Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
GOOD MORNING.
THE TIME IS NOW 9:36,
AND A QUORUM OF THE BOARD
IS PRESENT.
THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
MEETING OF AUGUST 13, 2013
IS HEREBY CALLED TO ORDER.
FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA
IS APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
IN ORDER OF PRIORITY.
ARE THERE ANY ITEMS TO ADD
OR DELETE?
>> I DID WANT TO ASK A QUESTION
ABOUT THE REPORT ON THE COUNSEL
ON EDUCATOR EFFECTIVENESS.
I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE THAT
ON THE AGENDA.
WE SHOULD BE TALKING
AND ACTING ON IT.
I DON'T MEAN IT SHOULD BE ADDED
TODAY, BUT IT DEFINITELY SHOULD
BE ADDED TO THE AGENDA.
>> SO, WOULD YOU WANT US
TO BRING THAT UP IN AGENDA
PLANNING FOR THE NEXT MEETING,
OR DO YOU MEAN
ADJUST THE ONE TODAY?
>> I WANT TO ENCOURAGE US
TO HELP SUPPORT THE MOVEMENT
OF THAT AND PERHAPS
THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
QUICKLY COME TO GRIPS
WITH WHAT KIND OF ENDORSEMENT
OR PERSPECTIVE WE HAVE
ON THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS
AS THEY BEGIN TO TAKE
LEGISLATIVE SHAPE, AS WELL.
>> THESE HAPPEN FAST,
SO WE SHOULD BE DOING IT FAST.
I WAS DISAPPOINTED
THAT IT WASN'T ON THIS AGENDA,
SO I JUST WANTED
TO MAKE THAT POINT.
>> JUST REMEMBER,
WE TOGETHER BUILD THE AGENDA.
WE COULD HAVE,
OR MAYBE SHOULD HAVE ADDED THAT.
BUT, WE CAN ADJUST NOW.
>> DO YOU WANT TO ADD IT NOW?
THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
IS MEETING ON MONDAY,
SO WE CAN CERTAINLY REVIEW IT
THERE, BUT DO YOU WANT TO ADD IT
TO THE AGENDA TODAY?
>> IF WE HAVE TIME TO DISCUSS IT
TODAY, I THINK WE SHOULD START
TO DISCUSS IT.
>> CAN WE ADD IT
ON YOUR DISCUSSION ITEMS?
>> YES.
>> OKAY.
>> THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THIS ON,
AND IT'S APPROPRIATE
AND WE CAN ADD IT.
SOUNDS GOOD.
AND THEN, MAYBE MORE THOROUGH,
AS JOHN'S SAYING.
ANY OTHER ADJUSTMENTS?
ALL IN FAVOR, AYE?
>> AYE.
>> OPPOSED, SAME?
THANK YOU.
MERTZ, PLEASE.
>> GOOD MORNING.
I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE THE PEOPLE
SEATED AT THE TABLE.
TO MY LEFT
IS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD,
STATE SUPERINTENDENT,
MIKE FLANAGAN.
AS WE GO AROUND TO THE LEFT,
PRESIDENT JOHN AUSTIN,
PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD.
HE RESIDES IN ANN ARBOR.
VICE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD,
CASANDRA ULBRICH,
SHE RESIDES IN ROCHESTER HILLS.
DAN VARNER,
THE BOARD'S SECRETARY,
RESIDES IN DETROIT.
LUPE RAMOS-MONTIGNY
RESIDES IN GRAND RAPIDS,
SHE IS A BOARD MEMBER.
THE MICHIGAN TEACHER OF THE YEAR
IS USUALLY SEATED
TO LUPE'S LEFT.
HE IS UNABLE TO JOIN US TODAY,
DUE TO SOMETHING HE HAD
SCHEDULED BEFORE HE KNEW
HE WAS TEACHER OF THE YEAR.
HE HAS PROVIDED A WRITTEN REPORT
AS PART OF THE AGENDA,
THAT YOU CAN READ.
ACROSS THE TABLE, CRAIG RUFF,
EDUCATION ADVISOR
FOR GOVERNOR SNYDER.
NEXT TO HIM, EILEEN WEISER,
BOARD MEMBER FROM ANN ARBOR,
KATHLEEN STRAUSS,
BOARD MEMBER FROM DETROIT,
MICHELLE FECTEAU,
BOARD MEMBER FROM DETROIT.
SHE IS THE BOARD'S
NASBE DELEGATE,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF STATE BOARDS OF EDUCATION.
NEXT TO ME IS RICHARD ZEILE.
HE'S FROM DEARBORN,
AND IS THE BOARD'S TREASURER.
THANK YOU.
>> A COUPLE OF THINGS,
IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT,
OUR OWN DAN VARNER, AS YOU KNOW,
YOU PROBABLY SAW
IN OUR MID-MONTH,
BUT I THOUGHT THIS PICTURE ARRAY
AND THE COMPLEMENTARY COMMENTS
FOR THE SKILLMAN FOUNDATION.
BUT REALLY, IT WAS GREAT.
THEIR TERMINOLOGY IS,
"ORDINARY HERO DOING
"EXTRAORDINARY THINGS
"FOR DETROIT KIDS,
"AND THE FOUNDATION RECOGNIZES
"HIM AS AN EDUCATION INFLUENCER,
"AND A MAN ON A MISSION
"TO PUSH DETROIT HIGH SCHOOL
"GRADUATION RATES TO 90%."
I WANTED TO SHARE THAT,
FOR THOSE WHO WEREN'T AWARE.
IT'S QUITE AN HONOR.
SKILLMAN IS TOUGH.
THEY DON'T JUST GIVE THESE KIND
OF ACCOLADES OUT.
AND I HOPE SOME OF YOU
HAVE CONVERTED TO THE IPADS.
MAYBE IT'S WRONG TIMING,
BECAUSE IT'S NOT WORKING
OVER IN KATHY'S SPOT.
WE FIGURED WE SHOULD CATCH UP
WITH OUR GRAND KIDS,
WHO ARE ALREADY WORKING
ON THE IPADS.
WE WANTED TO PROVIDE THOSE
FOR YOU, IF YOU'RE INCLINED.
WE ARE HAPPY
TO PROVIDE SOME TRAINING.
I THINK IT WILL ALSO HELP
WITH THE VOICE PIECE,
BECAUSE SOMETIMES, I THINK,
THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS
ON OUR AUDIO SYSTEM HERE
IS THE COMPUTER ITSELF CAN BE
UP IN FRONT OF THE SPEAKER.
JOHN, I APPRECIATE YOUR NOTE
FROM YESTERDAY, FOR ALL OF US.
FOR THOSE IN ATTENDANCE,
I'VE BEEN TASKED
AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD,
AND I'M HAPPY TO DO THIS,
THAT I'LL BE A LITTLE MORE
AGGRESSIVE IN MOVING
THE AGENDA ALONG.
FOR DISCUSSION ITEMS,
YOU'VE ASKED ME TO BE MORE
STRICT ABOUT FOLLOWING
THE MOTION ON THE TABLE,
A SECOND, AND THEN DISCUSSION.
ALSO, TRY TO ASK FOLKS
TO LIMIT THEIR QUESTION
OR COMMENTS TO ONE AT A TIME,
AND THEN COME BACK.
WE'LL DO THAT.
I'VE BEEN GIVEN LICENSE
TO USE THE GAVEL.
IT'S A LITTLE AWKWARD.
I'LL STILL TRY TO USE THAT
APPROPRIATELY.
>> A QUICK THANK YOU
FOR THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
AND IN-KIND, I THINK WE SHOULD
QUICKLY ACKNOWLEDGE YOU,
FOR THE AWARD THAT YOU RECEIVED
FROM NASBE OVER THE BREAK.
>>THANKS.
[ APPLAUSE ]
>> MICHELLE AND RICHARD,
I GUESS, WERE OUR AMBASSADORS,
AFTER WE NOMINATED,
AND RIGHTFULLY, NASBE CELEBRATED
MIKE'S DISTINGUISHED SERVICE
WITH THIS AWARD.
IT'S THE FIRST TIME
A SUPERINTENDENT
HAS BEEN GIVEN THIS AWARD.
CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR SERVICE
AND IT'S A TRIBUTE TO YOU,
AND THE GREAT STAFF,
AND EVERYBODY HERE.
[ APPLAUSE ]
>> THAT HELPS EXPLAIN
THE FLOWERS HERE.
THANK YOU, LUPE AND EILEEN,
FOR THAT.
AND RICHARD AND MICHELLE,
I DO VERY MUCH APPRECIATE,
I WASN'T ABLE TO MAKE IT,
BUT I APPRECIATE
YOUR REPRESENTING.
I GUESS I WOULD SAY THIS.
IT'S KIND OF AWKWARD,
BECAUSE THINGS THAT WE DESERVE
SOME CREDIT FOR IT,
OFTEN YOU GET DERISION
BECAUSE IT'S CHANGE,
AND I UNDERSTAND IT.
THIS IS DISPROPORTIONATELY
MORE CREDIT THAN IS DESERVED,
ESPECIALLY FOR AN INDIVIDUAL.
THIS WAS JUST ICING ON THE CAKE.
I CAN'T TELL YOU
HOW MUCH IT MEANS TO ME
TO HAVE THE BOARD NOMINATE ME.
THAT WAS THE ISSUE.
IT WAS INTERESTING THAT--
THEY ASKED ME TO DO
A LITTLE VIDEO, AS YOU KNOW.
I HAD SAID THIS IS A BOARD
WHERE REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS
WORK WELL TOGETHER,
AND IT REALLY HELPS THE CHILDREN
IN THE STATE,
AND I'M SO PROUD TO WORK
WITH THEM,
AND THIS GENTLEMAN SAID TO YOU--
>> ARE YOU THE REPUBLICAN?
[ LAUGHTER ]
>> SO ANYWAY,
THAT'S A GOOD THING.
>> AND I'D KNOWN THIS GUY
FOR THREE YEARS.
[ LAUGHTER ]
>> YES, MA'AM?
>> I'D LIKE TO TAKE ANOTHER
POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE
TO THANK YOU FOR BEING AT
THE MEA SUMMER
LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE.
BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT,
STEVE COOK,
AND ALL THE TEACHERS
AND SUPPORT STAFF THAT WERE
IN ATTENDANCE WERE VERY,
VERY PLEASED WITH YOUR REMARKS.
ON BEHALF OF MEA, AND I,
AS MEA RETIRED, WE THANK YOU
FOR TAKING THAT OPPORTUNITY.
>> THANK YOU.
IT WAS MY PRIVILEGE.
IT WAS GREAT.
THERE WERE MOMENTS
WITH QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
WHERE IT'S GOOD TO HAVE
THE CANDOR, AND TRY
AND UNDERSTAND POINTS OF VIEW.
I WANTED TO SHOW
THAT OUR GRANDSON, WILL,
IS STARTING TO RESEMBLE ME,
MORE THAN HE RESEMBLES ANNA.
[ LAUGHTER ]
>> I COULDN'T MAKE THE WHOLE
MICHAEL MOORE EVENT THAT
OUR LIBRARY OF MICHIGAN HAD,
A WHILE BACK,
BUT I WENT AND TOOK WILL IN
FOR A LITTLE BIT.
THE LIBRARY STAFF TOOK A PICTURE
AND MY SON PLAYED SOME TRICKS
WITH IT.
TODAY, WE HAVE A VERY
INTERESTING MORNING.
ONE OF THE DEPARTMENT GOALS
THAT HAVE BEEN CLOSE TO US
FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS NOW
IS TO TRY TO GET THE FAIREST,
AND THE BEST SYSTEM IN PLACE
TO TRY TO HELP EDUCATOR
PREPARATION INSTITUTIONS IMPROVE
WITH THE REST OF THE SYSTEM.
WE ALL HAVE ROOM
FOR IMPROVEMENT.
WE'RE LUCKY TO HAVE THE BEST
IN THE COUNTRY, ON THE WHOLE.
WE REALLY HAVE EXCELLENT
TEACHER PREP INSTITUTIONS.
THE ISSUE IS THAT WE CAN ALL
GET BETTER AND ADAPT
TO THE NEW ACCOUNTABILITY.
WE HAVE TEACHERS UNDER
A LOT OF ACCOUNTABILITY NOW,
FOR SOME THINGS
THAT ARE HARD TO CONTROL.
THIS BOARD WAS INSTRUMENTAL
IN GETTING THE LAW TO WRITE
THE WORD GROWTH IN,
SO IT'S NOT A RAW TEST SCORE.
THERE'S FACTORS THAT MAKE IT
VERY TOUGH, INCLUDING
PREPARATION, SO WE'RE ALL TRYING
TO HEIGHTEN THAT ISSUE TOGETHER.
THE FIRST ITEM
WE'RE GOING TO DO NOW,
BY THE WAY, JOSEPH AND FLORA,
WHY DON'T YOU JOIN US
AT THE TABLE?
THIS IS WHERE THEY'LL PRESENT
THE 2011-2012
EDUCATOR PREPARATION
PERFORMANCE SCORE REPORT.
THIS HAS GATHERED
THE NECESSARY DATA AND APPLIED
THE EXISTING CRITERIA,
PRODUCING THE EDUCATOR
PREP INSTITUTION
PERFORMANCE SCORE REPORT.
THESE RESULTS WILL BE REPORTED
TO THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF ED.
THIS IS A NECESSARY COMPLIANCE
WITH THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT.
WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO
TURN IT OVER TO JOSEPH.
>> THANK YOU
FOR GIVING US THE OPPORTUNITY
TO PRESENT TODAY.
I WANTED TO CALL OUT
STEVE STECY,
WHO HAS DONE A LOT OF WORK
FOR THE OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL
PREPARATION SERVICES
IN PREPARING THIS REPORT.
WITH THAT,
I'LL TURN IT OVER TO FLORA
TO GO THROUGH THE PRESENTATION.
>> THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY
TO PRESENT THE 2011-2012
EDUCATOR PREPARATION
INSTITUTION PERFORMANCE SCORE.
THE EPI PERFORMANCE SCORE
IS THE ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM
USED TO MEET HIGHER EDUCATION
ACT TITLE TWO
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS,
WHICH IS TO IDENTIFY AT-RISK
AND LOW PERFORMING EDUCATOR
PREPARATION INSTITUTIONS.
I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND START
THROUGH THIS POWERPOINT.
FIRST OF ALL,
IT'S IN COMPLIANCE WITH
THE FEDERAL HIGHER EDUCATION
ACT, SECTION 208,
WHICH DOES REQUIRE STATES
TO IDENTIFY AT-RISK
AND LOW PERFORMING INSTITUTIONS.
IT PROVIDES
AN ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM
FOR ENSURING QUALITY PREPARATION
FOR ALL PK-12 TEACHERS.
IT PROVIDES INFORMATION
ABOUT THE EPI'S OVERALL ABILITY
TO PREPARE TEACHER CANDIDATES.
IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT
THE COLLEGE, OR THE DEPARTMENT,
OR THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION.
CANDIDATES GET THEIR PREPARATION
WITHIN THE OVERALL UNIVERSITY
IN THEIR CONTENT AREA,
AND THEN THEY TAKE ADDITIONAL
COURSEWORK THROUGH THE COLLEGE
OF EDUCATION.
EPIS ARE ASSIGNED A STATUS,
BASED ON A 70-POINT SCALE.
IT LOOKS AT VARIOUS CRITERIA.
EXEMPLARY STARTS AT 63
OR HIGHER, SATISFACTORY
IS IN THE RANGE OF 56-62,
AT-RISK IS 52-55, AND LOW
PERFORMING IS LESS THAN 52.
THESE ARE LISTS OF HOW
THE INSTITUTIONS ARE RANKED--
THEIR STATUS.
EXEMPLARY,
YOU SEE 19 OUT OF THE 33
INSTITUTIONS ARE EXEMPLARY.
SATISFACTORY,
WE HAVE 9 OUT OF THE 33.
AT-RISK, WE HAVE 3 OUT OF 33.
LOW PERFORMING, 2.
THE MAXIMUM SCORE IS 70 POINTS.
WE LOOK AT THE MTTC THREE YEAR
AGGREGATE PASSING PERCENTAGE,
WHICH IS 30 POINTS.
WE LOOK AT THEIR PROGRAM REVIEW
STATUS, AND PROGRAM COMPLETION,
HOW MANY ARE COMPLETING,
CANDIDATE AND SUPERVISORY
SURVEYS.
WE LOOK AT HOW THE CANDIDATES
ARE PERFORMING IN THE FIELD
AND THEIR INTERNSHIPS.
RESPONSIVENESS TO STATE NEEDS,
WE'RE LOOKING AT THINGS
THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED
BY THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION,
THE SUPERINTENDENT,
OR DATA COLLECTED BY MDE
AND AREAS SUCH AS DIVERSITY,
OR ARE THEY ADDRESSING ANY
OF OUR HIGH NEEDS SUBJECT AREAS?
IT COULD BE STEM AREAS,
SPECIAL EDUCATION,
WORLD LANGUAGES,
MATH AND SCIENCE.
THE IMPACT OF THE MTTC,
BECAUSE IT IS A MAJOR PORTION
OF THE SCORE,
IT LOOKS AT THE CONTENT
PREPARATION AND ASSESSMENT
OF THAT PREPARATION.
IT'S A THREE-YEAR
PASSING PERCENTAGE.
WE LOOK AT THAT AGGREGATE SCORE
THAT'S GREATER THAN
OR EQUAL TO 80%.
IT ACCOUNTS FOR ABOUT 43%
OF THE TOTAL SCORE,
SO THAT'S WEIGHTED VERY HEAVILY.
THE MINIMUM PASSING SCORES
WERE RAISED ON THE MTTC BILLS
IN 2008, SO WE LOOKED AT
WHAT WE USED TO CALL
THE MINIMUM PASSING SCORE
AND INCREASED THOSE TO
THE RECOMMENDED PASSING SCORE,
SO THAT IMPACTED THE MTTC
A LITTLE BIT.
IT IS REQUIRED IN LAW
FOR CERTIFICATION.
YOU CANNOT BECOME A TEACHER
IN MICHIGAN UNLESS YOU PASS
BOTH THE PROFESSIONAL READINESS
EXAMINATION AND THE CONTENT
PREPARATION TEST.
IN 2011-2012,
THE SCORE CONTINUES.
THE IMPACT OF THE THREE-YEAR
AGGREGATE IS THE HIGHER
PASSING RATES.
THE STATE PASSING PERCENTAGE
IS ABOUT 88%.
THIS IS THE FIRST YEAR
THAT EPI PERFORMANCE SCORES
REFLECT A DISCONTINUATION
OF A NUMBER OF SPECIALTY
PROGRAMS THAT FELL BELOW 80%.
WE WORKED WITH THE INSTITUTIONS
LAST YEAR THAT WERE IN THAT
LEVEL TWO, LEVEL THREE
CORRECTIVE ACTION,
AND WE TOLD THEM THAT ALL
OF THE AREAS IN WHICH THEY SCORE
BELOW 80% IN AGGREGATE CONTENT
ARE AREAS THEY NEED TO DROP
FROM THE PROGRAM IN ORDER TO
START LOOKING AT THE PROGRAMS
THAT YOU PREPARE CANDIDATES
WELL IN, AND IMPROVE THOSE.
LEVEL ONE CORRECTIVE ACTION
IS THE FIST TWO YEARS
THAT THEY ARE IDENTIFIED
AS AT-RISK STATUS.
LEVEL TWO IS TWO YEARS
OF LOW PERFORMING STATUS.
THEY DIDN'T IMPROVE
AND ARE BEGINNING THE THIRD
YEAR OF AT-RISK.
LEVEL THREE
IS CORRECTIVE ACTION.
BEGINNING THAT THIRD YEAR
OF LOW PERFORMING STATUS,
OR INITIALLY AT-RISK,
EPI BEGINNING IT'S SECOND YEAR
OF LOW PERFORMING STATUS.
LEVEL FOUR CORRECTIVE ACTION
IS BEGINNING THE FOURTH YEAR
OF LOW PERFORMING STATUS,
OR INITIALLY AT RISK
AND BEGINNING THAT THIRD YEAR
OF LOW PERFORMING STATUS.
THAT IS THE HARSHEST YOU CAN GO.
AT THAT POINT, YOU WOULD
NO LONGER BE A TEACHER
PREPARATION INSTITUTION.
LEVELS ONE AND TWO,
WE DO REQUIRE THAT THERE'S
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION.
THERE'S A SELF-ASSESSMENT
AND PLAN FOR IMPROVEMENT
THAT WE REQUIRE
THE INSTITUTIONS TO COMPLETE.
THERE'S A SIX-MONTH UPDATE
REPORT ON HOW THEY ARE
PROGRESSING.
WE PROVIDE ASSISTANCE.
WE WILL MEET
WITH THE INSTITUTIONS
AND GO THROUGH THAT PLAN
OF IMPROVEMENT WITH THEM.
IF THEY ARE MENTORING A NEW EPI
WE WILL ASK THAT THEY WITHDRAW
FROM THAT, AND THAT EPI
WILL HAVE TO GET A NEW MENTOR
INSTITUTION.
WE SUSPEND THE APPLICATIONS
FOR NEW EDUCATION ACT TITLE
TWO SUB-PART 8-3 GRANTS.
THOSE ARE PROFESSIONAL LEARNING
GRANTS THAT ARE COMPETITIVE,
AND WE WORK WITH INSTITUTIONS
TO APPLY FOR THOSE GRANTS,
SO THEY WOULD NO LONGER
BE ELIGIBLE FOR THOSE.
WE NOTIFY THE ACCREDITATION
AGENCY AND WE ASK THEY EMPLOY
A CONSULTANT TO MENTOR AND WORK
WITH THEM THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
ANY NEW PROGRAMS THAT THEY
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
WILL BE WITHDRAWN.
LEVEL THREE CORRECTIVE ACTION,
WE ASK THAT THEY CLOSE
ADMISSIONS TO ALL PROGRAMS
WITH PASSING PERCENTAGES
BELOW 80%.
THERE'S A FIVE-YEAR HIATUS
BEFORE THEY CAN ASK FOR APPROVAL
OF THOSE PROGRAMS
THAT HAVE BEEN CLOSED.
THEY HAVE TO WAIT FIVE YEARS
BEFORE THOSE PROGRAMS
ARE APPROVED AGAIN.
APPOINTED COMMITTEE OF SCHOLARS,
WHICH DOES VISITS TO THE CAMPUS
AND WORKS WITH THE INSTITUTION.
THEY CAN MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS
TO THE STATE SUPERINTENDENT
IN TERMS OF WHAT
THE INSTITUTION'S FUTURE
STATUS SHOULD BE.
IF NECESSARY, ASSIST THE TEACHER
CANDIDATES TO TRANSFER
TO ANOTHER EPI PROGRAM.
CORRECTIVE ACTION LEVEL FOUR
IS TO IMMEDIATELY BEGIN
TO PHASE OUT THE PROGRAM
AND ASSIST THOSE CANDIDATES
WHO WISH TO TRANSFER
TO ANOTHER INSTITUTION.
THE CURRENT STATUS IS WE HAVE
SOME INSTITUTIONS THAT DID MOVE
OUT OF CORRECTIVE ACTION.
THOSE INCLUDE ADRIAN,
SAGINAW VALLEY,
AND WESTERN MICHIGAN.
SOME OF THE NEW CORRECTIVE
ACTION STATUS INCLUDE
BAKER COLLEGE,
WHICH ENTERED LEVEL ONE,
CONCORDIA, LEVEL ONE,
FERRIS STATE, LEVEL ONE,
ROCHESTER UNIVERSITY
OF MICHIGAN,
FLINT WOULD BE IN CORRECTIVE
ACTION LEVEL TWO.
THESE INSTITUTIONS HAVE TO
COMPLETE THAT SELF-ASSESSMENT
AND PLAN FOR IMPROVEMENT.
THE INSTITUTIONS THAT REMAIN
IN CORRECTIVE ACTION
ARE LAKE SUPERIOR STATE
AND OLIVET COLLEGE.
THEY ARE WORKING
WITH A COMMITTEE OF SCHOLARS,
SO WE CONTINUE TO WORK
WITH THESE INSTITUTIONS
TO IMPROVE THEIR PROGRAMS.
THAT IS THE END
OF THE PRESENTATION.
>> COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS?
RICHARD?
>> ON CLOSE ADMISSION
TO PROGRAMS WITH PASSING
PERCENTAGE BELOW 80%,
WHAT IS THE RANGE OF PROGRAMS?
ARE WE TALKING
ABOUT MUSIC EDUCATION?
ART EDUCATION?
I'M CONCERNED WITH
JUST THOSE
PROGRAMS THAT ARE RARE.
THERE'S LOTS OF ENGLISH
AND MATH PROGRAMS, I'M ASSUMING,
IN OUR TEACHER PREPARATION
INSTITUTIONS,
BUT FEWER OF OTHER KINDS.
I'M JUST CURIOUS
AS TO THE RANGE OF PROGRAMS.
>> THAT WE ACTUALLY CLOSED
LAST YEAR?
I DON'T HAVE THAT LIST
IN FRONT OF ME.
THAT'S IN THE REPORT
FROM LAST YEAR.
THAT IS ON THE BOARD'S WEBSITE.
BASICALLY, I THINK
THERE WERE ENGLISH PROGRAMS
THAT MIGHT HAVE CLOSED,
AND BIOLOGY, PHYS ED,
I THINK, WAS IN ONE CASE.
THERE'S A RANGE OF PROGRAMS.
KEEP IN MIND, TOO,
THAT SOME OF THESE ARE SMALLER
INSTITUTIONS AND MAY HAVE HAD
VERY SMALL ENROLLMENTS
IN THOSE PROGRAMS.
>> WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
PROGRAMS, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT
A PROGRAM LEADING TO ENDORSEMENT
ON THE TEACHER CERTIFICATE?
>> YES.
>> OKAY.
>> THE STUDENTS, THE CANDIDATES
THAT THEY HAD IN THE PROGRAMS
ARE NOT CUT OFF
AND TOLD THEY CAN'T COMPLETE IT.
THERE IS A TRANSITION PERIOD
WHERE THOSE STUDENTS
CAN FINISH UP,
BUT THEY CANNOT ADMIT
ANYONE ELSE.
THOSE PROGRAMS ARE OVER
FOR THAT INSTITUTION.
>> FLORA, JUST FOR
PROPORTIONALITY, THESE ARE
RELATIVELY SMALL NUMBERS.
CAN YOU GIVE A SENSE
OF HOW OFTEN THAT HAPPENS?
>> IN TERMS OF CLOSING
A PROGRAM, LAST YEAR WAS
THE FIRST YEAR THAT WE HAD
ANY INSTITUTIONS THAT FAILED
WITHIN THE CORRECTIVE
ACTION LEVEL THREE.
AS YOU CAN SEE,
THREE OF THEM MOVED OUT
OF CORRECTIVE ACTION,
PARTLY BECAUSE WE DIDN'T COUNT
THOSE SCORES IN THE PROGRAMS
THAT WE CLOSED, AGAINST THEM.
WE DIDN'T DOUBLE-PENALIZE THEM.
>> SO, FOR EXAMPLE,
IF WE HAD 5000 GRADS
IN AN AVERAGE YEAR,
AND I'M FORGETTING THE NUMBER.
IS IT MORE LIKE 7000, ACTUALLY?
>> MORE OR LESS 6000 GRADUATES
THAT COME OUT OF
TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAMS.
IF WE CLOSED TEN PROGRAMS DOWN,
IT WAS PROBABLY LESS THAN 100
CANDIDATES IT WOULD IMPACT.
>> I WOULD HATE THE POLICY
WHICH SEEKS TO ESTABLISH
HIGH QUALITY--
I WOULD HATE TO SEE IF THIS
CLOSED OUT
OR WORKED AGAINST DIVERSITY
OF PROGRAM OFFERINGS.
I THINK IT'S BETTER TO HAVE
FIVE CLASSICAL TEACHERS
THAN NONE, GRADUATING
FROM MICHIGAN SCHOOLS.
THAT'S JUST A CONCERN
GOING FORWARD.
>> EILEEN, PLEASE?
>> AS A DISCUSSION POINT
FOR THE FUTURE.
FOR THE MICHIGAN MTTC,
I KNOW THAT THE CUT SCORES
WERE RAISED IN 2008.
AT WHAT POINT IS THAT ASSESSMENT
GOING TO BE LINKED
TO COMMON CORE?
FOR EXAMPLE, IN MATH,
THE COMMON CORE TEACHES MATH
PROGRESSION IN A DIFFERENT WAY,
YET THE STUDENTS COMING INTO
THESE TEACHER PREP INSTITUTIONS
WEREN'T EDUCATED
IN THAT FASHION.
WHAT IS THE PREVAILING WISDOM
ON HOW THAT LINKAGE
IS GOING TO HAPPEN, AND WHEN?
WE DON'T' NEED TO DISCUSS IT
RIGHT NOW.
>> QUICKLY, WE CAN SAY THAT
WHEN WE GET NEW STANDARDS,
WE TAKE THOSE STANDARDS
AND HAVE THE INSTITUTIONS
RESUBMIT THEIR PROGRAMS.
I'M NOT SURE WHERE WE ARE
WITH THE MATH STANDARDS YET.
>> THE NEW ELEMENTARY
EDUCATION TEST, STARTING NOW
FOR THE NEW YEAR BOTH IN
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS AND MATH,
WAS CONSIDERED WHEN
THE OBJECTIVES FOR THE TEST
WERE DEVELOPED?
>> THAT'S WHAT I'M AFTER.
DO WE END UP WITH THE SAME
ASSESSMENT, ONCE THE CONTRACT
IS BID,
OR ARE THEY REVISING IT?
>> THEY'RE CONSTANTLY REVISED.
>> EVERY YEAR WE DO FIVE OR SIX.
IT HAPPENED THAT ELEMENTARY ED
WAS PART OF THAT CYCLE
THREE YEARS AGO IN DEVELOPMENT
FOR IMPLEMENTATION.
IT IS CONSTANT, AS ARISES.
>> IF THAT TOOK PLACE,
ARE YOU SEEING FLUX
IN THE PASS RATES ON MTTC?
>> IT'S A LITTLE TOO EARLY YET
TO KNOW THAT.
>> THANKS.
>> GOOD QUESTION.
DAN?
>> ARE WE DOING A AND B
TOGETHER HERE?
>> YOU MEAN, THE NEXT ITEM?
IF WE'RE READY
TO MOVE TO THAT ONE.
>> WE COULD GO BACK AND FORTH.
>> ON A, IN THIS ISSUE,
I KNOW THAT U OF AM FLINT
HAS A PROGRAM WHERE FOLKS
GOING THROUGH THE DEGREE
AND CERTIFICATION PROCESS
ACTUALLY ARE HOUSED IN DETROIT
SCHOOLS FOR THE ENTIRETY
OF THE TWO YEARS.
THEY'RE NEVER ON THE U OF AM
FLINT CAMPUS.
ARE THOSE STUDENTS IN THOSE
KIND OF ALTERNATE PROGRAMS
THAT ARE STILL UNIVERSITY RUN
AND AFFILIATED, ARE THEY
INCLUDED IN THESE NUMBERS?
>> I THINK YOU'RE KIND OF
MIXING UP U OF AM FLINT
WITH U OF AM ANN ARBOR.
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN ANN ARBOR
HAS BEEN WORKING WITH
THE TEACH FOR AMERICA PROGRAM.
>> NO, I'M SPECIFICALLY THINKING
ABOUT A U OF AM FLINT PROGRAM,
WHERE STUDENTS ARE HOUSED
IN DETROIT SCHOOLS
FOR THE ENTIRE TWO YEARS.
>> THEN YES, THEY WOULD BE
INCLUDED IN THEIR EDUCATOR
PREPARATION SCORE, HOWEVER,
IF IT'S AN ALTERNATE ROUTE
PROGRAM, THEN THOSE SCORES
REALLY ARE NOT INCLUDED IN IT,
BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO PASS
THAT TEST BEFORE THEY EVEN ENTER
THAT ALTERNATE ROUTE PROGRAM,
BY LAW.
I'LL HAVE TO FIGURE OUT
WHAT THAT PROGRAM IS.
I MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET SOME
INFORMATION BACK TO YOU.
>> WHY DON'T WE TRY
THIS MORNING?
WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO KNOW
THIS MORNING, RIGHT, WHETHER
THAT'S AN ALTERNATE PROGRAM?
IN THE LAST FEW YEARS,
AS THE LAW HAS CHANGED,
YOU HAVE SOME DISSONANCE
BETWEEN ALTERNATE
AND TRADITIONAL PROGRAMS.
MAYBE THAT'S A POINT,
WHEN WE FIGURE OUT WHETHER
THE PROGRAM YOU'RE CITING,
DAN, IS AN ALTERNATE
OR TRADITIONAL ONE.
I THINK IT IS AN ALTERNATE ONE.
KATHLEEN?
>> FIRST OF ALL,
I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT
U OF D MERCY IS PRESENT HERE
TODAY, AND CONGRATULATE THEM ON
NOW BEING AN EXEMPLARY STATUS.
BERRY GROVE COLLEGE, AS WELL.
THOSE WERE TWO IN DETROIT
THAT I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT
AND THEY'VE DONE WELL.
NOW, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT EASTERN
AND CENTRAL MICHIGAN,
WHICH EDUCATE MANY OF OUR
CANDIDATES, ARE IN LEVEL TWO.
SATISFACTORY, NOT EXEMPLARY.
I WOULD HOPE THAT THE MAJOR
INSTITUTIONS THAT EDUCATE
SO MANY FUTURE TEACHERS
WOULD UPGRADE THEMSELVES
BY THE NEXT TIME.
THAT'S DISTRESSING.
AND I'D LIKE TO KNOW MORE
ABOUT THE PROGRAM
AT UNIVERSITY OF FLINT,
THAT DAN IS TALKING ABOUT.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.
RICHARD?
>> I PRESUME THAT THERE'S
A CORRELATION BETWEEN
SAT AND ACT SCORES
AND PASSING THE MTTC
FOR TEACHER CERTIFICATION,
BUT HAS ANYONE DONE STUDY
THAT CONFIRMS OR DENIES?
IF THERE IS NO STRONG
CORRELATION, THEN ONE PRESUMES
THE TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAM
IS HELPING THESE STUDENTS
TO PASS THE TEST.
IF THERE IS A STRONG
CORRELATION, THEN PASSING
MAY HAVE MORE TO DO WITH
THE TALENT THAT'S RECRUITED,
RATHER THAN OTHER PARTS
OF THE PROGRAM.
>> WE HAVE NOT DONE THAT.
>> WHEN WE START WORKING
WITH INSTITUTIONS ON THEIR
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE,
THEN THERE IS SOME EVIDENCE
THAT INSTITUTIONS THAT HAVE
LOWER PERFORMANCE ON THE MTTC
DO HAVE LOWER ACT ADMISSION
LEVELS ON AN AVERAGE.
BUT THERE'S BEEN NO SPECIFIC
DETAILS OR STATISTICS ON IT.
THERE IS A GENERAL,
ANECDOTAL RELATIONSHIP,
BUT WE HAVEN'T DONE
ANYTHING FORMAL, YET.
>> MY INTEREST IN ONE
OF THE AREAS WE TALKED ABOUT
IS DO WE WANT TO START
RECRUITING STRONGER STUDENTS
FOR TEACHER PREP PROGRAMS?
I SUPPOSE POINTING OUT
THIS CORRELATION TO INSTITUTIONS
MIGHT BE A MOTIVE TO DO THAT.
>> THAT'S ONE OF
THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE HAVE
THROUGH THE TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE PROCESS.
WE WORK WITH THOSE CANDIDATES
WHO HAVE A POTENTIAL
TO STRUGGLE, THE FIRST TWO TIMES
THEY TAKE THE MTTC.
>> WE DO ENCOURAGE INSTITUTIONS
THAT WE'RE WORKING WITH
TO PROVIDE THE TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE TO LOOK AT THEIR
ADMISSIONS POLICIES,
ADMISSIONS PROGRAMS,
AND WHETHER THE FEEDER SCHOOLS
THAT THEY PULL IN
NEED TO BE BROADENED AROUND
MICHIGAN, AS OPPOSED TO
STICKING CLOSE TO ONE AREA.
>> WE WORK ON THIS VERY ISSUE
A LOT.
SOME OF THIS IS THE DISSONANCE
BETWEEN THE LARGE NUMBER
OF FOLKS THAT WE NEED
IN THIS PROFESSION,
AND THE DIVERSITY, SO YOU HAVE,
IN MY EXPERIENCE,
FOLKS WHO DIDN'T DO WELL
ON THE ACT, BUT BLOSSOMED
INTO EXCELLENT TEACHERS,
WHO COULD RELATE TO KIDS,
AND HAD GOOD CLASSROOM
MANAGEMENT SKILLS
THAT THEY LEARNED
AT THEIR EDUCATOR PREP.
THERE IS WORK TO BE DONE
ON THE STUDYING OF THIS PROBLEM.
PROBABLY NATIONALLY.
IF NOT, I KNOW,
VENESSA AND JOSEPH,
WE HAD SOME INTERNS WHO DID
SOME RESEARCH THIS SUMMER.
MAYBE WE CAN TRY TO PUT
THAT TOGETHER.
IT'S COMPLICATED IN ONE SENSE.
FINLAND, ON THE ONE HAND,
HAS THIS REPUTATION OF TOP TEN
PERCENTERS.
THEY'RE THE ONLY ONES
THAT GET INTO IT, AND YOU CAN
INFER THINGS FROM THAT.
I THINK THERE COULD BE
SOME EVIDENCE THAT IF YOU WANT
A DIVERSE POPULATION
OF TEACHERS--
IT'S OUR LARGEST SINGLE
PROFESSIONAL WORKFORCE--
WHAT'S THE TRADE OFF
ON PURE ACADEMICS VERSUS
THE ABILITY TO RELATE TO KIDS,
THAT THE TEST DOES NOT MEASURE
AS CLEARLY.
IT DOES LEAD A BIT
INTO THE SECOND ITEM,
WHEN WE GET TO THAT.
I THINK IT'S MICHELLE,
AND THEN EILEEN?
>> I WANT TO SECOND
WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO TRY
TO GET THE BEST CANDIDATES,
AND MAYBE ACT CAN BE PART OF
ONE OF THE THINGS YOU LOOK AT,
BUT I CERTAINLY THINK IT HAS
TO BE MUCH BROADER THAN THAT.
WE KNOW PEOPLE WHO WOULD DO WELL
ON ACT, BUT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY
BE A GOOD TEACHER.
RELYING ON JUST A TEST
LIKE THAT-- I DON'T KNOW WHAT
THE VALIDITY IS THAT SHOWS IT
WOULD MAKE THEM A GOOD TEACHER.
>> IT'S PART OF THE FORMULA.
THERE IS CLEAR EVIDENCE
THAT YOU'VE PROBABLY
EXPERIENCED YOURSELF.
THERE ARE FOLKS
THAT ARE BRILLIANT,
BUT STILL CAN'T GET TO A POINT
TO WALK THROUGH
WITH A THIRD GRADER ON MATH.
I'M FINE WITH WE DON'T HAVE
ENOUGH MATH TEACHERS ANYWAY.
WE PROBABLY NEED ALTERNATE
PROGRAMS TO GET, LET'S SAY,
A CAREER CHANGER ENGINEER
INTO IT, BUT OFTEN YOU'LL FIND
THE ENGINEER GETS INTO IT
AND REALIZES THAT THEY KNOW
THE MATH,
BUT THEY CAN'T TEACH THE MATH.
THEY'RE ALMOST BEYOND THE POINT.
I THINK DEB BALL
DOES AN EXCELLENT JOB.
SHE DID IT RECENTLY HERE,
WHEN SHE WALKED US THROUGH
THE DIAGNOSTICS OF WHEN A KID
DIDN'T GET THE ANSWER RIGHT,
AND WHAT WAS GOING ON
IN THEIR MIND.
OFTEN, THEY GOT THE PROBLEM
SOLVING RIGHT, BUT PERHAPS
THEY CARRIED A NUMBER WRONG.
THAT'S DIFFERENT FROM SOMEONE
THAT JUST DIDN'T GET
THE CONCEPT AT ALL.
IT'S WHY WE NEED THAT BLEND.
THIS IS THE KEY, REALLY.
EVERYTHING ELSE WE'RE WORKING ON
IN REFORM IS NOT AS IMPORTANT
AS TRYING TO HELP INSTITUTIONS
TO IMPROVE TO BE ABLE
TO MEET THE NEEDS, NOW.
MY DAUGHTER, AS A NEW TEACHER,
IS VERY GOOD AT HER PROFESSION,
BUT IT TAKES A WHILE.
THE CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT ALONE
WAS A STRUGGLE.
THEN, YOU PERFECT YOUR ART.
HAVING HAD MEDICAL ISSUES
OVER THE YEARS,
I SOMETIMES THINK YOU DON'T
ALWAYS WANT THE MOST
ACADEMICALLY ADEPT DOCTORS,
BECAUSE THEY CAN'T TAKE
THE WHOLE THING INTO ACCOUNT,
AND CAN'T RELATE IN WAYS
THAT HELP YOU IMPROVE
YOUR OWN HEALTH.
EILEEN?
>> THIS IS BRINGING BACK
FOND MEMORIES OF DR. JENKINS,
OUR GUIDANCE ON THE PROFESSIONAL
COMMISSION FOR TEACHERS
ON TEACHER DISPOSITION
CONVERSATIONS.
ONE WOULD THINK THAT IF
AN INSTITUTION IS DOING ITS
JOB WELL, IT WOULD SHOW UP
IN THEIR PROGRAM COMPLETION
RATE, AND IT CERTAINLY WOULD
SHOW UP IN THEIR EVALUATIONS.
BUT I WANT TO GO BACK
TO TORTURING THE MTTC AGAIN.
HOW MUCH OF THE TEACHER
PREPARATION COURSEWORK
IS DONE BEFORE STUDENTS
ACTUALLY COME INTO THE PROGRAM?
I'M CONCERNED THAT AS WE
HEAD INTO THIS NEW, COMMON CORE
WORLD ON OCTOBER 1ST,
THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE
NEW CANDIDATES, WHO DID OKAY
IN HIGH SCHOOL AND COME IN
ACADEMICALLY PREPARED,
BUT THERE MAY BE A GAP BETWEEN
WHAT THE COMMUNITY COLLEGES
ARE TEACHING BEFORE THEY
GET TO THE INSTITUTION
AND IT WON'T BRIDGE THEM WELL
INTO THE CLASSROOM
WITH COMMON CORE.
WHILE OUR MATH STANDARDS
WERE RELATIVELY HIGH BEFORE
WE ADOPTED COMMON CORE,
THE WAY THAT MATH IS TAUGHT
NOW IS VERY DIFFERENT.
AND FOR LANGUAGE ARTS,
IT REALLY IS SUBSTANTIALLY
DIFFERENT, THE COMPREHENSION
LEVEL, THE ABILITY TO SPEAK
AND TO COMMUNICATE.
ONE WOULD HOPE THAT TEACHERS
WOULD HAVE THOSE ABILITIES
INNATELY, AND THAT THAT WOULD BE
PART OF THEIR ABILITY TO FIT
FOR THE PROFESSION,
BUT I HAVE CONCERN THAT WE'RE
GOING TO BE PUTTING A LOT
OF PRESSURE ON THE PREPARATION
INSTITUTIONS WITH A BIG HOLE
IN WHAT OUR CANDIDATES
ARE COMING AWAY FROM
THEIR EXPERIENCE IN K-12,
AND WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE
EXPECTED TO DO VERY QUICKLY.
>> IF YOU LOOK
AT MOST OF THE PROGRAMS,
YOU'RE NOT ADMITTED
INTO THAT COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
UNTIL YOUR JUNIOR YEAR.
BEFORE YOU STUDENT TEACH,
YOU HAVE TO PASS
THE PROFESSIONAL READINESS
EXAMINATION.
THEY HAVE TO VERIFY THAT THEIR
CANDIDATES HAVE COMPLETED 90%
OF THEIR CONTENT COURSEWORK
BEFORE THEY TAKE THE MTTC.
SO, WE DON'T ACCREDIT THAT SCORE
TO THEM, AND THE INSTITUTIONS
HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY
TO GO THROUGH AND VERIFY
THEIR CANDIDATES,
THAT THEY HAVE COMPLETED 90%
OF THEIR CONTENT COURSEWORK,
BEFORE TAKING THE CONTENT TEST
ON THE MTTC.
>> I HEAR THAT.
WHAT I'M REALLY SAYING,
IS, IS THERE A MIS-MATCH
BETWEEN WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN
AT THE EDUCATIONAL PREPARATION
INSTITUTIONS,
WITH WHAT COMMON CORE TEACHERS
ARE GOING TO BE EXPECTED TO DO
THE SECOND THEY WALK
INTO THE CLASSROOM?
IS THERE ANYWAY
WITH THE CURRENT SURVEYS,
TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY ISSUE
WITH THAT, THAT WE CAN HELP
ADDRESS IN CONVERSATION
WITH THE INSTITUTIONS?
>> OF COURSE, THE CANDIDATES
THAT CAME OUT THIS YEAR
WOULD NOT HAVE HAD THAT EXPOSURE
TO THE COMMON CORE.
WE HAVE TO TRY,
AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE,
TO GET IT INTO THE TEACHER PREP
INSTITUTIONS.
SOME OF THEM HAVE BEEN WORKING,
AND LOOKING AT THE COMMON CORE,
LOOKING AT OUR NEW,
MAYAN TASK STANDARDS,
AND WORKING THOSE
INTO THEIR PROGRAMS.
IN TERMS OF THE NEXT SURVEY,
I'LL LET LEAH SPEAK.
>> THIS SITS ON THE VERY FIBER
OF EVERYTHING
WE'RE TRYING TO DO.
WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS
BACK WHEN I WAS ON THE BOARD
FROM 1998-2006.
NOW, THERE'S NO LONGER
THE ABILITY TO WORRY.
IT HAS TO BE ADDRESSED.
>> THE ANSWER IS THAT WE'VE
RELIED ON THE INSTITUTIONS
TO SUCCESSFULLY PREPARE
THEIR CANDIDATES TO ADDRESS
THE COMMON CORE,
AND WE LOOK AT IT THROUGH
THEIR PERFORMANCE IN THE MTTC.
WE ALSO, IN THE NEW SCORES,
WHICH WE'LL GET TO,
ARE REVISING THE SURVEYS,
AND WE ASK SOME OF THOSE
QUESTIONS SPECIFICALLY
IN THE SURVEYS, "HOW WELL
"HAVE YOU BEEN PREPARED TO?"
AND "HOW MUCH OF THAT
"IS ATTRIBUTED
"TO YOUR INSTITUTION?"
WE ALSO THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT.
WE HAVE TRIED TO BALANCE
AND TRIANGULATE THE DATA
AND MAKE SURE THERE'S
PERCEPTION DATA,
AND ACHIEVEMENT DATA
AND LOCAL ASSESSMENT DATA
FROM THE INSTITUTIONS,
SO IT ISN'T JUST OUR MTTC DATA.
COMMON CORE IS REALLY ONLY PART
OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.
WE'RE ALSO LOOKING AT THINGS
LIKE DISPOSITION, PREPARATION,
THE QUALITY
OF CLINICAL EXPERIENCES.
WE TRY TO STRIKE A BALANCE
FOR ALL OF THOSE COMPONENTS.
STEVE WANTS ME TO ADD,
WE'RE ALSO WORKING ON DEVELOPING
A ONE-YEAR-OUT SURVEY,
TO GAUGE HOW THEY FELT AFTER
THEY COMPLETED PREPARATION,
NOW THAT THEY'VE ACTUALLY
BEEN TEACHING FOR A YEAR,
HOW THEY STILL FEEL ABOUT
THEIR PREPARATION, WHICH
WE THINK IS IMPORTANT DATA.
>> WHY DON'T WE JUMP
INTO THE NEXT ONE,
AND THESE CAN ALL INTERSECT?
THEN WE CAN GO BACK TO A.
WE'LL START B AND INTERSECT
THE TWO, AS FOLKS SEE FIT.
VENESSA, ARE YOU JOINING US?
AND ARE YOU, ALSO, LEAH?
THIS IS A PERFECT LEAD-IN.
>> I HAVE TO GIVE A LOT
OF CREDIT TO VENESSA AND LEAH,
BECAUSE THIS IS REALLY
THEIR WORK.
THEY'VE WORKED VERY HARD
IN LEADING THAT GROUP
TO DEVELOP THIS NEW, REVISED,
EDUCATOR PREPARATION
INSTITUTION PERFORMANCE SCORE.
>> I SAID THAT WE WORK
VERY *** THIS ON FRIDAYS.
THAT'S WITH THE SUP'S GROUP.
THEY'RE WORKING *** THIS
24/7, AND I THINK,
HAVE DONE A GREAT JOB,
AS FLORA SAYS.
AS A BRIEF INTRODUCTION,
YOU KNOW WE'VE BEEN WORKING
ON THIS OVER THE PAST YEAR,
AND WE'VE DEVELOPED AN INTERNAL
COMMITTEE TO ADDRESS MATTERS
RELATED TO EDUCATOR PREPARATION,
INCLUDING THE REVISION
OF THE EPI SCORES.
YOU SAW THESE IN OUR MID-MONTH
A WHILE BACK
AND SHARED SOME THOUGHTS.
THE COMMITTEE'S ORGANIZED
A REVISED EPI PERFORMANCE SCORE,
AROUND THREE GOALS
THAT CONSIDER THE PRIORITIES
OF THE BOARD AND THE DEPARTMENT.
THE REVISED METRICS ALIGN
WITH THE NEWLY ADOPTED
MAYAN TASK STANDARDS.
>> AGAIN, AS FLORA SAID,
THIS HAS BEEN PRIMARILY
THE WORK OF LEAH,
WHO DID VERY GOOD WORK ON THIS,
WITH A LOT OF ASSISTANCE
FROM VENESSA, BEFORE SHE MOVED
INTO HER NEW ROLE.
LOOKING AT HOW DO WE DESIGN
ACCOUNTABILITY METRICS
TO GET WHERE WE WANT TO GET?
WITH THAT,
I'LL TURN IT OVER TO FLORA.
>> THANK YOU.
WHY DO WE WANT TO REVISE
THE SCORE?
WE FIRST IMPLEMENTED THE ONE
WE JUST TALKED ABOUT IN 2007.
WE KNEW WHEN WE PUT THAT IN
PLACE, THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO
TWEAK IT IN A FEW YEARS
AND MAKE SOME CHANGES.
HERE WE ARE, SIX YEARS LATER
AND THINGS HAVE CHANGED
AND WE NEED TO BE LOOKING
AT SOME OTHER CRITERIA.
THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS.
ANOTHER IS TO REDUCE
LARGE SCALE CHANGES
IN THE STATUS,
CAUSED BY THE CURRENT SCORE
FLUCTUATING BETWEEN EXEMPLARY,
SATISFACTORY, AT-RISK
AND LOW-RISK
AND STABILIZING THAT SCORE.
ALIGNMENT TO THE PK-12
INITIATIVES,
SUCH AS THE COMMON CORE,
AND THEN FOCUS ON OUR CURRENT
PRIORITIES.
ALSO, IT CONSIDERS FEEDBACK
FROM STAKEHOLDERS.
THE REVISION PROCESS WE FORMED
WAS A CROSS-OFFICE,
INTERNAL COMMITTEE.
THEY REVIEWED INFORMAL FEEDBACK
AND CONSIDERED
CURRENT PRIORITIES.
WE LOOKED AT AND CONTACTED
INDIVIDUAL STAKEHOLDERS
FOR FEEDBACK.
WE ALSO INVITED PUBLIC COMMENT.
WE HAD A PERIOD WHERE
INDIVIDUALS COULD GO ON
OUR WEBSITE AND SUBMIT
PUBLIC COMMENT
ABOUT THE PERFORMANCE SCORE.
WE ALSO HELD, UNDER LEAH'S
DIRECTION AND LEADERSHIP,
TOPICAL FOCUS GROUPS.
WE HAD PEOPLE COME IN
TO THE DEPARTMENT,
AND WALK THROUGH AND GET
THEIR COMMENTS ABOUT HOW
WE WERE REVISING THE PROCESS.
THERE ARE THREE
OVERARCHING GOALS.
THE FIRST IS TO ENSURE
THAT EDUCATOR PREP INSTITUTIONS
HAVE PREPARED CANDIDATES TO BE
EFFECTIVE CLASSROOM TEACHERS,
THROUGH EXPOSURE TO CONTENT
AND PEDAGOGY.
GOAL TWO IS TO ENSURE
THAT THE EPI HAS THE CAPACITY
TO PREPARE TEACHERS EFFECTIVELY,
AND DEMONSTRATE CONTINUOUS
IMPROVEMENT RELATED TO
OUR SPECIFIC PRIORITIES,
AND THAT THEIR GRADUATES MEET
STANDARDS FOR EFFECTIVENESS.
WE LOOK AT THOSE FIVE DATA
SOURCES, AS LEAH MENTIONED,
TO TRIANGULATE THE DATA.
WE HAVE THE REGISTRY
OF EDUCATIONAL PERSONNEL,
WHICH IS SUBMITTED IN THE FALL
AND IN JUNE.
WE GET INFORMATION
ON OUR TEACHERS
AND WHERE THEY ARE,
WHAT KIND OF ASSIGNMENTS
THEY'RE IN, AND WHETHER THOSE
ASSIGNMENTS ARE MATCHING
THE CERTIFICATION.
THE MICHIGAN TEST
FOR TEACHER CERTIFICATION,
AND THEN A NEW THING WE WILL DO
IS THE EVIDENCE-SUPPORTED
ANNUAL REPORT,
WHICH IS ABOUT THE INSTITUTIONS
PREPARING AND GIVING US DATA
ABOUT THE THINGS THEY SAY THEY
ARE DOING IN THEIR PROGRAMS.
WE ALSO LOOK AT THE SURVEY DATA,
AND WE HAVE OUR MICHIGAN
ONLINE CERTIFICATION SYSTEM,
WHICH HOUSES ALL
OF THE CERTIFICATION RECORDS
FOR TEACHERS.
WE CAN PRODUCE REPORTS
THAT TELL US HOW MANY TEACHERS
COMPLETED FROM CERTAIN
INSTITUTIONS, AND THE TYPES OF
ENDORSEMENTS THEY ARE GETTING.
WE HAVE A LOT MORE RICH DATA
THAT WE CAN DRAW FROM.
WHAT DOES THE DATA MEASURE?
THE REGISTRY OF EDUCATION
PERSONNEL NOW CAN CONNECT
TEACHERS TO STUDENTS,
SO WE CAN LOOK AT THE TEACHER'S
EFFECTIVENESS, WE CAN LOOK
AT STUDENT GROWTH,
PROGRAM PLACEMENT,
AND HOW MANY TEACHERS
FROM A PARTICULAR PROGRAM
ACTUALLY ENDED UP
WITH JOBS IN MICHIGAN.
IN THE MTTC, WE CAN LOOK AT
THE SUBJECT AREA, OR CONTENT
AREA ASSESSMENT RESULTS.
THE EVIDENCE-SUPPORTED ANNUAL
REPORT IS WHERE THE INSTITUTION
HAS THIS OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT
ITS INFORMATION.
IT'S AN ANNUAL MEASURE
THAT'S USED BETWEEN YEARS
TWO AND SEVEN OF THEIR
ACCREDITATION.
WE ARE REQUIRING THAT ALL
OF OUR TEACHER PREP INSTITUTIONS
BE NATIONALLY ACCREDITED
BY DECEMBER OF THIS YEAR.
THAT ACCREDITATION IS USUALLY
A SEVEN YEAR PERIOD,
BUT IN BETWEEN THAT,
THEY HAVE TO START WORK
ON THE NEXT REVIEW,
SOMETIME BETWEEN THE THIRD
AND FOURTH YEAR,
PREPARING AND GETTING
INFORMATION TOGETHER.
SO, RATHER THAN WAIT
FOR A SEVEN YEAR PERIOD
TO SEE HOW THEY ARE
IN NATIONAL ACCREDITATION,
WE ARE NOW ABLE TO TAKE
THAT ESAR BETWEEN THOSE YEARS
TWO THROUGH SEVEN,
AND GET MORE INFORMATION
ON THE INSTITUTION.
IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE EPI
TO PROVIDE US EVIDENCE
IN A COMPREHENSIVE MANNER,
IN HOW IT'S MEETING
OR EXCEEDING THE METRICS
THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED
BY THE DEPARTMENT.
THE ESAR WILL BE REVISED
AND SUBMITTED ANNUALLY.
IT REQUIRES THAT THE NARRATIVE
BE SUPPORTED BY DATA.
IT UNDERGOES
A RIGOROUS PEER REVIEW.
WE HAVE A RATING SYSTEM
THAT WE'LL PUT IN PLACE,
WHICH WILL USE A POINT-BASED
SYSTEM AND IT WILL BE
TRANSPARENT TO ALL EPIS.
IT DOES REQUIRE SIGNIFICANT
ATTENTION FROM THE EPI.
WHAT DOES THE DATA MEASURE?
THE SURVEYS HAVE BEEN EXPANDED
TO INCLUDE INITIAL GRADUATES,
AND ONE YEAR AFTER GRADUATION.
YOU GET A DIFFERENT VIEW
FROM WHEN YOU'RE REAL HAPPY
ABOUT GRADUATING AND GOING INTO
YOUR FIRST TEACHING POSITION.
ONCE YOU'VE HAD THAT YEAR IN,
DO WE GET A DIFFERENT SENSE
FROM THE CANDIDATE
ON THEIR PREPARATION?
>> I HAVE TO SAY THAT THIS
IS A SIGNIFICANT NEW PIECE
OF THIS.
IT DOES REQUIRE
SIGNIFICANT NEW WORK.
PREVIOUSLY,
WE ONLY LOOKED AT IMMEDIATELY
GRADUATING CANDIDATES.
THIS DOES ADD
A SIGNIFICANT NEW DIMENSION
TO WHAT WE'RE MEASURING HERE.
>> JOSEPH, WILL YOU OR FLORA
MENTION-- WHEN YOU SAY,
"SIGNIFICANT NEW WORK,"
WHAT THAT MEANS TO YOU?
>> I KNOW LEAH AND VENESSA
CAN SPEAK TO THIS IN TERMS
OF JUST PULLING THE SURVEY
TOGETHER.
LEAH, YOU GUYS KNOW
THE WORK TO DO THIS.
>> WE REALLY HAD TO START
FROM THE BEGINNING
WITH THE SURVEYS, BECAUSE WE'RE
MEASURING ALL NEW DATA POINTS.
WE WANTED TO ALIGN TO THE NEW
PREPARATION TEACHING STANDARDS.
THERE ARE THREE TYPES OF SURVEYS
FOR EACH SURVEY.
THERE'S GRADUATES
AND THE SUPERVISING TEACHERS,
AND THE UNIVERSITY SUPERVISORS,
SO THREE NEW SURVEYS
FOR ONE YEAR.
ONCE WE BUILD THOSE,
WE CAN THEN ACTUALLY BUILD
THE ONE-YEAR OUT SURVEY.
WE WANT THEM TO ALIGN.
WE WANT TO SEE HOW THEY FEEL
ON THE SAME ITEMS A YEAR LATER,
AND THEN ASK THEM
SOME NEW COMPONENTS.
THEN, THERE'S THE ADDED
COMPLICATION OF--
IT'S PRETTY EASY TO GET
RESPONSES FROM THE GRADUATES,
BECAUSE THE EPIS HELP US.
THEY MAKE SURE THEY COMPLETE
THEM BEFORE THEY GET
THEIR FINAL GRADE.
WE HAVE TO COME UP WITH
SOME GOOD INCENTIVES
TO ENSURE THAT A YEAR OUT
THEY ARE GOING TO RESPOND
TO OUR SURVEYS, SO WE CAN GET
A RELIABLE AND VALID MEASURE
FROM THE RETURN RATE.
>> WE'VE BEEN HAVING
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT
HOW WE CAN DO THIS
AND GET THAT INFORMATION BACK.
IT IS GOING TO BE
A LITTLE DIFFICULT,
BUT WE WILL WORK IT.
>> THE OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL
PREPARATION SERVICES
HAS REACHED OUT TO PARTNERS
AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY,
AS WELL AS A GRADUATE RESEARCH
ASSOCIATE FROM U OF AM
THAT WE HAVE AT THE DEPARTMENT
TO HELP, BECAUSE SURVEY
DEVELOPMENT IS IT'S OWN THING.
TO HAVE A REALLY GOOD SURVEY,
THAT MEASURES ALL THE COMPONENTS
AND BE ABLE TO SCORE IT.
IT'S MORE COMPLICATED
THAN JUST SOME QUESTIONS.
A LOT OF NEW WORK IS GOING INTO
GETTING A RIGOROUS TOOL TO USE
AND IT'S EXCITING,
BUT IT'S BEEN A BIG CHANGE
FOR THE SCORE.
WE THINK IT WILL YIELD MORE
FINE-GRAINED DATA
THAN THE PREVIOUS SURVEYS.
IT'S GOOD UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIP
AS WELL, ON THIS ONE.
>> THANK YOU.
GOAL ONE IS TO ENSURE THAT
THE EPI HAS PREPARED CANDIDATES
TO BE EFFECTIVE CLASSROOM
TEACHERS THROUGH EXPOSURE
TO CONTENT AND PEDAGOGY,
AND THE WEIGHTING OF GOAL ONE
IS 50% OF THE TOTAL SCORE.
THERE ARE COMPONENTS WHICH ARE
FACTORS WITHIN THAT GOAL ONE.
PART A IS EXPOSURE
AND DEMONSTRATION OF CONTENT
KNOWLEDGE AND CONTENT-SPECIFIC
PEDAGOGY.
WE WILL RELY ON THE MTTC
PRIOR TO THAT,
THEN HIGH QUALITY LEARNING
EXPERIENCES WILL BE GAINED
FROM THE ESAR IN THE SURVEY.
THEN, THERE'S CRITICAL THINKING,
AGAIN, FROM ESAR AND THE SURVEY.
CONNECTING REAL WORLD PROBLEMS
WITH LOCAL AND GLOBAL ISSUES.
THAT WOULD BE THE ESAR
INFORMATION
FROM THE ESAR SURVEY.
>> I THINK SOMETHING ELSE TO
CALL OUT HERE IS FOR EACH GOAL,
THERE ARE MULTIPLE MEASURES,
AND FOR MOST OF THE SUB-GOALS,
THERE ARE MULTIPLE MEASURES.
MORE DATA AND MORE TRIANGULATION
OF DATA ON EACH OF THESE PIECES
IS ANOTHER ADVANCEMENT
OF THE SCORE.
>> PART B FACTORS ARE EXPOSURE
TO AND DEMONSTRATION OF GENERAL
PEDAGOGICAL KNOWLEDGE AND SKILL,
TECHNOLOGY-- WE WILL LOOK AT
THE ESAR AND THE SURVEYS.
SPECIAL POPULATIONS.
ARE TEACHERS ABLE TO WORK
WITH VERY DIFFERENT POPULATIONS,
AND DIVERSE POPULATIONS
OF STUDENTS?
AND AGAIN, WE WILL RELY
ON THE ESAR AND THE SURVEY.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS.
ARE THEY PREPARED TO WORK
IN DIFFERENT KINDS
OF LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS?
ARE THEY GIVEN VARIED TYPES
OF INTERNSHIPS, WHERE THEY GET
TO SEE DIFFERENT TYPES
OF SCHOOLS IN OPERATION?
AGAIN, THE ESAR AND THE SURVEY.
AND THEN, EFFECTIVE USE
OF THE DATA, AGAIN, LOOKING
AT THE ESAR AND THE SURVEY
FOR THAT INFORMATION.
GOAL TWO IS ENSURED THAT
THE EPI HAS THE CAPACITY
TO PREPARE TEACHERS EFFECTIVELY,
AND DEMONSTRATE CONTINUOUS
IMPROVEMENT RELATED TO MDE
SPECIFIC PRIORITIES.
THE WEIGHTING OF THAT
WOULD BE 20% OF THE TOTAL SCORE,
AND THE FACTORS WOULD BE
CANDIDATE DIVERSITY.
ARE THEY RECRUITING
AND SUPPORTING AND RETAINING
UNDERREPRESENTED STUDENTS?
WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT THE ESAR
FOR THAT.
COMMITMENT TO CLINICAL
PREPARATION, WE WILL TAKE
A LOOK AT THE ESAR AND SURVEY
FOR THAT INFORMATION.
THE OTHER FACTOR,
THE STATE EVALUATION SYSTEM,
FLEXIBLE OPTIONS IN EVALUATION
AND DESIGN.
>> WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR
IN GOAL TWO SPECIFICALLY,
IS WE PICKED OUT SOME
OF THE CURRENT PRIORITIES.
WE EXPECT THIS ONE TO CHANGE
OVER TIME, AS THE MDE AND MIKE'S
AND THE BOARD'S PRIORITIES
CHANGE OVER TIME.
PART OF THE EARLY ADOPTION
OF THIS IS THAT STATE
EVALUATION SYSTEM.
WE WANT TO ENSURE THAT,
ONCE THE STATE HAS ADOPTED
THE EVALUATION SYSTEM,
THAT EPIS ARE PREPARING
THEIR CANDIDATES TO BE READY
TO BE EVALUATED
USING THE NEW SYSTEM.
THAT THEY UNDERSTAND IT,
GOING INTO THEIR FIRST YEAR,
THEY KNOW THEY'RE GOING TO BE
EVALUATED AND THAT THESE ARE
THE THINGS WE'RE GOING TO BE
LOOKING FOR.
WHAT WE'D LIKE IS FOR THE EPIS
TO ADOPT IT AS PART OF THEIR OWN
EVALUATION SYSTEM
OF THEIR CANDIDATES,
SO THE SCORING OF THIS ITEM
RELATES SPECIFICALLY TO THAT.
>> WE ALSO WANTED THE CANDIDATES
TO HAVE AN ASSESSMENT
OF THEIR PEDAGOGICAL PERFORMANCE
AND AN ASSESSMENT OF THEIR
ACTUAL TEACHING PERFORMANCE.
SOME OF THE NATIONAL
CONVERSATION IS AROUND HOW DO WE
MEASURE WHETHER WE KNOW
IF YOU KNOW HOW TO TEACH?
IN OUR DISCUSSIONS, WE THOUGHT,
WELL, THERE'S A TOOL THAT WE DO
THAT WITH IN MICHIGAN RIGHT NOW.
IT'S THE EVALUATION SYSTEM.
IT'S STILL IN DEVELOPMENT,
BUT THAT WILL BE THE TOOL.
SO, IN ADDITION TO THEM BEING
AWARE OF WHAT THAT IS BEFORE
THEY GET IN THE CLASSROOM,
IT'S ALSO A MEASURE
WHILE THEY'RE STILL TEACHING,
THAT ALIGNS.
WHEN YOU MEASURE PEOPLE
BY MULTIPLE SYSTEMS,
SOMETIMES IT'S HARD TO GET
A CLEAR PICTURE OF PRACTICE.
WE THOUGHT THIS ALIGNED
THE K-12 INITIATIVES WITH
THE PREPARATION INITIATIVES
TO CREATE A MORE COHERENT
PICTURE FOR TEACHER CANDIDATES
MOVING INTO THE PROFESSION.
>> WE'LL CONTINUE TO LOOK
AT THEIR PLACEMENT RATES
IN SHORTAGE AREAS, INCLUDING
THE SUPPORT AND ADVISING
OF CANDIDATES, IN RELATION
TO THE SHORTAGE AREA.
WE WILL LOOK AT DATA THAT COMES
IN TERMS OF THEIR ASSIGNMENTS,
AND OUR MOAC SYSTEM,
WHICH CAN TELL US WHICH
ENDORSEMENTS THEY'VE GOTTEN.
ALSO, THE ESAR REPORT.
GOAL THREE IS THAT GRADUATES
MEET STANDARDS OF EFFECTIVENESS.
THE WEIGHTING OF THIS GOAL
IS 30% OF THE TOTAL SCORE.
THE FACTORS ARE TO ENSURE
THAT CANDIDATES DEMONSTRATE
EFFECTIVENESS.
WE HAVE THE REP DATA
AND MOACS.
THE PLACEMENT RATES,
WE CAN USE REP DATA,
MOAC AND ESAR.
OUR NEXT STEP WOULD BE
FINALIZATION AND DISSEMINATION
OF THE 2014 PERFORMANCE SCORE.
THE WEIGHTING AND THE METRICS,
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
TO INSTITUTIONS.
WE KNOW WE WILL BE HAVING
MEETINGS AROUND THE STATE
WITH OUR INSTITUTIONS,
TO REALLY HAVE THEM UNDERSTAND
WHAT THIS SCORE IS ALL ABOUT.
IMPLEMENTATION OF SCORE
ELEMENTS, AND THEN RELEASE
OF THE 2014 PERFORMANCE SCORE,
USING THE NEW METRICS.
OUR GOAL IS TO DO THAT
BY SPRING, 2014, SO IT WILL
BE MORE IN THE CURRENT YEAR.
LEAH, DO YOU HAVE ANY
ADDITIONAL THINGS YOU WANT
TO SAY ABOUT THIS YEAR?
>> I DON'T THINK SO.
>> WE WILL BE PROVIDING
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE,
AND HELPING PEOPLE UNDERSTAND
THE SCORE MORE, BUT THERE HAVE
BEEN A LOT OF FOCUS GROUPS
AND INVOLVEMENT OF THE EPI'S
IN THIS WORK ALREADY,
SO THEY DO HAVE A SENSE
OF UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT
IS BEING DONE HERE,
BUT IT WILL BE ADDITIONAL
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
BEYOND WHAT'S BEEN DONE,
AND INVOLVING THEM
IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SCORE.
>> IN FACT, THE ADDITION
OF THE ESAR WAS IN A DIRECT
RESPONSE TO THE INSTITUTIONS
WHO WANTED THE OPPORTUNITY
TO SHARE LOCAL DATA
AND NOT JUST ANECDOTAL DATA,
BUT ACTUAL DATA,
TO SUPPORT THE FACT THAT THEY
HAD EVIDENCE ABOUT THEIR
PROGRAMS THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE
WITH THE CURRENT DATA
COLLECTION TOOLS,
SO WE SUPPORTED THAT,
AND WE MADE SURE IT WAS INCLUDED
IN THE DATA COLLECTION.
>> RICHARD?
>> ON PAGE SIX, YOU'VE GOT
TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS RATINGS.
CAN YOU UNPACK THAT FOR ME?
IS THAT SIMPLY OBSERVATION?
SELECTIVE JUDGEMENT?
IS IT COMPILED ON THE BASIS
OF HOW THEIR STUDENTS
DO ON GROWTH AND TESTS?
>> THAT REALLY IS BASED ON
THE RATINGS THAT THE INDIVIDUAL
EDUCATORS RECEIVE FROM THEIR
DISTRICTS THE FIRST THREE YEARS.
THAT WAS A DIFFICULT
CONVERSATION.
HOW LONG DO YOU HOLD EPIS
RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR GRADUATES,
BEFORE IT BECOMES
THE RESPONSIBILITY
OF THE DISTRICT THAT'S PROVIDING
THE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT?
THIS IS SIGNIFICANT,
NEW PRESSURE PUT ON INDIVIDUAL
TEACHERS, TO HAVE THEIR
EVALUATIONS COME BACK POSITIVE.
THIS IS ABOUT MAKING SURE
THAT THE EPIS ARE PREPARING
THE ADMINISTRATORS TO HAVE
THEIR EVALUATIONS COME BACK
POSITIVE.
>> SO TO CLARIFY,
THIS IS TIED IN
WITH OUR TEACHER EVALUATION?
>> YES.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THAT'S WHERE THAT DATA
COMES FROM, THE REP DATA.
THOSE EFFECTIVENESS SCORES,
OR CLASSIFICATIONS
ARE PUT INTO THE REP.
>> AT THE CURRENT TIME,
DISTRICTS SUBMIT ONE OF FOUR
EFFECTIVENESS RATINGS.
THOSE ARE UNDER THE LAW
FOR THE FIRST TWO YEARS,
TO BE BASED, IN SIGNIFICANT
PART, ON STUDENT GROWTH.
AS WE MOVE INTO THE NEXT YEARS,
THE LEGISLATION CHANGES
ABOUT WHAT GOES INTO
THE EVALUATION RATING.
SO WHAT GOES INTO THAT RATING
WILL CHANGE OVER TIME.
WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE
IS GRABBING THAT RATING
AND LINKING IT BACK
TO THE INSTITUTION
FOR A CERTAIN NUMBER OF YEARS.
>> JOHN?
>> THANK YOU ALL
FOR YOUR THOUGHTFUL
AND HARD WORK ON THIS.
I WAS JUST CURIOUS,
WHAT WERE THE MAIN ISSUES
THAT THE STAKEHOLDERS,
PARTICULARLY THE TEACHER
PREP INSTITUTIONS,
HAD WITH THE OLD SYSTEM?
WHAT WERE THEIR MAIN
COMPLAINTS OR PROBLEMS?
>> WELL, I WAS THERE
FOR ALL OF THAT.
ONE OF THEM, I THINK,
WAS THAT THE MTTC WAS WEIGHTED
SO HEAVILY IN THE SCORE.
THAT WAS PROBABLY THE MAIN ONE.
IF YOU DIDN'T GET TO 80%,
YOU GOT ABSOLUTELY NO POINTS.
THAT WAS LIKE YOU MISSED OUT
ON 43% OF THE POINTS,
SO YOU WERE PLACED IN AT-RISK,
OR SOMETHING.
THAT WAS A BIG PART OF IT.
>> CASANDRA?
>> I'M EXCITED TO SEE
THE OLD SYSTEM GO AWAY.
I JUST THINK THAT
THE POINT SYSTEM WAS REALLY
CONFUSING WITH THE OLD SYSTEM,
SO I'M EXCITED TO SEE THE WORK
THAT YOU GUYS ARE DOING HERE.
ON PAGE EIGHT, YOU TALK ABOUT
THE ESAR, AND RESPONDING
TO SPECIFIC METRICS
IDENTIFIED BY MDE.
WHAT ARE THOSE METRICS?
>> WHEN WE FLIPPED THROUGH
THE SLIDES, IN THE PARENS,
IT WOULD GIVE YOU INDICATORS.
FOR EXAMPLE, TECHNOLOGY
IS ONE OF THE ITEMS
WE'RE LOOKING AT.
IT WOULD SAY IT WOULD BE
MEASURED BY THE ESAR,
AND SURVEY.
SO, EVERYTHING IN THE POWERPOINT
THAT SAYS IT'S GOING TO BE
MEASURED BY ESAR,
WE SPECIFICALLY ASKED THEM
TO SPEAK TO IN THEIR REPORT.
FOR TECHNOLOGY, WE CAN GET
SOME DATA FROM CANDIDATES,
BUT WE WANT TO KNOW DIRECTLY
FROM THE UNIVERSITY
HOW THEY'RE BUILDING TECHNOLOGY
INTO THEIR PROGRAMS,
HOW THEY ARE CERTAIN THAT THEIR
CANDIDATES ARE PREPARED
TO INSTRUCT, USING TECHNOLOGY,
AND INSTRUCT STUDENTS
TO USE TECHNOLOGY.
ALL OF THOSE INDICATORS
ARE SPECIFICALLY ALIGNED
TO THE IN-TASK STANDARD.
ANYWHERE IT SAYS TECHNOLOGY
WITHIN THE IN-TEST STANDARDS,
WE'VE ASKED THEM TO RESPOND
TO HOW THEY'RE MEETING
THOSE STANDARDS
WITHIN THEIR PROGRAMS.
>> SO, THEY USE THAT
AS THE DATA POINT?
>> YES.
>> IS THERE SOMEWHERE THAT LISTS
OUT WHAT THESE METRICS ARE,
THAT WE COULD LOOK AT?
>> I HAVE A GOOD SUMMARY
DOCUMENT THAT I THINK
WE CAN SHARE AFTER THE MEETING,
THAT WILL SHOW YOU THE FACTOR,
THE MEASUREMENT TOOL
AND THEIR WEIGHTING
FOR THE OVERALL SCORE.
I THINK YOU'LL FIND
THAT HELPFUL.
>> OKAY, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
MY CARRYOVER CONCERN
IS I BELIEVE WE WANT TO HAVE
DIVERSITY IN THE RANKS,
BUT WE NEED TO ACKNOWLEDGE
THAT IT IS EASIER FOR SOME
INSTITUTIONS THAN OTHERS,
AND WHEN I LOOK AT
THE PREVIOUS SCORING,
NORTHERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY
WOULD BE AT THE HIGH SCORE,
IF NOT FOR THE FACT
THAT THEY ARE IN MARQUETTE.
IT SEEMS LIKE WE ARE PENALIZING
SOME INSTITUTIONS, NOT BECAUSE
THEY ARE NOT DOING A GOOD JOB,
BUT SIMPLY BECAUSE
OF WHERE THEY'RE LOCATED.
OTHERS MIGHT GET A BENEFIT
FROM THAT.
WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY,
MARYGROVE.
SO, I THINK THAT, WHILE IT
IS IMPORTANT TO LOOK AT,
I'M NOT SURE THAT SCORING-WISE
IT'S FAIR TO INCLUDE.
I'M THROWING THAT OUT THERE
AS AN OBSERVATION.
>> WE HAVE HEARD THAT CONCERN
FROM THE INSTITUTIONS.
THAT WAS A CONCERN
FROM THE LAST SCORE,
SO WE REALLY TRIED TO TAKE
STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK ON THIS ONE
AND THINK ABOUT IT DIFFERENTLY.
WE'RE GOING TO EXPAND
THE DEFINITION TO KIND OF
A NON-TRADITIONAL SET OF
DIVERSE POPULATIONS, TO INCLUDE
SOME OF OUR INSTITUTIONS
THAT SPECIFICALLY SERVE
NATIVE AMERICAN POPULATIONS,
FOR EXAMPLE.
THOSE MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN
ON OUR RADAR, BUT THEY CERTAINLY
WERE RECRUITING CANDIDATES
THAT WERE DIVERSE
AND GOING BACK AND TEACHING
ON THEIR LOCAL RESERVATIONS.
ANOTHER THING IS THAT THE ESAR
ASKS THEM TO SPEAK TO THEIR PLAN
ABOUT HOW THEY MIGHT
INCREASE CANDIDATE DIVERSITY,
AND GIVE THEM POINTS FOR THAT.
WE ARE MOST CONCERNED ABOUT
THE IMPORTANCE OF DIVERSITY,
AND WE WANT TO HAVE TEACHERS
THAT REPRESENT OUR STUDENT
POPULATIONS, BUT WE REALLY WANT
TO SEE YOUR PLAN FOR RECRUITMENT
OF THOSE CANDIDATES,
AND SEE YOU ARE TAKING MEASURES
TO TRY AND IMPROVE THE NUMBER
OF DIVERSE CANDIDATES
IN YOUR PROGRAM.
WE TRIED TO ADDRESS IT
DIFFERENTLY THAN BEFORE,
WITH OUR STAKEHOLDERS FEEDBACK.
>> I'M VERY HAPPY TO HEAR THAT.
>> DAN?
>> KUDOS.
AS YOU GUYS KNOW,
I'VE BEEN VERY EXCITED
ABOUT INCORPORATING
A SURVEY OF TEACHERS
THE YEAR AFTER GRADUATION.
YOU LOOK AT THE SURVEY FOR
THE EXITING TEACHERS,
AND THEY ALL THINK THAT
THEY'RE GOING TO BE GREAT.
THE EFFICACY RATING IS FROM
87% TO 100%.
GOOD FOR THEM.
YOU WANT PEOPLE TO FEEL THIS WAY
WHEN THEY FINISH A PROGRAM
TO GO INTO TEACHING, RIGHT?
EVEN THE SUPERVISOR SURVEYS,
INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH.
ALL ARE 90-100% AROUND EFFICACY.
ONLY THREE UNIVERSITY
INSTITUTIONS HAVE PROFESSORS
THAT HAVE SAID,
"MAYBE WE'RE NOT QUITE 90%."
TWO OF THEM, MARYGROVE
AND EASTERN MICHIGAN,
ARE 86% AND 85%.
U OF AM DEARBORN
IS THIS OUTLIER AT 70%.
I'M REALLY EXCITED
ABOUT THE YEAR OUT,
BECAUSE ALL OF THE OTHER
ANECDOTAL INFORMATION SUGGESTS
YEAR OUT, PEOPLE HAVE A VERY
DIFFERENT PERCEPTION ABOUT
HOW THEY WERE PREPARED,
SO I THINK THAT'S GREAT.
IN A WORLD WHERE WE'RE STARTING
TO ASSESS HIGH SCHOOL'S
PERFORMANCES ON THE BASIS
OF HOW MANY POST-SECONDARY
PROGRAMS,
GRADUATION FROM THOSE PROGRAMS.
WE CAN ASK UNIVERSITIES
TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE
TO SOME EXTENT,
FOR THE RESPONSE RATE
OF THEIR TEACHERS A YEAR OUT.
THEY COULD BE, CERTAINLY,
STRONG PARTNERS IN THAT.
MOST OF THEM HAVE ALUMNI SHOPS
AND DEVELOPMENT OFFICES THAT
ACTUALLY WANT TO STAY IN TOUCH
WITH ALUMNI,
TO RAISE MONEY DOWN THE ROAD.
I SUSPECT THERE'S A WAY
TO ENROLL THEM IN THAT WORK,
SO IT'S NOT JUST THE DEPARTMENT
THAT'S TRYING TO FIND
THESE FOLKS A YEAR LATER.
I WONDER WHY WE SHOULD CONTINUE
WITH THE EXIT SURVEY AT ALL?
IN A WORLD WHERE WE TYPICALLY
ARE ADDING NEW REGULATIONS
AND RESPONSIBILITIES, YOU KNOW,
ADDING TO YOUR WORK,
BUT NOT TAKING ANYTHING AWAY?
I'M LOOKING AT THOSE RESULTS,
FOR THE TEACHER EXIT SURVEYS
AND THE SUPERVISOR SURVEYS,
AND I'M THINKING, "I DON'T KNOW
"IF THEY'RE ADDING VALUE."
MAYBE THEY ARE, BUT ONLY THREE
OF THE INSTITUTIONS LISTED
ACTUALLY WALKED AWAY
WITH FEWER THAN THE TOTAL AMOUNT
OF POINTS AVAILABLE
FROM THOSE EXIT SURVEYS.
ONLY THREE.
AND ALL THREE WERE FROM
LOW RESPONSE RATES,
NOT FOR EFFICACY ISSUES.
I DON'T KNOW HOW VALUABLE
THAT IS.
PARTICULARLY IN A WORLD WHERE
YOU'VE GOT TO SPEND TIME
AND ENERGY DEVELOPING
THIS NEW SURVEY,
MAYBE IT'S TIME TO LET GO
OF THE OLD ONE.
>> WE CONSIDERED THAT
WITH OUR STAKEHOLDERS.
WE ARE HOPING WE'LL SEE
SOMETHING DIFFERENT
FROM THE SURVEY THAN WHAT WE
HAVE SEEN FROM THE LAST SURVEY.
IT'S TIME FOR REVISION.
WE ARE GOING TO BE ADOPTING
NEW STANDARDS.
WE'RE TRYING TO BE SMART
ABOUT OUR DEVELOPMENT,
WORKING WITH OUR PARTNERS
TO SEE.
EVEN THOUGH THE TOTALS ARE GOOD,
THERE IS INFORMATION IN THERE
ABOUT SUB-POPULATIONS,
UNDERREPRESENTED POPULATIONS,
GENDER DIFFERENCES,
DIFFERENCES IN PROGRAMS
THAT WE CAN SEE WHEN WE LOOK
AT THE DATA MORE CLOSELY.
EVEN THOUGH PUBLISHED OUT
IN AGGREGATE FORM,
IT MIGHT NOT FEEL VERY
INFORMATIVE, IT CAN BE USEFUL
TO THE INSTITUTION AND TO US,
WHEN WE BREAK IT DOWN
TO THOSE SUBGROUPS.
>> I DO WANT TO UNDERSCORE
WHAT LEAH SAID, THAT THIS SURVEY
IS A DIFFERENT SURVEY.
IT'S ASKING MORE QUESTIONS,
DIFFERENT TYPES OF QUESTIONS,
IT'S A DIFFERENT SURVEY
IN GENERAL,
PARTLY BECAUSE WE WANTED TO SEE
MORE DIFFERENTIATION
WITHIN THE, "I'M HAPPY
"ABOUT MY PREPARATION."
YOU COULD BE HAPPY OVERALL,
BUT THINK YOU DIDN'T
GET A LOT ABOUT TECHNOLOGY.
THAT'S PART OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING
TO GET AT WITH OUR NEW SURVEY.
BUT I THINK IT'S A GOOD POINT.
WE CAN KEEP WATCHING THAT.
IF IT'S NOT YIELDING
INFORMATION, THEN YOU'RE RIGHT.
BUT, I THINK WE WANT TO TRY
WITH THE NEW INSTRUMENT TO SEE
IF WE CAN GET MORE VARIATION.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION
AND ANSWER.
MICHELLE?
>> THERE'S SO MANY DIFFERENT
SCHOOLS, AND SOME OF THEM ARE
REALLY WELL ORGANIZED AND GREAT,
AND SOME OF THEM ARE NEW SCHOOLS
STARTING OUT, VERY DISORGANIZED
OR CHAOTIC.
SO, WHEN YOU'RE DOING THIS
EVALUATION,
HOW DO YOU WAIT FOR THAT?
CERTAIN THINGS THAT
THE PREPARATORY INSTITUTION
HAS NO CONTROL OVER.
SO, SOMEBODY WALKING INTO
A SCHOOL THAT MIGHT BE
NEWLY ESTABLISHED AND CHAOTIC.
HOW CAN THE INSTITUTION
PREPARE THEM FOR THAT?
IN THE SURVEY, ARE YOU ABLE
TO ACCOUNT FOR ASKING THEM
TO DISTINGUISH--
IS THIS SOMETHING REASONABLY
ALIGNED TO THE TEACHER PREP,
OR IS THIS SOMETHING
THAT IS OUT OF YOUR CONTROL?
>> NO EPI COULD HAVE PREPARED
YOU FOR THIS, IN OTHER WORDS?
>> AND ALSO, RELATED TO THAT
IS THE TESTING SCORES
FOR THE STUDENTS.
SIMILAR TO CASANDRA'S CONCERNS
ABOUT THE DIVERSITY.
MAYBE IT SHOULD BE LOOKING AT
THE DIVERSITY AROUND A CERTAIN
AREA AROUND THE UNIVERSITY
AND BASED ON THAT.
THE TEST SCORES-- YOU'RE SAYING
IT'S THE GROWTH SCORES,
WHEREAS CERTAIN PEOPLE WHO GO
MAYBE TO COMMUNITIES WITH MORE
RESOURCES AND WHERE THEY
HAVE THE HIGHER TEST SCORES,
THE INSTITUTION THAT FEEDS
THOSE AREA SCHOOLS
IS GOING TO LOOK BETTER THAN
THE SCHOOLS THAT FEED THE MORE
TROUBLED SCHOOLS, LIKE DETROIT.
IS THERE SOME WAY FOR ACCOUNTING
AND WEIGHTING FOR THAT, AS WELL?
>> I'LL TAKE THAT ONE.
SEVERAL PARTS TO THAT QUESTION.
ONE IS THE GROWTH PART.
ONE OF THE THINGS WE HAVE SEEN
PRETTY CLEARLY IN THE DATA
IS THAT GROWTH SCORES ARE PRETTY
LOWLY CORRELATED WITH
DEMOGRAPHIC ISSUES
AND COMMUNITY-TYPE VARIABLES.
THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS
THAT YOU GO TOWARD GROWTH,
IS THAT IT'S MUCH MORE FAIR
TOWARDS EDUCATORS
IN THE EVALUATION.
THE SECOND IS, THOSE EVALUATIONS
ARE CARRIED OUT BY THE LOCAL
SUPERVISORS, WHO DO HAVE
THE DISCRETION TO TAKE THOSE
KINDS OF THINGS INTO ACCOUNT
IN THEIR EVALUATIONS.
THIS IS GETTING BACK
TO THE MCE REPORT.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE STATE
ASSESSMENT DATA COMPRISING
A PORTION OF THE GROWTH DATA
THAT GOES TOWARD
AN INDIVIDUAL EDUCATOR.
AND THEN LOCAL GROWTH DATA,
HOWEVER THEY WANT TO MAKE
THAT WORK.
COMPRISING THE REST OF THAT--
IT COULD BE STUDENT LEARNING
OBJECTIVES.
IT COULD BE TEACHER CREATED,
AS OPPOSED TO DISTRICT ADOPTED,
SO LOTS OF DIFFERENT OPTIONS.
IT FORMS ONLY A PORTION OF THAT,
AND THEN YOU HAVE
THE TEACHER OBSERVATIONS.
IN THOSE OBSERVATIONS,
YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO ACCOUNT
FOR SOME OF THOSE DIFFERENCES
YOU SEE IN THE ENVIRONMENTS
THE TEACHERS WORK IN.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING
THAT IS DICTATED
BY THE STATE TEST SCORES.
IT'S REALLY A PORTION
OF THE OVERALL EVALUATION,
WHICH IS WHAT'S BEING ACCOUNTED
FOR HERE.
IT'S THAT OVERALL EVALUATION
THAN AN EDUCATOR RECEIVES
THAT'S BEING ACCOUNTED FOR
ON THE EPI SCORE.
>> I THINK I CAN SPEAK TO
THE OTHER HALF OF YOUR COMMENT,
WHICH WAS HOLDING EPIS
ACCOUNTABLE FOR CULTURE
AND CLIMATE IN A LOCAL DISTRICT.
A LOT OF CONVERSATION
ABOUT THAT, ESPECIALLY
WITH OUR STAKEHOLDERS.
THE INSTITUTIONS HAVE VERY
STRONG FEELINGS ABOUT THAT.
WE'VE CONCLUDED THAT TEACHERS,
RIGHT NOW, NEED TO BE PREPARED
TO TEACH ALL KINDS OF KIDS,
IN ALL KINDS OF ENVIRONMENTS.
ESPECIALLY, SINCE A LOT
OF THE JOBS ARE IN OUR VERY
DIVERSE AREAS, WITH SOMETIMES
CHALLENGING SITUATIONS.
WE NEED OUR BEST TEACHERS THERE.
EVERY TEACHER HAS TO BE PREPARED
TO BE THEIR BEST
IN THAT KIND OF SITUATION,
BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE
WE NEED THEM TO GO.
ONE OF THE THINGS WE WILL DO
DIFFERENTLY WITH THIS SCORE
IS THE WAY WE'LL PUBLISH
THE INFORMATION.
WE'D LIKE IT TO BE A DASHBOARD,
WHICH IS USED BY PARENTS
AND PROSPECTIVE STUDENTS,
SO THEY'LL KNOW THAT IF THEY'RE
LOOKING FOR SPECIFIC TYPES
OF PROGRAMS, THEY CAN USE THIS
INFORMATION TO HELP FIND IT,
RATHER THAN JUST HAVING US
DISCUSS IT AT BOARD MEETINGS
AND CONGRATULATING EACH OTHER
ON OUR EFFICACY, RIGHT?
THE INTENT IS TO GATHER ENOUGH
INFORMATION, AND SOME OF IT
WILL SPEAK TO THAT,
AND IT'LL ALLOW GREATER CHOICES
FOR PARENTS AND STUDENTS
AND PROGRAMS.
BUT WE REALLY ARE HOPING THAT
ALL CANDIDATES ARE PREPARED
TO TEACH IN ANY SITUATION.
>> THANK YOU.
>> IT SEEMS TO ME
THERE'S SOME RESPONSIBILITY
ON THE LOCAL DISTRICT LEVEL
TO ASSIGN NEW TEACHERS TO NOT
THE MOST DIFFICULT SCHOOLS.
THEY THINK THEY DO ALL THE TIME,
BUT WE SHOULD TRY TO ENCOURAGE
THEM TO PUT MORE EXPERIENCED
TEACHERS IN THOSE SCHOOLS,
SO THE NEW TEACHER
IS AT A SCHOOL THAT MIGHT NOT
BE SO CHAOTIC.
I DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO THAT.
WE CAN'T MAKE THEM DO IT.
WE JUST ENCOURAGE THEM TO DO IT.
>> TO YOUR POINT, KATHY,
I THINK SOME SUB-SET EXTREMES
OF SOME OF THE REFORMS
THAT ARE IN PLACE,
ARE FORCING THE SYSTEM THERE
TO ACCOUNT FOR THAT.
FOR INSTANCE, IF YOUR BUILDING
SHOWS UP ON A TOP-TO-BOTTOM
LIST, NOT TO MENTION
IF YOU'RE IN A POSSIBILITY
OF BEING TAKEN OVER
IN A STATE REFORM DISTRICT,
WHICH STARTED WITH
THE GRANHOLM LAW,
YOU'VE CHANGED YOUR DYNAMIC
ABOUT WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO AS
A PRINCIPAL SUPERINTENDENT TEAM,
TO PUT THE GREATEST SUCCESS
BEHIND MOVING KIDS ALONG?
OTHERWISE, YOU JEOPARDIZE
THE WHOLE FRANCHISE.
THERE ARE INCENTIVES NOW
THAT HAVE CREATED AN ENVIRONMENT
WHERE EVEN TEAMS OF TEACHERS
ARE SAYING,
"I'M AN EXPERIENCED TEACHER,
"AND I'M GOING TO WORK
"WITH THESE KIDS."
WHEN BEFORE, WE WOULD SAY,
"LET THE NEWBY GET IT."
IT WAS THE CULTURE
TO SOME DEGREE.
I DO SEE THE DIFFERENT KIND
OF THINKING GOING ON
ABOUT WHAT WE DO,
SO WE'RE NOT SETTING UP
OUR MOST VULNERABLE TEACHERS.
WITHOUT MALICE,
BUT THE SYSTEM KIND OF DID.
I DID NOTICE THAT
ABOUT MY DAUGHTER'S JOB.
SHE SUDDENLY GOT THE TOUGHEST
KIDS IN THE WHOLE HIGH SCHOOL,
IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY BROUGHT
TO THE TABLE,
AND HOW TO HELP THEM ACHIEVE,
WHEN SHE HAD A LESSER SKILL SET
THAN SHE HAS NOW.
I THINK THAT'S STARTING TO
CORRECT ITSELF, TO SOME DEGREE,
AND SEE SOME EVIDENCE OF THAT.
EILEEN, PLEASE?
>> I WANTED TO THANK YOU,
AS OTHER BOARD MEMBERS HAVE.
I KEEP ON CRACKING WHIPS,
AND THAT'S NOT THE SAME
AS SHOWING MY APPRECIATION
FOR THIS.
IT'S ALWAYS FELT TO ME
LIKE WE'RE RUNNING BEHIND
A PACK OF DOGS, AND WE'RE
TRYING TO CHASE THEIR TAILS.
FOR THE FIRST TIME, I FEEL LIKE
THE DOG IS GOING TO BE
TRYING TO FIX THAT FLEA
BACK THERE ITSELF,
AND WE'RE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER.
I'M HOPEFUL THAT SCHOOLS
ARE STARTING TO MAKE THOSE
ADJUSTMENTS, BECAUSE WE HAVE
NO PURVIEW EXCEPT THIS SYSTEM,
OVER A POST-SECONDARY.
MUCH OF WHAT IS GOING TO HAVE
TO TAKE PLACE FOR THESE KIDS
THAT ARE COMING OUT OF
NON COMMON CORE, NON NEXT-GEN
SCIENCE STANDARD LEARNING
ENVIRONMENT, AS THEY GET
IN THE CLASSROOM OVER
A FOUR-YEAR PERIOD--
THAT'S GOT TO FALL TO SOMEBODY.
I'M DELIGHTED WITH
THE CONVERSATIONS THAT ARE
TAKING PLACE NOW ARE MUCH MORE
STREAMLINED TOWARDS THAT,
AND I'M KEEPING
MY FINGERS CROSSED.
THANK YOU
FOR PUTTING THIS TOGETHER.
IT'S ENORMOUS.
>> THANK YOU, EILEEN.
YOU CAN SEE WHAT WE'VE DONE
IS BROUGHT VERY, VERY SMART
PEOPLE TO THE DEPARTMENT.
SOME WERE ALREADY HERE,
LIKE FLORA,
SOME WERE NEW POSITIONS,
BUT IT REALLY PAYS OFF.
THIS IS THE NITTY GRITTY WORK
THAT DOESN'T' GET THE HEADLINES
AND WE DON'T SEE.
AT THE SUPERINTENDENT LEVEL,
WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME
ON THIS VERY ISSUE.
THE WHOLE SYSTEM,
IF YOU LOOK AT THE REFORMS,
GOES BACK TO THIS NOW.
CAN WE BE IN A FAIR POSITION,
WHERE WE'RE ALL TOGETHER,
AND WORK TOGETHER
WITH THE EPIS IN A WAY THAT
CREATES THE GREATEST CHANCE
THAT THE NEWBY IS GOING TO
BE ABLE TO GO IN AND SUCCEED?
ALSO, BY BEING ABLE TO SUCCEED,
NOT LEAVE WITHIN FIVE YEARS.
THAT STATISTIC IS JUST HORRIBLE.
A LOT OF THESE QUESTIONS
ARE SO GOOD TODAY.
THEY HELP DEMONSTRATE
A CONFIDENCE THAT THIS
IS DRILLED DOWN
WITH SUCH PRECISION.
IT'LL EVOLVE EACH YEAR
A LITTLE BIT, BUT IT GETS
TO A POINT WHERE FAIR SYSTEM,
BETTER CONSEQUENCES,
NOT LEAVING THESE KIDS
SUDDENLY IN A STATE OF SHOCK.
WHAT IS IT NATIONALLY?
HOW MANY LEAVE THE PROFESSION
WITHIN HOW MANY YEARS?
I THINK IT'S 50%
WITHIN FIVE YEARS.
THIS IS LIKE A TOTAL LOSS
OF NATIONAL PRODUCTIVITY,
FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD.
JUST AS THEY'RE GETTING
TO THAT POINT WHERE
THEY'RE THAT EXPERIENCED,
THEY'RE DISILLUSIONED.
I APPRECIATE THAT THE BOARD
DOESN'T LOSE REFORMS THAT
WE'RE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR.
DOESN'T INDIRECTLY--
EXCUSE ME.
THAT WE DON'T DEMORALIZE
FOLKS WHO ARE IN CLASSROOMS
AND LIKE, I CAN'T KEEP UP.
BEFORE YOU KNOW IT,
ALL THE GOOD INTENTIONS
WE HAVE ARE LOST WITH THAT.
THIS PREP PIECE IS THE SINGLE
BIGGEST PIECE, IN OUR VIEW,
ON WHY IT'S GOTTEN THIS MUCH
ATTENTION.
>> I WANT TO THANK YOU,
TOO, FOR ALL THIS WORK.
I'M GLAD THAT YOU SAID THAT
YOU WORKED WITH THE TEACHER
PREPARATION INSTITUTIONS.
HAVE THEY REACTED POSITIVELY
TO THIS WORK?
ARE THEY HAPPY WITH IT?
>> WE'VE HAD LOTS OF MEETINGS
WITH THEM IN THE FOCUS GROUPS,
AND WE'VE BEEN
TO THE DARTEP MEETINGS.
YES, THEY'RE HAPPY.
I THINK THEY'RE MORE SATISFIED
WITH THIS THAN THE OLD SCORE.
>> ANY NEW MEASURE OF EFFICACY
IS GOING TO COME WITH SOME
CONSTERNATION, BUT LARGELY,
WE'VE DONE OUR DILIGENCE
IN MAKING SURE
EVERYBODY'S VOICES WERE HEARD.
I THANK THEM, AS WELL.
IF I MAY, I WOULD LIKE TO
TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO THANK
THE TEAM HERE AT MDE
THAT PUT IN ALL OF THE WORK
AND INSTITUTIONS THAT SPENT
A LOT OF TIME SUPPORTING US
IN THIS WORK.
IT CERTAINLY WASN'T JUST ME.
>> I'M GLAD TO HEAR THAT.
IT HELPS IF YOU GET
THE COOPERATION YOU NEED.
I WANTED TO FOLLOW UP
ON CASANDRA'S QUESTION.
SHE ASKED ABOUT THE METRICS
THAT YOU WERE USING,
AND YOU MENTIONED TECHNOLOGY.
ARE THERE OTHER ONES?
>> YES.
SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT
WE'RE LOOKING AT SPECIFICALLY
ARE CRITICAL THINKING--
THE TEACHER'S ABILITY TO ENGAGE
IN CRITICAL THINKING,
AND ALSO ENGAGE THEIR STUDENTS
IN CRITICAL THINKING.
MANAGING THEIR LEARNING
ENVIRONMENT, WHAT WE USED
TO CALL CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT,
AND THE STANDARD IS REALLY
ABOUT LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
AND PREPARING THOSE LEARNING
ENVIRONMENTS TO MEET THE NEEDS
OF ALL STUDENTS,
CONNECTING REAL WORLD PROBLEMS
IS ONE WE PULLED OUT
TO PAY SPECIFIC ATTENTION TO.
WE THINK IT'S LINKED DIRECTLY
TO THE STUDENT PERFORMANCE.
BEING ABLE TO DIFFERENTIATE
INSTRUCTION IS WOVEN THROUGHOUT,
ESPECIALLY AS IT RELATES TO
UNDER-REPRESENTED POPULATIONS.
THOSE ARE SOME OF THE OTHERS.
>> THE ESAR ASKS QUESTIONS LIKE,
"WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO HELP
"STUDENTS BE ABLE TO
"DIFFERENTIATE INSTRUCTION?"
AND THERE'S MORE
DETAILED QUESTIONS.
THE SURVEY ASKS THE CANDIDATES,
"DO YOU FEEL YOU WERE PREPARED?"
AND BREAKS IT INTO SPECIFIC
QUESTIONS.
"WERE YOU PREPARED TO DO THIS?
"WERE YOU PREPARED TO DO THAT?"
SO, WHAT'S THE INSTITUTION
DOING, AND WHAT'S THE INPUT?
AND THEN, WHAT'S THE PERCEIVED
OUTPUT FROM THE CANDIDATE.
>> OKAY.
JOHN?
>> AS I REMEMBER,
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT COMPONENT
FROM OUR TEACHER QUALITY
DAYS OF YORE.
A TRANSPARENT PERFORMANCE
REPORTING SYSTEM
FOR THE INSTITUTIONS IS A SPUR
FOR THEM TO DO BETTER
AT PREPARING TEACHERS.
YOU CAN HELP WITH INDUCTION
OF MENTORING, BUT IT'S ALSO
A PIECE OF A CONTINUUM,
FROM ATTRACTING GOOD PEOPLE,
PREPARING THEM WELL,
SUPPORTING THEM BETTER
WHEN THEY'RE NEW TEACHERS,
TO ONGOING CAREER SATISFACTION.
I JUST WANTED
TO PUT IT IN CONTEXT.
IT'S AN IMPORTANT PIECE
OF A SET OF PIECES
FOR TOTAL TEACHER QUALITY.
I WANT TO MAKE ONE QUICK COMMENT
ABOUT CASANDRA'S COMMENT
ABOUT NORTHERN.
IT MAY BE VERY CHALLENGING
FOR NORTHERN MICHIGAN TO ATTRACT
AND MAKE COMFORTABLE STUDENTS
OF COLOR, BUT WE DON'T WANT
TO LET THEM OFF THE HOOK
IN THE SENSE THAT IT IS REALLY
IMPORTANT FOR ALL OF OUR PUBLIC
INSTITUTIONS TO WORK
AGGRESSIVELY TO IMPROVE
THE CHARACTER OF THEIR
INSTITUTION IN THE EDUCATION
OF STUDENTS BY ATTRACTING
A DIVERSE POPULATION.
MARK MURRAY USED TO NARRATE
A STORY ABOUT
WHEN HE WAS PRESIDENT OF
GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIVERSITY.
HE WANTED THAT INSTITUTION
TO GET SERIOUS ABOUT BEING
IN A PLACE WHERE YOUNG KIDS
FROM DETROIT AND FLINT,
AND YOUNG KIDS OF COLOR
COULD GET A GREAT EDUCATION,
AND IT WOULD ENRICH THEIR
INSTITUTION TO HAVE MORE
OF THEM SUCCEEDING
AND BEING COMFORTABLE THERE.
HE SENT HIS RECRUITERS
AND COUNSELORS
WHO WOULD DROP OFF LEAFLETS
AND SAID THEIR JOB WAS DONE.
HE SAID, "NO, YOU GO BACK
"AND YOU BUILD A MEANINGFUL
"RELATIONSHIP, SO THOSE
"YOUNG PEOPLE ARE COMFORTABLE,
"AND GET A GREAT EDUCATION HERE,
"AND MAKE US A MORE DIVERSE
"AND EFFECTIVE INSTITUTION."
AND I THINK THEY SUCCEEDED.
THAT'S PART OF THE SPUR.
TO FIND DIVERSITY TO INCLUDE
ALL OF ITS WONDERFUL DIMENSIONS,
BUT WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE
INSTITUTIONS TO MAKE THEMSELVES
GREATER BY SERVING ALL
OF MICHIGAN AND ITS DIVERSITY.
>> MY DAUGHTER-IN-LAW IS NOW
AT OAKLAND UNIVERSITY,
BUT WAS WITH GRAND VALLEY
AS AN ADMISSIONS OFFICER,
EXACTLY DURING THAT TRANSITION,
AND THEY SPECIFICALLY
PUT PROCEDURES IN PLACE
ABOUT HOW THEY WENT OUT
AND SET THEIR GOALS.
IT HAS TO BE INTENTIONAL.
OKAY.
WELL, THANKS SO MUCH.
YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN GREAT.
SO NOW, VENESSA IS STAYING HERE.
LINDA FORWARD IS JOINING US.
THIS IS SECTION 99
OF THE SCHOOL STATE AIDE ACT.
IT REQUIRES THAT THE MASTER PLAN
FOR MATH AND SCIENCE CENTERS
FROM 2007 BE RE-EVALUATED
BY THE DEPARTMENT AND APPROVED
BY THE BOARD,
NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 30TH.
THAT'S WHY WE'LL HAVE THIS
ON THE SEPTEMBER MEETING.
TODAY IS THE FIRST SHOT
AT THIS FOR THE BOARD.
VENESSA AND LINDA
ARE GOING TO TAKE IT FROM HERE.
>> THANKS, MIKE.
JUST A BIT OF BACKGROUND.
I ASKED LINDA, BECAUSE I'M NEW
IN MY JOB, AND A POINT
OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE,
I WOULD LIKE TO THANK LINDA
FOR ALL THE HELP SHE'S GIVEN ME.
I'VE LEARNED SO MANY NEW THINGS
IN THIS NEW ROLE.
I ASKED HER TO TELL ME
ABOUT THE MATH SCIENCE CENTERS,
AND WHERE THEY COME FROM.
ONE OF THE THINGS I LEARNED
IS THAT IN 1988,
THE MICHIGAN LEGISLATURE
ACTUALLY TOOK A NATIONAL
LEADERSHIP ON THIS,
AND PROVIDED TARGETED SUPPORT
FOR IMPROVEMENT IN MATH
AND SCIENCE EDUCATION
THROUGH THE CREATION AND SUPPORT
OF THE MATH AND SCIENCE CENTERS.
AT THAT TIME THE LEGISLATURE
CALLED FOR THE FIRST MASTER PLAN
IN 1992.
SO NOW REVISIONS HAVE OCCURRED
IN '96, 2002, 2007,
AND THIS IS THE FIFTH.
I'M GONNA TURN IT OVER TO LINDA.
>> THANKS.
SECTION 99 REQUIRES THAT--
CREATED THE MATH AND SCIENCE
CENTERS IN 1988.
THERE ARE CURRENTLY 33,
AND THEY SERVE TEACHERS
AND STUDENTS.
THEY HAVE SERVED AS
A TRAINING GROUND FOR TEACHERS,
HELPING THEM LEARN NEW
STRATEGIES AND HELPING STUDENTS
TO UNDERSTAND MATH AND SCIENCE.
THEY HAVE PROVIDED LEARNING
OPPORTUNITIES FOR STUDENTS.
THAT HAS DWINDLED
AS THE FUNDING HAS DWINDLED,
AND THEY HAVE BECOME
MORE FOCUSED ON HELPING
THE TEACHERS
TO HELP THE STUDENTS.
THEIR GOAL HAS ALWAYS BEEN
TO HELP BOTH GROUPS.
THE MATH/SCIENCE CENTERS
NOW FUNCTION AS A NETWORK.
THEY CAME TOGETHER IN THE LAST
FIVE YEARS AND FORMED A NETWORK
IN ORDER TO ACCESS FUNDS.
THEY DEVELOPED THEMSELVES
AS A 501 C 3 ORGANIZATION.
THE 33 CENTERS ARE FUNCTIONING
TOGETHER AS A NETWORK.
DURING THE LAST FIVE YEARS
THEY HAVE FOCUSED ON OUTCOMES
BASED ON PROGRAM DESIGN
AND EVALUATION FOR BOTH
THE INDIVIDUAL CENTERS
AND THE NETWORK AS A WHOLE
TO SUPPORT HIGH NEED SCHOOLS.
YOU'LL NOTICE THROUGHOUT
THEIR REPORT THEY HAVE TALKED
ABOUT HOW THEY HAVE SHIFTED
THEIR FOCUS FROM ALL SCHOOLS
TO MAKING PRIORITY
AND FOCUSED SCHOOLS
THEIR PRIORITY.
INSTEAD OF JUST A FIRST COME,
FIRST SERVE BASIS,
NOW IT'S ABOUT HELPING
THE PRIORITY OF FOCUS
SCHOOL STAFF FIRST,
AND THEN TO OTHERS IN OUR
AUDIENCE AND IN OUR AREA.
THEY HAVE ALSO REACHED OUT
TO OTHER NON-TRADITIONAL
STAKEHOLDERS.
IN ORDER TO MAKE THE STEM
INITIATIVES IN THIS STATE WORK,
WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO ENGAGE
OTHERS THAN JUST
THE EDUCATIONAL COMMUNITY.
THEY HAVE BEGUN TO REACH OUT
TO BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY,
AND TO OTHER GROUPS
ACROSS THE STATE
THAT ARE INVOLVED IN STEM.
OUR LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS
INCLUDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT
DEVELOP, EVALUATE, AND UPDATE
THE PLAN FOR THE MATH
AND SCIENCE CENTERS
ON A FIVE YEAR CYCLE
THAT'S BEEN ALLUDED TO.
THAT YOU APPROVE THAT PLAN
AND THAT IT BE APPROVED
BY SEPTEMBER 30TH.
WE WILL BE COMING BACK TO YOU
IN SEPTEMBER.
THE PURPOSE OF THE PLAN
IS TO ESTABLISH GOALS
AND ACTIVITIES FOR THE MATH
AND SCIENCE CENTERS.
WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO BE
FOCUSING ON?
WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO BE
WORKING ON?
IT ALSO SETS A FOUNDATION
FOR THE GRANT CRITERIA
BECAUSE WE UTILIZE THIS PLAN
AS WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO
IN GETTING GRANTS OUT,
AND WHAT THEIR APPLICATION
LOOKS LIKE.
WE'LL QUALIFY FOR WHAT
WE CAN FUND.
MDE WORKED WITH THE MATH/SCIENCE
NETWORKS ON THE MASTER PLAN
DEVELOPMENT.
THEY FORMED A TASK FORCE THAT
BEGAN IN THE FALL OF 2011.
THEY DEVELOPED A PLAN
AND HAD IT REVIEWED TWO TIMES
BY THEIR BROADER NETWORK
IN SEPTEMBER 2012,
AND AGAIN IN DECEMBER 2012.
MDE MADE FINAL REVISIONS
IN THE LAST TWO TO THREE MONTHS.
THIS JUST GIVES YOU A GRAPHIC
OVERVIEW OF WHERE THE TASK FORCE
REPRESENTATION CAME FROM.
IT CAME FROM ACROSS THE STATE.
WHAT ARE WE GONNA DO
IN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS?
OUR MISSION AND VISION WILL
FOCUS ON AN EMPHASIS ON STEM.
MICHIGAN IS NOT A LEADING STATE.
WE WOULD LIKE TO POSITION
OURSELVES MORE STRATEGICALLY
TO BE ABLE TO DO MORE WORK
WITH THE STEM INITIATIVE.
THAT'LL BE ONE OF THE FOCUSES
THAT THIS GROUP WORKS ON.
THEY WILL WORK THROUGH
THE MICHIGAN STEM PARTNERSHIP
AND OTHER WAYS TO HONE IN
OUR STEM WORK.
THEY WILL ALSO FOCUS ON
CAREER AND COLLEGE
READY STUDENTS.
WHAT CAREER PATHS MIGHT THERE BE
FOR STUDENTS IN SCIENCE
AND MATH FIELDS?
WHAT CAN THEY FOCUS ON?
WHAT CAN THEY DO?
THE MATH AND SCIENCE CENTERS
WILL BEGIN TO LOOK ALONG
THOSE LINES FOR SUPPORT
FOR SCHOOLS AND TEACHERS.
THEY WILL ALSO ELEVATE THE LEVEL
OF PARTNERSHIPS AND COALITION
BUILDING THAT'S CURRENTLY
TAKING PLACE FOR THE NETWORK
AND FOR THE STEM INITIATIVES.
IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT THEIR
VISION AND MISSION,
THEY'RE GOING TO SUSTAIN
THE CORE SERVICES AROUND
THE FOCUS AREAS.
THERE ARE SIX FOCUS AREAS
THAT THE MATH/SCIENCE CENTERS
MUST ADDRESS.
THEY WILL SERVE ALL MICHIGAN
STUDENTS WITH EMPHASIS ON FOCUS
AND PRIORITY SCHOOLS.
CONTINUE TO GROW
THE COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS,
MAINTAIN ACCOUNTABILITY
CONSIDERATIONS.
EVERY YEAR I GET A REPORT
FROM THEIR EVALUATOR.
IT REPORTS ON THE INDIVIDUAL,
MATH/SCIENCE CENTERS,
AND THEIR OVERALL PROGRESS.
IT TALKS ABOUT THE STRENGTHS
AND WEAKNESSES OF EACH,
AND HOW THEY MIGHT IMPROVE
THEIR WORK.
THEY ALSO WANT TO MODIFY THEIR
GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE IN ORDER
TO BETTER SERVE BOTH
MATH/SCIENCE CENTERS
WITH FUNDING,
AND ACROSS THE BOARD
WITH STEM INITIATIVES
AND THE STATE.
>> QUESTIONS,
COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD?
RICHARD?
>> WHERE ARE THESE LOCATED?
>> THE MATH/SCIENCE CENTERS
ARE LOCATED ALL AROUND
THE STATE.
PRIMARILY IN ISDs,
AND WE'VE GOT A LOWER INCIDENCE
OF POPULATIONS.
WE SEE A CLUSTER AROUND TWO
OR THREE ISDs AROUND A CENTER.
THEY EXIST ACROSS THE STATE.
>> SO, THEIR IN OFFICE IN ISD?
>> NO, THEY'RE AN INDEPENDENT
ENTITY.
WHAT I'M TRYING TO PORTRAY IS--
>> THAT'S AN INSIDERS
PERSPECTIVE, WHO KNOWS
WHERE THE FUNDING COMES FROM.
BUT FOR AN OUTSIDER,
YOU GO INTO WAYNE COUNTY ISD,
AND THEN THE MATH CENTER
WILL BE TWO DOORS ON THE LEFT
OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT?
>> COULD BE.
BUT IT COULD ALSO BE LOCATED
APART FROM THE ISD, WHICH IS
WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SHARE
WITH YOU.
>> OKAY.
>> IN SOME CASES, IT'S INSIDE,
AND IN SOME CASES, IT'S OUT.
>> THERE'S A MAP AND LIST WITH
ADDRESSES ON PAGES 22 AND 23
OF THE ONLINE--
>> EILEEN, AND THEN KATHLEEN?
>> I'M TRYING TO GET MY ARMS
AROUND THE WONDERFUL ASSETS
THAT WE HAVE, THE NEED FOR
FURTHER WORK, AND
HOW IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.
LATER, ON THE AGENDA, WE HAVE
TWO GRANT PROGRAMS-- ONE FOR
$3 MILLION FOR FIRST ROBOTICS,
WHICH IS AN OUTSIDE SCHOOL
ACTIVITY-- IT'S AN ADD-ON.
AND ANOTHER IS $100,000 FOR
ADMINISTRATION TO A SINGLE
MATH AND SCIENCE CENTER.
THREE OR FOUR GRANTS, OF WHICH
$375,000 IS TARGETED TO--
AND I'M DRAWING A BLANK.
IT'S PROGRAMS, BUT IT CAN BE
EITHER INSIDE OR AFTER SCHOOL,
SYSTEMIC INITIATIVES.
WHAT I'M CURIOUS ABOUT IS--
AND I KNOW THEY'VE BEEN
TRANSFERRED TO 501(C)(3)
STATUS BECAUSE THEIR FUNDING
WAS CUT 82% IN A VERY SHORT
PERIOD OF TIME.
SO IT'S CRITICAL THAT
OUTSIDE DOLLARS BE BROUGHT IN.
WE JUST SAW THE GM FOUNDATION
MAKING A $900,000 COMMITMENT
OVER THREE YEARS FOR PROJECT
LEAD THE WAY IN HIGH SCHOOLS
AROUND THE STATE.
I THINK THE AVERAGE GRANT IS
PROBABLY $12,000 OR $12,500.
AND BARBARA BOLIN IS SITTING
HERE TODAY AND SHE'S
THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF
THE MATH AND SCIENCE-- SORRY.
THE STEM INITIATIVE.
SO I'M CURIOUS AS TO
WHAT IS THE VISION FOR
THE DEPARTMENT'S LONG TERM
PARTICIPATION, AND FOR STATE
FUNDING IN THIS?
WE ALL BELIEVE IT'S REALLY
ESSENTIAL, BUT I'M NOT SEEING
A COMPONENT FOR HER SALARY,
WHICH-- CRAIG'S NODDING
HIS HEAD YES-- AND I DON'T
KNOW HOW THE STATE IS
VALUING THAT, WHETHER YOU'RE
PREPARED TO HAVE A DISCUSSION
ON THAT, WHETHER THAT'S
STILL BEING WORKED OUT, OR
WHETHER THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE
COMING FROM OUTSIDE SOURCES?
PART OF WHAT THE STEM
LEADERSHIP WOULD HAVE TO DO IS
THESE GRANTS, BUT THAT'S NOT
THE ENTIRE AMOUNT AT WORK.
I JUST DON'T KNOW WHO WILL BE
LEADING THIS TO HAPPEN, AND
HOW IS THAT LEADERSHIP
ENVISIONED AS BEING FUNDED.
>> INTERNALLY.
OUR GROUP, THE CURRICULUM
INSTRUCTION UNIT, WILL BE
OVERSEEING THIS WORK, AS THEY
DID WITH THIS PIECE, SO
WE HAVE STAFF THAT OVERSEE
THE WORK OF THE MATH SCIENCE
CENTERS IN A VERY GENERAL WAY.
AFTER THAT, THEY ARE
AN INDEPENDENT ENTITY, AND WE
SIMPLY HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE
FOR THE GRANTS THAT THEY DO
AND THEY RECEIVE FROM US.
THE OVERALL VISION FROM
OUR OFFICE AND THE DEPARTMENT
IS WHERE AND WHEN WE CAN
LEVERAGE FUNDING FOR THEM
IN ORDER TO INCREASE
THEIR ABILITY TO ADDRESS
THEIR SIX PRIORITIES.
WE WANT TO DO THAT, HOWEVER,
IT'S ALL THE PRIORITIES ACROSS
THE DEPARTMENT AND ACROSS
THE STATE THAT HAVE TO BE
ENVISIONED.
ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO, WE ASKED
FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR
THIS GROUP, IN A VERY UNIQUE
WAY THROUGH OUR USUAL
BUDGETING PROCESS.
IT DIDN'T QUITE MAKE THE LIST
OF THINGS THAT WENT FORWARD.
>> WHICH IS WHY WE'RE ALL
SORT OF LEANING TOWARD CRAIG
RIGHT NOW.
>> FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS
THAT I WON'T GET INTO.
[ LAUGHTER ]
OUR GOAL, FROM MY OFFICE,
IS TO TRY TO INCREASE
THE IMPACT OF STEM LEADERSHIP,
AND HAVE THE MATH SCIENCE
CENTERS PLAY A CRITICAL ROLE
IN THAT.
WE HAVE-- AS YOU POINTED OUT,
BARBARA BOLIN IS
PLAYING A ROLE THERE.
ALSO, TO INCREASE THE IMPACT
OF EDUCATION IN GENERAL
FOR MATH AND SCIENCE AREAS
IN CLASSROOMS.
WE LOOK TO THE MATH SCIENCE
CENTERS, IN CONJUNCTION WITH
MAISA TO DO THAT.
>> OKAY.
SO IF I CAN JUST GET MY HANDS
AROUND THIS A LITTLE BIT
FURTHER, BECAUSE WE'RE STILL
TALKING ABOUT NEXT GENERATION
SCIENCE STANDARDS.
IN PUBLIC, I TEND TO SAY
HIGH QUALITY, INTERACTIVE,
STEM INTEGRATED STANDARDS,
WHATEVER THEY ARE.
I HOPE THAT WE'LL HAVE
AN EASY PATH TO THAT, BUT
I DON'T KNOW.
SHOULD SOME OF THESE COSTS BE
A PART OF DOING BUSINESS,
AS WE'VE OFTEN SAID IN
RE-TOOLING FOR SCHOOL
DISTRICTS?
ARE THEY-- ARE WE LOOKING FOR
DISTRICTS THEMSELVES TO
INVEST MORE IN THEIR STEM
FACILITY, OR USE IT BETTER,
OR PAY FOR THEIR SERVICES?
OR ARE WE THINKING THIS IS
REALLY AN OUTSIDE ACTIVITY BY
BUSINESSES AND FOUNDATIONS
TO TRY AND SUPPORT THIS WORK
IN SCHOOLS AND AFTER SCHOOL?
>> WHAT ARE SOME OF
YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT,
EILEEN?
I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN IMMERSED,
TO SAY THE LEAST,
IN THE BEST SENSE.
WHAT ADVISE MIGHT YOU
GIVE US ON THAT?
>> WELL, I JUST KNOW THAT
WE NEED IT TO HAPPEN.
AND I KNOW THAT STATE
GOVERNMENT IS SOMEWHAT
SEGMENTED ON THIS.
THERE'S AN MEDC PIECE.
IF WE THINK THAT WE CAN
TRANSFORM SCHOOLS TO REALLY
HAVE INTEGRATED STEM, I THINK
THERE'S A ROLE FOR BUSINESSES
AND FOUNDATIONS TO BE LIGHTING
A MATCH AND FINDING TINDER,
BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY
HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO
OVERHAUL STEM INSTRUCTION AND
SUPPORT FOR IT WITHIN
THE SCHOOL SYSTEMS.
I'M ON THE BOARD OF
THE MICHIGAN SCIENCE CENTER,
AND IT'S TOUGH.
THERE ARE MANY COMPETITIVE
CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS
OUT THERE, AND WE'RE ALL
IN THE SAME MESS TOGETHER--
LOOK AT THE DETROIT INSTITUTE
OF ARTS RIGHT NOW.
I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU MAKE
THOSE CHANGES.
IT'S THE SAME THING WE WERE
JUST TALKING ABOUT WITH
THE TEACHER PREPARATION
INSTITUTIONS, WHERE
IT'S SOMEWHAT ISOLATED FROM US,
AND INDEPENDENT, AND YET
WE'VE GOT TO FIND A WAY TO
GET THAT CONVERSATION GOING
TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.
THE TRAGEDY HERE WOULD BE
TO GET THROUGH THIS DISCUSSION
ON COMMON CORE FOR
ITS EDUCATIONAL VALUE,
TURN TO NEXT GEN OR
CALIFORNIA STANDARDS, OR
SOME VERY HIGH QUALITY,
INTEGRATED STANDARDS, AND
TO NOT HAVE THE STRENGTH IN
THESE INSTITUTIONS TO CARRY
THE DAY TO HELP THE SCHOOLS
MOVE TOWARDS THAT.
I RECOGNIZE IN READING THIS
THAT MICHIGAN HAD THE HIGHEST
PARTICIPATION RATE FROM
STEM TEACHERS IN THE NEXT GEN
PROCESS, SO THE COMMITMENT
IS THERE FROM THE TEACHERS.
THE QUESTION IS HOW MUCH
CAN THEY CHANGE
THEIR INSTITUTIONS?
I THINK OF STOCKBRIDGE, WHICH
CAME TO US IN MAY, AND I DON'T
WANT TO PONTIFICATE FOR
TOO LONG, BUT WHAT WAS
THEIR BUDGET FROM
THEIR SCHOOL BOARD?
$50.
AND THEY HAD TO GO OUT AND
FIND $100,000 TO DO A PROJECT
THAT WILL CHANGE THE LIVES OF
EVERY SINGLE CHILD
WHO PARTICIPATED IN IT.
BUT IT WASN'T 500 KIDS.
>> RIGHT.
I'M WONDERING IF THIS IS
IN SOME WAYS-- NOT TO
PUT TOO MUCH PRESSURE ON CRAIG,
BUT YOU MIGHT WANT TO
LISTEN CAREFULLY.
[ LAUGHTER ]
NO, I THINK THIS IS ANALOGOUS.
CRAIG AND I AND SOME OTHERS
WERE ON THE READY TO SUCCEED
BOARD FOR EARLY CHILDHOOD
PUSHING 20 YEARS AGO.
AND WE WOULDN'T WANT TO
TAKE THIS LONG ANYMORE, BUT
WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT
THE PUBLIC INVESTMENT THAT
NOW IS TAKING PLACE ON
THE FOUR-YEAR-OLDS, THAT WAS
SUCCESSFULLY WALKED THROUGH
THE BUDGET PROCESS--
SELF-SERVING FOR OUR TEAM HERE
TO SAY, BUT-- WE HAD A BIG
HAND IN THAT, I THINK.
WE INCLUDED IT IN OUR BUDGET,
MADE AN ARGUMENT, SHOWED
HOW IT TIED INTO METRICS,
TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE WAY
THAT THIS GOVERNOR THINKS,
COMPARED TO THE WAY
THE LAST GOVERNOR THOUGHT--
I MEAN THAT RESPECTFULLY,
JUST WHAT RINGS TRUE.
AND IN THE SAME VEIN, I THINK
WE COULD USE HELP AND ADVICE
ON HOW TO MAKE THAT SAME PITCH
FOR NEW PUBLIC INVESTMENT
IN THAT.
I'LL TRY NOT TO USE
THE T WORD HERE.
IN THE SAME WAY THAT
SOME FOLKS THOUGHT IT WOULD
NEVER HAPPEN TO GET THE
65 MILLION ON EARLY CHILDHOOD
FOR THE FOUR-YEAR-OLDS.
AND IT DID.
AND IT'LL HOPEFULLY BE 130
NEXT YEAR, SO I MEAN,
PART OF THIS IS HOW WE MIGHT--
WE ARE RIGHT IN THE THROES OF
THAT RIGHT NOW.
WE JUST STARTED YESTERDAY ON
TRYING TO GET OUR ACT TOGETHER
ON WHAT IT IS WE HAVE TO
PRESENT AND WHO IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT.
I THINK, IF WE RELY ON
THE CURRENT FOUNDATION TO
DO THAT AND TO MAKE
SOME OF THESE IN-ROADS,
IT WON'T HAPPEN.
AND CRAIG, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU
HAD A THOUGHT AT ALL.
>> I'D LOVE TO SEE
A REVENUE PIE.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE BY EACH
ONE, BUT IN AGGREGATE.
WHAT ARE THE SOURCES OF FUNDS
COMING IN?
STATE SUPPORT, EARNED INCOME
THROUGH THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS,
PHILANTHROPY, CONTRACTS WITH
BUSINESS, ET CETERA.
THAT WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL.
>> LIST IT, OKAY.
>> COULD I?
>> YES, SIR.
>> IF I COULD JUST ECHO YOUR
SENTIMENT, AND THANK EILEEN
FOR LEADING US OUT HERE.
A FEW YEARS AGO, IN THE STATES
THAT HAD REALLY LEVERAGED AND
MOVED A STEM OFFENSIVE,
LIKE OHIO, IT BEGAN, AS HERE,
WITH THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY
AND THE PHILANTHROPIC
COMMUNITY AND THE CORPORATE
AND HIGHER EDUCATION LEADERSHIP
PUTTING SOME RESOURCES
TOWARDS GROWING THEIR STEM
EDUCATION CONTINUUM.
BUT THEY ENDED UP LEVERAGING
THAT WITH SUCCESSFULLY GETTING
DEDICATED STATE APPROPRIATIONS
FOR THE STEM AGENDA,
WHICH WAS VERY HELPFUL.
THE IRONY HERE IS THAT,
AS EILEEN NOTED, WE HAVE
THE MOST ROBUST LANDSCAPE OF
STEM WORK IN OUR COMPANIES
AND CORPORATIONS AND CAREERS,
AND WE HAVE PROBABLY THE BEST
SCHOOLS, HIGHER ED AND OTHERS,
THAT ACTUALLY TEACH
THE STEM PROFESSIONS.
IF YOU LOOK AT WHERE ARE
THE BEST ENGINEERING SCHOOLS
IN THE COUNTRY, OR MATH
EDUCATION SCHOOL--
THE TECHNOLOGY-- IT'S HERE,
AND WE'VE NEVER PUT IT
TOGETHER INTO THAT PATHWAY
TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF BOTH
THE NEED FOR GREAT CAREERS
AND OPPORTUNITY AND
THE RESOURCES THAT WE'VE GOT
IN THE CORPORATE AND HIGHER ED
COMMUNITY, IN PARTICULAR.
SO ANYTHING WE CAN DO
TO MUSTER THIS FORWARD IS
WORTH DOING.
>> AND I DO THINK,
IN THAT SAME SPIRIT OF
WHAT JOHN'S SAYING, THAT
IT IS ANALOGOUS, BECAUSE
FOR A LONG TIME-- I REMEMBER
HEARING A FEW YEARS AGO, WHEN,
APPROPRIATELY, THE CEOs OF
SOME OF THE PHILANTHROPIC
ORGANIZATIONS WERE SAYING,
"WE CAN'T KEEP CARRYING
THE WEIGHT ON EARLY
CHILDHOOD, HERE."
BUT IT ALSO TOOK THEIR VOICE
AND THEIR SUPPORT.
I MEAN, I DON'T MEAN TO
OVER-STEREOTYPE THIS, BUT
I'M NOT SURE, THAT MANY YEARS
AGO, THAT WE WOULD HAVE SEEN
THE LEVEL OF SUPPORT FROM
THE BUSINESS LEADERS ON
EARLY CHILDHOOD.
AND IT STARTED, I THINK, WITH
A CONVERSATION HERE,
IT GOT PLAY, AND IT STARTED TO
GET PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND
YOU CAN'T GET TO 3rd GRADE
READING WITHOUT IT.
BUT IT WAS KIND OF A 20-YEAR
EFFORT, IN SOME RESPECTS.
WHEN IT HIT ME LIKE A TON OF
BRICKS WAS WHEN I REALIZED THAT
VERY THOUGHTFUL, IMPORTANT
LEADERS IN PHILANTHROPY
WERE JUST SAYING,
"WE CAN'T CARRY THE BALL."
THIS IS STATE INVESTMENT,
AT SOME POINT.
HOW DO YOU FIND
THE STIMULATOR OF THIS?
BUT WE CAN USE HELP ON THIS.
I WOULD TAKE RESPONSIBILITY
FOR THIS-- IF I HAD DONE
A BETTER JOB AND UNDERSTOOD
THE NUANCES ONE YEAR EARLIER,
THAT WOULD HAVE MADE
A SUCCESSFUL BUDGET
PRESENTATION, WE WOULD HAVE
HAD THE 65 MILLION
ONE YEAR EARLIER.
AND WE DID A GOOD JOB THE NEXT
YEAR, AND AS I SAID--
TALK ABOUT STEREOTYPES--
I THINK THERE WAS AN IMAGE
THAT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE
AN R GOVERNOR DO THAT.
SO WAS ABLE TO, AND
MADE THAT INVESTMENT, AND
WE APPRECIATE IT.
SO WHAT ARE THOSE SAME--
TACTICS ISN'T THE RIGHT WORD,
BUT-- HELPING FOLKS UNDERSTAND
THE VALUE OF THIS AND WHY
THE WHOLE STATE WOULD WANT
TO INVEST IN THIS IN A WAY
THAT MAKES SENSE.
KATHLEEN, THEN EILEEN AGAIN,
AND THEN DAN.
>> JUST A QUESTION: WHEN THEY
SAY, "MODIFY THE GOVERNANCE
STRUCTURE," DO THEY HAVE
IDEAS IN MIND?
>> THEY WANT TO REACH OUT TO
MORE STAKEHOLDERS AND BRING
A BROADER RANGE OF STAKEHOLDERS
INTO THE GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE
OF THE NETWORK, AND ALSO
THE STEM INITIATIVES.
>> SO THEY WOULD BE MORE
INVOLVED DIRECTLY?
>> BRINGING MORE PEOPLE
AROUND THE TABLE
FOR THE CONVERSATION.
>> EILEEN?
>> AS WE LEAVE THIS, THERE ARE
A COUPLE COMMENTS I'D LIKE
TO MAKE.
ONE IS, THE SCIENCE CENTER
USED ALAN FRIEDMAN WHO HELPED
DESIGN THE CITE DES SCIENCES
ET DE L'INDUSTRIE OUTSIDE OF
PARIS.
ALAN WAS THE FIRST TO PUT
THE HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS IN
AS INTERPRETERS IN HIS
SCIENCE CENTER.
HE RAN THE NEW YORK HALL OF
SCIENCE.
ALAN SAID IT WAS THE FIRST
AND THE STRONGEST NETWORK OF
MATH AND SCIENCE CENTERS
OF THIS SCOPE THAT HE'D SEEN
IN ANY STATE.
AGAIN, I DON'T WANT TO
LOSE THIS-- IT'S A HUGE ASSET.
>> WOULD YOU SAY THAT
AGAIN, EILEEN?
>> IT'S THE LARGEST--
>> WHAT IS IT AGAIN?
>> THE MATH AND SCIENCE CENTER
NETWORK IS BY FAR THE MOST
COMPREHENSIVE NETWORK THAT
HE'S SEEN ANYPLACE
FOR BEING ABLE TO CHANGE
THE PERCEPTION ON MATH AND
SCIENCE AS A VIABLE PART
OF K-12.
AND HE SAID WHAT-- "I JUST
HOPE THAT WHATEVER THE STATE
IS DOING FOR THAT,
THAT ASSET IS RECOGNIZED, AND
THAT IT BE UTILIZED, BECAUSE
THIS STATE, ABOVE ALL, HAS
THE BACKGROUND AND THE FUTURE
POTENTIAL FOR USING
THESE KIDS AND USING ITS PAST
TO LEVERAGE ITS FUTURE."
THE OTHER COMMENT I'D MAKE IS
THAT IT'S NOT EVEN A MATTER
OF--I SEE THAT 3 MILLION
GOING OUT FOR FIRST ROBOTICS,
WHICH IS TERRIFIC.
I SEE $375,000 GOING OUT FOR
EVERYTHING ELSE FROM
THE STATE, PLUS $100,000
FOR ADMIN-- IN OTHER WORDS,
OF DISCRETIONARY GRANTS.
WHAT I WOULD SAY IS
IT PROBABLY TAKES 3 MILLION
TO DO FIRST ROBOTICS, BUT
STOCKBRIDGE WOULDN'T HAVE
QUALIFIED FOR THAT KIND OF
FUNDING POOL, BECAUSE THEY
WEREN'T DOING FIRST ROBOTICS,
AND YET, LOOK WHAT THEY DID.
>> YEAH.
>> SO THEY WOULD PROBABLY,
I THINK-- BECAUSE THEY WERE
DESIGNING-- YOU WEREN'T HERE.
BOY, WHAT A COOL PROGRAM.
I'LL TELL YOU ABOUT IT
LATER ON.
>> OKAY.
>> BUT THEY-- THEIR
SUBMERSIBLES, THEIR $10,000
SUBMERSIBLES THAT THEY BUILT
FROM THE HARDWARE STORE FOR
$600 APIECE, MIGHT HAVE
QUALIFIED FOR A PIECE OF
THAT $375,000.
BUT, IS THAT THE MESSAGE THAT
WE NEED TO BE GIVING TO
THE ENTIRE STATE?
AND HOW DOES THAT ALL WORK?
SO I-- LINDA'S SMILING.
SO I MEAN-- NOT SMILING, BUT
YOU SEE IT, AND WE DON'T KNOW
HOW TO MAKE THAT DIFFERENT.
>> WE'RE GOING TO GIVE MORE
THOUGHT TO THAT.
THIS IS A VERY GOOD
DISCUSSION.
DAN'S GOING TO CONTINUE IT.
>> THANK YOU FOR THIS.
I GUESS TWO THOUGHTS, AND
THEY MAY NOT BE CONGRUENT.
THAT PROBABLY ISN'T INFREQUENT.
IT STRIKES ME AS ODD THAT
A NETWORK NOW ESTABLISHED AS
A 501(C)(3) WOULD-- THAT
THERE WOULD BE LEGISLATIVE
REQUIREMENT THAT
THE DEPARTMENT DEVELOP,
EVALUATE, AND UPDATE A PLAN
FOR THAT INDEPENDENT
NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION, AND
THAT THIS BODY WOULD HAVE TO
APPROVE IT.
I'M NOT-- I CARE DEEPLY ABOUT
STEM EDUCATION.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT.
I JUST WONDER ABOUT THE LOGIC
OF THAT LEGISLATION NOW,
GIVEN THE SPINOFF OF
THIS ENTITY INTO A SEPARATE
501(C)(3).
THEY ARE AN IMPORTANT PARTNER
FOR THE DEPARTMENT, BUT I JUST
WONDER IF THAT LEGISLATION
NEEDS TO BE REVISITED-- ONE.
TWO-- SO IN MY OTHER LIFE,
WE'VE ACTUALLY DOVE INTO THIS
A LITTLE BIT AND HAD SOME
CONTACT WITH THE DETROIT
CENTER, SPECIFICALLY AROUND
THIS NOTION OF BROADENING
THE GOVERNANCE OF THE POOL
OF ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED IN
THE GOVERNANCE OF THE NETWORK.
I'VE REALLY BEEN STRUCK BY
THE NOTION THAT THERE ARE
THESE PLACES, TYPICALLY
NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
OF THEIR OWN, THAT HAVE LABS
THAT ARE AVAILABLE FOR
SCHOOLS TO USE, LIKE
THE MICHIGAN SCIENCE CENTER.
I THINK THOSE MAY BE A LITTLE
SMALL, BUT I THINK THERE'S
A PLAN TO ACTUALLY EXPAND
THE SIZE OF THOSE LAB
CLASSROOMS AND SO ON
THAT SCHOOLS COULD USE.
CRANBROOK HAS THIS
EXTRAORDINARY CAMPUS AND LABS
AVAILABLE FOR SCHOOLS
TO COME AND USE.
SO TWO, I GUESS-- A AND B HERE.
A IS-- IT SEEMS TO ME THAT
THERE SHOULD BE EXPLICIT--
AND I DON'T KNOW
HOW FORMALIZED THIS IS, BUT
PLACES LIKE-- IF YOU HOLD
YOURSELF OUT AS HAVING A LAB
THAT SCHOOLS SHOULD BE ABLE TO
COME AND USE FOR SCIENCE OR
MATH PURPOSES, YOU SHOULD BE
A PART OF THIS NETWORK.
THAT'S JUST A NO-BRAINER--
YOU HAVE TO BE PART OF
THIS NETWORK.
AND THEN SECONDLY, ANY GRANT
FUNDING THAT GOES TO SOMETHING
LIKE FIRST ROBOTICS--
IT SEEMS TO ME-- I DON'T KNOW
HOW FAR WE WANT TO
GO DOWN THIS PATH, BUT
WHAT POPS INTO MY HEAD IS
IT SEEMS LIKE IT SHOULD BE
CONTINGENT UPON INVOLVEMENT OR
MEMBERSHIP IN THE NETWORK.
IF WE'RE REALLY GOING TO
KNIT ALL OF THIS TOGETHER,
WE NEED TO BE DELIBERATE ABOUT
REQUIRING THE KNITTING HAPPEN,
EVEN WHEN WE AREN'T
THE ONES DOING IT.
>> THANK YOU, GOOD POINT.
WHY DON'T WE GIVE SOME MORE
THOUGHT TO THIS, TOO?
WE'LL BE BRINGING IT BACK FOR
ACTION, AND MAYBE WE CAN
KNIT THIS TOGETHER.
JOHN?
>> I MAY BE MISTAKEN--
I VAGUELY RECALL THE REASON
WE GOT INTO APPROVING A REPORT
WITH LEGISLATION THAT ASKED
FOR IT WAS DRIVEN BY CONCERN
OVER ARE THESE MATH SCIENCE
CENTERS A WASTE OF MONEY,
OR WHAT?
AND I DON'T KNOW HOW ONE
REVISITS THAT.
I FORGET WHO THE SPONSORS OF
THAT INITIATIVE WERE IF I'M
CORRECT, BUT I THINK JUST TO
REMEMBER WHY WE'RE
IN THIS SITUATION-- I THINK
THAT WAS THE CONCERN.
>> THANK YOU.
THANKS, GUYS.
THE NEXT ITEM IS-- IS THERE
ANY DISCUSSION REGARDING
THE CRITERIA FOR
GRANT PROGRAMS?
>> I HAD A FEW QUESTIONS.
>> AND THIS IS-- PLEASE.
>> LET ME SEE.
HOW ARE THESE GENERALLY
LISTED?
IS THERE A RHYME OR REASON
TO-- IS IT BY TYPE, OR BY
LEGAL SECTION?
>> IT'S BY DEPUTY.
>> BY DEPUTY, OKAY.
>> AND THEN BY DIRECTOR.
>> I NOTICED SOME WERE FOR
$1 MILLION, ANOTHER IS FOR
$8 MILLION, ANOTHER IS
FOR $50 MILLION.
I'D BE MORE INCLINED TO LOOK AT
THE $50 MILLION CRITERIA
BEFORE I LOOK AT THE OTHERS.
IF, WHEN THEY ARE LISTED,
MAYBE THAT COULD BE
INDICATED ON HERE.
OTHERWISE, YOU HAVE TO CLICK
TO FIND OUT.
>> THAT'S A GOOD IDEA.
WE COULD DO RANGE OR
SOMETHING LIKE THAT--
RANGE OF GRANT DOLLARS.
>> NOW, ON THE-- THE FIRST ONE
IS THE $1 MILLION TO ENCOURAGE
INTEGRATING...
... SCHOOLS WITH COLLEGE CREDIT
FOR HIGH SCHOOL CLASSES, OR
HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS IN--
ET CETERA.
BUT I WAS LOOKING AT
PRIORITIES, POLICIES, PROGRAMS.
"THIS GRANT SUPPORTS
THE BOARD'S PRIORITY TO
ADVOCATE FOR AND IMPACT
POLICIES AND LEGISLATION
ADDRESSING PK-12 EDUCATION
ISSUES, INCLUDING BUT
NOT LIMITED TO EDUCATOR
EVALUATIONS."
I'M NOT SURE WHAT THIS
PARTICULAR PROGRAM HAS TO DO
WITH EDUCATOR EVALUATIONS.
NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE
STANDARDS, WHICH WE HAVEN'T
ADOPTED YET.
AND IS THAT-- IT'S NOT THAT
WE CAN'T CITE STANDARDS THAT
WE HAVEN'T ADOPTED, BUT
IS THIS A BOILERPLATE
JUSTIFICATION PUT ON GRANTS?
OR IS IT-- BECAUSE I DON'T
SEE THE RELEVANCE OF
SOME OF THIS MATERIAL TO
THE SPECIFIC--
>> I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER--
BEFORE YOU STAND UP,
I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER,
BECAUSE I MIGHT BE-- IS THIS
SOMETHING WHERE THE BOARD,
IN EFFECT, WANTS IT PULLED
FOR LATER, SO WE CAN GET
SOME TIME TO ANSWER THESE,
OR DO WE ANSWER THEM NOW?
>> LET'S ANSWER NOW.
>> LET'S ANSWER THEM NOW.
OKAY, GOOD.
THEN, VENESSA, PLEASE PROCEED.
>> WHICH ONE ARE YOU
LOOKING AT SPECIFICALLY?
>> THE FIRST ONE ON THE LIST,
THE CRITERIA FOR STATE
SCHOOL AID, INTEGRATION OF
MICHIGAN MERIT CURRICULUM
CONTENT STANDARDS.
>> OKAY.
>> INTO CAREER AND TECHNICAL
EDUCATION.
>> PATTY CANTU IS GOING TO
JOIN ME AT THE TABLE.
>> OKAY.
>> TALK THROUGH SOME OF
THESE THINGS.
>> SO, YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT
THE PRIORITIES, POLICIES AND
PROGRAMS THAT THE CRITERIA
SUPPORTS?
>> YES.
>> WE FOUND THE ONE THAT FIT
THE BEST FOR THIS PARTICULAR
GRANT AWARD THAT IS IN
THE STATE SCHOOL AID.
SO THIS ONE HAS TO DO WITH
INTEGRATING ACADEMICS INTO
CAREER AND TECHNICAL
EDUCATION INSTRUCTIONAL
PROGRAMS, SO IT WOULD MEAN
THE ACADEMICS THAT--
THE STANDARDS THAT WE USE.
SO THAT'S WHY, I THINK, COMMON
CORE IS IN THERE, AND NEXT
GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS.
BUT YOU'RE RIGHT: THE OTHER
THINGS DON'T REALLY FIT WITH
THIS PARTICULAR ACTIVITY, BUT
THAT'S THE PRIORITY THAT
FIT THE BEST.
>> SO, IN OTHER WORDS,
THE BOARD'S PRIORITY--
SO YOU QUOTE-- IN ESSENCE,
YOU'VE QUOTED A PRIORITY HERE,
AND ONLY ONE PART OF
THE THINGS LISTED IN
THE PRIORITY IS RELEVANT TO
THE GRANT, BUT BECAUSE
IT'S QUOTED, YOU'VE GOT
THIS OTHER MATERIAL IN THERE?
>> YES.
>> OKAY.
THAT HELPS ME UNDERSTAND
THE PROCEDURE.
THANK YOU.
>> OTHER COMMENT?
EILEEN, PLEASE, AND THEN
BACK TO RICHARD.
>> I HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT
THE SECOND AND THE THIRD ONE.
AND I DON'T KNOW--
DO YOU WANT TO MOVE ON?
ARE PEOPLE DONE WITH
THE FIRST ONE?
>> I'M READY TO MOVE ON.
>> OKAY.
>> I WAS CURIOUS, AND
I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT CAN BE
ANSWERED RIGHT NOW, BUT I WAS
CURIOUS AS TO-- CERTAINLY,
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE SEE
FOR THE TRANSFER OF CREDITS,
ESPECIALLY WITH EARLY AND
MIDDLE COLLEGE SITUATIONS
IS THE HIGH SCHOOL'S CONFLICT
WITH THE MIDDLE COLLEGE
FOR CREDIT AND PAYMENT OF
SERVICES.
IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU'VE GOT
THE FOUNDATION GRANT,
DOES THAT MONEY THEN GO TO
THE MIDDLE COLLEGE?
IF IT DOES, HOW DO THE PUBLIC
SCHOOLS ABSORB IT FROM
A PLANNING PERSPECTIVE?
HOW DOES THAT ALL WORK?
I JUST WONDERED IF--
AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE,
NOT NECESSARILY TODAY--
WE COULD HAVE A LITTLE MORE
INFORMATION ON HOW THINGS ARE
GOING OUT THERE.
IT'S CERTAINLY CITED IN
ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW TO
FUND EDUCATION IN THE FUTURE.
AND I DON'T KNOW HOW DIFFICULT
THIS IS IN THE FIELD
RIGHT NOW.
THAT WOULD BE QUESTION
NUMBER ONE.
THEN, JUMPING FORWARD ON
THE THIRD ONE, THE TECHNOLOGY
READINESS INFRASTRUCTURE
GRANT, THE DEPARTMENT DID
TWO SURVEYS WITH
THE SMARTER BALANCED
ASSESSMENT CONSORTIUMS.
>> CAN WE--
>> YES, DO YOU WANT TO
GO BACK TO--
>> YES, CAN WE-- BECAUSE
IT'S TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE,
AND THERE ARE DIFFERENT
ANSWERS TO BOTH.
>> SORRY.
>> SO ON THE FIRST QUESTION
ABOUT-- AND DO YOU WANT TO
ANSWER EARLY MIDDLE COLLEGE--
WHAT'S GOING ON NOW, AND THEN
TO YOUR OTHER QUESTION--
>> EXCUSE ME A SECOND.
THIS IS WHY I THOUGHT--
AM I WRONG HERE?
I THOUGHT OUR PROCESS,
SO WE COULD GET THE RIGHT
PEOPLE HERE, WAS TO SAY
TOTAL BOARD APPROPRIATE
AUTHORITY TO SAY,
"HERE'S A COUPLE I'D LIKE
TO TALK MORE ABOUT AND NOT
HAVE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA."
AND THEN, WE WOULD TRY TO
GET READY FOR THAT, WITH
THE RIGHT PEOPLE HERE TO
ANSWER THAT.
>> I DON'T NEED AN ANSWER NOW.
>> OH, OKAY.
>> THESE ARE QUESTIONS THAT
THE CRITERIA ARE PROMPTING.
>> OKAY.
WELL, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL,
TO KNOW WHAT-- AND THEN
WE CAN-- WHATEVER WE CAN'T
ANSWER NOW, WE CAN REPORT BACK
AFTER LUNCH, TOO.
>> SO HOW-- SO--
>> SO PLEASE.
I PROBABLY INTERRUPTED
MORE THAN I NEEDED TO, BUT
IF WE DON'T HAVE
ALL THE ANSWERS, WE'LL
COME BACK AFTER LUNCH.
>> WELL, THESE ARE COMPLEX
QUESTIONS.
I SEE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO
AWARD MONEY ON THINGS THAT
THESE FOLKS HAVE MORE
KNOWLEDGE THAN WE DO
RIGHT NOW.
AND I DON'T-- I HATE TO SAY--
I DON'T WANT THE OPPORTUNITY
TO GO BY, BECAUSE WE MAY NOT
HAVE IT AGAIN.
>> RIGHT, NO.
I THINK IT'S TOTALLY
APPROPRIATE.
>> AND THEN ON THE TECHNOLOGY
READINESS INFRASTRUCTURE GRANT,
THIS IS THE $50 MILLION THAT IS
BEING APPLIED TO ADDRESS
SCHOOL ABILITY TO USE
ASSESSMENTS MEANINGFULLY.
IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT,
SMARTER BALANCED IS USED, BUT
ALSO ONLINE ASSESSMENT IN
THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS FOR
SOCIAL STUDIES AND SCIENCE,
WHICH ARE NOT PART OF
SMARTER BALANCED.
SO I'VE READ THE SURVEY
RESULTS, WHICH AREN'T LINKED
IN ANY WAY ON THE DEPARTMENT'S
WEBSITE TO NEED.
YOU KNOW, YOU JUST--
IT'S A VERY GOOD INSTRUMENT,
I'M GLAD WE DID IT, BUT
I DON'T HAVE ANY SENSE AT ALL
OF WHETHER $50 MILLION IS
A DROP IN THE BUCKET, WHETHER
IT'S REALLY GOING TO GIVE
MANY DISTRICTS A LEG UP THAT
THEY WOULDN'T HAVE OTHERWISE.
I'M SURE THERE ARE REPORTS
THAT ARE GOING BACK OUT TO
OTHER PEOPLE, BUT I HAVEN'T
SEEN ANYTHING WITHIN OUR
PURVIEW THAT INDICATES TO ME
THAT THIS IS GOING TO SOLVE
WHAT WE NEED SOLVED--
FROM BANDWIDTH TO HANDHELDS.
>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO THAT
NOW, OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO
DO THAT LATER?
>> I THINK SINCE-- AS YOU
ALLUDE TO, THEY'RE BOTH
BIG ANSWERS, SO WE WOULD
LIKE TO TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY
TO COME BACK WITH MORE
COMPREHENSIVE PRESENTATIONS,
PERHAPS AT A FUTURE BOARD
MEETING.
WE CAN ALSO ADDRESS THE SMALL
VERSION OF THE ANSWER AT
THE APPROPRIATE TIME
ON THE AGENDA TODAY, IF THAT
WOULD BE HELPFUL.
SO THERE'S KIND OF TWO LAYERS
TO BOTH ANSWERS.
WE WOULD WELCOME
THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK MORE
HOLISTICALLY ABOUT BOTH THESE
ISSUES, AS THEY'RE BOTH THINGS
THAT WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON
ACROSS THE DEPARTMENT.
SO WHATEVER--
>> SO IN EFFECT, WHY DON'T WE
DECIDE WHAT WE MAY HAVE
MORE DISCUSSION ON LATER?
BECAUSE THE HOLISTIC PIECE
ISN'T NECESSARY FOR
THE CRITERIA PART THAT'S
APPROVED TODAY, BUT WE WANT TO
BE ABLE TO DO WHEN THERE ARE
QUESTIONS IS PULL IT,
GET THE FULL DISCUSSION, AND
NOT JUST HAVE IT ON CONSENT.
THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THIS
IN THE MORNING.
IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN
WE HAVE THE DISCUSSION
IN THE MORNING, AS I RECALL.
IT WAS SO THAT YOU COULD,
LATER THIS AFTERNOON, BEFORE
VOTING ON THE CONSENT AGENDA,
ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND MORE ABOUT
SPECIFIC ITEMS.
WHEN SOME OF THEM ARE
HANDLED HERE RIGHT AWAY,
THAT'S OKAY, TOO, OBVIOUSLY.
SO, WE'LL DO THAT PIECE YOU'RE
DESCRIBING NOW, OR LATER?
>> WE CAN DO THE SHORT
ANSWERS NOW.
HOW DOES THAT SOUND?
>> OKAY.
>> ON THE EMC CREDIT-- SORRY--
THE EARLY MIDDLE COLLEGE
PAYMENT AND CREDIT-- AND
CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG,
PATTY-- I THINK WE WOULD SAY
THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT
WE HAVE WORKED A LOT ON,
THE EARLY MIDDLE COLLEGES HAVE
WORKED A LOT ON, BUT WE HAVE
SOME FURTHER IMPROVEMENTS
TO MAKE, AND THAT'S PART OF
WHAT WE WANT TO DO WITH
THIS GRANT, IS TO CONTINUE TO
FOCUS ON PLANNING AND
ALIGNMENT AND HOW THAT WORKS.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPAND ON
THAT, OR DID I--?
>> I THINK THAT'S CORRECT.
WHAT'S BEEN HAPPENING WITH
THE EARLY MIDDLE COLLEGES
IS THAT EACH OF THOSE
INSTITUTIONS ARE WORKING
THESE TYPES OF PAYMENTS OUT
ON THEIR OWN.
SOME OF THEM HAVE DEVELOPED
A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
WITH THEIR POST-SECONDARY
INSTITUTIONS, SO THAT THEY
GET A BREAK ON SOME OF
THE TUITION.
SOME OF THEM HAVE WORKED OUT
DEALS WITH THEIR SENDING
SCHOOL DISTRICTS, SO THAT
THEY START TAKING STUDENTS
IN THE 10th GRADE AND SLOWLY
IMPLEMENT THE EARLY MIDDLE
COLLEGE, SO IT'S NOT
SUCH A HIT TO THE SENDING
DISTRICT, HAVING TO SEND OVER
THE PER PUPIL ACCOUNTING.
SO THEY'VE BEEN VERY CREATIVE
AS TO HOW THEY'VE MANAGED
THIS FUNDING OUT BY THEMSELVES
AND WITHIN THEIR COMMUNITIES.
BUT THAT'S WHAT IT IS.
IT BECOMES A PARTNERSHIP, AND
IT BECOMES ALL OF THE DISTRICTS
ARE AT THE TABLE WITH
THE POST-SECONDARY PARTNERS,
AND THEY WORK ON THIS PIECE.
WE'VE GONE FROM HAVING 2 IN
MICHIGAN TO HAVING 26,
SO THEY'RE MAKING IT WORK.
BUT THE FUNDING ISSUE IS ONE
WHERE I THINK WE MIGHT BE
AT A PLACE NOW WHERE I CAN
ASK THE EARLY MIDDLE COLLEGES
TO LET ME KNOW HOW THEY
DID THIS AND WE CAN COME UP
WITH SOME BEST PRACTICE IDEAS
THAT WILL HELP OTHER DISTRICTS
DO SOME OF THIS.
AND I THINK THIS MIGHT HELP
SOME OF THEM COME UP WITH
SOME OF THOSE IDEAS, OR HAVE
A LITTLE SEED MONEY.
I SAW THIS PIECE AS BEING
A LITTLE BROADER
IN DEALING WITH OTHER TRANSFER
ISSUES AS WELL.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT.
>> BUT THAT IS ONE THAT
THE DISTRICTS COULD WORK ON,
IF THEY WANTED TO USE SOME OF
THIS MONEY FOR THAT.
>> IF I CAN INDULGE ONE MORE
BRIEF QUESTION, IS THAT SPREAD
ACROSS RURAL, URBAN, NORTH,
SOUTH, EAST AND WEST--
THOSE SOLUTIONS THAT ARE
COMING FORWARD?
OR ARE THEY EASIER IN SOME WAYS
IN DISTRICTS THAT ARE URBAN?
ARE YOU SEEING EVERYBODY
STARTING TO WORK IT OUT?
>> EVERYBODY IS.
>> THAT'S VERY GOOD.
>> WE'VE GOT SCHOOLS IN
THE U.P. AND IN NORTHERN
MICHIGAN IN THE RURAL AREAS.
AND WHERE THERE IS AN EARLY
MIDDLE COLLEGE THAT WANTS TO
ESTABLISH WHERE THEY'RE NOT
IN A COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT, THEY'RE WORKING WITH
PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS AND
DOING ONLINE THINGS.
SO THEY'RE VERY OPEN TO
PROVIDING THESE OPPORTUNITIES
TO THEIR STUDENTS.
>> THANKS.
>> I THINK DAN WAS NEXT,
AND THEN OTHER HANDS.
>> I JUST HAVE A--
>> DAN, YES, SIR.
>> GENERIC QUESTION.
THE GRANT DOLLARS HERE
COME FROM VARIOUS SOURCES,
AND THE FORM USUALLY
INDICATES IT.
I GUESS THIS IS ON THE AGENDA
FOR THIS AFTERNOON, BUT IT'S
FEDERAL OR SUPPLEMENTAL
APPROPRIATION, WHAT HAVE YOU.
WHAT KIND OF FLEXIBILITY DOES
THE DEPARTMENT HAVE TO ADD
REQUIREMENTS TO-- I GUESS
A TWO-PART QUESTION.
A IS-- DOES THE LEGISLATION
HAVE ISSUE-- TYPICALLY,
IS THE DEPARTMENT ADDING
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, OR
IS THAT STRAIGHT FROM
THE LEGISLATION?
AND THE SECOND ONE IS
IS THE DEPARTMENT ABLE TO
ADD ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS,
IF YOU WILL, ON THE RECIPIENTS
OF THE GRANTS?
SAY, YOU MUST BE PART OF,
FOR EXAMPLE, THE NETWORK--
YOU KNOW, FOR THE CONVERSATION
WE JUST HAD, WHICH MAYBE
WASN'T PART OF LEGISLATION.
>> CAROL, LOUIS, OTHERS CAN
JOIN IN HERE, TOO.
>> THE LEGISLATION DRIVES
WHO CAN APPLY.
>> THE ELIGIBILITY?
>> THE ELIGIBILITY PIECE, YES,
IS DRIVEN BY THE LEGISLATION.
>> SO THAT MEANS WE CAN'T ADD?
>> YOU CAN'T JUST ADD,
"OH, AND BY THE WAY, LET'S
BRING SO-AND-SO IN ON IT,
AS WELL."
>> SO COULD WE, TO DAN'S
EARLIER QUESTION, COULD YOU--
UNDER THAT THINKING,
ADD THE IDEA THAT YOU MUST BE
A MEMBER OF THE MATH SCIENCE
CENTER, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH?
>> MAYBE NOT AS AN ELIGIBILITY
THING, BUT, "HEY, ONCE YOU
RECEIVE THIS GRANT," LIKE--
IN ORDER TO ACTUALLY RECEIVE--
OR WHATEVER-- ONE OF
THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF
THIS MONEY IS THAT YOU MUST
USE SOME PORTION OF IT
TO BECOME A MEMBER.
THAT'S JUST A RANDOM EXAMPLE,
BUT I'M JUST WONDERING
WHAT ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
CAN YOU PLACE ON, KIND OF
THROUGH THE VEHICLE OF
RESTRICTING THE USE OF
THE FUNDS ON WHAT FOLKS
HAVE TO DO ONCE THEY
RECEIVE THEM?
>> TWO PARTS TO YOUR QUESTION.
THE FIRST ONE, IF YOU LOOK AT
THE ITEM THAT COMES TO
THE BOARD, BASED ON
A CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD
PREVIOUSLY, YOU'LL SEE IN
THE CRITERIA, "SPECIFIED
IN LEGISLATION" OR
"PROPOSED BY STAFF."
THE "PROPOSED BY STAFF" IS
WHERE WE FEEL, BASED ON
CONVERSATIONS OF BOARD
PRIORITIES AND MDE PRIORITIES,
WE HAVE THE LATITUDE TO
IMPOSE.
THE PIECES THAT YOU DON'T SEE
ARE THE MUCH MORE SPECIFIC
RUBRICS THAT STAFF APPLY WHEN
THEY'RE REVIEWING
THOSE GRANTS.
YOU'LL SEE MUCH MORE SPECIFICS
IN THOSE RUBRICS, TO DRILL
DOWN TO GET TO MORE OF
WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH
YOUR QUESTION.
SO WE TRY TO KEEP THE CRITERIA
ELEVATED TO THE POINT THAT
IT MEETS BOARD PRIORITY,
IT MEETS STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
AND IT MEETS OVERALL
GOALS AND PRIORITIES,
METRICS AND MEASURES.
>> RICHARD, THEN JOHN.
>> CAN I JUST--
>> YEAH, JOHN, AND THEN
RICHARD.
>> I DO THINK IT IS ONE OF
THE OPPORTUNITIES WE ALL HAVE
AS A BOARD AND DEPARTMENT,
IS TO TRY TO STEER, WITHIN
PERMISSIBLE DISCRETION,
STATE AND FEDERAL GRANT
RESOURCES TO ACCOMPLISH
OUTCOMES THAT WE THINK ARE
A PRIORITY.
FOR EXAMPLE, WE SHOULDN'T BE
SPREADING EVERYTHING AROUND
LIKE PEANUT BUTTER,
WHETHER IT'S TEACHER TRAINING
OR STEM EDUCATION.
WE SHOULD BE FOCUSING ON
THE SCHOOLS AND STUDENTS WHO
NEED IT THE MOST, WHERE WE CAN.
BUT IT'S MORE OF A PRACTICAL
ISSUE FOR THE BOARD AND
DEPARTMENT TO THE DEGREE THAT
WE RELY ON THE DEPARTMENT
TO ANIMATE THE PRIORITIES
WE'VE AGREED ON AND NOT ONLY
FIND, BUT PROACTIVELY SEEK
THOSE OPPORTUNITIES TO FOCUS
THESE RESOURCES TOWARDS
OUTCOMES THAT WE ALL
CARE ABOUT.
THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO HOPE
AND TRUST IS HAPPENING, BUT
ALWAYS HAVE TO ASK,
"IS IT HAPPENING?"
OR, HAVE WE FALLEN BACK--
AND I'M NOT SAYING WE ARE-- TO
A PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE?
"HEY, WE'VE GOT A GRANT
CRITERIA THAT SAYS THIS.
LET'S JUST GIVE IT TO
EVERYBODY, PER THE CRITERIA."
CAN WE ADD VALUE TO
THOSE CRITERIA SO WE GET MORE
OF THE OUTCOMES WE CARE ABOUT?
AND I TRUST THAT'S-- AND WHY
WE WANTED THE CHANCE
TO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT THESE.
BUT I THINK IT'S A REAL
OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO MAKE SURE
WE'RE REALLY DOING THAT.
>> EXACTLY, AND IT'S ONE
REASON I'M A TAD UNCOMFORTABLE
WITH NOT DOING WHAT I THOUGHT
WE SAID, WHICH WAS WE WOULD
PULL IT WHEN THERE'S ANY
FURTHER QUESTIONS, AND THEN
HAVE A RICHER DISCUSSION
IN THE AFTERNOON.
AND OTHERS OF THESE ARE
MORE APPROPRIATE FOR CONSENT
AGENDA, BECAUSE THEY ARE
MORE-- LESS DISCRETION.
BUT WE CAN PROBABLY DO
A COUPLE THINGS.
WE CAN DO A REFORMAT BASED ON
THE SIZE OF THE GRANT.
WE COULD BE CLEARER, MAYBE,
ON WHERE DISCRETION IS TO HELP
INFORM WHETHER THIS IS ONE
WE WANT TO HAVE A LITTLE MORE
DISCUSSION ABOUT.
BECAUSE JOHN'S RIGHT:
THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY.
WE THINK WE'RE DOING THAT, BUT
THERE'S NO DOWNSIDE TO BEING
CHALLENGED A BIT ON,
"DID YOU THINK OF THIS?"
I THINK WE'RE PRETTY THOROUGH
AND TRY TO ALIGN IT WITH
THE BOARD GOALS, BUT-- SO
LET'S DO THAT IN THAT SPIRIT.
THERE STILL MAY BE MORE
DISCUSSION ON SOME OF THESE
LATER, WHICH I'M HAPPY TO DO.
PLEASE.
>> A COMMENT, AND THEN
MY QUESTION.
I UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE
ADOPTING CRITERIA, AND
I APPRECIATE VERY MUCH THE WAY
IT'S LAID OUT AND HOW YOU'VE
IDENTIFIED THE LEGISLATIVE
REQUIREMENTS, AND THEN
THE DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS.
I UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE DOING
AS A BOARD IS ESSENTIALLY
ENDORSING THE DEPARTMENT
RECOMMENDATIONS.
THAT'S HELPFUL, AND
IT WOULDN'T BE IN ANYBODY'S
INTEREST FOR THE BOARD TO START
GETTING INTO MICRO-MANAGING
THOSE KINDS OF THINGS.
ON THE OTHER HAND,
THESE THINGS CAN BECOME
MECHANICAL, AND TO SLAP
A CRITERIA WHICH DOESN'T
SEEM TO ALIGN WITH THE GRANT
ITSELF, THAT CONCERNS ME.
THEN MY QUESTION IS, LIKE WITH
THE-- AND IT'S NOT-- AND
MAYBE I DIDN'T READ THE GRANTS
I READ CLOSELY ENOUGH, BUT
WITH THE $5O MILLION,
IT'S BY APPLICATION EVERY--
NOW, HOW IS IT APPORTIONED?
DO YOU WAIT UNTIL YOU GET
A NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS?
DO YOU APPLY FOR
A SPECIFIC AMOUNT?
IS THE GRANT DIVIDED AMONG
ALL THE DISTRICTS, AND
YOU ONLY GET YOUR DISTRICT'S
QUOTA?
CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND
THAT END OF THE PROCESS?
>> THIS IS ONE GRANT WHERE
WE DID GO OUT AND LOOK AT
WHAT WAS ALLOCATED, AND
WHAT THE LAW SAID, AND THEN
WE PUT TOGETHER WHAT WE THOUGHT
WOULD MAKE A GOOD SYSTEM TO
MAXIMIZE THE DOLLARS THAT
WE RECEIVED IN THE STATE AID
GRANT LAST YEAR.
WE'RE DOING THE SAME
THIS YEAR.
SO THERE ARE, IN THIS CASE,
WITH THE TECH INFRASTRUCTURE
GRANT, A SERIES OF MINI-GRANTS
THAT FLOW UNDERNEATH IT.
THE BIGGEST ONE IS TO SUPPORT
BUILDING A STATE-WIDE NETWORK,
SO THAT ALL OF THE INFORMATION
FOR ASSESSMENTS OR EDUCATION
CAN FLOW AT LITTLE TO NO COST
AND WITH GREAT SPEED
AND NOT HAVE TO BE HELD UP.
WE HAVE A SERIES OF GRANTS.
THAT'S ONE EXAMPLE OF
OUT OF THAT 50 MILLION.
AND THOSE ARE NOT JUST
APPORTIONED BY A PER PUPIL
BASIS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
THERE WAS ONE SECTION THAT WAS
PER PUPIL, IN ORDER TO GET
INTO DEVICE ACQUISITION--
CAN YOU GET ENOUGH COMPUTERS
AND PERSONAL LEARNING DEVICES?
THE REST OF IT WENT OUT TO
CONSORTIA, PRIMARILY OF ISDs,
THAT ARE WORKING TO BUILD
A NETWORK, WORKING TO
BUILD OTHER PIECES OF
THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT
WE NEED.
SO WE HAVE THE SPEED, WE HAVE
LOW-COST ACQUISITION, AND
WE HAVE ALL OF THE THINGS
BEHIND THE WALL, I LIKE TO SAY,
THAT WE DON'T NORMALLY SEE,
IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THIS MOVE.
SO THE 5O MILLION WAS
STRETCHED VERY WIDE, BUT
IT WAS NOT JUST GIVEN OUT
BECAUSE YOU HAVE 10 STUDENTS
AND YOU HAVE 200 STUDENTS.
IT WAS GIVEN OUT BASED ON
THE WORK THAT NEEDED TO BE
DONE.
>> IN FACT, IF ANYTHING,
I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY
LAST YEAR WE DID HAVE
SOME PUSH-BACK, IN TERMS OF
WHY NOT JUST ALLOCATE IT?
IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DRIBS AND
DRABS TO LOTS OF FOLKS,
WITHOUT ANY BALL BEING MOVED.
IF YOU TIE IT INTO JOHN'S
POINT, THE THINKING ABOUT
WHAT THE BOARD DEPARTMENT GOAL
IS, WE'D BETTER BE READY FOR
ONLINE TESTING.
SO SOME OF THIS IS
HOW DO YOU TRY TO TAKE THESE
WHEN YOU CAN?
I WOULD SAY THERE MIGHT
HAVE BEEN-- I MIGHT BE
REMEMBERING THIS WRONG, BUT
I THINK THERE MIGHT HAVE EVEN
BEEN A LITTLE TENSION ABOUT
THIS ON THE LEGISLATIVE LEVEL,
BECAUSE THE THINKING
AT ONE POINT WAS-- AND
TO THEIR CREDIT, THEY SAID,
"NO, WE UNDERSTAND
YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THAT
LAST YEAR, WHICH WAS NOT TO
JUST TO DRIBS AND DRABS."
THE DRIBS AND DRABS WOULDN'T
GET WHERE WE NEEDED TO GO,
WHICH WAS, FOR EXAMPLE,
BEING READY FOR ONLINE TESTING
WITH A ROAD SYSTEM READY TO
HANDLE IT, A BACKBONE
READY TO HANDLE IT.
PLEASE, I THINK I CUT YOU OFF
A BIT THERE.
WE CAN HAVE MORE DISCUSSION
ON THIS-- I FEEL LIKE I KEEP
PUSHING THAT, LATER, BUT--
PLEASE, FINISH YOUR THOUGHT,
RICHARD.
>> SO, OAKLAND COUNTY ISD
APPLIES FOR 25 MILLION,
BECAUSE THEY'VE GOT A LOT OF
SCHOOLS AND KIDS, AND
ONTONAGON DOESN'T GET THEIRS
IN ON TIME-- NO OFFENSE TO
ANYONE FROM ONTONAGON HERE.
SO... I MEAN...
SO, DOES ONE COUNTY GET
MORE, BECAUSE-- OR IS THERE
A LIMITED AMOUNT THEY CAN GET?
OR IS THERE PRE-- I'M NOT SURE
HOW THE APPLYING...
AFFECTS THE DISTRIBUTION,
I GUESS.
>> SO, TO MIKE'S POINT,
I THINK WE COULD PROBABLY
BRING YOU A PRETTY CLEAR
PICTURE OF ALL THE COMPONENT
PARTS OF THIS PARTICULAR GRANT
AND WHAT WE DID LAST YEAR AND
HOW IT FLOWED, WHICH MIGHT BE
CLEARER FOR YOU.
I CAN'T, WITH MY HANDS AND
MY VOICE, DRAW THE PICTURE
THAT WOULD GIVE YOU SOME
CLARITY, I THINK.
IF, INDEED, YOU WANT TO
BRING IT BACK LATER
THIS AFTERNOON FOR MORE
CLARITY, WE COULD DO THAT.
>> OKAY.
>> WHY DON'T WE DO THAT PIECE?
I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
I'M TRYING TO REMIND MYSELF
AS WE'RE TALKING THROUGH THIS,
BECAUSE THIS IS REALLY
PATTERNED AFTER LAST YEAR'S
SUCCESS ON THIS.
AND THAT'S WHERE WE PITCHED,
THROUGH OUR BUDGET PROCESS,
THE RE-ALLOCATION OF THIS
AGAIN FOR ANOTHER YEAR.
IS THAT POSSIBLE, THEN,
AROUND THAT TIME?
>> I THINK WE CAN BRING YOU
SOMETHING DRAWN UP.
>> THROW SOMETHING UP--
NOT THROW IT UP, BUT--
PUT IT UP.
>> I KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN.
WE'LL BRING SOME POWERPOINT
SLIDES.
>> DAN.
>> A QUICK FOLLOW-UP.
I THINK-- TRYING TO FIGURE OUT
WHAT I WAS ASKING.
SO I THINK WHAT I'M ASKING IS
DO YOU HAVE THE SAME DEGREE OF
FLEXIBILITY AROUND PROPOSING
CRITERIA WITH STATE AND
FEDERAL GRANTS?
OR ARE THE FEDERAL GRANTS
MUCH MORE RESTRICTIVE?
LIKE YOU REALLY CAN'T ADD--
>> THE FEDERAL'S ALMOST
PERFUNCTORY, UNFORTUNATELY.
WE AND YOU GO THROUGH
THE MOTIONS ON THAT, BUT
IT'S STILL HELPFUL.
THERE'S PROBABLY A WAY FOR US--
I THINK WE DO MAKE THAT CLEAR,
AS RICHARD POINTED OUT, BUT
MAYBE THE WAY WE CATEGORIZE
THIS, TOO-- CLEARER WHERE
THERE'S MORE DISCRETION
AND WHAT DISCRETION WE USE,
WHICH I THINK IS UNDER THAT
ONE CATEGORY THAT YOU CITED.
I'M FORGETTING THE TITLE.
BUT THE FEDS, YEAH.
EVEN THIS ONE, I THINK,
SOME FOLKS MIGHT WANT TO
STRICTLY NOT GIVE THE BOARD
A LITTLE MORE LICENSE,
AS WE'VE USED IN THE PAST,
FROM SOME STATE LAW.
A GOOD EXAMPLE WAS LAST YEAR,
WHEN I THINK WE HELPED FOLKS
UNDERSTAND THAT IT WAS
IN THE INTEREST AND WAS
THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW TO
MAKE SURE WE'RE STARTING TO
GET A BACKBONE IN PLACE,
RATHER THAN JUST GIVE
$0.13 TO EACH KID, OR
WHATEVER IT WOULD HAVE
TURNED OUT TO BE.
>> SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE
I'M UNDERSTANDING.
SO THIS TECHNOLOGY READINESS
INFRASTRUCTURE GRANT IS
ACTUALLY A WHOLE SERIES OR
SYSTEM OF GRANTS, AND THERE IS
A DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM THAT
MDE HAS FOR THESE THAT IS
BEHIND THE CRITERIA THAT
WE'RE GOING TO BE ADOPTING
HERE?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> WE CAN SHOW YOU THAT
SCHEMATICALLY THIS AFTERNOON.
>> OKAY, SOUNDS GOOD.
>> OKAY?
LUNCH IS READY.
KIND OF ON TIME, ACTUALLY.
DOES THAT SOUND GOOD-- 1:00?
COME BACK AT 1:00,
RIGHT ON TIME.
[ INDISTINCT CHATTER ]