I'M JUST NOTING THAT
OF ALL THE CRITERIA THAT
THE ASSESSMENTS WERE MEASURED
AGAINST-- ALIGNMENT, SO ON
AND SO FORTH-- THE ONLY
CRITERIA IN WHICH
NO ASSESSMENT, INCLUDING
SMARTER BALANCED AND PARCC
FULLY MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS
IS THE ONE AROUND
THE QUALIFICATIONS OF
EDUCATORS, DIVERSITY,
YADDA YADDA YADDA.
THAT'S REALLY-- I MEAN,
NOTHING FOR YOU GUYS TO SAY
HERE, EXCEPT THAT I JUST THINK
THAT'S INCREDIBLY
DISAPPOINTING.
I JUST WANTED TO NOTE.
>> OKAY.
JOHN, WHAT TIME?
>> 1:15-- THAT'S IN AN HOUR.
>> 1:15.