1

Meeting Notes Move On When Ready Superintendents Policy Meeting September 16 and 23, 2013 09/16/2013 Attendees:

Dr. Amanda Burke, Director, Education Strategy and Innovation, Center for the Future of Arizona

Breanne Bushu, Project Development and Operations Coordinator, Center for the Future of Arizona

Laura Campbell, Ready Now Yuma Director, Yuma Union High School District (joined by phone)

Dr. Howard Carlson, Superintendent, Wickenburg Unified School District (joined by phone)

Katy Cavanagh, Engagement Manager, National Center on Education and the Economy

Jason Dougal, Chief Operating Officer, National Center on Education and the Economy (joined by phone)

Aiden Fleming, Legislative Liaison, Arizona Department of Education

Erika Fosgreen, Cambridge Coordinator, Imagine Preparatory Academies (joined by phone)

Dr. Sybil Francis, Executive Director, Center for the Future of Arizona

Ryan Hackmann, Chief Operations Officer, Carpe Diem Collegiate High School (joined by phone)

Jamie Infantolino, Registrar, ASU Preparatory Academies (joined by phone)

Roger Jacks, Superintendent, Kingman Unified School District

Dr. Bryan McCleney, Superintendent, Toltec Elementary School District

Chris McComb, Principal, Imagine Preparatory Academies (joined by phone)

Megan McWenie, MOWR Learning Collaborative Coordinator, Center for the Future of Arizona (joined by phone)

Dr. Cyndi Miller, Associate Superintendent for Education, Dysart Unified School District

Monica Nelson, Associate Superintendent for School Operations, Amphitheater Public Schools

Julie Norwood, Program Specialist, Helios Education Foundation

Chief EduNeering Officer, Carpe Diem Schools (joined by phone)

Rodney Rich, Superintendent, Santa Cruz Unified School District (joined by phone)

Marcie Rodriguez, Executive Business Officer, ASU Preparatory Academies (joined by phone)

Dr. Kent P. Scribner, Superintendent, Phoenix Union High School District (joined by phone)

Barb VeNard, Assistant Superintendent, Gilbert Public Schools

Jeri Wolsey, Director of Curriculum, Kingman Unified School District

Vince Yanez, Executive Director, State Board for Education 09/23/2013 Attendees:

Dr. Amanda Burke, Director, Education Strategy and Innovation, Center for the Future of Arizona

Breanne Bushu, Project Development and Operations Coordinator, Center for the Future of Arizona

Katy Cavanagh, Engagement Manager, National Center on Education and the Economy

Cindy Daly, Program Coordinator, pvONLINE, Paradise Valley Unified School District

Sonia Gonzales, Admissions Director, Brightmont Academies

Dr. Bryan McCleney, Superintendent, Toltec Elementary School District

Julie Norwood, Program Specialist, Helios Education Foundation

2

Rodney Rich, Superintendent, Santa Cruz Unified School District

Stephen Schadler, Director of Curriculum & Instruction, Santa Cruz Unified School District

Michael Silver, Research Fellow, Center for the Future of Arizona and the National Center on Education and the Economy

Summary Notes (keyed to agenda): Welcome and introductions Dr. Amanda Burke, Center for the Future of Arizona (CFA), welcomed everyone for joining the meeting and facilitated introductions. Dr. Burke prefaced the meeting by first explaining that Superintendent John Huppenthal has approved a MOWR leadership Hoop Group and that the conversations from this meeting will lay the groundwork for future meetings and the Hoop Group moving forward. Dr. Sybil Francis, CFA, presented opening remarks and thanked everyone for being in attendance. She requested the group think about how to remove barriers, rather than work around them, should any come up in discussion. Brief snapshot - MOWR today Dr. Burke presented a snapshot of MOWR today, including information on returning and new schools. A statewide webinar for new schools will take place in September 2013, and Dr. Burke asked partners to consider colleagues, especially in rural areas, who are poised to consider implementing MOWR in the 2014-2015 school year. Dr. Burke shared an overview of current student impact data based on end-of-course exam results. Dr. Francis clarified that while CFA is working with schools this year to establish systems which focus pr mar ly he “ ear ” ude —those who just missed qualification—these systems should benefit all students and are the first step in larger systems change. Brief review of MOWR State Policy Dr. Burke explained the materials provided to meeting participants. She shared a background of actions taken by the Arizona State Legislature and the State Board of Education which laid the groundwork for MOWR as it is implemented today. She followed by presenting an overview of the funding models for schools which are available under different student pathways. Major Policy Priorities – Update and Discussion (2013-2014 academic year)

A. Arizona federal and state accountability

1. New state assessment update

3

Vince Yanez, State Board of Education, presented an update on the state assessment transition. Arizona continues to be a member of PARCC to develop a common assessment. At the same time, SBE has taken the procurement steps needed in Arizona to contract for assessments. In the coming weeks, SBE will issue an RFI to get an idea about options for assessments, such as type, costs, etc. In the spring of this school year, SBE will issue the RFP to contract for assessments. However, we should remember that the final assessment cannot be chosen until after the budget is finalized and it is known how much has been appropriated for assessment.

Dr. Francis asked if organizations must submit RFI in order to respond to the RFP. Mr. Yanez said no, RFI submission is not a requirement for RFP submission. He went on to note that in other states with similar processes, these states have received a number of responses to the RFIs and RFPs.

Dr. Burke asked if the RFP will include an integrated math end-of-course assessment. Mr. Yanez said there are currently far too many schools in the state offering integrated courses, so the RFP will need to require assessment providers to include integrated end-of-course assessments. Dr. Burke added that this information will be useful to schools, especially using Cambridge IGCSE, who are offering math as an integrated course.

Dr. Francis asked if math and English be the only courses assessed. Mr. Yanez replied yes, math and English will be the only subjects assessed.

Dr. Burke said that a number of MOWR partner schools have been asked to pilot PARCC assessments, and these schools have seemed concerned that the exams may interfere with AIMS preparation and testing. Dr. Cyndi Miller, Dysart Unified School District, added field testing is problematic to Dysart for a number of reasons, including costs for administration, getting parent support for multiple exams, and time constraints.

Dr. Francis wanted to know about the politics of field testing PARCC while the RFP for assessments is in progress. Mr. Yanez explained that while the State Board of Education (SBE) is focusing on work to contract for assessments, the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) is focusing efforts on the development of PARCC, as a Governing Board member of the consortium. Mr. Yanez said that a number of superintendents across Arizona are getting together to present a formal response to Superintendent Huppenthal regarding field testing. Mr. Yanez says he knows time is a huge barrier, since the time frame for field testing is the week before AIMS. He explained that the window was created by the PARCC consortium and not the state or ADE. Mr. Yanez added that moving the date might be difficult, but since Arizona is one of the largest field testing states and on the governing board for PARCC a request may carry more weight. He also noted that these concerns are being felt nationwide, as PARCC, Smarter Balance, and a number of vendors will all be field testing around the same time.

Howard Carlson, Wickenburg Unified School District, said that field testing timing is difficult. He understands that a number of timing issues are caused by different school calendars, especially early starts in the West.

Rick Ogston, Carpe Diem Schools, would like to see field testing after AIMS so that students are ally prepared f r he a e me “ ha u .”

4

Mr. Yanez added that we want to make sure Arizona is represented in field testing, but we are unsure of what that will look like.

Dr. M ller a d he aw he h rd draf f he uper e de ’ le er h m r a d w it will be going out soon. She believes other states have been able to negotiate alternate testing windows. Aiden Fleming, Arizona Department of Education, said that once Superintendent Huppenthal has that letter, Arizona might have more weight to go forward and ask for a new pilot testing window.

Dr. Bryan McCleney, Toltec Elementary School District, noted that he was asked to field test two different PARCC tests, one of which is to be tested right before AIMS and the other right after, which would create weeks of straight testing for students. He hopes that PARCC can think of this from the mindset of teenagers and children. He would like to see how best to support the system by still supporting students.

Monica Nelson, Amphitheater Public Schools, said that having students sit for four different tests in a short window of time is not a good solution.

Barb VeNard, Gilbert Public Schools, has heard that if students have been selected for two field tests, they can opt out of one. Multiple group members spoke to say they have heard rumors that this is true or that this is not true. Mr. Fleming offered to look into the opt-out provisions for the group. Mr. Yanez said he has heard that students may opt out of testing on an individual basis, and that there is a larger school or system opt out option. He added that according to legal review, the state can mandate field testing, but he knows the state has not taken that action at this time.

Dr. McCleney said teachers were originally excited about field testing, but the teachers became concerned when they learned students would be field tested twice and at such an inopportune time.

Dr. Burke asked if the schools field testing will schools receive information on student performance. Mr. Yanez understands that schools will not receive individual student scores, but a narrative of school performance as a whole. A number of group members said they were ld hey w uld ’ re e ve a y f rma a all. Dr. Francis asked who, if anyone, will receive the data from Arizona students. Mr. Fleming offered to look into who will receive student data after field testing.

Ms. Nelson said parents and schools were excited about PARCC until rumors started that Arizona might not use PARCC because of financial or other reasons. Mr. Fleming said that is a reasonable concern and that she should know ADE is moving forward with piloting and planning for new assessments. Dr. Francis noted that presumably any assessments chosen, eve f PA CC w ll al Ar z a’ C mm C re S a dard .

2. MOWR and state assessments – seeking alignment with MOWR and federal and state accountability plans

Dr. Burke presented on strategy, update, and next steps for the two-pronged approach CFA is taking to align MOWR to federal and state accountability plans. CFA is working with ADE and SBE to pursue a federal waiver to allow Arizona to use Cambridge and ACT QualityCore assessments for federal accountability purposes. At the same time, CFA is working with ADE and SBE to align the state A-F accountability system to MOWR exams. As background,

5

currently in the Arizona federal accountability plan, all students must take AIMS and this information is used for A-F alignment. Mr. Yanez concurred wi h Dr. Bur e’ a e me f the status quo, adding that any tests will need to cover accountability issues at the federal and state levels.

Dr. Francis noted that Mississippi is currently asking for a federal waiver under for the same reason, so CFA is following their progress closely in order to guide work in Arizona. Katy Cavanagh, National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE), added that she recently spoke to leads in Mississippi and they will be sending materials for guidance to Arizona as soon as possible.

Dr. Burke explained the current status and next steps, which include exam equating and continued work with SBE. The technical work for exam equating is currently being led by NCEE in math and English language arts. Science is not being equated at this time because it is not included in accountability measures. Exam equating should be complete in early winter. Once CFA has the equating date, CFA will take the findings to Superintendent Huppenthal. Additionally, while this technical work is connecting AIMS to ACT QualityCore and Cambridge IGCSE, newly adopted Arizona assessments will also need to be equated.

Dr. Burke continued by adding that district superintendents have asked if there is a way to get recognized for work in MOWR at the state level. CFA is having conversations with ADE on ways to incentivize the work of MOWR schools. Dr. Burke asked the group to understand that as Arizona has conversations with federal accountability officials, CFA will also be working to link MOWR work to state accountability measures. Mr. Yanez explained that federal education officials want to see changes to the Arizona teacher and principal evaluation model to put greater weight on state assessment growth. At the same time, federal officials have asked that the graduation rate move from 15 to 20 percent in the A-F Accountability Model. These ongoing discussions around federal waivers are separate from the assessment waivers that CFA is working on and detailed by EdWeek in the previous week.

A. State policy and practices that support performance-based learning models

1. MOWR pathway to a standard diploma (per State Board MOWR rule)

Dr. Burke asked the group to reference state legislation and Board Rule. She reminded the group that Board Rule allows for a student who is working within an aligned instructional system through grade 12 and does not meet qualification scores for the Grand Canyon High School Diploma, may have a path to earn a standard diploma. Dr. Burke knows students are being moved along to accumulate credits in this system because of school concerns on moving students through. Schools should know there are alternatives and able to keep students in the aligned instructional system.

Dr. Francis wants to make sure schools are comfortable allowing students to take longer to reach qualification scores because of this.

Dr. Burke elaborated, explaining that students must have passed AIMS math and English (or an approved Board assessment) and earned 22 credits. The math equating work discussed

6

earlier will also be used in this piece. Additionally, the 22 credits are not prescribed in Board Rule, allowing schools more flexibility in what and how students achieve credits.

Dr. Burke explained that CFA is currently producing a set of science and social studies crosswalks, from Arizona state standards to ACT QualityCore and Cambridge.

Roger Jacks said Kingman breaks out Cambridge courses by traditional more course labels on transcripts so that they can more easily be read and used nationally. He sees a disconnect between Cambridge and MOWR – Cambridge does not seem to think you need to pass a certain course at a certain level to move onto the next level. (IGCSE to AS/A Levels)

Dr. Burke said she understands that Cambridge does not require a certain IGCSE score in order to move onto a AS/A Level course, but recommends C or higher for success.

Ms. Cavanagh said this also goes to true readiness. For a student to be ready to be successful in an AS/A level, there has been research to suggest a C or higher in IGCSE is a good metric. This research would also be helpful to families.

Dr. Burke suggested thinking about this as readiness for college and career instead of accumulating credits.

Ms. Nelson does not want kids to play the system to avoid courses they do not want to take. She wondered how a standard diploma offers as much as the Grand Canyon High School Diploma if students are just taking the same courses but not having to demonstrate performance.

Mr. Yanez said statute does not define what happens if students do not qualify in all areas. This work will still allow students to be exposed to all the same standards as all Arizona students.

Dr. Francis added that through MOWR, students should be exposed to the same standards as students across the state.

Ms. Cavanagh said that at Amphitheater High School, students who qualify are moved on the next course, were students who are close are moved on and will retest, and students who are father away from readiness are retaking the class the class. The biology teacher, in particular, recognized that students with two years of biology will be further ahead than if just moved on like usual and has supported this model.

Ms. Nelson said the district is still figuring out what happens next and how to configure students when there are more groupings, but for now this seems to work.

Mr. Jacks said there is danger in trying to figure out what to give course credit for if students retake classes.

7

Dr. Francis said that the group understands there will always be complexity in the system. At the extreme, something has got to give, and the group is all working on that.

Dr. Burke described the crosswalk status. ACT QualityCore and Cambridge had to show alignment to the Common Core before being approved as aligned instructional systems. For science and social studies, Breanne Bushu is leading this work.

Dr. Francis asked if the group foresees any coursework to be at a level of what is already required for the Grand Canyon High School Diploma. Dr. Burke said that Additional Math will be likely. She said that for other areas, CFA intends to find ways to include outstanding standards in current classes. CFA is also developing a memo which will lay out findings and recommendations. CFA would like to take this work to SBE in late fall or early winter for approval and work with school boards after to make this option available to students. Dr. Burke added that is has been recommended that CFA work with ASBA and CFA is happy to do so to build consistency where possible.

Dr. Francis asked if this work seems valuable and address MOWR district and charter network leader concerns. Mr. Jacks and others replied yes, they thought this work seemed valuable.

2. Grand Canyon HS Diploma

a. Brief review of requirements

Dr. Burke presented an overview of the Grand Canyon High School Diploma requirements. She explained the fine arts and history options in more detail.

b. Assessments

Dr. Burke reminded the group that students cannot bear the cost of assessments for the Grand Canyon High School Diploma. If there is school-student cost sharing for retake exams, schools must have funds available for students who cannot afford to pay. Mr. Yanez explained that this is an issue of equity. Ms. Cavanagh noted that similar policy is already implemented in schools in other areas, such as athletics.

Mr. Jacks asked if the state could pay. Mr. Yanez said that this is not a current option, but that funding could be available in the future. Jason Dougal said that NCEE hopes to approve funding assistance opportunities for schools this week.

Dr. Burke said she understands finance is an issue, so CFA is starting to talk to schools around when to assess kids and when and how to use resources.

Dr. Burke said there has been schools that have cost shared for retests, but schools still need to assure all students can retake the exams without a financial burden. Mr. Jacks shared Kingman is charging for retests and offering Saturday targeted tutoring for students who are retaking.

8

Ms. Cavanagh said the decision to retake exams should be based on student readiness, not kids whims. She does not want schools to register students who will not be successful at a given retake date.

c. MOWR student transcripts

Dr. Burke explained that CFA is providing guidance on student transcript language. CFA is engaging counselors and higher education in this process to build awareness along the continuum, and will follow up with districts after. Recommended practices should be finalized before spring. Specifically, CFA developed a draft supplemental document to include with transcripts to explain how to read the transcript with the inclusion of Cambridge IGCSE and ACT QualityCore and level of student readiness.

Mr. Jacks noted counselors have confirmed NCAA and ABOR approval of courses.

Dr. Burke reminded the group that the diploma is issued locally. She also described the differences between qualifying and issuing the diploma. Dr. Burke said notification to students is important, and, eventually, she would like to see students receive automatic notice of exam qualification and diploma qualification, instead of putting onus on students.

d. Qualification and issuing of Grand Canyon HS Diplomas

e. Intergovernmental agreements between MOWR districts/charter networks and AZ community colleges

Dr. Burke shared that an IGA is being developed in order to facilitate the financial relationships between MOWR districts and charter networks and Arizona Community colleges for students who choose the community college pathway. CFA has developed a near final draft and will be working with partner districts and charter networks to negotiate. CFA would like to have the IGA in place by February/March 2014. Further, CFA would like to know if MOWR districts and charter networks already have partners at community colleges with which CFA can initiate discussion.

f. ADE business rules and reporting requirements

Dr. Burke shared that ADE Business Rules have been put in place which will allow schools to code for Grand Canyon High School Diploma qualifying students and graduates. She thanked Mr. Fleming for his work and support.

Dr. Burke shared that ASU Preparatory Academies will run the pilot testing. The schools have a number of students who have qualified for the Grand Canyon High School Diploma and chose different pathways, so the pilot will allow for a robust run-through of the system on a very small number of students that ADE can more easily track through the system. After, information will be shared with schools through an ADE-developed manual and a train-the-trainer model.

9

Mr. Fleming said ADE believes the Business Rules will work, but ADE has not been able ee wha e ry pu l l e h l ’ SIS per pe ve. He ee h p l work and partnership with schools as being valuable to the process, and plans to personally sit down with the Rules to see if he finds them intuitive from a non-IT perspective.

Mr. Fleming added that, on school reporting, ADE is working to assure all school reporting requirements are taken care of through the Business Rules identified. Research and Development has been included to assure Grand Canyon High School Diploma graduates will not cause issues with financial systems in schools.

Dr. Burke noted that the Data Governance Committee could be way to bring additional data reporting needs to ADE. Mr. Fleming added that community colleges and universities are represented on the Data Governance Committee, so higher education will be able to make connections and see data needs too.

Marcie Rodriguez, ASU Preparatory Academies, said ASU Prep is excited to pilot this work. Jamie Infantolino will be leading this work as ASU Prep. Ms. Infantolino is a former ADE employee and is happy to lend her expertise to this work.

g. AIA athletic eligibility

Dr. Burke read the AIA policy language out loud and reiterated that AIA has been supportive of MOWR. CFA will continue to work with AIA as needed.

3. MOWR instructional systems - course acceptance by higher education

a. University admissions (ABOR Institutions)

Dr. Burke walked the group through the steps necessary in order to view the Cambridge courses that have been approved by ABOR.

Mr. Jacks shared that Kingman is working to award high school credit for Secondary 1 Math.

At this time, It was determined that the group would adjourn the meeting and hold a phone conference the following week to finish the discussion. Dr. Burke offered to follow up with the group by sending out materials from this meeting electronically, links to the ABOR course approval page, call-in information for the follow up meeting.

Notes that follow are from the September 23, 2013 Meeting

Dr. Burke welcomed the group back to continue the conversation from the first meeting.

MOWR instructional systems - course acceptance by higher education

10

University admission (ABOR institutions)

Dr. Burke said that we briefly introduced ABOR approval of Cambridge courses for admission. CFA will send out information on how to view these. CFA has received notice that ACT QualityCore courses have received approval. CFA is still working with ABOR around questions CFA has on Coordinated Science and other courses.

b. NCAA

CFA is happy to work with schools across the state to submit documents to NCAA for course approval, but first asked for feedback from the group to see if anyone has experience with NCAA or is working with NCAA on MOWR courses. Dr. Burke would like to understand if this is a policy issue to see if this is an issue or not.

Rod Rich would like to follow up with his principals to see what the current practice is on campuses.

Dr. Burke knows that NCAA recognizes the AICE Diploma for international students.

4. Pathways

a. BTEC

Dr. Burke reminded the group that BTECs are a career and technical education aligned instructional system. CFA has heard from K-12 that schools need to understand if the BTECs will be recognized in business and industry and higher education. When this occurs, CFA will be happy to bring the pathway to SBE for approval.

b. Advanced diploma options

Dr. Burke described the advanced diploma options, currently available through Advanced Placement (APID), Cambridge AS/A Levels (AICE), and International Baccalaureate (IB).

Steve Schetler clarified that these are coursework that will be available to students and recognized by higher education. Dr. Burke said that higher education has described acceptance though coursework. Mr. Shetler asked if colleges outside Arizona recognize Cambridge. Dr. Burke answered yes, and recommended he visit the Cambridge website to see specific college and university policies.

Dr. Burke reminded the group that under MOWR, schools should be offering at least one advanced diploma option.

c. STEM Diploma

Dr. Burke described the STEM Diploma, a diploma being developed in Arizona to prepare students for further study in higher education. CFA, in collaboration with

11

Science Foundation Arizona, is working with leaders in higher education and business and industry across the state to develop the diploma.

d. Rio Salado Community College Pathway

CFA is collaborating with Rio Salado Community College and Dysart Unified School District to develop a hybrid community college pathway. Students will be able to earn an AGEC or AA through this pathway.

CFA and Rio Salado are also interested in developing this as a pure online program that will be available to students across Arizona.

Mr. Rich asked if the IGA is related to this work.

Dr. Burke said the IGA would apply to the Rio Salado Pathway, and would also apply to all MOWR partner schools for students who choose a community college pathway.

Mr. Rich asked if online programs around the state could be utilized and if community colleges were considering including students via video conference. Dr. Burke said that CFA would be happy to work with other programs and colleges going forward, but the size of the program that Rio Salado offers made it an integral first partner.

Dr. Burke asked to be involved in future agreements, so that there is consistency across the state.

Statewide Practices that Support MOWR

A. Student-Teacher-Course Connection

Dr. Burke described the purpose of the Student-Teacher-Course Connection. CFA worked with ADE to assure that Cambridge IGCSE, Cambridge AS/A Level, and ACT QualityCore courses are all in the catalogue.

B. AP Waiver (application for Cambridge AS/A levels)

Dr. Burke said the last few years, Arizona has been able to get federal waivers to pay for the costs of AP exams for students in need. The waiver has now been expanded to include Cambridge AS/A Levels. CFA will follow up with partner schools so that they can be in communication with ADE regarding the waivers.

C. Increased awareness and understanding of MOWR by higher education

CFA is confident senior leadership at the Ariz a’ u ver e understands and is aware of MOWR. This knowledge is being shared with admissions officers and counselors, so that when transcripts and applications are submitted, the universities know how to use this information.

12

If schools have specific partners in higher education, CFA would like to learn about these people so that CFA can follow up with them while continuing to support your relationships.

Dr. Burke recently met with leaders at Barrett Honors College and intends to work with all honors colleges. Schools have expressed concern that students who move into a community college pathway will be able to attend and be admitted into the honors colleges.

Mr. Rich recommended CFA follow up with President Hart and the P-20 Council. Dr. Burke asked other partners to share with CFA the names of people and groups CFA should be meeting.

Additional Policy Priorities - Areas of potential interest for the MOWR Learning Collaborative

A. New funding models

1. Establishment of a funding task force for the purpose of redesigning funding models in support of performance-based learning

Dr. Burke asked if leaders would be interested in this work. CFA and NCEE are happy to facilitate, but see district and charter network leaders as key to redesigning budgets, staffing, resources, curriculum materials, etc.

As follow up, if any education leaders would like to engage in this work, they should communicate to Katy Cavanagh and Breanne Bushu.

B. Alignment of teacher evaluation instruments and MOWR

Dr. Burke said schools have expressed interest in aligning teacher evaluation instruments to MOWR. Perhaps schools could share out work they have taken on or work with partners to figure out next steps.

C. Highly qualified teacher status for Cambridge – e.g. coordinated science

Dr. Burke said schools have potential areas of need in research on highly qualified teacher status.

Mr. Rich said this is an issue, especially as a rural school. His schools are trying to figure out how to meet the needs of students in the upper grades. He would be interested in working with urban partners to have students video conference into classes across the state. Cindy Daly, Paradise Valley Unified School District, offered to connect with Mr. Rich to share information on pvONLINE and how they could partner.

Ms. Cavanagh suggested CFA follow up with Cambridge to see if they have any schools in Florida which have dealt with this issue.

Dr. Burke said while these issues may relate to highly qualified, there are probably other issues being surfaced for rural schools. She suggested staffing be a LC topic of discussion in the future. Ms. Cavanagh suggested bringing in higher education partners into this conversation to discuss staffing needs from education colleges.

13

D. 200-Day Calendars

Dr. McCleney shared that the current policy is that districts must offer the expanded calendar district-wide in order to get more funding. Also, districts currently get 5% more in funding for offering an extended calendar. According to his calculations, elementary schools might be able to make this work, but this seems inadequate for high schools.

Dr. Burke said CFA has this on its radar and is watching on a state level. CFA is interested in additional partners. Ms Cavanagh said perhaps this could be a topic on a LC call in order to bring in partners who are not on the phone at the moment.

Dr. Burke reiterated the fact that if schools find other barriers to implementing performance based system, they should follow up with CFA.

Federal and State Opportunities CFA is following

A. US DOE Proposed $300M redesign of high school

Dr. Burke said it recently came to the attention of CFA that the US DOE has proposed grants for redesigning high school. CFA understands that this grant is not available yet.

Dr. Burke asked for schools to follow up with CFA if there are other grants CFA should be following or could partner up with schools on.

Wrap-up and Identification of Next Steps

Dr. Burke for feedback on sharing this information with campuses when asked. CFA is comfortable with sharing out meeting notes with the whole collaborative, but understands if district and charter network leadership would like to speak to campus leadership. Mr. Rich said that he would like the meeting notes shared out to everyone.

Meeting was adjourned.