State Board of Education Meeting May 12, 2026

001All right, good morning. Good morning, good morning. Seeing that all the board members are now present, I hereby call the May 2026 meeting of the State Board of Education to order at 8.32 a.m. And I'd like to commence by saluting the flag. Member Escobedo, will you please lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. I would like to thank you very much. I'd like to welcome board members, staff, and members of the public who are attending this meeting in person and who are watching via the live stream. Our consent calendar, the proposed waiver consent items are W-1 through W-8. The proposed regular consent items are items five through nine. There is one public hearing on the agenda. It is the petition for the renewal of a charter school authorized by the California State Board of Education,

002and it is the Vista Springs Charter. We have some changes in the agenda. We will reopen item one, SPE priorities tomorrow to take action on the preliminary report of actions, draft March 2026 meeting minutes and to report on our liaison assignments. There will be no closed session today. Item two was revised on May 8th to reflect the addition of attachment 2.1, which includes additional data simulations and to correct references to California Collaborative for Education Excellence to California Collaborative for Educational Excellence. Public comment will be accepted either in person or by phone. Members of the public wishing to call in for public comment should view the live stream of the meeting to know what time public comment will occur for each item Public comment may be provided by dialing the phone number Entering a participant access

003code and then following each of the operators prompts Upon dialing in callers will be added to a caller queue The operator will notify callers when it is their turn to provide public comment We will also ask callers to please turn down the speaker volume on their computers if they are following the live webcast to avoid an echoing effect. Members of the public wishing to provide public comment in person should sign in using the binder at the table just outside the room. The binder is on the table with separate pages for each item number. This will help ensure that staff is able to track the in-person speakers for each particular item. Public comment will be limited to one minute for each speaker. Where speakers require interpretation, two minutes will be provided. Item 12 is the general

004public comment item during which members of the public may provide comment on matters that are not specifically listed on the board's agenda. I will now open item one and turn it over to the state superintendent to provide his report. He is zooming in from Contra Costa. There we are. Superintendent Tony Thurmond, take it away. Thank you, Dr. Darling-Hammond. Good morning, Madam President and board members. Today, I have the honor of joining you from the West County Mandarin School, a K-8 school in the West Contra Costa Unified School District. I know that you, Madam President and board members and others support the goals of promoting dual... uh immersion programs for the benefit of our students and the west county school is a school that has seen rapid student achievement as our students learn mandarin and so

005as they say here uh nihoma and uh good morning um it is a pleasure to be with the students and i want to say thank you to principal peterson the staff the students and the parents for the incredible work that they are doing. In just a few weeks, our state special schools will be graduating and schools will be having graduation ceremonies all across our state. I do want to acknowledge our three state special schools that have graduations coming up in the next few weeks. Our state special schools for deaf students in Riverside and Fremont and the California School for the Blind in Fremont. Go cheetahs, go eagles, and go cubs. I also want to give a big shout out to our students from the state special schools who recently held their own lobby day in

006support of our sponsored bill, SB 1381, a bill that if passed would require every single IEP meeting to inform families about the availability of the state special schools. We have openings and want families to know that there are programs available to them. The month of May, we celebrate API Heritage Month and Jewish Heritage Month. I wanted to acknowledge that on last week, we co-hosted an event at Angel Island, a tour with our state parks that highlighted the immigration experience for Asian American Pacific Islander families and for Jewish Americans. California has the highest Asian American Pacific Islander population of any state. and is estimated to have the second highest population of Jewish Americans. And it was an honor to have students and others tune in and watch the tour and learn about the contributions of those

007in the AAPI in Jewish communities. On yesterday, I also had the opportunity to meet with Jewish leaders from across the state to talk about ways to address issues like anti-Semitism and to continue to promote our work in promoting Holocaust education in the state. On last week, we also hosted a literacy summit where we centered the conversation around how the state can pursue more programs to build on the great work that's already happening in the state with the reading coaches programs, with screening for difficulties, and to build on that to see more funding go to programs like high-dose tutoring, as well as more family engagement programs. We talked about our plan. to center a five-year plan for making sure that students learn to read by third grade by providing them with those additional services and raising,

008through a public-private partnership, $1.5 billion to have more dyslexia screening, more phonics-based instruction for educators, more dyslexia screening and family engagement programs, as well as high-dose tutoring. Stay tuned for updates on how... anyone in California can support this effort, whether it be government, foundation, corporations, or individuals. We also, continuing the theme around literacy on last month, had the opportunity to host 10 student authors in the state of California. We learned that there are hundreds of students who've already written books in our K-12 schools. And on last month, we had the opportunity to host 10 of them. These are student authors whose published works, they had a chance to read a bit of them. And these students came from grades five through 12. We gave them a tour of the Capitol and partnered with organizations that

009will promote writing as its relationship to reading. We also want to acknowledge the 2026 Classified Employees of the Year, and we will be celebrating them officially on May the 20th. Thank you to all of our classified employees for all you do. Thank you to all our certificated employees for all you do. Thank you for our administrators. And it was an honor on last month to celebrate the Distinguished Schools Award with more than 500 schools recognized and nearly 1,500 educators. who attended. It was a powerful celebration and a great opportunity to see the accomplishments of school districts and educators who are doing the work to close learning gaps and to promote learning for our students. Finally, I want to mention our sponsored bill, AB 673, the bill that would provide more resources to help homeless teens

010who live in our state. There are 10,000 unaccompanied minors, homeless teens, 15, 16 years old, who live in our state. And AB 673 would provide them with the resources to have housing. uh training programs educational programs career training programs we hold the town hall and we want to thank assembly member corey jackson for hosting that town hall in his district last month and to all the individuals who came out in support of that bill the bill continues through the legislative process and we hope to see it make its way to the governor's desk and signed into law madam president i'd like to close with one note of I would say bittersweet human resources note. Our communications director Liz Sanders will be leaving the State Department of Education to return to the district where she was

011a student, where she became a staff person and has recently been hired to serve as the assistant superintendent at the west Contra Costa Unified School District and so we want to congratulate her and to anyone who's interested to join us tomorrow at noon at the California Department of Education in a LUNCHTIME CEREMONY TO THANK HER FOR HER INCREDIBLE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS. SHE HAS LED AND STEWARDED A GREAT COMMUNICATIONS TEAM AND INCREDIBLE COMMUNICATIONS, SOCIAL MEDIA PRODUCT TO CARRY OUT ALL OF THE INITIATIVES THAT WE HAVE BEEN SUPPORTING OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS. SHE WILL BE MISSED AND WE ARE GRATEFUL FOR HER CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. MADAM PRESIDENT, THIS CONCLUDES MY REPORT. I'M HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS FROM YOU OR MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. I will pick up there with

012May being the month that we learn more about our state's fiscal projections and how revenues will impact our school's budget for next year. Governor Newsom will be releasing the May budget revision very shortly, building on his budget proposed earlier this year. That budget, as you know, included a record-breaking level of per-pupil funding with key significant investments that build on the transformative initiatives that have been established during the pandemic. this administration. They include fully funding universal TK for the second full year of implementation and maintaining our commitment to small class sizes to improve the quality of education for our youngest learners. Continuing our investments in school meals, universal school meals, making every elementary school in the state able to offer after school and summer learning programs. I think we may be the only state in the

013nation providing that extensive expanded learning time. Expanding our community schools program to reach thousands of additional schools, as many as more than 60% of our schools total, and integrating the funding for that program into the ongoing formula so that community schools becomes a way of doing school in California. Increasing rates for special education by hundreds of millions of dollars. Investing in ongoing professional development and coaching to improve the teaching of reading and mathematics. allocating significant discretionary funding that allows schools the flexibility to address these and other local priorities, continuing to invest in our educator workforce through educator residencies, and then aligning education governance in the state for greater effectiveness and efficiency. So those continued commitments in the May revision will... help us understand how we can accelerate learning for all of our students in the

014year and years to come. This release, as you know, is the second phase of the budget process. It will then be negotiated with the legislature until a final budget is signed over the coming month or two. We're grateful for the work being done by the legislature and the governor to ensure our schools have the resources they need more than they've ever had before. And I think organized around the whole child agenda that we've been trying to support with all of our work over these years. We're also grateful for the work of our amazing teachers. Last week was Teacher Appreciation Week, where we take time to recognize the hard work and dedication and impact that teachers have on our students and families and communities. We all know, and many of you, in fact, are currently engaged

015in teaching or have been recently, that our teachers work long hours. They invest personal resources. They go beyond their job descriptions to support students' academic success. academically, emotionally, socially. We also know the work job can be rewarding, but it's also emotionally demanding and mentally demanding. and sometimes fiscally demanding as well. So California has made major investments to recognize the importance of teachers and to strengthen the profession, including resources for teacher preparation and workforce development. We do have our scholarships and grants in the Golden State Teacher Grant Program, and we now have student teaching stipends so that teachers can come into the profession with little or no debt, we hope, and can make their... profession more affordable the teacher residency programs do offer salaries or stipends for preparation incentives like the National Board certification program bring

016more experienced and accomplished educators into high-need schools with additional stipends to recognize their service we now have about a 400% increase in the number of national board certified teachers taking advantage of that. And then we have, of course, increased overall education funding. We hope that that is improving both salaries and working conditions for members of the profession. and building a stronger and more diverse teacher workforce. It is true in California now that about 50% of entering teachers are teachers of color, and in the programs I just mentioned, in most cases, 70% or more are teachers of color. So our teaching workforce is representing our student body to a greater and greater extent. So even though Teacher Appreciation Week was last week, I hope you'll join me in offering sincere recognition and appreciation to all of

017our educators, including those on the dais with me here this morning. And I'd like to just have a show of hands on the dais and in the room how many people have been teachers. All right. That is what a conversation ought to be like. And the leadership that we have in our teaching profession, as you all know, helps our kids learn and grow into our next generation of leaders. Speaking of which, over the next several weeks, we will start to see our wonderful seniors johnning their robes and caps for graduation ceremonies, including member GK. Vanessa, congratulations to you. And to the class of 2026, we've heard that you've made your big decision and are going to, drum roll, USC in the fall. They are so lucky to have you. We could not be happier for

018you. And you've been a terrific contributor to our conversations this year, and we wish you all the best in the years to come. We look forward to seeing how you reappear in the public sector in the years to come. While we're celebrating our current student board member, we are ready to accept our next student board member. It always happens at the same time. The appointment to the board was made last month, and Elizabeth Flores will begin with us on August 1st, 2026. She is from Chula Vista. She currently attends Otey Ranch High School, where she's been vice president of the Associated Student Body since 2025. She's founder and treasurer of the Little Explorers Community Service Club. She serves as secretary or has served as secretary for the Black Student Union from 2024 to 2025. She's

019also the student representative at the Sweetwater Union High School District School Board, a volunteer member of the Teen Advisory Group at Chula Vista Public Library, and a member of the Hermanita. leadership team at Maña de San Diego. I don't know how she finds time to do all that and excel in school, but she will also be adding to her list, joining us for her first official meeting in September. And we're all looking forward to meeting her. And now it is with mixed emotions that I take a few moments to express my profound appreciation to the State Board of Education Deputy Legal Counsel and Deputy Policy Director, Rigel Massaro. I saw her come in. There she is. Who recently left the State Board to join the team at EdVoice. While we're happy for her and glad

020that she won't be too far away, she will be sorely missed by all of us. And if you'd like to come up to the podium, we have a few things to say and in a moment, a certificate to give you. Prior to her work at the State Board, Rigel was the Senior Legislative Counsel at Public Advocates. She was a staff attorney at Advocates for Children of New York and a middle school teacher at Littleton Elementary School District number 65. She was appointed by Governor Newsom and has been with us for well over five years. Her focus has always been on the students, practitioners, and interest holders and the policies that serve them best. From the beginning, Rigel jumped into her job and took on every task that was directed her way. She took a lead

021role at the very beginning of our community schools program. She worked on many issues in our quest to support literacy teaching, including work on the state's literacy roadmap and efforts to provide teachers with professional development in literacy instruction. She's been instrumental in our efforts to support and train teachers to ensure the workforce remains strong from teacher residency. to national board certification, to emerging work on teacher apprenticeships. She has devoted so much time, effort, and expertise to the improvement of teaching and learning in our state. And she has exemplified professionalism and integrity in all aspects of her work. So she has been a tremendous member of the state board team. Rigel, you will be sorely missed, and we wish you the best of luck in this new endeavor. We have a certificate for you that Brooks

022will now present. And if you'd like to say a word or two, you are welcome to do so. It needs to be read. Okay. Just thank you so much to my colleagues and the board members and our interest holders, the CDE, my CDE colleagues. This has been such a privilege to work alongside. every individual with such an unwavering commitment to excellence. And so thank you for supporting me in my professional journey and in my quest to better educational outcomes and opportunities for our kids. And I'll just keep doing it from a different chair. So thank you so very much. Thank you to you, Linda, particularly. Thank you, Roger. We know Rigel will continue to work for these, all of our causes in her new role. At this point, I'm going to open up item two.

023Item two is California's differentiated assistance and statewide system of support item. This is information only. And we are going to sort of set up the... process that we'll be undertaking both today and then in July when we actually will vote on the new criteria for differentiated assistance. So this is going to help us get our heads wrapped around, you know, where we've been, where we're going, what we're learning along the way. We have sought to be principled and evidence-based in how we've approached updating those criteria for both differentiated assistance and differentiated technical assistance. our direct technical assistance, so as to be able to create a more coherent and effective approach aligned with other elements of our accountability system. Some of us were at getting down to facts presentation yesterday, and the issue of alignment and

024coherence. We have so many things going on, but bringing them together in a way that is manageable, doable, and productive is part of this effort. We've drawn on four layers of input. First, we've had a number of study sessions where we've heard both. from providers and recipients of DA as well as from the department and CCEE on the nature of the system and the kinds of problems encountered. Second, we've examined research and evidence from other states and from our own system, including AIR's November presentation on other states and WestEd's evaluation of California's DA system, which identified where the current approach can be strengthened to better serve LEAs and our students. Third, we have initial data simulations from CDE, which Cindy Kazanis and the team will present shortly. And we thank them for fitting that into

025their very busy schedule as they're updating all aspects of our accountability system. And it models how different design choices may affect the number and types of LEAs that are identified. Fourth, we've had interest holder feedback facilitated by AIR, which Joel Knudson will present on after these remarks. The consistent themes we have heard throughout the process include the fact that LEAs need more time in support to achieve measurable improvement with strong support for a three-year eligibility and support cycle that aligns with the LCAP process and allows for realistic planning, implementation, and improvement timelines. We've also heard that eligibility criteria should be more stable and focused to reduce year-to-year churn in the districts entering and exiting DA, what some have called the whack-a-mole effect, as well as the groups and priorities they are identified to work on

026so that they're able to work with support providers on a consistent set of efforts without repeated entry and exit from assistance or, you know, shifts of... direction that disrupt the improvement efforts. We've heard that eligibility criteria should attend both to the substantive areas of need as well as to the student groups who exhibit those needs, focusing attention on what needs to improve and for whom. and that criteria should ensure that small districts have an opportunity to be eligible for and receive support in DA. This fits into a larger arc of work that we're doing. What we're doing this year for July 15th is the first phase, getting the eligibility criteria right, ensuring that the criteria that we use to determine LEAs are focused on those with the highest need, are stable, and are meaningful. The

027next phase is equally or we could argue perhaps even more important, which is once we identify LEAs, how do we ensure that the supports are consistent, high quality, and actually lead to improved outcomes for students across groups? So that work is ahead of us. In prior study sessions, we've discussed a district-level review process, which could help truly diagnose root causes and support deeper approaches to meaningful and lasting change. We also need to consider how counties might develop a coherent set of Tier 1 supports that are well orchestrated across the state, allowing districts to benefit from deep expertise both within and beyond their county boundaries. in a coherent way and means for all districts to access these supports that improvement is indeed continuous and within grasp. These phases are deeply interconnected. So we're focusing first this

028meeting on our statutory responsibility to develop the eligibility criteria for DA and then subsequently we will take up these questions of how to be sure that once identified districts are getting the supports that they need. And so this brings us to the goals for today's discussion. And we're trying to really transition from sort of the broad exploration we've been doing to narrowing down on the right direction for our July action. And with that, we're going to welcome our first presenter, Joel Knudson from AIR, American Institutes for Research. There we go. Hi, Joel. Welcome. And please begin. Thank you and good morning. My name is Joel Knudson I am a principal researcher at the American Institute for research and I'm here on behalf of the West comprehensive center and a team of colleagues that include Erica

029champagne Linda Choi and Ben Kalina and As president Darlene Hammond said my purpose here is to share some of the preliminary results from a set of listening sessions That we held last month to gauge general reactions to some of the proposed change to the differentiated assistance eligibility criteria Between April 3rd and April 28th, we conducted six listening sessions designed to gather perspectives on those potential shifts to the eligibility criteria. Participants were invited through a process that was governed or led by the state board and although our sampling strategy was not intended to be representative of all Californians or even of all people who are involved in the statewide system of support, we deliberately sought a range of perspectives in an attempt to elevate important considerations about the design of differentiated assistance eligibility criteria. To that

030end, these six sessions included 60 participants. across organization types and roles, including statewide system of support providers, charter schools and LEA representatives, equity groups, school management educators, and education labor organizations. We concluded the sessions less than two weeks ago. So we're still very much in the preliminary stages of working through the data and developing our more thorough understanding of what we've learned from these sessions. However, we also recognize the timeline on which the State Board is operating. And so our goal this morning is to offer some preliminary findings without overstating what we've learned so far. A full report of our findings from these sessions will be available next month in preparation for the July board meeting. The design of the sessions focused on eight proposed changes to the eligibility criteria. And we had a series

031of questions that we posed to listening session participants working through each of these items. And you can see them here on the screen. The first was the number of years of eligibility, a proposed change from moving to a single year of data to determine eligibility to a three-year period to help address some of the volatility that's been experienced in the current approach. A second change was separating state indicators as reflected on the school dashboard from LCFF priority areas. A third was moving from having growth incorporated as an informational item on the dashboard to being incorporated into eligibility decisions. We also considered the possibility of adding an all students subgroup of incorporating science achievement into eligibility considerations. The process of incorporating CALPADS data submission into eligibility for DA. the relationship between differentiated assistance and direct technical

032assistance or DTA, and special considerations for DAS and County Office of Education Schools. The list that I just shared shows the order of those topics as we brought them up in the listening sessions. In a moment, I'm going to dive into each of those topics individually in a slightly different order, focusing instead on those items first and around which there was the highest level of consistency in people's responses to the proposed changes. But before I do that, I want to highlight a few consistent themes that we heard across the different observations. First of all, it will probably be no surprise that the feedback we received echoed many of the observations that have already emerged in some of the research about the DA process in California and in study sessions that have already been facilitated by

033the State Board. A discussion about individual proposed changes reflected the importance of a system that responds to the contexts in which LEAs operate and shifts to a more assets-oriented approach than one that is often experienced and perceived as being punitive and focused on deficits. Although our questions focused on the eligibility criteria, and I know that's the focus of this item during the board meeting today, we also want to call out that participants routinely emphasize the importance of high quality supports as essential components of a system of support. That eligibility criteria alone will not ensure that districts receive and LEAs receive the supports they need to be successful. Pretty commonly in these conversations we heard reactions from participants who expressed a desire to discuss their reactions with colleagues within their organizations. And although that opportunity didn't

034happen in the sessions themselves, when we were asked we did provide questions so people could continue those conversations within their own organizations. I'll also flag that participants often ask to see the runs of data and the implications for any of the changes that we put on the table. And although our focus was to focus on the conceptual agreement or disagreement with different proposed changes, participants emphasized to us that their opinions may shift depending on the number of LEAs identified and the range of LEA, the characteristics of those LEAs, depending on how those characteristics played out. So what I'll turn to now is each of those focal areas and what we've learned, again, at a very high level based on our preliminary analysis. And what I'll do is I'll share an opening statement that generally characterizes

035what we learned across each of these topical areas, and in some cases, some of the considerations that have emerged from those conversations around those areas. The first that I'll highlight is the incorporation of CALPADS and local indicators into eligibility criteria. We heard strong support for removing CALPADS and local indicators from the DAA eligibility criteria. Participants did recognize the need for accountability for accurate and timely data submissions. They just believed that there were other mechanisms that might be more appropriate for doing so. We also addressed the number of years of eligibility and asked for reactions about our proposed shift to using three years of data rather than a single year of data to determine eligibility. There was general support for moving towards three years of data for DA eligibility and support to align that timeline with

036the LCAP three-year cycle. Some of the considerations that came up in the conversation were concerns that participants noted about potential delays in support on a three-year cycle, where if a district or an LEA is truly struggling, waiting for three years to be identified could allow important opportunities for support to fall through the cracks. We also heard requests for flexibility in the system for districts to be able to move out of support status if data demonstrate improvement before an entire three-year cycle has been completed. And in this topical area, as well as others, we heard calls to recognize the particular implications for small districts and alternative districts and the ways in which their improvement shows up in the data and flexibility within the system to be able to attend to those details. With respect to an

037all students subgroup there was general support for an all students subgroup particularly for smaller LEAs that do not meet subgroup size requirements and therefore might have subgroups of students who are struggling but because of those subgroups might not be elevated for consideration for support. We heard people suggest that allowing any student group or all student groups to trigger eligibility across years. Participants also noted how I'm sorry. And all students group subgroup may help when subgroup performance fluctuates from year to year but can mask on a mask uneven progress across groups. And we also had concerns about expanding to an additional criteria with the incorporation of a subgroup to increase the number of LEAs that are identified for differentiated assistance. We also explored the possibility of separating state indicators as reflected in the school dashboard from

038LCFF priority areas. Although there was some general support for decoupling the LCFF priority areas from differentiated assistance accountability, some participants noted the need to continue to focus on multiple measures. One argument in support for separating LCFI priority areas from DA eligibility was often the opportunity to simplify the system and to highlight a focus on academic outcomes. However, we also heard cautions that prioritizing outcomes that are academic in nature over others could narrow the focus too much, undermine a holistic systems approach, and potentially overlook critical factors like school climate and course access, particularly for small and more vulnerable student groups. We explored the opportunity of growth as an indicator for DA eligibility beyond the informational purposes in which it currently exists in the dashboard. Participants frequently noted the limitation of the current use of status and

039change measures, particularly in cases where cohort effects can shift results in terms of criteria without reflecting true growth or declines in achievement. And although there was a recognition that growth measures can better capture LEA contributions to student learning over time and can recognize improvement even if performance is low, there were concerns about how to include it in DEA eligibility criteria, particularly the limited data available in certain grade levels, especially at the high school level. We did hear consistent recommendations to use growth alongside status and not instead of it. One open question that we don't have answers for yet, but might merit some further consideration, are the relationship of growth measures to change measures, and whether those both capture something unique that is important in the system, or whether one might be better as a replacement

040for another. And finally, we heard recommendations of considering prior growth as an exit criterion, or a lack of growth as a trigger for eligibility. We explored the consideration of science as an indicator in addition to ELA and math. We heard general acknowledgement about the importance of science, but mixed opinions on whether and how to include it in the differentiated assistance accountability criteria. We heard a general view that science is perceived as secondary to ELA and math in the current system. So folks raised concerns or questions if science were to be incorporated about the relative importance that should be given in comparison to ELA and math. We heard concerns that adding too many priorities to the system could dilute the focus of the system. And we also heard concerns or cautions that if science is elevated

041to be incorporated as a criterion for eligibility for DA, that the support system needs to be in place to be able to provide support to LEAs that are identified for any perceived shortcomings in science performance. With respect to DAS and County Office of Education schools, in multiple listening sessions we heard the important considerations about the student populations that these schools serve by design. And among those factors, the way in which high levels of student mobility, for example, can affect the eligibility criteria and show up in the data used for those criteria. So in response to that reality, we heard general support for modifying eligibility criteria for DAS and County Office of Education schools. And finally, some of the sessions explored the relationship between differentiated assistance and direct technical assistance or DTA. Participants offered many suggestions

042for ensuring better alignment and quality of support for both DA and DTA. I think central to this was a desire to better understand and measure the quality of DTA. as several participants noted variability in supports and called for a more systematic evaluation of what is working and recommended building a support system from there. Some considerations in that approach might be developing a more consistent set of expectations and support structures statewide, as well as building a support system modeled on current areas of success. One other consideration we'll flag comes from the charter community which recognized and called out that not only does DTA flag the need for additional support to address persistent issues that might be present in LEAs or schools, but for charter schools that can also bring with it the threat of revocation of

043a charter and so taking that consideration into account in designing the accountability structures and eligibility criteria for that set of schools is important to put on the table. As I said, these are just preliminary findings from what we've learned. As we dive more deeply into the data, we're excited to learn more and to be able to share more nuanced and detailed information from these sessions. In the meantime, I'm happy to move on to the next presenter and welcome any reactions or questions. Are there any clarifying questions at this point? We'll have a further discussion in a bit. No? Okay, we're going to move on. Thank you very much. We appreciate that. And we will move along now to some presentation about context and data simulations. And I think that will be presented by Erica Torres

044and Cindy Cousadas from the Department of Education. Hi, Erica. Thank you. Welcome. members of the State Board of Education, Chief Deputy Superintendent Dr. Roberson. My name is Erica Torres and I serve as Deputy Superintendent here at the California Department of Education and it's truly a pleasure to be with you today. So in our presentation we're going to provide you with a brief overview of differentiated assistance including the background and context similar to what we reviewed during our November 2025. and also our March 2026 board study sessions. We're going to also review the different levels of support within the California statewide system of support framework. And in addition, my amazing colleague, Cindy Kazanis, will walk us through the State Board of Education through several data simulations that are related to differentiated assistance criteria and eligibility. So

045just to give you a little bit of background and context. And again, this is what we have been reviewing during our board study sessions. As you recall, Assembly Bill 121 requires our State Board of Education to update the differentiated assistance performance criteria no later than July 15, 2026. And this statute really tasked the State Board of Education to consider both the findings from the state-funded evaluation of differentiated assistance system and the needs to focus on resources and supports where demonstrated needs are. the greatest. And so what I'm going to do is I'm going to provide you with an overview of the current criteria which is displayed on this slide. And this is the criteria that we currently use to identify and determine eligibility for differentiated assistance for school districts and county offices of education. So

046as we know, under the local control and funding formula, eligibility is based on multiple measures. aligned to the state priorities and California's ESSA state plan. And so this criteria is really intended to identify LEAs that may need additional support in improving outcomes for student groups or strengthening performance in key priority areas. And so eligibility may be based on student group performance across multiple priority areas. performance on local indicators, or a combination of both. And in this slide you'll see two additional methods that are used to determine eligibility for differentiated assistance. So method four really applies when there are significant issues related to CALPADS submission, timelines, or data quality for districts and county offices of education. And right now we're also currently preparing for method five, which begins with the release of the 2026 dashboard. This

047method focuses on LEAs with schools that remain identified for comprehensive support and improvement, or CSI, for four consecutive years. So if schools do not exit the CSI status within that timeframe, the LEA would then become eligible for differentiated assistance. So currently eligibility is determined annually. However, once identified, support is provided for a minimum of two years to allow time for meaningful improvement efforts and sustained support. So for charter school eligibility, this is based on the same dashboard performance criteria that is used for districts and county offices of education. However, there is an important distinction. Charter schools must meet the criteria in two or more years rather than in a single year before becoming eligible for differentiated assistance. And charter school eligibility is still determined annually. And once identified, charter schools receive a one-year cycle of

048support. And so this slide provides a comprehensive overview of our California statewide system of support with all of the different levels. that are available to LEAs in terms of support. So as we know at the universal level, tools, resources, and professional learning resources are provided to all school districts, county offices of education, and SELPAs throughout the statewide network coordinated by the CCEE and CDE. At the targeted or supplemental support level, this support becomes differentiated based on needs. This includes differentiated assistance. It also includes CALPADS-related support and geographic lead support for LEAs that meet the specific criteria. These supports are designed to strengthen local capacity and provide more focused technical assistance. And then finally, as we know, the intensive level is intended for LEAs that are experiencing complex challenges that require deeper, more coordinated support among

049state and local partners. And so overall, as we know, the system is designed to provide a continuum of support that builds local capacity, promotes continuous improvement, and ultimately improves outcomes for all students. So now it is my pleasure to introduce my colleague, Cindy Cazanes. Thanks, Erica. Cindy Cazanes with the Analysis, Measurement, and Accountability Reporting Division. Welcome to Sacramento. You got a cool day yesterday. It was pretty warm. All right, well, we have been working with state board staff to walk through, I'm gonna walk you through this morning a series of data simulations. How we approached this or how the board has approached this is in a couple of phases. So the first phase looking at existing parity area combinations but thinking about it in terms of a multiple year reflection. The scenarios that were just

050completed and given to you late last week and to the public late last week looked at only red state dashboard indicators across three years and some of them you'll see will be two years. So I'm going to walk through them quickly but individually so that we have the full context for these scenarios and you can have a discussion about. about the scenarios or where you want to go from there. So in terms of the first couple of scenarios, first looking at your existing differentiated assistance criteria, but looking at it for the last three years. So we're using existing data that we've had. I'm not good at predicting what's going to happen in 2026, but just to give you a perspective for the three-year period. We also, for a couple of the scenarios you'll see, we

051added in an all-student group, and that was meant to try to get at the districts that we see and charter schools, of course, because they're considered their own LEA, that may not meet the threshold of 30 with the 14 different student groups or 15 if you're looking at homeless, foster, or long-term English learners to see if we can bring them into the fold of differentiated assistance criteria. For scenarios one and two, you can see that they're identical except they don't include all student groups. So let's walk through what the results are. So again, scenario one. same student group, any priority combination, we have the 93 districts and county offices eligible and with charter schools it's 47. In scenario two, we now add the all student group and that resulted in one additional district and county

052office and three additional charter schools, which leads us to believe that adding the all student group, the impact was actually somewhat minimal. For scenario three, again, same student group, same priority combination. It looks pretty much the same as scenario two, except we're looking at, excuse me, we're looking across three of the three years of data. In terms of the results, though, we can see that we only had 15 eligible districts and county offices and 16 charter schools. So this is the one scenario that resulted in more charter schools identified than districts or county offices of education. So again, same priority area combination across three of three years. And here are our results. We've walked through. Just to further hone in on scenario three, it's the most restrictive because it requires same student group, same priority

053area combination. So it significantly reduces LEAs eligible for support. For scenarios four through six, again, looking at the same differentiated assistance criteria but different combinations of year, and we do bring in the all student group. So for scenario four, it relaxes the constraints that scenario three had by allowing any student group to meet the same priority area combination over the three years. So we see an additional 31 districts, county offices, and 18 charters compared to scenario three. For scenario five, we now modify, again, scenario three by requiring just two out of three years, which results now an additional 154 districts and county offices and 79 charters eligible for support compared to that, again, that scenario three on the prior slide. And then for Scenario six, it limits scenario five by requiring just the last two

054years of dashboard results, which results in a reduction of 101 districts and 45 charter schools. So we're going to see some of this information on. this slide following. Again, scenarios one through six uses same student group and the same priority areas over the three years and limits the number of LEAs eligible for support. So just thinking about that full context. Moving into scenarios seven through 15. Again, this was an iteration after we had provided the previous scenarios to the board. board staff and the board accountability liaisons, they asked us to iterate. So this is our iteration, looking at red indicators in the last three years of dashboard results, again, looking at 23, 24, 25, and inclusion of the all-student group. So using again the red state indicators as our basis for scenario seven, let's take

055it through what we see. So the simulation results are based on at least two red state indicators in each of the last three dashboards. However, one of the two red indicators needed to be in English language arts or math. And so for this, we see 204 districts eligible slash county offices. And then for charter school eligibility, we see 56. Scenario 8 allows for the inclusion of the science indicator. So scenario 8 in comparison to scenario 7 resulted in 67 fewer districts, county offices, but an additional six charter schools meeting the eligibility criteria. Again, that criteria being at least two red state indicators in each of the last three dashboards. Hopefully this is making sense. It can be very confusing, I will admit. Let's move to scenario nine. Scenario 9 is looking at at least two

056red state indicators in each of the last three dashboard years. Again, one of the two red state indicators must be ELA or math. They must be the same student group, the same indicator, and includes the all student group. So again, down to a very restrictive number of districts and county offices eligible as well as charter school eligibility. So we see that, what I've just covered. And then in terms of scenarios 10 through 12, looking at at least two red straight indicators in the last three dashboard years, it does not require, it doesn't have that restriction of the academic indicator needing to be one of those reds on one of those indicators. So in terms of scenario 10, again, any student group. The same indicator includes the all-student group. The simulation results show you that we

057have 213 county offices eligible for support and districts and then 59 charter schools. So scenario 10, and if we look back at our scenario 7, resulted in eligibility for additional nine districts. county offices and three additional charters. So they are very, very close. For scenario 11, we are looking at the same student group, but we're looking at any indicator. That's the nuance. And what we see with this one is a reduction. So we're down to 177 districts and county offices and 93 charter schools eligible for differentiated assistance. In scenario 11, if we look back and compare it to scenario 8, it resulted in eligibility for an additional 40 districts. We use that as our baseline and 31 charters. And then finally on this slide. We see scenario 12, which is using the same student group,

058the same indicator, and includes all student groups in this calculations. And this is quite restrictive. So it is more restrictive than we look back on scenario 9, resulting in eligibility for an additional eight districts and one charter school for a total of 52 districts and 28 charter schools. So just That is this section that we've just covered. And then finally, the last couple of scenarios, 13 through 15, we're looking at at least three red state indicators in each of the last three dashboard years. This requires the difference between what we just saw. And this one is, again, three red indicators instead of two. So we're really amping up the criteria, which as you can see, we've now dropped under 50 for our threshold. Actually under 30 for our threshold for any of these. So again,

059just to close this out, for scenario 12, same student group, same indicator, includes all student group. And this, oops, excuse me. I'm on the wrong. Same student group, same indicator. We see again that less than 30, we're at 27 districts, county offices and eight charter schools eligible for differentiated assistance. So it is quite restrictive. For scenario 14, we see very comparable results to the prior numbers with the exception of we do drop out two because we are adding any indicator as opposed to using the same indicator. And then finally, our most restrictive scenario is the same student group, same indicators, which left us with three statewide LEAs eligible for support. And so with that, I am happy to take any clarifying questions, but that's the end of the presentation. Cindy, that was very helpful. There

060was one slide which had scenarios four through six where what you were saying and what was on the slide didn't quite match up. Okay. So if you have a chance, maybe later you could figure out which. Definitely double check that the information is the same. Absolutely. Imagine it got run a few different ways. I know you've been up to your eyeballs in data. Okay. I'd love to see that later when we come back to discussion, if you can help us with that. Any clarifying questions? Yeah, we have them in the written. Don't we have a written item? Yeah, so the scenarios one through six are in the item, and then scenarios seven through 13 were added as a late attachment. And I believe that the... item matched what your slides said for four through six.

061But I just wanted to be sure that I should be processing the right numbers. Yeah, we can all take a moment to study that, we will. Yes, remember Glover Woods, yes. Cindy, just a clarifying question on the scenarios that look at the red indicators. If science is considered in a particular scenario, does that mean that we're looking at three of three years of data, or would a red science indicator be in a scenario where we would look at two of three years of data? Because of data eligibility? I need to go back and double check. OK. OK, thank you. It's entirely up to you on how you want to, of course, apply this. What was available at the time, we'll double check that we had three years of data to run that information. OK, OK,

062thank you. Any other clarifying questions? Other than, what does it all mean? All right, we'll have a chance to discuss all of this, and we can marinate on it in the meantime. Thank you so much, Cindy. And we're going to move on now to think for just a moment about direct technical assistance and sort of what that is now and what the considerations may be for updating it. And Stephanie Gregson will present this from the CCEE. Good morning everyone. Dr. Stephanie Gregson, Deputy Executive Director at the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence. And one of my main responsibilities is to oversee the direct technical assistance for the state of California. So I'm going to add more numbers to you already that you have in your brain. But I would first like to start off with sharing

063a quote from Peter Senge, author of The Fifth Discipline, that I think is very appropriate for the moment in time that we're in. that today's problems come from yesterday's solutions. And so just something to think about as you go into this moment and opportunity of your decision around the eligibility criteria. So with that, you've seen the slide and appreciate Dr. Erika Torres walking us through it. So I'm going to focus on the red column. This is the most intensive support our districts can receive through our statewide system of support. There are four different pathways for direct technical assistance. First one is the system of support technical assistance under Education Code 52072A. That is the one that we are lifting up around eligibility criteria. The second one is a referral from the County Office of Education

064or a geographic lead referral. The third is when any district receives a state emergency loan, they are automatically referred for direct technical assistance. And then the fourth is the state superintendent of public instruction can also refer a district for direct technical assistance. But again, we are lifting up the pathway one under the statewide system of support. So the eligibility criteria for direct technical assistance for LEAs that have three or more student groups are three or more student groups not meeting two or more state priorities for three of four consecutive years. If you are an LEA with less than three student groups, then all of the student groups have met the criteria for three out of four consecutive years. These are our pathways for charter direct technical assistance. This is a different education code than our

065district direct technical assistance, so I do want to make that distinction. There is pathway one, which is a county superintendent recommendation for direct technical assistance. Pathway two is the county superintendent requests assistance. I want to elevate this pathway because this is, as Joel mentioned, this is the pathway where the renewal of the charter, the revocation of charter, is at risk with this pathway. The third pathway is a state superintendent referral, and then the fourth is a consultation by the county superintendent. All of the charter direct technical assistance pathways are at the discretion to accept the referral by CCE. So again, different process for charters for direct technical assistance than districts. Appreciate this visual from the Riverside County Office of Education who worked with our geographic leads to just show the responsibility across the state and

066our system of support partners and then also the eligibility criteria. So what you can note is the eligibility criteria across all of our level support really does layer upon itself. And it also layers upon different technical assistance support providers. So if you look at direct technical assistance, again, there's the eligibility criteria. CCE is the main responsibility for providing that. And then that's layered on top of geographically differentiated assistance and differentiated assistance. And to look at that in numbers. We have, I'll start with the direct technical assistance for charter schools. We have 135 charter schools that are eligible for direct technical assistance and 138 charter schools eligible for differentiated assistance. On the other side for districts, we have 560 districts that are in their eligibility year one and two for differentiated assistance, 78 districts for geographically

067differentiated assistance, and 53 districts for direct technical assistance. We have 34 districts that are eligible for all three layers of support. When we were looking at just direct technical assistance, we grew from seven districts to 54 in one year. That was in 24-25. And then with 25-26, we had 22 districts exit eligibility for direct technical assistance. And we are at 53 districts that we work with under direct technical assistance. This does include state receivership districts as well. Within our support for direct technical assistance we are we do have a spectrum of supports because our goal is to meet districts where they are at and also honor all of the support that's been provided through differentiated assistance. So we have about 24 districts that we work side by side in supporting the county office in their

068work in differentiated assistance with the district. We have 21 districts that we work side by side with the county office aligning our supports. And then we have eight districts that we are working with where CC is the lead and main support provider for these districts that are in high distress. And just to highlight some of the student groups that are most eligible with direct technical assistance is our students with disabilities, our students experiencing homelessness, our foster youth, and our African American students, all under the pupil achievement indicator. So the challenges that we face with direct technical assistance is really centered around that systems change work takes time. It takes a lot of time, especially to best understand the root of issues within the district and all of the different contexts. We have 53 districts in

069direct technical assistance with 53 different contexts. And that also leads into that there currently is a lack of an escalation process for districts in how they are receiving support. And also another challenge that we face, as you saw with the different layers of support, that the coordination of the many technical assistance providers in any single district. A prime example of that is one of the districts they work with that is an embedded partnership in direct technical assistance. We have seven different technical assistance providers. in that one district. All with different requirements, different responsibilities, different timelines, and different well, we're all competing for time with the district as well. So that strain on that one district is really felt. And so one of the roles that we take in doing that is coordinating all of the

070support providers with direct technical assistance so that we can have as much as possible one pathway of support for that district. Easier said than done. And then things for you to consider as you go into your conversation and decision around eligibility criteria and adding in the direct technical assistance eligibility criteria to the conversation is looking at the escalation of differentiated assistance element, looking at a separate criteria for the most distressed districts or direct technical assistance, and then maintain or revisit eligibility criteria for direct technical assistance. I personally would advocate not doing that when you have this possibility of aligning all of the eligibility criteria for the different supports for a district. And with that, I'll again leave you with the quote from Peter Senge. Today's problems come from yesterday's solutions. And I'm happy to answer

071any questions when you have them. Are there clarification questions for Stephanie? I have one, big one. Once a district is already in direct, in differentiated assistance, and it somehow qualifies for DTA, are there, I'm just trying to understand what's happening for that district? Like it sounds like they're just piling on new things for them. Is that an accurate? Understanding. Is there any continuation of the work they're doing on differentiated assistance and deepening of that work, or is it really a new set of vendors and expectations and providers? The last thing we want to do is add in anything to a district that is already probably waiting. I understand that, but it sounds like that does happen. So what we have is we have a consultation process. And the first step in that consultation process is

072to meet with the county office who's been providing differentiated assistance to learn from them what's working well, what are their challenges, where do they see the support needs to go deeper, and how do we align that? Then we have a consultation with the district. So we sit with the district and we ask them questions around their experience with differentiated assistance, where they feel they need the most support, where are their barriers and challenges, and how can we together go deeper with them and so that is the first phases of trying to align support within one district so we do have that consultation process the last thing that we want to do is provide help that's not helpful And so we really do lean in with our county office partners about how do we align, where

073do they need help to go deeper, and how we can provide any resources to do that. Or if we're seeing progress, great, we're your partners behind the scenes as that progress continues. So again, it's meeting the district where they're at. Yeah, and how does one exit from DTA? Right now, when they no longer meet the eligibility criteria. So they may exit from one or the other DA or DTA at different times. Any other clarifying questions? Yes, I'll say. Hi, Stephanie. You mentioned a district that had seven providers. Were you, I just wanted to clarify, giving that as a non-example or as an example? That is real. I know it's real, but were you using that example to explain the challenges that the DTA has, and do you feel like it's been a success, you've been

074able to successfully facilitate? Seven different providers in the district or that poses the greatest challenge because I feel like that's what we were trying to elicit right now because I know that happens and that gets very difficult from a district perspective to maintain coherence and deepen. The changes that need to get changed when you're trying to now manage multiple providers So I just wanted to hear a little bit more about that scenario. Yes, so that is a real challenge that we face with aligning supports also because the CC we are an advise and assist agency And so there is a gap there as far as being able to escalate any supports because we are an advise and assist agency. So we go in to build relationships with all of the other technical assistance support providers

075to figure out how can we work together to be as benefit as possible for the district. A topic that we have in front of us. And I want to allow, before we go to public comment, I want to allow our liaison, Vice President Glover Woods, to make a few comments before me. Thank you. And I'll echo what President Darlingham said. It's very complex. And I think that one of our responsibilities, of course, is to uncomplicate a very well-meaning system. We're looking at a lot of different areas, all of which are very important for many different student groups. All student groups are very, very important. And a system has been created that perhaps is not as helpful as was initially hoped for. So our conversation will definitely need to kind of focus and narrow on what

076is needed, what might not be needed. and where we go from there. So I'm excited about that conversation. I want to lift up as we get ready to go into public comment something we didn't talk a lot about in the presentations, but just something to bring up, which is consideration for eligibility criteria for our DAS and our county office of education operated schools. And while we're looking at eligibility criteria right now. I want to lift up perhaps as we get through July that it will be essential in our future conversations to really consider how we best align the identification and support for those type of schools that really allows for the support to thrive in the context for which The da schools and County operated schools operate they serve a very special population of students

077students who are incarcerated experiencing homelessness Other unstable circumstances and they are in these schools for a short period of time so What we I think what we will find is that the criteria that we Determine for more traditionally structured schools might not meet the need for Dawson County operated schools. So I just lift that up, that that's really a next part of our conversation for us to really look at once we talk about the criteria for the traditional, our more traditionally structured schools. Thank you. I'll just add to that that... One of the things we should be thinking about as we hear public comment and then go into our discussion is the fact that in the trailer bill, there's also a shift to a greater amount of resources to the county offices for basically tier

078one, building out a tier one structure for ongoing supports. We heard about this in early... conversations from our county office colleagues about the importance of having a continuous you know coherent platform of professional development and coaching supports for districts whether they're in da or not but those who then are in a da situation would be able to you know benefit from that and obviously would also help us with more prevention rather than waiting till people fall over the cliff so to speak so as we're thinking about all these these options, I just think it's important. I believe the amount that was proposed in the trailer bill was 500,000 per county office or something like this. Some substantial sum of support for what would be a base on which all of this could operate. I hope

079that we are thinking then about how to get a more continuous, coherent sort of system where we're looking at for both entry and exit and supports the same indicators, the same student groups over a period of time with a deep opportunity to really do the work with a good strong diagnostic and that we can fit DTA into that model rather than having it be a separate thing. And we'll figure out all the approaches to doing that as we get into further discussion. I think that we want to open up the phone line for public comment. We'll need the, there we go, we have the slide up. Members of the public wishing to provide comment on this item may do so by calling the telephone number using the access code provided on the slide that's shown

080now. Are there any speakers signed up to provide public comment in person? Yes, there are 12 people signed up for in-person public comment. Please remember to state your name and affiliation for the record when it's your turn to speak Will the following five people please line up at the microphone in the back of the room Andrea ball Carlos Machado Julie Crandall Steve McDougal and Dena Wilson. Good morning. Oh, that's on. Thank you. Okay, Andrea ball here on behalf of the California Association of suburban school districts Thank you You know, we convened about 40 people, district superintendents and board members just last week to talk about the issue before you. I was a little worried that the hour and a half we had allocated for this topic wasn't going to stretch and go long, but I

081have to say everybody was very engaged. You're going to hear shortly from colleagues about... a joint coalition of equity and management groups with some recommendations, we align with those. I just wanna highlight three additional points, really uplift what came out clear from the district leaders we met with. Adopt the three-year identification cycle, align to the three-year LCAP. Meaningful improvement doesn't happen in a year. align this various system, the system of support, direct technical assistance, differentiated assistance, and the LCAP because as President Darlingham mentioned, and I know you're all aware, we have many plans. Thank you, Speaker. Your time is up. Thank you. Good morning, President Darlingham and members of the board. Carlos Machado with California School Board Association. We appreciate the scenarios presented. However, to ensure the criteria equitably identify the LAs most in need,

082we respectfully request additional disaggregated data by student group indicator, LEA type and size. We ask for access to this data prior to the June CPAC meeting to ensure our feedback is grounded in evidence and representative of all student populations. Furthermore, we request clarity on how the proposed DA and DTA criteria would change both with and without the authority granted through the pending budget trailer bill. We are deeply concerned that the trailer bill proposes to eliminate the current emphasis on student group sub-group performance. It is vital that the focus on student groups remain codified in statute rather than shifted to a more generalized identification process. With the revision deadline approaching, the field needs clear guidance on two past. Thank you, Speaker, your time is up. Thank you very much. Good morning president and members of the

083board. My name is Julie Crandall. I'm the principal superintendent of home tech charter at a DAS school of supporting high needs students I want to begin by thanking the board for your support at the March meeting by carefully looking at the DAS eligibility process. We serve students with extraordinary needs. We're concerned that DAS schools are identified for DA at five times the rate of non-DAS charter schools. Most dashboard indicators are not valid metrics for most DAS schools. To properly identify DAS schools that are truly in need of DA support. DAS alternative indicators are an important first step. The one year graduation rate, CCI, and DAS ELA and math. Additionally, DAS or DA eligibility might incorporate measures that reflect student progress over time, including credit recovery, engagement, and successful transitions. DAS schools play a critical role

084in helping our most vulnerable students. Thank you, Speaker. Your time is up. President Linda Arne Hammond, members of the board, Steve McDougall with CFT, a union of over 120,000 educators and classified professionals. Regarding item two, a three-year timeline for differentiated support makes sense to CFT, but we believe that maintaining subgroups' performance is the only way to ensure that LEAs are closing achievement gap for all at Promise students. Please maintain this structure. All LEAs, be they districts, COEs, or charters, should be working off the same set of guidelines when it comes to instructional improvements. Please do not let any LEA off easy by unwittingly creating conditions where some students are left behind when it comes to instructional improvement. Differentiated assistance for many educators and impacted LEAs is this nebulous status that comes with funding that few,

085if any, actual practitioners ever get to benefit from and rarely, if ever, have input in how to utilize the assistance. Why are LEAs, by and large, allowed unilaterally at the district office level be the sole deciders of how to move out of differentiated assistance? These are the same people who are in charge of leading instruction. Thank you, Speaker. Your time is up. Thank you very much. Good morning all. Dena Wilson from Los Angeles County Office of Education. It's been a privilege working with each of our eligible LEAs over the past eight years. County offices are closest to LEAs in this work and seek continued and authentic involvement as you work to refine and improve the system, including early access to data runs. To ensure that LEAs that need the most support are identified, LACO supports

086the stable set of dashboard metrics focused on student groups in all state priority areas. The three-year identification process along with the three years of support align to the LCAP cycle. We also ask for further revision and review for further review of how the current four-year CSI criteria may assist in desire to identify more small LEAs and ask that compliance items such as local indicators and CALPADS be removed. We ask for a true evaluation of the current DTA process and role of the CCE as you redesign the DTA criteria and later the system of support itself. Thank you, Speaker. Your time is up. Will the following people please line up at the back of the room? Evan Bartelheim, Christina Salazar, Natalie Shin, Diana Vu, and Lindsay Tornatore. Please remember to state your name and affiliation for

087the record. Good morning members of the board. Evan Bartleheim, Los Angeles County Office of Education. I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes to differentiate assistance eligibility criteria. I respectfully request that prior to the June CPAC meeting, the amazing AMARD staff present additional modeling that incorporates the unduplicated count of LEAs potentially meeting CSI year four eligibility, similarly disaggregated as today. This level of detail is essential to ensure that the revised criteria don't become so restrictive that LEAs with genuine demonstrated need are no longer identified. My core concern is that in reducing the number of eligible LEAs, the thresholds could inadvertently exclude districts that still need support. I trust that the effectiveness of county offices of education in the state system of support will ensure that even a slightly elevated initial number will come

088down naturally as LEAs improve through the support period. The goal should be the right LEAs, not simply fewer LEAs. Thank you. Good morning, President and members. Cristina Salazar with the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools. We have specifics in our letter, but want to highlight a few. We support the three-year ID and support for D in alignment with the LCAPS. We also want to emphasize that we support the goal of identifying districts with the greatest need for support. If including in all students groups improves the system's ability to identify need and promote equitable outcomes, we support the inclusion, but would like to see additional data to make that informed decision. We encourage separation of DA criteria for COEs that reflects our unique role and responsibilities. We also support keeping the student level growth information only since

089current assessments limits, you know, make it unable to, for high stakes eligible to be decisions. Finally, any DA changes should be aligned with the DTA criteria so LEAs are not navigating conflicting expectations. Thank you. Good morning Natalie Shin here on behalf of Californians Together. We support the focus on looking at data over three years and centering student groups. We support exploring criteria that prioritize districts with significant and persistent achievement gaps. We also encourage prioritizing academic outcomes rather than system inputs when determining eligibility for support. Academic indicators, graduation rates, and student growth should be central to the process. For example, if a student group such as English Learners is identified as red on the LP for three consecutive years, that alone should warrant EA. We want to thank you for the data displays, but still need

090additional information before decisions are finalized and respectfully request further disaggregations by student group, indicator, LEA type and size to ensure the criteria equitably identify the LEA's most in need of support. We also request access to this data in advance of the June CPAC meeting to help inform meaningful discussion decision making. Thank you. Okay, good morning, Dr. Darlingham and board members. Diana Vu on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators. I actually appreciate the board's continued efforts to refine and strengthen differentiated systems and the broader statewide system of support. We are particularly encouraged by the emerging support for a multi-year eligibility cycle aligned with the LCAP, which would reduce year-to-year volatility in DA identification. Because when LEAs repeatedly enter and exit without sufficient time to implement improvement strategies, meaningful progress is difficult to sustain. On

091growth, access supports publishing student level growth data on the dashboard for informational purposes only. We do not support its inclusion in DA eligibility criteria or as a state indicator as it is currently limited to grades four through eight and would delay DA determinations by pushing the file availability from October to December. Growth data should remain a tool for improvement, not a trigger for accountability. Finally, before any decision is made, we respectfully request additional disaggregated data by student group indicator LEA type and size and ask that the... data be made available in advance of the June CPAC meeting. This will help inform meaningful discussion. Thank you. Good morning. Lindsay Tornatore on behalf of the California County Superintendents. As both DA providers and recipients, county offices bring a unique statewide perspective. As President Darling-Hammond mentioned, we are

092encouraged by the governor's budget proposal to make the system more proactive by building local capacity earlier and addressing challenges before gaps grow. With these potential changes in mind, we support the goal of reducing the number of LEAs eligible for DA so that the greatest support goes to the LEAs with the greatest need. In our letter, we offer six preliminary recommendations. and we will finalize our position ahead of the July action. However, our decision making depends on seeing additional data. While we appreciate the aggregate data, we respectfully request disaggregated data results by student group, indicator, LEA type and size. We also request access to these data in advance of the June CPAC meeting. Our priorities are clear, greater predictability and less volatility, a focus on student outcomes over compliance metrics, and simpler, more consistent eligibility determinations.

093Thank you. Will the following individuals please approach the microphone? Eric Premack and Kathleen Hermsmeyer. Madam President, members, Eric Premack with the Charter Schools Development Center. We urge the board to incorporate both ELA and math scores separately and use growth scores. We think that growth is the best metric to use. We're a little bit of an outlier there in terms of prioritizing where to put this assistance. Second, we would further urge differentiated indicators for DOS schools that are more appropriate. And finally, we would like for those of you who have the ears of the governor and the trailer bill folks to give LEA some choice in terms of the providers of the technical assistance. We're hearing wide variability in terms of the quality and level of support that they're getting from their counties and would like

094to see more choice in that. Thank you. Good morning, state board members. My name is Dr. Kathleen Hermsmeyer and I'm the superintendent for Springs Charter Schools Network. We urge the board to add measures to differentiate assistance that capture how schools are helping students make progress, not just students' point-in-time test scores. We urge posting both ELA math and achievement levels and learning rates through the California growth model. Using both would help identify schools who are not only low scoring, but who also have low learning rates. Our schools at Springs, we attract students who are struggling in their local schools, often who have disabilities. Across time, they make strong growth. And we were in differentiated assistance for one of our schools due to low cut point scores while the growth was so strong. And not to say

095that we didn't benefit from differentiated assistance. Thank you, Speaker. Your time is up. Thank you. That concludes. Sorry. Good morning. Sarah Lillis with Teach Plus California. I apologize for not signing in. We associate our comments with the Equity Coalition as well as the collaboration letter with the management groups and want to reiterate the importance of additional data before the July decision, particularly disaggregated data, so that you're not making a decision just about how many but why, for what indicators, for what priorities, for what students' groups do we really want to make sure that we're identifying LEAs for this year? differentiated assistance on behalf of our teach plus teacher leaders and the california educator diversity action network we also want to elevate as you're making this initial decision which is a critical one for the broader

096support system that you really think about the role of support for teachers and how the state is going to support leas in centering ensuring that all leas can recruit support train and retain the teachers that our students need in particular consider how school improvement happens and what state systems are necessary to foster that school improvement when you're making even this initial decision about what the criteria are. And we look forward to working with you on this. Thank you. Now that concludes public comment in the room. We will now move to public comment on the phone line. There are 24 callers in the queue. I will open the phone line now. Caller with the last four digits, 1066, you are now live. Please start your public comment. You have one minute. Good morning. I'm Tanya Saccone

097from California Language Teachers Association Advocacy. I'm delighted that multilingual, multicultural learners featured among the competencies. I'm sorry, I'm supposed to be on number four. Okay, thank you. Next caller with the last four digits, 1007. You are now live. Please start your public comment. You have one minute. Yes, this is Cynthia Soares. I'm the director of the Yuba County Career Prep Charter School, an application-based DOS charter school. Thank you, Vice President Glover-Woods. We fully support a modified metrics and a focus area for DOS schools as they have been disproportionately identified for DA because of our current dashboard indicators. They don't reflect our school's impact on students. DOS schools play a critical role in helping our most vulnerable youth get on track. school accountability should capture our successes. To properly identify DOS schools there truly need a

098differentiated assistant who truly need differentiated assistance. We need metrics that cap capture our students progress over time. DOS alternative indicators will be an important first step. A few items to consider are one year graduation cohort grad rate credit recovery and successful transitions. Thank you. Thank you. Next caller with the last four digits, 5467, you are now live. Please start your public comment. You have one minute. Good morning. My name is Brian Gillespie. I'm a director of schools for options for youth public charter schools. We serve DAS students, including many who are credit deficient, disengaged from traditional schools, or facing significant life challenges. Thank you for your work to improve California's accountability system. Dashboard-based accountability is too simplistic because it relies primarily on point-in-time metrics rather than measuring students' growth over time. As a result, many

099DAS schools are disproportionately identified for differentiated assistance, even when they are successfully helping students re-engage academically and get back on track toward graduation. We need accountability measures that emphasize growth data, credit recovery, engagement, persistence, and successful transition to graduation, college, and career pathways. to have schools play a critical role in supporting some of California's most vulnerable students. An accountability system should accurately reflect the progress our students make. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next caller with the last four digits, 4121. You are now live. Please start your public comment. Good morning. President Darlingham and members of the board. I'm Ryan Woodard, director for Talion Academy, a DOS school serving TK through 12th grade students. Our students often come to us habitually truant, credit deficient, and experiencing high levels of transency. Yet with individualized pathways

100and flexible support, they are making meaningful academic progress and personal progress. I want to emphasize that dashboard-based accountability is too simplistic. Point-in-time metrics do not capture the growth, the re-engagement, and credit recovery that schools like ours achieve every single day. The dashboard's one-size-fits-all approach leads often over to over-identification for differentiated assistance. even when schools are effectively serving high-need students and moving forward. I urge the board to adopt accountability measures that reflect a longitudinal impact, not just snapshots, but schools truly supporting at-promise youth are recognized for their work. Thank you. Thank you. Next caller with the last four digits, 6808. You are now live. Please start your public comment. Hi, I'm Anna Hurst, the school founder of Libertas College Prep, an early start charter middle school in South Los Angeles. 92% of our students qualify as

101low income, 30% are English learners. My key point is that ELA and math growth should be a separate, full indicator to identify schools for district assistance. A clear example, our students are entering much, much lower this year because they were out of school during COVID. So our overall scores are much lower. But 59% tested at level one at the beginning of the year. We dropped that to just 14%, which is absolutely incredible growth, but we're still potentially at risk for being identified as DA. And in Los Angeles, that could put us at risk for our renewal. Thank you. Next caller with the last four digits, 5284. You are now live. Please start your public comment. My name is Eric Carlstone and I am the middle school principal at Alliance Marine Complex in LA. I urge

102you to incorporate ELA and math growth into differentiated assistance and to place ELA and math growth on the dashboard as a full indicator. Our school was in differentiated assistance in 2024 for red and orange on ELA and math for EL and LTEL groups when in fact those groups had improvement for both ELA and math and on the LP. Students enter our middle school where 15% are ELs and 20% have an IEP and 90% are qualified for re... free or reduced price lunch. They enter in sixth grade with very low scores, roughly 30% proficient, but they exit in grade eight with much higher scores, roughly 60% proficient. Growth scores measure this strong student progress over time and should be the primary factor considered in the quality of the instructional program of a school as evidenced by

103CDE when we were one of only 68 secondary charter schools who were given the high performing designation. Growth metric gives the clearest picture of which schools actually need assistance and the only one that honors the hard work of teachers with students every single day instead of demographic shifts or socioeconomic status of families in the school. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next caller with the last four digits, 4835. You are now live. Please start your public comment. You have one minute. Thank you. My name is Bill Dobson, Director of Motivated Youth Academy, an application-based DOS charter school in San Diego County. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. To improve differentiated assistance eligibility, I urge the board to include measures that capture how DOS schools are helping students make meaningful progress. not simply scores

104from one test on one day. Specifically, I encourage inclusion of the line measures such as DAS alternative indicators, including the one-year graduation rate, and alternative metrics commonly used in DAS charter renewal processes such as local assessment growth, progress in credit recovery, social-emotional development, and successful student transitions. These measures would provide a more accurate and equitable picture of the progress being made by students in DOD schools like my academy that serve high-risk student groups identified by the state board, many of whom have historically and continue to be unsure. Thank you. Thank you. Next caller with the last four digits, 2726. You are now live. Please start your public comment. You have one minute. Good morning President Darling-Hammond and members of the board. My name is Elizabeth Brenner and I am the president of the Reaching at

105Promise Students Association or RAPSA. RAPSA supported the development of the DOS alternative indicators including the one-year graduation cohort to better measure the important achievements of opportunity youth who grow in and graduate from alternative schools. Traditional snapshot metrics do not honor these accomplishments. In addition to reinstating the DAS alternative indicators, we support adopting ELA and math growth as separate full indicators to more accurately measure schools' impact over time on students in grades four through eight and prevent them from being perpetually identified for differentiated assistance. I look forward to working with you to reinstate the DAS alternative indicators to allow the more accurate measurement of the impact that alternative district and charter schools have. on the lives of our young people. Thank you. Thank you. Next caller with the last four digits, 4369. You are now live.

106Please start your public comment. Hello, this is Sally Fox, Education Policy Analyst for CABE, the California Association for Bilingual Education. I'm calling in from San Diego County, where I've had a long and fulfilling career, beginning as a bilingual teacher who first attended a CABE conference in 1993. CABE is now in its 51st year working toward a vision of bi-literacy, multicultural competence, and educational equity for all. I'm excited to report that today in Riverside, a regional CABE conference is underway right now with 1,400 attendees from parents to parapros to teachers and administrators, showing the desire of so many Californians to continue to improve our schools to provide a world-class multilingual education for all. Kabe signed on to the LCFF Equity Coalition letter and urges for item two a continued focus on closing achievement gaps. Thank you

107to the State Board and Department of Education for your dedication to all students. Your work is deeply appreciated. Thank you. Next caller with the last four digits 0658. You are now live. Please start your public comment. Good morning. My name is Jaina Gaskell. I'm the executive director of the Pivot Charter Schools. And I'm pretty sure what you want is what I want, which is to know whether my kids are actually learning when they're at my school. We serve about 67% low-income students. 29% of our students come to us already having an active IEP. And we have a higher percentage of foster homeless students in our county, state, and our district. The differentiating piece from my colleagues that have spoke earlier about what's happening at our schools is our name of our schools are pivot. We're

108pivoting them back to a traditional classroom environment if they're ready for it, if they're caught up, if they actually can show growth. And obviously they can leave when they want to, but that's our whole focus. So about 50 to 60% of our students are new every single year. and we're predominantly in high school and as it was already mentioned earlier there's very limited data when you have predominantly high school students so it's you're not seeing apples to apples i want you to know that we're educating our kids i would love for you to support you calling going back to the thank you caller uh next caller with the last four digits five seven six zero you are now live please start your public comment Good morning. This is Dr. Heather Gomez representing Fresno County Superintendent

109of Schools. We appreciate the scenarios that have been presented. However, before any decisions are made, we are respectfully requesting additional disaggregated data by student group, indicator, LEA type, and size to ensure the criteria identifies the LEAs that are most in need of support. Fresno County serves a uniquely diverse range of LEAs, and we want to ensure that the proposed approach reflects those varied contexts and needs. We also request access to these data prior to the June CPAC meeting to support informed discussion and decision making. Despite the very needs across our county, Fresno County Superintendent of Schools remains committed and equipped to support all LEAs regardless of VA eligibility. We appreciate the continued partnership with the state as we work together to improve student outcomes. Thank you. Thank you. Next caller with the last four digits,

1108674. You are now live. Please start your public comment. You have one minute. Good morning, Rachel Murphy with Public Advocates and the LCFF Equity Coalition. We appreciate the board's continued discussion and efforts to seek input from issues holders on this item. We urge the focus to remain on closing opportunity and achievement gaps and maintaining standards for student performance, not just reducing the number of LEAs identified for DA. As mentioned in our Equity Coalition letter, LEAs who are exiting DA but are nonetheless still low performing should receive public attention and support to enable continuous improvement. Additionally, the state should identify and provide support to LEAs with emerging performance issues before they become eligible for DA. In alignment with our equity and education management colleagues, we appreciate the scenarios presented, but before any decision is made, we

111respectfully request additional disaggregated data by student group indicator LEA type and size to ensure the criteria equitably identify the LEAs most in need of support. We also request access to these data in advance of the June CPAC meeting to help inform meaningful discussion and decision making. Thank you. Thank you. Next caller with the last four digits, 4364, you are now live. Please start your public comment. Good morning. Lucy Salcedo-Carter with the Alameda County Office of Education. We support a three-year cycle for DA eligibility and support, but feel that additional data are needed to pick the best criteria. We want to be sure the districts with the most needs are served. Although the scenarios are helpful, they don't dig into the types of districts that would be identified, nor do they disaggregate data by student groups

112and indicator. That next level of data would strengthen the decision-making process. Finally, we want to second comments that Vice President Glover Wood made to encourage the board to develop indicators specific to court and community schools, so the alternative schools that actually need support are identified. Our highly mobile student populations require tailored indicators such as one-year graduation rates and positive transition rates. Thank you. Thank you. Next caller with the last four digits, 8356, you are now live. Please start your public comment. This is Robert Mannerman with Children Now. Children Now, in collaboration with the county superintendents, have led an equity and management group, and I'm echoing their comments on calling for disaggregated data runs, and we would suggest providing those with the LEAs' names removed. Second, we recommend adopting a student growth indicator as part of

113the criteria. closing achievement gaps is a critical step and a focus on growth is a focus on achievement gaps. There is a reason that growth is the highest weighted indicator in other states on average. And third, color ratings are highly unstable and driven by the change indicator. We see that those districts that have the largest declines in one year, the next year they improve and would end up with an orange rating. and be out of these criteria so we recommend looking at the average change over a three-year period instead of the volatile year-to-year colorings thank you thank you uh next caller with the last four digits zero one nine seven you are now live please start your public comment Hi, my name is Amanda Chadovich-Cluder. I'm the Region 4 Director for Case. I'm sitting here

114at the Cal MSCS Conference with 250 science teachers representing over 80% of our Golden State districts. I hope that you all will consider keeping science in the same conversation as you do other subjects like in refining the DA. This also includes agenda item three and four. We are here working hard in the field and hope and have greatly appreciated your backing to do so and look forward to your continued support as we know what science and its research gives back to our students and their systems. High quality science instruction increases student engagement, collaboration, problem solving, and real world relevance, which can positively impact attendance and overall achievement. Again, please consider keeping science in the forethought as you refine your system. Thank you. Thank you. Next caller with the last four digits, 8945. You are now

115live. Please start your public comment. Hi, this is Suzanne Cooey of the Charter Schools Development Center. We urge the board to use ELA and math growth as separate full indicators to accurately identify the schools that need assistance. Last year, of the DLEAs and differentiated assistance for ELA and math for the students with disabilities group, one-third of those LEAs actually had growth scores within the average range of growth or above for that group. So we've done a lot of subgroup analysis and see why that's happening. We also urge using the separate full indicators for growth for purposes of access and transparency so everyone can see all the elements of that data. Regarding complexity and comparability, yes, let's address that. Our analysis actually shows how appreciating complexity and comparability will help us get differentiated distance right. Regarding

116delay, we should shorten the timeline for producing the growth data. And also, we should be using multiple years of data anyway, not just the latest growth scores. So we could use two years of prior growth data initially if we can't get that growth data faster. Thank you, Collar. Your time is up. Next caller with the last four digits, 4270, you are now live. Please start your public comment. Madam Chair and members, LeAngela Reed on behalf of the Small School Districts Association. I'd like to echo the points made by my colleagues, particularly the request for more data run. We believe the data will illustrate not just the best path forward, but where there are places on the path to fix. Two examples, one district, two suspensions one day each in 2025. Their dashboard dropped three colors,

117blue to orange. Another district, 350 kids. Usually average is eight to nine suspensions a year, but in 24-25, 18 kids were suspended because nearly half of the seventh grade class was involved in bringing vape devices on campus. They went from green to red. The other areas were impacted because some of the students were EL, others had IEP. But their daily referral rates remained consistently low and stable. Dashboard doesn't show that, and that leads to DA. But real data in full context supports that reality. For DA we need to look beyond the numbers. A three year cycle is a great start. Thank you. But we can do more. We appreciate the hard work of the board but we're trying to help schools from 30,000 feet. Let's reform the criteria but not limit the conversation. DIRECTOR HARRIS

118Thank you caller. DIRECTOR MACK Thank you. DIRECTOR RANKIN Thank you. Next caller with the last four digits 0 5 9 2. You are now live. Please start your public comment. You have one minute. Hi, my name is Jennifer Rossi and I am a, I work in the school district supporting science education. I'm also the parent of two kids in the Bay Area. And I just wanted to share that I really think the accountability systems that the state puts in place really impacts student learning experiences. And with that in mind I think the students in California both in the district I work and my own children deserve a well-rounded education that pushes towards them towards a world that they will live in. That world is going to be very complex. They're going to need to understand

119how to solve real world problems and that's what science provides them. So I urge the board to support full inclusion of science and the accountability system. Thank you. Thank you. Next caller with the last four digits, 6219, I'm sorry, 6214. You are now live. Please start your public comment. Good morning members of the board. I'm Dr. Kristen Maida and I serve as an instructional specialist in Ventura County. I strongly urge the board and California Department of Education to consider the importance of science education when refining the differentiated assistance system. I've seen firsthand how high quality science instruction enhances student engagement and increases student achievement across all disciplines. Science provides a vehicle for students to practice ELA and math in real world context and gives them a purpose for learning. Education research has demonstrated time and

120again the critical role of purpose to drive intrinsic motivation. Science is not extra. It's a core part of preparing students for California's future workforce. Providing high-quality science instruction is a matter of equity. Students who receive more opportunities to engage in science learning are more likely to pursue STEM careers. According to the U.S. Department of Education, I'm sorry, according to the U.S. Department of Labor, jobs in STEM pay significantly higher wages than other fields. If we do not include science in California's differentiated assistance criteria, We will actually be contributing to greater inequities in our education system and an inadvertently increasing marginalization of historically underserved students. For the sake of equity and the future of our workforce, please include science in your consideration. Thank you. Next caller with the last four digits, 3732, you are now live.

121Please start your public comment. Caller with the last four digits, 3732, you are now live. Please start your public comment. Hearing none next caller with the last four digits 6075 you are now live. Please start your public comment. Good afternoon President Darling-Hammond and members of the state board. My name is Melissa Marcucci and I'm a science teacher in the Central Valley and president of the California Association of Science Educators . I've seen firsthand how our accountability system shapes what students experience in the classroom when subjects are included in accountability. They receive time, resources, professional learning, and attention. When they are not, students lose access, especially students in historically underserved communities. As the board considers refinements to DA, I urge you to include science as part of the holistic approach to school improvement. Too often districts

122identified for support are directed to focus narrowly on absenteeism or a single content area without addressing the broader conditions that drive student engagement and success. High quality science instruction is one of the strongest tools we have to increase engagement, critical thinking, collaboration, and meaningful learning. Classroom connect science classrooms, connect literacy, math, language development, and problem solving in authentic ways that help students see themselves in learning. California has already built a strong statewide infrastructure to support this work. But if science is absent from improvement systems, students are absent from opportunity. Thank you. Next caller with the last four digits, 4405, you are now live. Please start your public comment. Good morning on IOComedia on behalf of Los Angeles Unified. Just wanting to uplift and echo the comments made by the Joint Education and Equity Groups. In

123particular, we appreciate the scenarios that have been presented, but would really appreciate seeing the underlying data. We can't support a decision without understanding what the ramifications of that decision is. So seeing that data well in advance of June will help us really understand and be able to support the most effective decision. Additionally we are very supportive of the three year cycle. We do approach appreciate and support a more targeted approach for direct technical assistance. And we do believe that the DOS schools do need their own unique set of indicators to make sure that that unique student population is accurately identified for support when needed. Thank you. DIRECTOR HAMPSON Thank you. Next caller with the last four digits 2769 you are now live. Please start your public comment. Good morning, President Darlingham and members of the

124board. I'm Jacqueline Olson with the Center for Research on Expanding Educational Opportunity. I just want to thank you all for the work that you're doing. And I hope that in this next iteration of differentiated assistance that you'll prioritize the resources and supports necessary for identified schools to focus on improving educators. instruction and quality. By focusing on educator quality and retention of fully prepared educators, you can ensure that the state's efforts to stabilize the school, improve student outcomes, and enhance school culture are not undermined by staff turnover. So we know that when we improve services for all students, close opportunity gaps, and improve student outcomes, local leaders must also have robust tools to attract, train, grow, and retain. and sustain the teachers in their charge. Thank you for reimagining differentiated assistance with retention in mind, perhaps

125even with a multi-tiered support structure for educators, almost like a multi-tiered system of support for educators. Thank you so much for your consideration. Thank you. Next caller with the last four digits, 2979. You are now live. Please start your public comment. Hi, my name is Elizabeth O'Neill and I am the director of data analytics at EDI where I serve a number of DAS schools. I appreciate the time to make a comment today. I wanted to reiterate what some of my colleagues have said, which is that the DAS separate alternative metrics and DAS indicators are really critical for identification for DA and In particular, a critical piece of that is having growth indicators that are separate full indicators because growth measures really show the performance of these schools with these harder to reach students or students

126who struggled in traditional schools. Thank you. Thank you. Next caller with the last four digits, 1086. You are now live. Please start your public comment. You have one minute. Caller with the last four digits, 1066. You have one minute. Please start your public comment. No comment on this agenda item. Thank you. Thank you. Next caller with the last four digits, 3732. You are now live. Please start your public comment. Good morning, President Darling-Hammond and members of the board. My name is Natalie Wheatfall-Lum, and I'm representing Ed Trust West. We align our comments with the letters submitted by the LCFF Equity Coalition, Education Management and Equity Groups, and the California Educator Diversity Action Network related to supporting the three-year cycle, continued focus on opportunity and equity gaps in the eligibility criteria, and centering educators in the

127system of support. In particular, we request additional data simulations in advance of the June CPAC meeting, particularly disaggregating data by indicator, student group, and LEA size, incorporating growth in science as state indicators in data simulations, and weighting academic indicators, including weighting growth in science in the DA determination criteria. In requesting these additional data simulations, we want to also emphasize that the DA and DTA criteria should include growth in science, weight academic indicators, and be based on indicators. Thank you, Collin. Thank you, Collin. Your time is up. Next caller with the last four digits, 7768. You are now live. Please start your public comment. Thank you. This is Peter Ahern, former president of the California Association of Science Educators. And I'm here in Sonoma with 250 science educators from 47 different counties working with the Cal

128MSCS communities of practice. You know, we're here from 47 counties. This is the first time science has been funded at the state level to do statewide work. And it's really important that science be included in DA. If we rework the system and then try to add science later on, you know, that's going to be 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 years. And we know that many districts have taken on science and seen improvements throughout everything, seen improvements in attendance, seen improvements in test score. Science needs to be part of the whole package of education and DA needs to think of education as holistic and not just targeting one thing at a time. Thank you so much. Thank you. That concludes public comment for item number two. All right, I want to thank everyone who called in

129and came in and offered all of these amazing comments. We were intending that this item would end at 1030, but I do not think we should. And here, we need a lot of time for discussion, so we'll be more concise later in the day. And what I'd love to do is clarify our understanding on some things. See where we have consensus. I think there's some areas where there is consensus brewing. See what we need to better understand areas where there may be tougher decisions to be made so that we can be sure that that information comes to us between now and July and so that we can tackle those at that time. If that sounds okay to folks. Maybe we'll try for a half an hour. We'll see if, but I don't want to cut

130off discussion. It's a really important item for us. The other thing I want to note, there are, of course, the data runs that are in the attachments. I know that Cindy and her team have done even more data runs that can be made available for those who are data geeks and want to see it all. But I do want to ask Cindy and Kim what's a reasonable. for additional data by subgroup, et cetera, because that request was made many times. And I do not want to speak for you, given all that's on your plate. Cindy Kazanis. So I think it would be helpful to hear your conversation to know if there's simulations that don't need to have this further disaggregation of data because there's a point where data is not going to solve your policy

131problem, right? So, you know, we can... I think that's a good point, and we will probably narrow the scope as we think about what are the principles that we want to be using, and then maybe it becomes more plausible to... figure out how to look at subgroups and so on. And to clarify, the other data runs that have been done are simply an amalgamation of what you've already seen. I know that there were some pending that have not been completed that may consider growth, but those are... Those are still being . So we'll defer to you. Maybe we can have an offline conversation with yourself and member Glover Woods about what's going to take parity. I would just note, because I'm very into counting days, I think we're down to less than 60 before your

132next meeting. And CPAC, we have to post that by the end of this month. So we really, truly have, you know, 10 to 15 business days to do the work that you're asking us to do. And I want to get it right because everybody is very interested in that piece. I would say, though, the greatest form of a compliment sometimes is imitation. And we have seen other folks take the publicly available data, because this is not student-level data that we're looking at, and actually produce their own simulation. So we've seen that from Los Angeles County Office of Education. I think Jason Mullis did some as well. So folks have been doing things without the department actually putting things to paper. Thank you. Well, I think you're right about let's narrow down, and then we'll let

133you know what we need to see more deeply. But that's very helpful. And I do think there's some consensus brewing that will help us narrow. Can I ask a clarifying question about the data we already have? Yes. So the simulations, the many simulations you've already run, Are DOS schools included in those numbers both on the charter side and in the traditional LEA side in county office? I think that's really, it's a great question. Let's clarify. So for charter schools, they're considered the own LEA. When you're a DOS school under a county, you're getting identified for the county. So that data gets aggregated up. So I think sometimes we use this sort of interchangeably and it's not. When it comes to differentiated assistance, it's for the LEA. And the other piece to consider as well is

134that because of... the challenging populations and the counties, they're already going to be in differentiated assistance this coming year because of the CSI move. So we saw in our chart last. in the last meeting that we had 20 county offices that would move into it potentially. And so that's your starting point. I think that's just something to keep in mind is how do we get out of, that pickle is something entirely different, but it needs to be. Let me say a little more about that because I was going to bring that up. Thank you. So one of the ways that you can be eligible for differentiated assistance is if you've been in federally mandated. comprehensive school improvement, CSI, for more than three years. You've moved into that fourth year. So in our data that's in

135the attachment, there are 20 county offices of education, 58 school districts, and 61 charter schools that would be, if we had these new rules, would be, well, no, even under those rules, would be eligible for CSI. So we, in addition to whatever we're considering, there are 139 LEAs that will be added to the differentiated assistance as a result of being in CSI for more than three years. Some of them might fall into both categories. And just to follow the logic of that, are most of those, no, maybe based on what Cindy just said. Most of those DAS schools, that may be true. And remember that the federal government rejected our... for the dashboard for DOS schools. And so that is related to it. I think the requests we're hearing are for the purpose of differentiated

136assistance to use criteria that would include the one year graduation rate, things like credit recovery, which we could do for differentiated assistance because it's a state decision, even if we cannot do it for the federal reporting. And for the, sorry, Cindy Kazanis again, just to clarify as well, the numbers that you just mentioned for charters, we can't apply that for the CSI piece because we're under the federal constraints. Right. One-year graduation rate can't replace the four- and five-year combined rate that has been adopted. So you're still going to have that, again, that foundational number to start with. Yeah. So that, but then the question is for us, for the other. criteria for DA? Do we adopt separate criteria? So we will have a bimodal system still. There's a whole other conversation for us to have

137about going back to the federal government as they are encouraging the return of education to the states and yet taking it away. You know, how we want to handle that. For now, those CSI schools will move into differentiated assistance based on our statute. Okay, is that clear as mud? Okay, Member Yoshimoto-Towery, did you wanna dive into one of these issues? Sure, just quickly, I just wanted to reinforce three things. I like the idea of a three-year outcome cycle, aligning the plans, especially as we're simultaneously boosting this idea of tier one supports. If this were data that we were looking at a school site or... at a regional area, like within a district, we would be absolutely talking about the health of tier one. And so, because I also think it's about building internal capacity so

138that DA doesn't have to happen forever. People can come in and out, but it's ultimately what the district's left with, or the LEA's left with in terms of internal support. And I'm in full support of a deeper dive to examine alternative DA indicators for DAW schools, whether it's by July or for the 2027 work plan. I have a couple of comments that maybe fall into the area of request. I appreciate the data analysis that AIR is doing. And I am curious, like I really would like to know what the 53 districts in DTA are thinking and the 34 districts that are eligible for all three levels of support. So again, maybe this is something for the 2027 work plan, but the... maybe a more focused analysis on those districts or LEAs that have been eligible

139for the most intensive supports in the state, how they feel that support has landed, what they feel. how is DA and DTA aligned? We heard some of that in the public comment. Because I believe when a district's in crisis, sometimes fracturing the system with additional providers isn't usually helpful. And that CCE's facilitation role becomes especially crucial. But maybe there's something else we can do to prevent that. Secondly, in terms of additional data, I am curious to know the spread of the numbers that you've given us in the different scenarios. what is the spread across county offices, across counties, because even if we're looking at overall state numbers, depending on the spread, there still might be system capacity issues if we're overburdening one region, one geo lead, one area of the state. And I don't necessarily

140need to see the data, but I'd like to have acknowledgement that. we're not overburdening, any one of those scenarios isn't overburdening one area or one county office more than others. I think the question there would be how do we then think about the supports that county office needs to be responsive? And I guess in my... Because we're not going to change the rules for different parts of the state. Right. But it'd be helpful to know, like in the data analysis, if any one scenario and perhaps like overburdens. And yes, to your point, that was another one of my comments is two more comments. One, I think as a governor's proposal and the legislature works to think about what state governance looks like next year, it would be a prime opportunity to think about how we

141build the overall capacity of the entire system from the department. down to the county offices, but also including the CTC, the work that's happening there and in higher education. Yesterday's getting down to facts was a good example. We have a lot of evidence out there. How are we using that to integrate into what we're learning in our statewide system of support? And then lastly. Talking to many, many district leaders, I just wonder if there's an opportunity to narrow the indicators that we're looking at in DA or DTA to reduce the system volatility. Because as an example. method for failing to submit CALPADS data on time is a very different kind of technical assistance that's needed at a district that doesn't need to affect necessarily what's happening in the classrooms. Can I use that as a

142bridge to... That was my last comment, so yes. Because that was one of the areas where we heard that there's a great deal of consensus and consistency. So one of the things I'd like to do is see if we have consensus around some of these areas that the field seems to... have landed on. One of them is that moving the CALPADS to a separate system. So let me just start with that question. Do we have consensus around that? Is there anyone who would want to raise a concern about that issue, about moving that out of DA? And I don't see any. Okay, yeah. Well, I have a couple others that I would like to ask about. Is that okay? Or is that on the question of CALPADS? Not CALPADS specifically, but I want to put

143in that vote the local indicators as well. Well, that's a question. Okay. So support for CALPADS. Yes, support for CALPADS. We've heard from the field about that very much. So just in terms of things we've heard from the field on, and we've got AIR's data on. So one is the three-year time frame, the three-year set of indicators to come in and aligning with LCAP. Is there any other issue that anyone wants to raise about that? We've been sort of leaning to get in that direction for several meetings. Yes. You have a question on that? Yeah. I just want to say important to me would be the timeline for eligibility and LCAP development, the whole process, I think it, you know, my understanding is that the timing would work, but I'd want to make sure that

144LAs would have the ability to really think through their, the development of their LCAP. with all the information that they are eligible for DA, et cetera. Yeah, exactly. So I think that is the goal, right? To align everything so that you can plan your LCAP, knowing what you need to do, and then have the three years to implement the strategies. So that seems like a base. Then there's the question within that as we're determining eligibility, and I know lots of folks want to see more data, and I appreciate that as a data geek myself. But there's also some principles that we can start to narrow. So one set of ideas is that we would look for places where you have the same indicator. or priority area that's going to be the issue that vice president

145gloverhoods wants to take up one question is do we use our current priority areas which include local indicators as well as state indicators or do we just use state dashboard indicators but let's just hold that for a moment, come back to it. Do we look for the same indicator or priority area over time and the same student group so that we're looking for that coherence or that continuity? I will say I personally favor that because it's part of what we're trying to say is what can we define the problem? And there are versions of that that are any group, any year, any indicator, any year, you know, et cetera, or the same indicator or indicators, maybe more than one, and the same group or groups over those three years. Those were scenarios, if you want

146to be looking at your list, 6, 9, and 12, that had at least the last two years out of three that were the same group and indicators, which seems to me indicative of, you know... of a problem that one could approach. But I do wanna hear from others whether that makes sense. And then we'll talk about the priority area versus indicators. Yeah, go ahead. Thank you for that. And as we've talked, I definitely am in full support of same indicators because I think when we think about the support that would come. from the eligibility designation, being able to laser focus on a particular indicator, I keep using that word intentionally, I think makes a big difference. I am wondering, President Darling-Hammond, on the same student group piece, and just something that came out in the

147presentation and I wanted to have more conversation around is, do we run the risk of unintentionally taking the focus off of certain student groups. if they are not the ones that have the three years of data, I'm just kind of thinking from the practical aspect of it, might that happen at the local level? Or if we're looking at the same indicators, regardless of student group over that three-year period, does it keep the focus on the indicator itself, but not unintentionally cause a focus to go off of particular student groups because they're not hitting that red? So I'm wondering what... what might happen from that point. So that's the only. So I think a prior question that we should establish is that I think we've already discussed the fact that we still want to be sure

148that student groups are part of the system of differentiated assistance. That question came up also in the commentary. And when we discussed that last meeting, I thought we were very clear about the fact that we all agreed on that. And I'm seeing people nodding. Does anybody want to? raise any question about that. We are gonna continue to value and prioritize student groups as well as indicators so we know what we're looking to improve. And there's a way to organize the work so that it is around those needs. Member Yoshimoto, did you wanna make a point? It was a question, I just wondered, you mentioned. Scenarios six, nine, and 12, same student group, same indicators. And I wondered. Last two years, so that you don't have to have them for all three years. The reason I

149think about that, because there were some versions that had any two of the last three years. So let's say you had that problem, but then last year you didn't have that problem, or whatever. It seems like what we want to do is pick up districts that have a consistent trajectory. and carry them into a three-year process that is addressing their needs. So I would feel comfortable with the last two years having the same, which gives you a little bit more opportunity for picking up folks that you might not if it was three years all the same. My question is about scenarios four, seven, and 10, any student group, but same indicator. I feel like same indicator is important because the technical assistance team that is gonna be coming in to work with the district team

150is usually gonna be focused around the indicator. And perhaps you would add expertise based on the student group as well. But I wonder if we feel like scenarios four, seven, and 10 have less focus on student group. Because I could see a world in which it would not have less focus on a student group. It would have the same focus on student group, but the way you qualify would be any student group. But we would still uplift the needs of individual student groups in scenarios four, seven, and 10. I think these are the kinds of things that we need to narrow so that we can give direction about the further data runs. I worry about the whack-a-mole effect, you know, if you're just jumping around and, you know. then you're not as consistent. I guess

151I just worry. You don't have to determine it here, but I'm hearing that there's interest in both of those approaches. My only wondering about 6, 9, and 12 is the number of LEAs is fairly small. Well, remember you had 139. to whatever's there. And of course, we don't know how it's gonna work out when we actually do the, you know. When we actually do the actual runs. So we're not trying to make the decision based on the numbers. We're trying to make the decision based on the principle of what will give us a launch pad for a productive, you know, district improvement effort. Makes sense. Yeah. So. But what I'm hearing is interest in a three-year trajectory with the same indicator or indicators over those years with either the same student group or some student

152group. So those are areas where I'm hearing some narrowing, which gets rid of a whole bunch of scenarios that the data team would not have to run additional information on. Okay, so I think that's one place. The other thing that has arisen is do we use all the priority areas as we have, but not as we have. We have used all the priority areas in a confusing way. And I mean, because we have to have one from column B and one from column A and all that. But do we use all the priority areas or just the state indicators that are on the dashboard? So the additional priority areas are local priorities that are reported sometimes as yes, no. Did you do it or didn't you do it? But I would love to, I've heard

153commentary on both from our public today. So I'd love to hear what people think about that. I know you're wanting to speak to that issue. You were waiting. You were very good. You were very patient. So as we consider utilizing the priority areas as our current DA criteria is, or... decoupling or pivoting away from priority areas and considering indicators and in particular state indicators These are some considerations I think might be helpful for us in our current eligibility criteria under priority areas We we do run the risk and I've mentioned this before that a district might not Do very well in the academic but some of the other priorities still make them eligible and the focus can be a little bit convoluted. I think with our priority areas because nestled in them and some of

154those priority areas are different indicators, it makes it very challenging to. that are not the state indicators? Correct. So there is one priority area, and I know Cindy and team will correct me if I'm speaking incorrectly because I want to be accurate, that nestles English language arts, math, and English learner proficiency. That's one priority area. So those state indicators are in one priority area. And our current DA eligibility criteria is based on priority area. If we were to look at state indicators, There are, I believe there might be eight. You have English language arts, math, English learner proficiency. You also have graduation rate, college career readiness, chronic absenteeism, suspension. I may be missing one. And if science comes on as a full indicator as well. Well, school climate actually is a local. indicator because the

155data that's used from that, the way that local indicator is determined on is if the LEA has presented information to their board. That's what is the criteria for met, not necessarily what the information is. So anyhow, that's why I am saying if we can decouple priority areas. and focus on indicators, particularly state indicators, what we provide an opportunity to do is still keep it not solely academic, because you have suspension and chronic absenteeism there. but you also have indicators that are either assessment and or course completion based as well within that mix of our state indicators. So I think it just makes, I'll say this and I'll stop with my, I guess my advocacy for indicators. When I think about As an LEA, how do I go about really looking at my data in a

156laser-focused way to see where my greatest needs are? If I'm looking at my state indicators, it provides a greater opportunity. If I am eligible for DA and we're now talking about how do we get in, provide support, root cause analysis, laser focus in, you can really look at very specific areas as opposed to the data that's so broad that makes the eligibility and then trying to win or down. Very well described. Thank you. Very educative. And I'll add one other thing to that. So just if everybody's following, this would be all of each of our state dashboard indicators. Some of the simulations we have are for two indicators. So if you have the same two indicators over the three years, then you would be eligible. And there are simulations about whether one of them is

157an academic indicator or whether they're just two any indicators. I think my own view, I tend to agree around using the indicators, is that having two indicators with one of them being an academic indicator makes a lot of sense and is continuous with the theory of our current system, but more straightforward in the way in which you can both identify and respond to the indicators, to the determination. But I want to know if anybody else has a different perspective or same perspective, different perspective on how we think about that. We've got Member Lewis, then Member Olkin, then Member Yoshimura-Towery. I think I followed. I invite this side of the dais also, too. Vice President Glover-Woods, I think I followed you. And I think my response or my comments are much simpler. I was, not that

158yours weren't. For my understanding. So I was thinking more of removal of specifically like the local performance indicators because I think although they support the major state indicators because if you're not having If you're not meeting basics priority one or access to a broad course of study If you're not having parent engagement all of those can be reflected in your state Local It is what I was saying as well because I what I said about the local indicators is that's more report based as To the designation so I did add that in as I was going into my long to pieces One is remove the local and local priorities and the other is to treat each indicator as its own Indicator. Minus the local. So we've got their state priority areas. Nestled in the state

159priority areas are indicators. Some are state, some are local. And so my advocacy is state indicators, removing the local indicators for DA eligibility criteria. I missed that second one. Thank you. Yes, you did. Very clear. Thank you. So first I have a question, which is, so if you look at the indicators, you have academic indicators, ELA and math, which might include science, yep. If you had the same student group, if you had student groups that were read in both ELA and math, would that be one indicator or two? Okay. So in what, I'm just making sure I understand what's on the table. So that would be two indicators in the version that Cynthia is saying. And then President Darlingham, and you suggested we might also consider that it should be two indicators except that it

160should include. One that isn't academic so then English. Oh, I was yeah I'm just that some of the simulations were done with two indicators at least one of which is academic So those were what getting excluded would be places that were you know chronic absenteeism and Suspension rates. Yep Not have at least one academic indicator. Okay being triggered okay that makes sense yeah my and my thinking about that has been the um feedback that we've gotten from many folks to be sure that we're really attending to academics but also the feedback we've gotten from a lot of folks that we need to be sure that we're also attending to all of the other components so but that is a decision yeah i just want to make sure i know what decisions are on the table

161we have simulations for both okay and can i can i ask a couple other clarifying questions So college career indicator. Where on the priority areas? So because what you see, Brenda's question was, or Brenda's suggestion was that we use the state priority areas. College career indicator is an indicator. That would be included in the version that Vice President Glover Woods. Okay. I just, again, want to make sure I'm understanding the. All of the indicators that are on the state dashboard, as I understand it, would be part of the system. So it's actually using the indicators. Counted individuals. It's more transparent. Like you could look at the dashboard and say okay, are you in the red on two of these? Okay, so last question so credentialed teachers That is a local indicator Even though we're using

162data that is gathered at the state level at this point that would not be included. I believe that is true. Okay, just wanted to make sure that I have that, I understand what's on the table. Okay, thank you. Yeah, we're not making this decision today, we're just trying to get. I just wanna make sure we're all understanding the various scenarios. Yeah, thank you. And I think Member Yoshimoto-Towery and then Member Escobedo. I would just add that as someone whose team has worked on the local indicators for many years, I would be in general, in concept, in favor of what Member Glover Woods has proposed. I think questions that I have that I would want to know before we make a final decision are what percent of LEAs are currently in DA or DTA for local

163indicators? I don't know if we have that. Very few. Cindy is standing. I think that's a sign. She may have that answer for you. All reported. We actually provided, Cindy Kazanis, we provided that to you in March. It's method two, and then there's a combination for method three, and it's low. It's less than a dozen. Thank you. Thank you. That was my suspicion, if I recall correctly. I just wanted to point out, I can't predict the data, but for CCI, those data runs that we did are based on the two years that we have. We only have color for two years. And for science, of course, we only have the one year. I don't know what 2026 will hold, but I just want to make sure that you're familiar with. And I want to augment

164that point that you're making, Cindy, with the fact that you were saying, well, what number of districts is it very low or not? If we're adding things like science, growth, CCI, then that is going, again, to increase the number of districts that are. So we should not make the final decision based on a goal for a number. We should make it based on the principles that make sense to us for the accountability system as a whole because we'll both have all the. districts coming in from CSI and then we'll have whatever. So we can thank our data colleagues for producing some more runs, but we should remember that all of these are indicators, but not, I use that word advisedly, but not a projection. I think the reason I ask for numbers is it helps

165me understand the impact of our decision, not that we make the decision based on the numbers. Yeah, but our decision will end up with different numbers than the ones that we see. Correct. Everybody's aware of that. And then I guess my only other second question would be, if we do narrow the indicators, what type of support would replace, there would be some type of support, is my assumption, that would replace. falling into a DA category or a DTA category. We wouldn't just ignore that area completely. It would just no longer be a part of DA or DTA. So for a district that needed help with CALPADS, there'd be some other type of support. For a district that needed help with one of the local priority areas, there would be a different kind of support, but

166not DTA or DTA. Those things are part of what should be reviewed in the LCAP. They're part of the county office. with a bigger, better tier one capacity. And we may even want to recommend some kind of a warning signal for districts that are looking like they're struggling but are not eligible for differentiated assistance that can then take advantage of those broader resources and be assisted in that way. Member Escobedo's next. I'm trying to have that lens of coherence when we're making these decisions and how critical these academic indicators and non-academic, they're not in isolation. They can be very much connected, you know, especially when you look at suspension rates and academics. There is a connection there. And I know we're talking about criteria, not methodology. However, you know, as we begin thinking about providing

167that support, these shouldn't be looked in isolation, right? And even, and I do agree, having local indicators not being part of this construct. However, these local indicators can be a mirror. of how we support. Well, and suspension rates is a state indicator. It would still be in there. Absolutely. It would be one of the. When you look at school climate, which it is a local indicator, that in itself is really the. It would not be a trigger, but it would be taken into account. Exactly. And I just want to make sure that we see this in a coherent way. These aren't separate entities, but they're very interwoven. with one another as we kind of think of creating that tier one and then a more intensive um assistance and that district review could be instructed to

168look at all of those things as part of the determination of root causes and supports right yeah yeah i think that's a really good point but truly truly i think having a more focused and um way of looking at differentiated support, having just the indicators is the way to go. Yeah, makes sense. Looking over here to see if there's any commentary. Yes, Member Roscoe-Gonzalez. I just... You know listening to both sides I just think that you know local indicators sometimes surface those early warning signs so I just think it might disadvantage districts with doing strong systems work that is not as like the small districts the rural districts alternative schools and You know there's some trade-offs right so they can narrow the picture of the district performance such as you know I think the local

169indicators currently capture things like parent engagement school climate basic services I Don't know I just I just when I think about the whole that's why I'm more of a listener and I'm thinking of all the discussions and I think that both Cynthia and Francisco and Allison you all actually gave really valid concerns I just think I'm trying to understand the rationale of simplifying and creating greater consistency in the eligibility criteria, especially when we're trying to make a system that is more focused and understandable. So at the same time, I think it's important that we continue to value the systems that work reflected in local indicators because areas like school climate, family engagement, and implementation capacity often impact student outcomes long before they even appear on statewide data. And I think that... The conversation we've been

170having just now is that what is used for eligibility for DA, and we just learned that those local indicators hardly ever factor in, because they're kind of yes, no on the dashboard. Did you do it? Did you have parent engagement? Yes, no. that we could have a system that determines eligibility based on the indicators and a system that is providing supports that takes into account all of those local indicators as well in doing the diagnostic about what the district is doing and can build on and can also improve on. Yes, Vice President Gloverwoods. give a little bit more context on the local indicators piece. I agree the local indicators are critical and I want to be very clear on that. The way we measure met or not met is based on did you do the

171tool, did you report it to your board? It has nothing to do with the actual data that came from the tool on parent engagement or on school climate. So that is the reason that I'm saying for DA eligibility because it really is a reporting measure that is determining met or not met, that those indicators would not be used for DA eligibility. I do feel they have a very critical piece looking at the data in those tools is very critical for the support aspect for those even those who aren't eligible for DA to be very honest because as member Orozco-Gonzalez said those are a lot of the indicators as to what comes out in the state data but I want it to be clear as to how we determine met or not met and local indicators

172and why that doesn't meet to the same level of rigor. as the data from the state indicators. Ask about three other things. Hang in there. Science, growth, and a little bit on DTA. So we've heard the arguments about whether science should be included. I'd like to get a sense of the board about the inclusion of science as one of the indicators. Is anybody going to speak for science? Member Rodriguez. Yes, I would definitely want to speak in favor of including science. I think it's crucial for that foundational just like what happens at the local level the skills the that students learn are what engages them in building that curiosity and so and I think it makes students want to continue learning and I agree it should be included Am I going to speak against science?

173That's an unfair way to ask the question. Vice President Glover, what did you want to say? Definitely not speaking against science. Definitely not. Just again, looking at, I do think it's important that it be included for DA eligibility. While our indicator is fairly new, the standards in GSS are not. It's been in place for a very long time. And if there is an issue in the area of science, I think it only helps to support what happens in ELA and math. and other areas and maybe even some of the other areas. So I would be in full support of including it as a full indicator for eligibility. authentic teaching and learning and science, Atlas database, TaskBank. We have ways for inquiry science to be taught from kindergarten through TK through grade 12. I hope that

174that is happening in all classrooms. And just to tie on to that piece, when we think about support, because I think that was something that came out in our public comment as well, our county offices should be well poised. to be able to provide support, Tier 1 support, as well as DA eligibility. And where our county offices might need more support to support their LEAs, that's where the GO lead structure in the system of support can come into play to support them in that area of science professional development and science support. All right. The next one is growth. Do I hear anyone want to speak for growth? I would like to speak for growth. Okay. Definitely. Thank you, Governor Escovedo. Over three years is really the way to go. You want to track your successes

175or where you didn't do well rather than looking at these data points from year to year. So I advocate for growth. Okay. Thank you. I see some nodding, and I see a thumbs up. Anybody want to speak against growth? If you dare. I really, there are legitimate questions also that we will have to conjure with, so I don't want to minimize those because of the difference in the timing and so on. But I think. Yeah, we would conjure with those logistical questions in some way, but I'm seeing a nodding. It's hard for me to imagine us not having growth as something that, you know, after all the work we've done to get to having the growth model, valuing the fact that that's the school's job is to produce growth, that it would be hard to

176imagine it not being part of the system. How it's part of the system, all of those things, we still have to think about those things. Okay, so I think then the last thing before we close, and I don't know that we're going to settle this today, but there is the DTA and the layering on of these multiple systems, et cetera. And there was some commentary about the fact that we should not delay. DTA for three years or something at this moment. One strategy that has occurred to me is a combination of the approaches that Stephanie Gregson presented, which is to allow the... districts that are in DTA now to continue getting the services and supports that they get. But then to shift that to a more coherent continuous approach such that DTA occurs when districts

177are not ready to come out of DA after the three years of support that they're getting. So the DTA becomes the continuation of the work rather than piling on. multiple providers and systems in that because now the system should have the capacity for districts that are in what we hope that the system will have the capacity to really, really deeply support districts in differentiated assistance and to enable them to go. into a systemic approach to that. If there's something that needed to happen even more deeply for one of those districts in differentiated assistance, we should build that into whatever they are systemically doing rather than layering on new. systems and providers and expectations and reporting requirements and timelines on top of that. It just feels to me. But we may need something that's even more

178intensive if they haven't been able to benefit from the three years of DA that is also identified as a new set of both supports and expectations and monitoring and all the rest of it. So that's just... One way of conceptualizing something that's more continuous. I don't know if others have thoughts about the DTA issues. Again, we'll come back to them next month, our next meeting. I just wanted to reinforce that Stephanie Gregson talked about how they asked districts what their needs are and if the supports they're getting are helping them. Because I think that's a really key component, like a 360 review of the support that you're getting because... our state is very diverse in size of district, geography, numbers of districts in county offices, et cetera. So I think that I just wanted to

179highlight that, because I think we wanna, I'd love to see us keep that and maybe even boost that a little bit more. So in terms of the additional information we'd like to have, we'd like to know more about how districts are experiencing DTA. We'd like, I think within the construct of using state indicators and a three year timeline and at least the last two of those three years or maybe all three of those three years for the same or different student groups. That's what I've heard. We'd like to then see the additional data runs that are possible by indicator and student group. I'm looking at Cindy to see if she's falling out of her chair or if she's nodding. I think I see a nod. But if you want to put any constraints on that,

180let us know what's plausible. So I think we'd like to see those things. And the only other issue that occurs to me that has been on the table is the question of whether to add an all-students group. keeping all of the individual student groups, this should be adding an all students group and we saw in the data simulations that it adds very few districts to DA, doesn't subtract anything. It seems to me that that is a sensible way to go. We've all talked about it, but does anybody have any concerns about adding the all students group? This would then allow for very small districts that do not have any large subgroups to be eligible for differentiated assistance when they need it, yeah, based on what's happening to their all-student group. All right. All right. I

181think we have done what we can in this moment to move ourselves forward. We thank everybody who's made comments and sent letters. It's been very, very helpful. I'd like to take just a 10-minute break or maybe even an 8-minute break and come back at 9-minute break, come back at 1130. That clock is a minute ahead of where it should be. Let's sit and then, Brooks, let's talk about what we have to do to thank you. We are reconvening and we have switched the order of items so that we will not get hangry before lunch. And we're going to do item four at this point, which is the adoption of the State Board of Education's Portrait of a Learner. And the recommendation is for the State Board to adopt the recommended competencies, descriptions, and preamble with

182any changes deemed necessary. as the portrait of a learner. We also recommend the state board delegate authority to the executive director to make any necessary revisions for clarity and accuracy consistent with the direction provided by the state board. The item will be presented by Lieb Sucher and Christine Olmsted representing the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence. Take it away, thank you. Good morning, President Darlene Hammond, Vice President Glover Woods, and members. And a special good morning to Vanessa. We got to spend some time at the Community Engagement Initiative a couple weeks ago, and she's just so lovely, and SC is so lucky to have her. But we're back today to bring for you for consideration for adoption, the portrait of a learner, based on the work that we've shared in March. So I'm going to do

183a little bit of the background history and then Leib's going to actually introduce you to the portrait. And so we had our feedback meeting back in March where we brought to you the responses that we had from the survey, over 2,000 members from the state community. am i losing my train of thought participated in that survey along with several focus groups that we did on that as well we brought to you last month a proposed or in march a proposed set of competencies and then we discussed the next steps in the direction that you gave us just as a reminder that the path to a state portrait has been happening for a while this has been a discussion with the state board for I think about two years now. And so we do also want

184to thank our colleagues at AIR who helped us with the research on this as well. So we shared the draft with you at the March meeting. We reviewed other state examples and we explained the public comment that we had on that as well. And we had 10 that kind of we narrowed down to seven. And the guidance that you gave to us was to keep it somewhere between five and eight. So with these seven, we just kind of reworked language and the additions that were brought forward in public comments. Things around environmental literacy, things around multilingualism. A lot of conversations happened with our DOS schools as well. and making sure our students in alternative education were represented in this as well. So really making sure all students are represented in these competencies. We did make

185sure we continue to name it the portrait of a learner with five to eight competencies. Really having outcomes based framing as we did these and then replacing citizenship with more inclusive language and then including a preamble which you'll see later on in the presentation. So along with more feedback, making sure that that multilingualism was in there, combining critical thinking and problem solving, really explicitly naming our academic content knowledge that we wanted, making sure that we were looking at things inwardly as well, really calling out financial and digital literacy, anchoring to college and career readiness, the integration of environmental literacy, and then consolidating character into a more robust competency. And with that, Leib is going to tell us where we're at now. Great. Good morning, everybody. I'm Leib Sletcher with CCEE. So I have the pleasure

186of talking a little bit about the California State Board's education portrait of a learner, the recommended set of competencies. So since March, we worked hard, as Christine kind of talked about, to refine a set of competencies that reflected all of that community feedback we heard in the survey and focus groups, and then all the amazing feedback you guys as the board gave us and what we heard in public comment in March. And so we took that and worked to present this portrait of a learner. So on this slide, you can see a kind of a draft graphic that displays the proposed portrait of a learner. And this portrait communicates a shared vision of California students who are empowered learners, dynamic communicators, people of character, critical thinkers and problem solvers, multilingual and multicultural learners, effective collaborators,

187and community contributors. And so now in this next slide, I'll go into, and you'll see this in your materials, you'll see the description of each of these seven competencies. And what I'll do is try to highlight how we incorporated the feedback so you can clearly follow kind of what we showed you in March, the feedback we incorporated to show that kind of through line of how we got to this set of seven and how it represents the community voice we've heard along the way. So I'll take this one by one. You'll notice in this we included both kind of the structural feedback that Christine highlighted, naming it portrait of a learner, between five to eight competencies, also the outcome-based framing of all the terms, but we also incorporated content feedback as well and really refining

188the set of skills and dispositions that are included here. So the first competency, empowered learner. This competency is the evolution of the perseverance and adaptability competency. You'll notice explicit emphasis on academic mastery, which is a recurring theme, taking initiatives, adapting to change, growth mindset. There's also mention of drawing inward into your own strengths and goals as a way to navigate college career work life. The second competency, critical thinker and problem solver. This combines the core elements of those two ideas, critical thinking and problem solving. But there's also mention an explicit call out of the practical skills including financial literacy, environmental literacy, and the ability in AI literacy as well. The next competency, dynamic communicator. The main change here was the outcome-based framing, and we also pulled out the multilingualism into its own separate competency before

189that was combined into communication. And that brings us to multilingual, multicultural learner. This is really acknowledging the overwhelming voice we heard in open-ended responses in communities, in the community comment, open comment, and the feedback we received here that this is, multilingualism is so important to our students in California that it deserves to have a competency on its own. Person of character, you'll also notice as outcome based framing. We also included the competency from the survey around valuing varied perspectives. So you'll see language like that in the character competency as well. Next is effective collaborator. We drew on the key elements that you guys already saw in adding components of leadership. Again, you know creating these competencies be a little bit more robust and encompassing more skills for students. And lastly, community contributor. We moved away

190from, we got some feedback around potentially exclusionary language with the word citizenship and the global citizenship. So we moved towards the competencies that holds many of the same action based elements. You'll notice we learn from focus groups and open-ended respondents and feedback that really emphasizing civic responsibility, democratic process, and environmental stewardship explicitly in that competency. So in addition to these seven competencies, we also received feedback that it would be helpful to have a preamble to the state's portrait of a learner to explain some of the purpose of the portrait and some additional context. So in response to that the West Comp Center folks at AIR CCEE state board staff collaborated on the following Preamble for the board to consider. I wanted to highlight one edit you'll see here made on the slide We've replaced and

191this edit is made since we have published the agenda a few weeks ago We've replaced community stakeholders with the community and educational partnership in accordance with prior board action that removed the term from LCAP after concerns were raised by our Native American communities. So with that, I'll now pass it back to President Linda Darling-Hammond and Vice President Glover Woods to lead us a discussion on the current set of recommended Portrait of a Learner and hone in on any other changes that we need made. Thank you. And I'll Let's put up the public comment slide because we'll be taking a comment over the phone. And while we are waiting for those to queue up, members of the public who wish to provide comment can call the phone number and use the access code shown on this

192slide. And then I want to turn to Vice President Glover Woods if she'd like to make some initial comments. First of all, I want to thank again CCEE, Christine, and Lee, all of the public comment that we've received on this development of the portrait of a learner over the last six to seven months. And for my fellow board members, I think we have gotten to a very nice place with all of the feedback, even the feedback from our conversation in March to seven competencies that are very... very comprehensive and robust in their description and I feel very, I'm quite excited that we are at this place with these seven competencies that reflect public comment as well as board member comment. There are five people signed up for in-person public comment. Please remember to state your

193name and affiliation for the record when it is your turn to speak. Will the following people please line up at the microphone in the back. Natalie Shin, Diana Vu, Lindsay Tornatore, Steve McDougall, and Roman Stearns. Natalie Shin here on behalf of Californians Together. We are in strong support. sorry, we want to thank the board and staff for the thoughtful work that went into developing the portrait of a learner and for recognizing multilingualism as a vital competency for all students. Multilingualism is not only a valuable career and life skill, but also a reflection of the strengths and assets our students bring into the classroom. Including multilingualism in the portrait aligns closely with California's English Learner Roadmap Policy and the vision outlined in Global California 2030 to expand opportunities for students to become bilingual and biliterate. Importantly,

194this is a TK-12 vision that supports students throughout their educational journey and helps elevate the work districts are already doing through bilingual pathway recognition awards and the state's field of bi-literacy. Thank you. Good morning, Dr. Darling-Hammond and board members. Diana Vu on behalf of the Association of Calvert School Administrators. Access supports the inclusion of the preamble and value the board's commitment that the state portrait of a learner is intended to guide the board's decision-making rather than serve as a mandate for LEAs. We appreciate that this distinction is clearly reflected in the preamble. We also recommend an amendment to the preamble. We request the preamble explicitly acknowledge that locally developed portraits will differ in order to reflect distinct educational priorities and goals. The board must be cautious of approaches that... do not account for the differences

195in demographics, enrollment size, grade span, and community dynamics when making future decisions informed by the state portrait. And we think the amendment to replace the term stakeholders with educational partners. This change reflects a meaningful commitment to inclusive and respectful engagement, particularly with our Indigenous communities for whom the term stakeholders had carried harmful connotations. Thank you. Good morning, President Darling-Hammond, Vice President Glover-Woods, members of the board, Lindsay Tornatore on behalf of the California County Superintendents. We support the adoption of the Portrait of a Learner and appreciate the opportunity to provide input throughout its development. Great appreciation to Christine and Lieb and their whole team at CCEE. We are encouraged to see key elements of our feedback reflected, including character, critical thinking, and communication. We appreciate the clear preamble positioning this as guidance for the state board,

196not a mandate for LEAs, and encourage continued communication. so LEAs can understand how it complements their own local portraits. Thank you to the board and CCE for the change to remove the term stakeholder. Our other friendly amendment to the preamble would be to further clarify that this is not a mandate for LEAs and is intended to complement local efforts. Once adopted, the county superintendents urged the board to use the portrait to help guide policy discussions and decisions in ways that expand and enable greater student success. It should reinforce multiple post-secondary pathways, move beyond the false dichotomy of college versus career, and support systems and ensure so our students can pursue options aligned with their strengths, goals, and aspirations. Thank you. President Darling-Hammond, members of the board, Steve McDougal of CFT. CFT supports the reflective approach

197the board has taken regarding the portrait of a learner and maintaining that the portrait should be uplifted as a guide for LEAs as opposed to being a top-down directive. Please be, if necessary, overly communicative with this work once it's camera ready so that LEAs may not misinterpret the board's intent. Thank you. More is more. Good morning. I'm Roman Stearns, Executive Director of Scaling Student Success, a California partnership that for the past seven years has dedicated to building a community among the 100 plus school districts with a portrait of a learner and the dozens of TA providers supporting them to move their portraits from poster to practice. Today I'm filled with joy as State Board considers this portrait of a learner. Since 2012 when Pasadena Unified approved the first graduate profile, dozens of districts have followed

198its lead. Your actions today put wind beneath the wings of all those districts. Thank you. Scaling Student Success has submitted a funding request to the legislature and if funded, we're prepared to launch a free, easy to access portrait of a learner resource hub ready for use by November. And this September, we'll host the first Portrait of a Learner Summit in San Jose. State Board President Darling-Hammond has agreed to be a keynote speaker and panel facilitator. We invite other State Board members and staff to join us. Thank you again for your leadership. That concludes public comment in the room. We will now go to public comment on the phone line. Thank you. Caller ending in 8674, please state your name and affiliation for the record. You have one minute. Your time starts now. Good morning. Rachel

199Murphy with Public Advocates and the LCFF Equity Coalition. We've appreciated the board's engagement and work on this item over the past several months. We are pleased to see multilingualism adopted as a core competency after the overwhelming support it received from interest holders. We encourage the state to also identify opportunities for LEAs to develop these various competencies and initiate discussion and common understanding of the responsibilities that schools, LEAs, and state-level entities will have in supporting students to master these competencies. Thank you. Thank you. Next caller, ending in 9728, you may begin. Good morning. President Darling-Hammond, members of the board, I'm Tom Adams, former deputy superintendent for CDE and executive director for the IQC. Thank you for the portrait of a learner, and I support the seven categories. I encourage you to add the word creatively to

200number three, dynamic communicator, so it reads as follows. listens carefully, and communicates clearly, creatively, and purposefully through speaking, writing, visual media, the arts, and technology. With this addition, it will be understood that creative individual expression is valued. Thank you. Thank you. Next caller ending in 1066, please begin. Good morning, everyone. I'm Tanya Zucconi, former executive director of California Language Teachers Association, currently a member of the advocacy committee. We're delighted that Multilingual Multicultural Learner is featured among the competencies, and it's imperative that they need to be offered to all. These proficiencies... support and are embedded in the concept of a successful learner, and we believe they're deeply linked to the other competencies in the document. Among the many advantages of being a multilingual, multicultural learner are more opportunities in education and careers, improvement in communication skills,

201and also a more nuanced and respect and understanding flourish in the learning environment that develops an awareness and insight into the broader community. We believe the adoption of this document can support students and teachers in the development of true leaders. Thank you so much for your work and for this opportunity to comment on Portrait of a Learner. Thank you. Next caller, ending in 8256, please start your public comment. Hi, this is Robert Manwaring from Children Now. I want to echo the comments made by Californians Together. We are a member of that group and really are appreciative of their work in elevating multilingualism and multiculturalism and are thrilled to see that you have included and recognized the importance of these areas in your portrait. In turning to the implementation side of this, We seek the state

202to provide some roles in helping local districts to implement such a portrait. Examples of what this could look like are helping provide tools on how this portrait will interact with current curriculum and current extracurricular activities. and how the state can support local communities of practice that are doing the deep work at the local level around developing a local portrait. Thank you for all your work in this area. Thank you. Next caller, ending in 3732, please begin. Hi, this is Natalie Weitzel-Lum representing Ed Trust West. We want to align our comments with the letter submitted by the Equity Coalition and express appreciation for the broad process to include perspectives of education partners and the explicit inclusion of multiculturalism and multilingualism in the portrait of learners. And while we understand that the state's... portrait of a learner

203does not create mandates or requirements for LEAs, we do think it's an important next step for the board and other state leaders to initiate the development of a statewide theory of action through engagement with broad a broad set of interest holders to articulate and build a common understanding of the interdependent roles and responsibilities of schools, LEAs, state agencies, and other state leaders in supporting students to master the competencies identified in the portrait of a learner. Thank you. Thank you. Next caller, ending in 6214, please begin. Good morning, State Board members. I'm Dr. Kristin Meida, a science instructional specialist in Ventura County, but calling in today from the Cal MSCS convening in Sonoma. I appreciate the Board's willingness to consider public input on the statewide Portrait of a Learner. I'd like to add my support to

204fold environmental literacy into the profile of Portrait of a Learner, which was a refinement proposed by Ten Strands. California is a national leader in environmental conservation. These values deserve to be reflected in our profile of a learner. We need to prepare students to analyze complex information and design viable solutions to difficult problems in the context of contributing meaningfully to their communities. Environmental sustainability is a real-world problem, perhaps the most important problem that our students will face in the future. It is critical that our Profile of a Learner sets the vision for preparing students to address the environmental challenges we currently face and will continue to face with increasing urgency over the next century. Thank you for including environmental literacy and sustainability when refining the Profile of a Learner and for leaning into the excellent feedback

205provided by 10 Strands. Thank you. Next caller, ending in 7768, you may begin. Yeah, hi, this is Peter Ahern with the California Association of Science Educators. We're very excited by the overall thrust of Profile of a Learner and how closely it aligns with everything in the next generation science standards, especially the science and engineering practices, and how strongly science serves as a context to develop students who will match the profile of a learner. We also want to speak out in favor of the proposal that was made by Ten Strands. to include environmental literacy within the critical thinker and problem solver california is recognized as a global leader in environmentalism and our students should need to be environmentally aware learning about environmental literary and sustainability are very important context for meaningful learning across the disciplines and

206critical thinking thank you thank you next caller ending in 2142 please begin Thank you, Madam President and members of the board. My name is Margaret Peterson, and I'm speaking on behalf of the California World Language Project based at Stanford University to provide input on the Portrait of the Learner. Thank you so much for incorporating the feedback you received at the last board meeting, including the competency for multilingualism. I attended this meeting virtually, gave testimony, and listened to your thoughtful comments. As a board, you truly understand the importance of being multilingual. The majority of our graduates will encounter people in their future jobs and studies who are multilingual. They will see the world through a multicultural lens and their brains will work with a mindset that considers other languages and cultures as something to be valued,

207not feared. Our state, our country, and our world will benefit from having graduates who are able to collaborate and contribute to teams that are fundamentally considerate, accepting of other cultures, languages, and ways of being. This skill begins with multilingualism, and I urge you to continue to keep multilingualism as one of the tenets of the portrait of a learner. Thank you so much for your time today. Thank you. Next caller, ending in 4369, you may begin. Hello again. Sally Fox here calling from San Diego County on behalf of CABE, the California Association for Bilingual Education. which had a major positive impact on my career success in bilingual education, world languages, dual language immersion, and English language development through the San Diego County Office of Education and the Dual Language English Learner Education Department at the College

208of Education at San Diego State University. For item three, Portrait of a Learner, at your last meeting, many people spoke out about the benefits of multilingualism. multiculturalism and how it really overarches all the other content areas and the other kinds of characteristics so we're happy to see and support this added to item four and thank you again thank you this concludes public comment for item number four happy item There were a few thoughtful comments about potential things to clarify, one of them being that it is not a mandate. I will note that it does say in the preamble that Rather than serving as a mandate, the portrait is intended to act as a North Star to guide the SBE's decision-making. But I do think we may be able to make it even more clear in

209the preamble. And I see a place where we could make it a little clearer that this is not bringing work to local districts to do. They may also want to consider, if they haven't got a local portrait of a learner, they may want to consider some of what's here, but it is not a mandate for them to produce one, to use it, or any of those things. It is a North Star for us. We'll have further conversations about what that means for the way in which we are constructing the curriculum assessment instructional framework in the state. But for now. We just want to see if there's anything else that needs to be added to to adopt it I will also note there was a comment about environmental It is listed in number two as develops

210in financial environmental data and digital literacies We could add the word environmental in number seven as well, where it says support health, sustainability, and well-being. We could add environmental sustainability if that's not sufficiently clear, but it is there. Yeah, do that? Okay, I see consensus around that. Yes, Vice President Glover-Woods. I, again, always just appreciate all the feedback that we've received. And I think the only thing I'd like to lift up, well, there are two things. One, again, the kudos for the multicultural. multilingual, multicultural learner. I appreciated all the comments in our conversation last month around that. And just really the implications, not only for our students who are English learners, but for our many English-only students. I think this really helps to lift up how important multilingualism is for all. So appreciate that in

211there. The last thing I'll say to this is I feel we can... wordsmith and add in here and there from now until heaven knows when. But I think that the definitions as they are in the competencies really capture everything. And in addition to the piece that President Darling-Hammond just added a few moments ago. I think we're good. That's where I'm trying to go with this. I think we're good. And I think that if we're able to, when appropriate, move to a motion, we can also add in the fact, as was on the recommendation slide, that if there are any tweaks that are needed for accuracy and clarity, we can defer that to the phenomenal SBE executive director to help navigate that part for us all. Thank you. Any other comments? Yes. So I also want

212to join in the appreciation for the multilingual, multicultural learner. Number four, the inclusion of environmental literacy. And number two, I think those very much speak to a lot of the feedback that has been given. And clearly, I think that resonates with a lot of interest holders around the state. I also wanted to lift up something that I just thought was so beautifully done on number two around critical thinking and problem solving. So much of our current conversations around AI sort of have this little undercurrent of will AI replace so many jobs, so many children's sort of futures? And I just wanted to share, I was at a meeting recently where... One of the speakers sort of very neatly distilled this idea that AI is incredibly good at backward-looking probability and predictive science, which is certainly

213valuable. And what humans are really good at is forward-looking possibility instead of just probability. And that only comes when you value creative solution building, imagination, and problem solving. So I just thought you guys hit that on the head beautifully. At the risk of unfortunately complicating things I I have to say I'm I have struggled with number seven I think and I certainly resonate to this impulse of wanting to be as widely embracing of all of our students. And I also, at the same time that I don't want to exclude anyone with a reference to citizenship, I also don't want to exclude the aspiration of citizenship as to what What children and families and communities are oftentimes wanting to? Get to and whether our you know public systems Enable or facilitate that is is a whole

214different conversation, but I do think Particularly in light of recent Supreme Court decisions, I think voting matters. And I think the ability to hold political office matters. I think jury service matters. And I think we should aspire for California kids, should they so choose, and have a path there to see themselves in a citizenry. should they go in that route and to have the exclusion not be one that is exclusively about a communitarian notion but community and citizenship together. So my, and I will admit this is wordsmithing, but I do think in number seven if we added in the first line contributes to the common good through active engagement in civic and citizenship responsibilities. It is broad enough to hold both concepts and both sets of children wherever they might be. I know that we

215took the word out for a reason, so I want to be sure people have a chance to consider. So in clarification, Gabriella just asked, I'm not actually proposing to change the name of number seven, which is community contributor. The first line, though, currently reads, contributes to the common good through active engagement in civic responsibility. And I think a way to embrace both is just to say through active engagement in civic and citizenship responsibilities. So it's an and. I still wonder whether some people will see that and feel that it's exclusionary and whether that might fall under civic responsibility as a subset, but I would welcome other thoughts about that. Member Escobedo? The aspect of it, I don't know. I'm just trying to figure out how it will be read. Yeah, that's the question. Any other

216thoughts? Vice President Glover Woods. Did I see a hand over here? Member GK? Okay, but Member GK I think is in relation to this? Yeah, okay. Vice President Glover Woods, then Member GK? I just wanted perhaps clarification on the difference between civic and citizenship responsibility. How do those two differ? I think that's where I am. We could look in the dictionary while we're talking, Member Giggie. I was also going to ask Board Member a similar question, but I think I'm also in favor of just having it as civic because I think. You know civic and citizenship they both you know encompass like voting and I know you mentioned like jury duty and stuff like that I just think Especially with what the connotations that citizenship may bring it's just a lot safer to leave acid

217again I think I think civic is still a sufficient word to use Miriam Webster would agree. Civic is an adjective relating to a citizen, city, town, or citizenship. It's matters concerning the community, the rights and duties of individuals within that community, e.g. voting, civic duty, or municipal affairs. It stems from the Latin civis, which is citizen, and civicus. So I do think they're sufficiently analogous that I'm not sure everybody will go to the dictionary, but that we could use that word to embody and include the voting rights and engagement. Is that okay with folks? Yeah? Member Yoshimoto-Towery, did you have another? Separate. Separate? And there was somebody else. Member Rodriguez, you had a separate one also. Well, you were first, and then we'll go to Member Yoshimoto-Towery and then Member Lewis. Thank you. I just

218want to commend the staff and everyone who helped shape the portrait of a learner. I appreciate how this is so holistic and the ideal, right, at least in my experience as a teacher. And as we look at communication, civic engagement, it makes me excited to think about students who will be graduating and contributing this to society, right? As opposed to that box checking and how compartmentalized sometimes education seems to be. And I also really appreciate the multilingual, multicultural learner, just for what that does for opening minds. And I appreciate the English-only comment. I usually see things from a multilingual, bicultural perspective, but it's embracing, right, and want everybody to feel that way. And I'm also reminded looking at this of the rubric that we had, the school-wide rubrics at East Palo Alto High School. And

219just what that did for learners to engage them in their community, in their school community, and to continue wanting to grow. So I'm really grateful for this portrait of a learner. And it's not mandatory, right? It's not. I have found a place to add that again in the preamble, which I'll discuss with Brooks afterwards. I think we're going to member Yoshimoto Tauri, then member Lewis. Thank you. And I just remind you that you stand between yourselves and lunch. Karen said she's not hungry. Oh, dear. I just wanted to share my congratulations to everyone who participated in this entire process, as well as for the districts who have led the way. I'm thrilled that we are voting on this today. And again, as the mother of 19-year-olds, this is so important to have this as a

220state vision. I have three comments, and I don't want to wordsmith, but I'll leave it up to the powers that be to... think about this if the board agrees. One is I was recently talking to a federal judge and he says there's a difference between participating in a democratic process and being an informed participant of the democratic process. So I do wonder if there's anywhere in number seven to it's a difference between voting right and picking the name that bubbling in the first. Letter or the first you know option or the option that is the incumbent and actually doing due diligence That's one the second is to this idea of environmental literacy I do feel like this is very people centric. Don't laugh, but I do think, like I wondered as I read it, did

221we include enough about not just attending to the needs of people, but attending to the needs of all living beings and the environment that we're in? So perhaps something related to that, if environmental literacy covers it, then we're good. And the third is, as I speak to most... you know, people that work in schools and to young people, mental health continues to be a major concern for the state. And I read it multiple times now, and I feel like we could be much more explicit. If you take number five, for example, it talks about care for others, treating others with respect, but it doesn't say in others' feelings and needs and experiences, but it doesn't say anything about mental wellness, self-care. emotional regulation or resilience. And so just in, I'm particularly sensitive to this because

222of personal loss this year, but I think that if there's any way to get in this idea of self-care somewhere in here, we want confident young people who also feel calm, you know, well and healthy, both mentally and physically. Thank you. I'll be very brief, but I also want to echo the thanks to everyone who had a role in creating this portrait of a learner. And my suggestion or comment is with number three, dynamic communicator. I like the definition and everything, but I think the descriptor. Dynamic seems kind of hard and unrelatable, I think, to parents and students and maybe effective communicator because I think that fits more with the, it fits the definition as well. And I just think it's a term that's probably more relatable to parents and students so effective as, which

223I'm trying to be right now. As opposed to dynamic. Just since we're on number three, we had a suggestion from one of the commentators of inserting the word creative. Communicates clearly, creatively, and purposefully, I think. I don't know if anyone has a view about that, but I thought it was an interesting thing to consider. Thank you. Just quick, in my mind, this work is actually at the heart of... what every educator does and is really thinking about what are our end goals for our young people and those in our care. And it's, I think, for us to model that at the state and... ensure that our conversations moving forward start from this place is extremely important and exciting. So I just want to say thank you to the people across that have done the work

224to help get us here and for you all for being, you know, backwards planning, thoughtful people. I have a couple of thoughts. yeah I'm getting there yep okay yeah yeah yeah so so there are a few I just want to say a couple of pluses I definitely appreciate the the environmental and sustainable the places in the in the portrait of a learner where we make note to the importance of sustainability, environmental literacy, and anything more we add on that is important. Definite plus one on well-being, that feels like an important thing that we care about, and making sure we get that in there. In terms of creativity, one thing that, you know, I think about our state in particular, a place where creativity, innovation, inventiveness, curiosity are prized and I think we lead, I would

225say, the world in those areas and I don't see any of those words in there. Creativity, innovation, innovative, inventive, curiosity, novel. Some of those words are in number two. Number two, we have, yeah, yep. So I think it's, yep, okay. So I think adding in, it was in number three, yes? Is that where we were saying adding it in? Yeah, I think that makes a lot of sense. And then I also agree that some communicators are dynamic. Some communicators are, thoughtful and But as long as they're effective or productive, that's what we want. So I'm sort of plussing Brenda's thought and then the last piece which is related to Which is related to well-being is also one word that doesn't exist in here that feels really important to me is the word joy. I think

226We, whether it's in person of character, acts with honesty, or no, it's under, I think you could add it in leads with, where is that? Demonstrates leadership. I think it could go in any place. There are several places it could go, but I actually think the idea, I'm not gonna try and wordsmith it right now, but I think the idea that we care that. We're helping, we want our students to be joyful and that's a type of strength. Feels like something we might want added. Thanks. Who's next? So we have, oh yes please. Member McQuillan. Uh oh, use your outdoor voice. Yeah. Here comes a, here comes. Oh, okay. The button is actually gone. I appreciate this process also. Just commenting on one of the public commenters. Giving some guidance on how to use it

227I think would be significant. I'm sure that'll probably be in there somewhere beyond just a poster is using it in LCAP using it Some suggested to use it before every meeting is to start with it I like the citizenship wording also that was talked about earlier. I think of the rights and responsibilities of citizens, not just the U.S. citizen. California has 109 federally recognized tribes that you're a citizen of your tribe also that comes with rights and responsibilities. So using that in the broad sense. And then third, that part on well-being and mental health I think needs to be in there for students to come out the other end with that concept and strategies on how to take care of yourself. Thank you. So I feel like we have ideas to incorporate. I know Brooks

228is taking careful notes and others are too. How to reiterate that this is not a mandate. Maybe to incorporate something about how to use this as a North Star and as a way to center considerations of structuring schools and learning. Adding the word creatively potentially to number three. reference to environmental sustainability in number seven, reference to well-being, self-care, somewhere in, there was one in the middle there, where it seemed like it would fit something about informed civic participation and something about joy. You'll have to find a place for that, Brooks. And rights and, I think. I think the point you're making, Member McCullough, is about rights and responsibilities that are part of the civic element. So with those incorporations. I think we have, oh, did I miss one? Oh, and effective communicator, sorry. It's here,

229I just, it was, I have a lot of scribbles. Thank you. So I think that covers all the points that we discussed and we'll incorporate those in beautiful places which do not trip up any of the lovely sentences that we have. And with that, do I have a motion? to adopt the portrait of a learner. Vice President Gloverwood is jumping out of her chair, so you may move it. All right. My move that we adopt the recommended competencies, descriptions, preamble with any changes deemed necessary as the SBE's portrait of a learner. Also that we delegate authority to the SBE executive director to make necessary revisions, included any needed for clarity, accuracy, consistent with direction that's been provided by the board today. All right. Do I have a second? Member Rodrigo? Member Ajike, I think we

230should allow you to second. Thank you. Thank you. And with that, all in favor, say aye and raise your hands. So keep them up so they're counted. I know this is not a very complicated count. And do we have any opposed or abstain? We do not. Thank you very much. Thank you, Leeb and Christine. Thank you for all of the commentary from all over the state. Thank you to the board for getting us here. And now you can eat lunch. And we will be back by 1 o'clock. Because we have a lot to a lot of ground to make up on our accountability item Seeing that everyone is assembled back from lunch. We are going to take up item number three Item three is the update on the implementation of the integrated local state and

231federal accountability and continuous improvement system and many other things too. So I'm going to let Cindy Kazanis lead us through our mega accountability item. And Cindy, please begin. Thank you. Good afternoon, members of the board. This is Cindy Kazanis with the California Department of Education. You're going to hear quite a bit from Kim today as well, so she'll introduce herself in just a moment. But to get started, we used to have this history that when we talked during a May board item, we talked about a teacher we wanted to recognize. And so I just thought I would just carry that tradition on since you mentioned it this morning, President Darlene Hammond. Miss Alasure is the music teacher at my student's school, and my older child has really taken on this singing thing, so we were

232treated to No Time to Die, a rendition by the class last week, and so arts in schools is a great thing for all students at all levels. Turning to accountability and what is in our system. So many things. And we really are looking forward to landing some of these items. Some of these are a carryover from your May meeting, I mean your March meeting, rather. And we have brought back things according to liaisons, how they wanted to see it presented. And so I think you'll see something that is a bit more digestible and something that will be hopefully, it will. you'll be able to move on today. So we do have several attachments. We always walk through the attachments individually. And for this. particular item we'd like to walk through individually and pause after each

233for clarifying questions and not pause within each of the segments just to keep things moving along but we will be covering the long-term English learner student group addition with our English learner progress indicator there's some some tweaks to it that we're really excited about we're going to take English language arts and mathematics growth and the science indicator pieces out of order and move them to the end because they're not for action today. And you've actually already talked about them in item two. We'll follow with the college career indicator, our priority one teacher assignment data. We already missed Rigel. Just wanted to say that publicly as well. And then we will pick up. Language around our English language arts and mathematics indicators that you had asked us to add to the work plan back in January

234And then finally we do have some exciting numbers around Just getting out in the field and also usage of the dashboard and so just wanted to conclude with that as attachment 7 So our work plan of course is something that you all adopted back in January and as part of the dashboard, we've had this commitment from the original adoption of continuous improvement which is why nearly 10 years later we're still making adjustments to it. not to overshadow what already happened this morning, these changes will potentially impact who of course is eligible for differentiated assistance as well, depending on what path forward. So these things do intersect. But we are hopefully with today's actions, we'll be able to land most everything that's on the work plan. And then we're already gearing up for 2027. We have

235a parking lot that we've promised education stakeholders that we would put forward. in a memo as we've done the last couple of times in August. So that is something that we're ready to do as well. In terms of our dashboard principles, you're always gonna see these linked in our item. These are based on principles that you adopted back in 2022. And without further ado, I'm gonna turn it over to Kim, because you're gonna hear from her for the first two pieces of this. Good afternoon, State Board of Education. Not many times I get to say that, right? So nice to see everyone. Kimberly Muntink, Administrator of the Accountability Development and Policy Analysis Unit. And I'm going to walk you through two pieces that should not be new, right? So a lot of this is going

236to be very familiar. So our slides reflect that, right, in a lot of information that you've already seen. Our work plan around long-term English learner students began in March, walking through looking at our suspension rate changes, which I can proudly say we've had a lot of. feedback from the field around positive feedback already. So that was very nice and be able to relate that back to you. And today you're going to be walking through another decision for our long-term English learners specifically around adding a level to the English Learner Progress Indicator or LP around reclassification specifically around that. The principles that are covered for this attachment specifically are principles 5, 8, and 11. Now last year following your May meeting a specific request was made by the board and specifically your accountability liaisons to look

237at modifying the English learner progress indicator calculation for our LTEL students only and look at the final progress level for students who are English learners aka when you stop taking the assessments anymore for some of the ELPAC and then you are reclassified, right? So that penultimate level of English learner progress. And the purpose was to recognize that that is a very valuable level of achievement that schools and LEAs have provided to students. And additionally, that those who, the LTEL students who reclassify as fluent English proficient really creates a more inclusive picture than excluding them, which is how it presently is within our English learner progress indicator calculation. Now, this is not a new idea. This idea actually was part of the original English Learner Progress Indicator when we developed it in 2017. And so all

238reclassified students were included in our original ELPI. Instead of having just four different levels that moved forward from our different levels, we said from that final level to reclassified was an additional level of progress. But the federal government did not agree with us. They said specifically that ESSA didn't allow it because they required in the LP calculation overall that it had to be based on assessments, that we couldn't include a non-assessment-based progress measure within our LP calculation. So we had to go back, remove that part of the calculation from it overall, and, you know, it was not without a fight. Everyone went to DC to try and make our case, but alas, again, Congress didn't include that in the original legislation, so we were left without reclassified students in our English Learner Progress Indicator calculation.

239Now, I just want to be very, very clear. This is probably... The most often asked question right now. The overall LPE will not change in any way, right? That's because we can't have it change due to our federal government, right? And using that piece within our comprehensive support identifications, right? And CSI identifications and ATSI identifications. So the overall LPE will remain the same. However, the LTEL student group will be modified with this. Now people are like, well, but there's LTELs in the LP. Yes, they are. So they will be counted two different ways, right? So when we look at them in the overall LP, they're not going to get that last level of progress. But in the LTEL, they will get that last level of progress. So it's going to look a little bit different.

240And this is how the calculation changes. So all we do. is for the numerator. We're going to count the students who increase in LP level, maintain the highest LP level, as well as those who have reclassified in the last year. And then we just also add those students to the denominator because as you notice, currently those students are just not a part of our current calculation in any way, shape, or form. So we add them to the numerator and the denominator, which for our math fun means that you're always going to add and increase your numbers. There's no way this is a penalty to anyone. But we have this other added bonus effect, and that is that adding those students to the denominator creates more schools and districts that end up with an LTEL LP.

241because we're adding students to that denominator and they lift above that 15 minimum end size. So that is the bonus effect of what this does. And this is how it broke down for looking at the 2025 dashboard. So if we looked back on the current dashboard and did this, we would see that an additional 15 districts would receive an LTEL student group, an additional 205 schools would receive an LTEL student group. And remember at the school size for districts and COEs it's 30, rather for districts and COEs it's 15 and then schools it's 30. So that is how many additional schools and districts would receive an LB for LTELs. And then you can see the breakdown for charters, non-charters, DAS and non-DAS. And then additionally you can see how the breakdown for schools and colors

242goes through in how many are boosted right through, their colors are boosted based on their additional performance of including their RFPs in there. So you can see more blue schools, green schools, a decrease in yellow, a slight increase in orange, and an overall decrease in the number of LTEL schools that have red. As well as you can see that across districts it's not as drastic, right? Just a few, just a couple fewer red and orange. again yellow and then increases in the numbers of blue. Now when we sought feedback from our two groups that we looked to, our technical design group thought that including ARFFEPs in the LTEL student group would reflect appropriate reclassification and would result in a clear depiction of EL student progress. This is not surprising because in 2017 they said the

243same thing, right? This is not something technically new that we were thinking about doing. And then the CPAC also shared that consensus that incorporating RFAPs better recognizes effective practices and highlights LEAs that successfully reclassify students without holding them back. Therefore, the recommendation from CDE is that the State Board of Education approve the inclusion of reclassified students with an additional level with the LB for the long-term English learner student group. Do we have any clarifying questions with regards to attachment one? All right. Everyone had good lunch. I like it. And you're a very good teacher. You know, if we can make it fun, we'll go through. Now, we do have the CCI. And so I know Cindy said we'll walk through at the end to handle any clarifying questions along the way. So please do note

244your questions, and then we will go back to the sections. And I'm happy to reflect, as we do have quite a few things to go through, some you've seen before and just a couple that you have not. We began back in March walking through multiple aspects of both the state seal of civic engagement as well as our additional career measures and walked through our work-based learning and had quite robust conversations into the afternoon at our March meeting. And additionally at our March CPAC just two weeks later we brought back additional feedback and sought feedback from them on adding coursework. to the CCI as well as ASVAB into our course evaluations. And then any other further requests that came from the January study session, which included the consideration of Cambridge as far as the courses go.

245And then today you will be making final decisions on all of those pieces. The indicators and principles that are taken care of with here are principles two, three, four, eight, and 11. All right, so work-based learning. This is what we went through a lot during March. And so we took all of your feedback and incorporated it into the actions that are before you today. So we had presented various options for work-based learning for the CCI at that meeting, and specifically the request from the board was to review additional options for quote-unquote plus measures for the work-based learning and to review a definition of high quality. And we have done so within the item and our slides today. And then we also received additional direction from our liaisons prior to the meeting here today to clarify

246the options that you wanted on the table to evaluate. So they've been narrowed for you so it was not as wide as it was in March. So based on that, the new definitions of high quality work-based learning for internship are as follows. It would be inclusive of 50 hours or more duration, sponsored by the LEA. that it met expectations or greater on their employer performance evaluation, and that was completed as part of a course offered by the LA. For the definitions for simulated work-based learning for either and student-led enterprise for our work-based learning, it would be 50 hours or more in duration. Now the copious number of plus measures that would be included with successful completion of a high quality work based learning program are listed on page four of attachment four in item three

247and all of those various combinations would result in showing an LEA or school has prepared a student for college or career. So any of those options that are available are up for consideration today. So your approval would mean all of those would show prepared. As far as CPAC, they were the ones who got to see this two weeks after the last board meeting, and they expressed strong support for adding work-based learning measures as a plus measure. So that would be versus a standalone measure. So we received their full support moving forward. Next up, the state's deal of civic engagement, which we also discussed in March. And again, that was one of the other pieces of information we presented that came back with, well, we'd also like to see additional plus measures for this element. And

248the CDE also received further direction from our accountability liaisons to clarify those options before you saw them today. And that full listing of plus measures is available on page six of attachment four for your item. So you can see all of the various plus measures that would be combined with a successful completion of the state seal of civic engagement to move forward. Now at CPAC members were concerned and brought their concerns forward that the state seal of civic engagement did not have the rigor to be used for accountability purposes however They did support adding the state's ill of civic engagement to the CCI as a plus measure So they were not comfortable with it as a standalone, but they were comfortable with it as a plus measure See, this is much faster than March, right?

249There we go. All right. Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery Armed Forces Qualification Test Scores, or ASVAB AFQT. It's a giant mouthful of acronyms. So this is a lovely test that we've spoken about previously that determines your eligibility for enlistment in U.S. military, and it's given to students in grades 10 through 12 at various participating schools throughout the state of California. Now, looking at other states, as California did, we walked through to see what the majority of states used for their other test takers. So, therefore, a score of 31 does represent the 31st percentile of everyone that's taken the test. Now, scores are based on word knowledge, paragraph comprehension, arithmetic reasoning, sorry, and mathematics knowledge. Now, how do students who take the ASVAB place on the 2025 CCI? Well now a majority of students who have

250taken these taken as fab and those scores have been reported to the CDE over 75.8 percent of them scored higher than a 31 or higher on the as have a FQT and were classified as prepared on the CCI Now 1,500 students were identified as approaching prepared meaning that that they had done something else right in the CCI But had not reached that qualifying and then or not prepared And that was those students represent a very wide range of districts. I think this is one of the largest sections of for any indicator we've looked at. 173 districts across 43 counties. So it's a very wide ranging application of these assessments that have been taking place. Now when we brought this to CPAC, members expressed support for the addition of ASVAB as a measure to the CCI.

251They did express support for 31 on the AFQT as that is the minimum threshold score for all measures of all branches of the military to be eligible for a career in the military and should be considered as part of a plus measure. So they did not see that as a standalone indicator. And they considered adding ASVAB AFQT. as a standalone if we had a higher score threshold. Now to our courses. So first up is International Baccalaureate, which is already in the CCI. So this coursework obviously sets out that has three core elements that aim to broaden studies educational experience and challenge them to apply their knowledge and skills. There's an application based process for schools that wish to become an authorized IB school and as of 2025 there were 97 high schools or around 4%

252of high schools in the state of California that offered IB coursework. Now for our work plan what we wanted to do per your request last year was to consider including IB course success in the CCI just like we do for AP course success. So as you created that motion last year. So for a student to earn prepared by the IB measure they would score a four or higher on at least two IB exams or successfully complete two IB courses with a grade of C minus or better. or achieve a combined total of two or more qualifying IB course completions and IB examinations. Or a CCI IB prepared student by exams only, so two exams or UCCSU requirements met plus an exam. versus a CCI IB prepared students by our courses, which is two courses, one

253course, an exam, and a UC CSU requirements met, and one course. What all of that means at the bottom, that's our A through G plus measure for the CCI. So what we're looking at there is, in addition, that plus could also be a course. So successful completion of a course would also be, or an exam for IB would be included there. Now when we look at the data for 2025 an overwhelming majority of our students 87.2% who complete the modified IB so when we look at courses and exams were already classified as prepared on the CCI outside of their IB completion. 481 students were identified as approaching or not prepared but completed the modified measure. And 385 students were identified as approaching prepared or not prepared, but completed the modified UC CSU measure. So they

254completed A through G requirements and then also completed either one exam or one course. And the approaching prepared or not prepared students that would be considered prepared with this modified measure represent 74 districts across 23 counties. The CPAC feedback on IB courses was. They support adding IB courses because it's very similar to AP. They don't see that there's any distinction necessary for the two, and they felt like this was an appropriate way to go through this. Now, based on the January board meeting, the state board requested additional information on adding a third test slash vendor for assessments and curriculum known as Cambridge International. So Cambridge International is a global provider of education programs and is part of Cambridge University Press and Assessment. It has a very strong international recognition of their advanced level or A

255courses, which are known for their rigor and allow students to specialize deeply in a few subjects. So if you know of students who have taken their secondary coursework abroad, you would kind of know about this, especially if they did so in England. And or if you watch any of those lovely British TV shows, they're always talking about their A levels and what they got, right? So... Just to dig a little bit more into Cambridge and their advanced course information. So they currently offer 55 course subjects and they have two types of courses. One is their AS levels, which is a one year course that has an exam and those are graded with lowercase A, B, C, D, E and a big U and that's equivalent to three to four college credits. And then A levels,

256right, for two years, and this is very hard, right, because it corresponds with our grades, right, are designated with the following grades. A star, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and U. I know, we've just expanded all of our options for course grading. What was that? It is better than a U. It is a... So, right, so, I mean... Maybe minuses aren't as cool, right? Across the pond. And they're equivalent to six to eight credits. And so college credit, with UC grants and credit for Cambridge A-level exams, presently offers students who earn grades of A star, A, B, and C. So presently, that is what has been shared in the literature with us. So right now in the state of California, as of last year, there were 229 students from two Cambridge-authorized high schools

257in two LEAs that offer Cambridge international courses. And this might be shocking to you, but 100% of the students who completed two Cambridge International A-level courses were classified as prepared on the college career indicator. So those are students who took a rigorous two-year course and received one of those passing grades. And then there was one student who completed two International A-level exams that was not already prepared on the CCI by their school or LEA. Now, CPAC expressed support for adding Cambridge A and AS levels as a measure of preparedness for the CCI and, again, shared that their criteria would be similar to AP. And so, therefore, adding courses and exams, course success and exam success would be appropriate. Therefore now this is almost time for your clarifying questions. I'll walk through all of the motions

258and then we'll go through So the CDE recommends that the State Board of Education approve high quality definitions for work based learning internships work based learning student-led enterprise and work based learning simulated work based learning and approve work based learning as a measure in the CCI in the following way Complete high quality work-based learning and the listed plus measures. Complete ACTE pathway. Complete one semester, two quarters, or two trimesters of college credit courses within high school with a grade of C minus or better in academic or CTE subjects where college credits are awarded. Complete two years of leadership military science. Complete and then meet all requirements for admission to UC or CSU. Complete one advanced placement course with a grade of C- or better or receive a score of 3 or higher on one AP

259exam. Complete the state seal of biliteracy. A Smarter Balanced score of 3 or higher in one subject area, English, Language Arts, or Math, and a score of level 2 in the other area. Receive a score of 4 or higher on the IB exam. Complete one IB course with a grade of C- or better if you approve that today. Complete one Cambridge International course with a grade of C- or better, or complete one Cambridge International exam with a C or better if approved today, and or state seal of civic engagement if you also approve that today. For the State Seal of Civic Engagement, the recommendation is that you would approve the State Seal of Civic Engagement measure for the CCI in the following way. Completion of the State Seal of Civic Engagement and one of the

260following plus measures. Complete a CTE pathway. Complete one semester, two quarters, or two trimesters of college credit courses within the high school with a grade of C- or better. Complete two years of leadership or military science. Meet all the requirements for UC or CSU. Complete one AP course with a grade of C- or better or receive a score of 3 or higher on an AP exam. Complete the state sealed biliteracy, an SBAC score of level 3 or higher in one subject area and a level 2 in the other, or receive a score of 4 or higher on one IB exam. Complete one IB course with a C-minus or better, if approved. Complete one Cambridge course with a grade of C-minus or, or complete one Cambridge International exam with a grade of C or better, and

261or completion of a high quality work-based learning internship, student-led enterprise, or simulated work-based learning, if approved. For ASVAB, it is not a long list like I just said. The CDE would approve that, CD recommends that the State Board of Education approve the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery as a measure in the following way. Complete two years of leadership military science and receive a score of three or higher in either the English language, arts, or math, smarter balanced assessments, and a score of level two, standard nearly met, or higher on the other assessment, which is the current. measure for leadership military science or receive a score of 31 or higher on the ASVAB AFQT. So we would modify the current leadership military science by adding in the ASVAB AFQT score. For IB, we would be modifying

262with a recommendation to either receive a score of four or higher on two exams or complete two IB courses with a grade of C- or better or complete one IB course with a grade of C- or better and receive a score of four or higher on an IB exam. The qualifying IB course and qualifying IB exam cannot be the same thing, just in case. We have to put that there just to make sure. As well as... meeting the requirements for admissions to a UC or CSU school, and receiving a score of four or higher on one IB exam, or complete an IB course with a grade of C-minus or better. And then finally for Cambridge, the recommendation is as follows. Complete two Cambridge courses with a grade of C-minus or better, receive a C or

263higher on two AB or AS level exams, and that includes a little C for the other one. Complete one Cambridge A or AS level with a grade of C minus or better or receive a C or higher on a Cambridge A or AS level exam. The qualifying Cambridge level exam and course cannot match and or meet requirements for admission to UC or CSU and receive a score of ABC, ABC on one A or AS level and or one Cambridge ASA level course with a grade of C minus or better. Any clarifying questions on anything for the CCI? Just wondering, with Cambridge, my understanding that an E is equivalent to a C minus. And I know with IB, you had a C minus, and Cambridge is a C, and I think their C is equivalent to

264B. So I'm just wondering the rationale for that. So the rationale is that the evidence that we have presently for UCs and CSUs accepting credit is that they accept an A, B, or C of A levels. So presently, all of the recommendations and the requirements that we have leveled everything against. So for UCs, for our AP exams, and for CSUs, you need a score of three or higher. So that's why that matches. And then for IB. It is a score of five or higher for UCs. However, CSU accepts four or higher. So presently, those are the only grades that are acceptable for transference into our higher education. So that is where we have it presently. I actually have two clarifying questions. On page 38, or slides 38, I'm sorry, where we have the adding IB

265courses to the CCI, my question is for bullet point two and three, are the 481 students Could the 481 students on bullet point two include students that are in the 385 on bullet point three? Could there be students in that 481 that completed the modified AB measure and also the modified UCCSU or are we looking at two different groups? Yes, they can be duplicative. Thank you very much. And my second clarifying question was in relation to the plus measure items. I believe I know the answer to this, Kim, but I just want to be sure. for the work-based learning and for the state seal of civic engagement it is completion of that and one of the full lists that you went over one of the fullest that we went through thank you i just i

266thought so but i wanted to be sure yes and again for much better than on slides due to our lovely 508 presentations I would refer you to the table on the item. It's much nicer and neater there to go through all of those different options. But yes, so it would include any of those. So completion of either that state seal of civic engagement or the three work-based learning programs and then any of those other plus measures. All right, Cindy Kazanis again with CDE. We're going to end up. this item together. I'm gonna finish this out. So again, we are skipping over a couple of attachments because they're for informational purposes, so we'll bring them up at the end, but the next metric that is for action today is around priority one, teacher assignment data. So

267this is something that you all have been working on for several years and I think we finally have the full picture as required under the education code. So back in March you received this for informational purposes and today asking you to take action on including terminology around inter-district comparison data. These are the dashboard principles that they align to. And in terms of thinking back to January, the task at hand was to first receive feedback from the new teacher assignment cards on the LEA and school dashboard pages that you adopted back in 2025. Also looking at ideas for looking at the disparities within the teacher assignment, so this intra-district look, and then the alignment of data terminology. So in terms of the alignment of data terminology, because at our prior meeting, we talked about the feedback

268from the 2025 additions to this piece. Part of the recommendation is around changing clear because it's not clear was the joke to fully credentialed and properly assigned which is a little bit more of a mouthful but it is something that is more accurately depicting who shows up on these cards. So these would be on the local indicators dashboard pages and then there was also some information around or some conversations around updates to the teacher assignment monitoring outcomes report on DataQuest. So the existing table shows us not only the LEA, the county, and the state. We have these comparisons in our existing table. We show this against what we currently have, which of course we're using the word CLEAR, percent of teaching FTE. And the comparison is to the statewide average. So you're never going to

269have the bottom box filled out, but we're looking at LEA. Are they above the statewide average? Are they? below the statewide average. This box will continue to exist. So this is not going away. We then have been exploring. really how we can meet this inter-district comparison. So this extent of any disparities across school sites within a school district or county office of education. I want to be sort of obvious here. If you're a single single, you're not going to have a comparison. If you are charter school, you will not have a comparison because it's just you, right? So this is only at the district, on the district pages on the dashboard. So what is... being looked at is for elementary high school unified county houses of education what do their dashboards look like because again

270if they have more than one school we want to see this comparison The other piece was in response to not only the state board meeting but also the CPIG meeting in March, we added additional rows around looking at school type, really alternative school is what we're calling it. I think DAS was a little bit of a mouthful for the liaisons or for board staff. So we're calling them alternative schools. We also have a footnote on this proposed teacher table. So this teacher table. could theoretically sit right underneath the table I just showed you of the state, the state percent of clear, the district and the school, right? So we would see this information again on the district page for elementary, middle, high, and then the lowest percentage, you'd see the highest and the lowest percentage

271is something that you all expressed interest in at the March meeting. For this particular District, it's a pretty large district with 43 elementary schools, 14 middle, eight high, and two alternative schools. And believe me, this is a made-up school district because I don't know any of these. These numbers probably don't really add up in real life for that amount of students. But as you can see, we do have... different percentages on the high versus the lower end. And then for alternative, the high is 85, so it gives a comparison among those two like school types. In terms of educational partner feedback, specifically the California Practitioner Advisory Group meeting, we heard there was an interest in looking at other states' averages, but also there was concerns around, questions around the appropriateness of comparing LEAs. Again, this

272is a comparison within a district, so we're not, there's not a statewide comparison of the schools. In terms of other concerns that the metrics could have unintended negative effects for small districts if you only have two and one of them is on one end and the other is not. And then there was support for transparency so that members of the public can further understand teacher assignment context. And then we had some feedback around the DAS, non-DAS. I think back when we presented to CPAC, we weren't quite there yet. So this particular recommendation does bring in that recommendation. In terms of what the department is recommending, it's not going today, here we go. We are asking you to update the reference to clear to fully credentialed and properly assigned on not only the local indicators page

273but on the teacher assignments card and then adding this second table of we're calling it comparing schools within this LEA. So trying to make that as well a little bit more user friendly to show inter-district comparison of fully credentialed and properly assigned teachers on the dashboard. So happy to pause if there's questions, clarifying questions before moving on to the last pieces. Going back to the table slide with the highest and lowest, was there some discussion of sort of having the numbers that are connected to highest and lowest? And I don't mean for purposes of being able to say school X and naming a school, but even, for example, if you have a School district that has ten schools and there's only one school that's got the hundred the highest but nine are actually at the

274lowest That that's not really something that pops from that display of the data. So I'm just wondering if that was if there was If there were other solutions that were offered about how to give a sense of the variable weight of highest versus lowest I wouldn't say that specific point, but it did come up, you know, it's come up before, and that's one of the reasons why this particular data table, the first data table, takes you to those reports. So it still has a link to those reports, and really, if you wanted us to, we could make sure that that was, you know, a bit more obvious for this data table as well. So the first, you know, if you want to explore more, I mean, that's part of what I think it's doing is

275it's exposing. hopefully exposing or generating interest in exploring more data. But we did not get to that specific question, but that is potentially an avenue. And then once you get to those reports on DataQuest, which of course is not part of the dashboard, they're sortable. It's really easy to look at, especially when you have a larger number of schools like in our urban setting. Just a straightforward clarifying question. On the data table, teacher data table, when you have schools with different configurations, like a K-8 or a 6-12 or a K-12, how do they show up in the? We have a conversion table. It's sort of like when you have the distinguished school ceremony and you have a K-12 school, where does it land? I don't have them memorized, but we do have a conversion table

276for those. Yeah. They would land in one of these, so yeah. Yeah, you would not see a duplication. Any other clarifications? Are we ready to move on? This is the last piece that's for action. This is around English language arts and mathematics indicators and specifically around modifying the language on these indicators. This is something that you all added to the accountability work plan back in January. We took this for informational purposes to CPAC in March and they provided feedback on this piece. And then we are asking for you to take action today. These are the principles in which this aligns to. And let me walk you through it. So moving from DFS, for those of you that love acronyms, to DFP, distance from standard to difference from proficiency. This is action that was taken with

277the original. dashboard back in 2017 to talk about this metric in terms of reporting percent proficient. So we've used this DFS metric to measure not only the CAASPP, to measure our CAASPP results, right, our Smarter Balanced and our alternative assessments for the California School Dashboard. What DFS represents and will continue to represent is distance from a student's score on SBAC and the standard met level threshold. So that for of course for CAASPP that's level three. At the March meeting in a separate item that is not accountability related. you had gone through a very thorough conversation around changing the achievement level descriptors for the assessments. And I was not part of that conversation, but we've now been pulled into it. So now, Mao and I and others are talking more frequently because of this. So again,

278to reflect back on your action in January was you made these changes on the assessment side. How can we bring them into the accountability side? So that's what we're attempting. to do today. Specifically what you adopted was relabeling the achievement level descriptors from the middle column to the column on the right, the new adopted ALDs. And so this word using, updating it from standard met to proficient is something we want to bring into the accountability system or we were asked to bring into the accountability system. And part of the feedback from CPAC members was concerned with actually having too many words. distance from proficiency standard was one too many words and they recommended removing the word standard. So that is what you see before you today is creating this new term distance from proficiency to

279align with these newly adopted achievement levels. So the other piece of this particular attachment is around also showing additional information about the CAS performance levels. Specifically back in January, we were asked to look to see how we could bring in student performance at all four performance levels. The dashboard looks at something different than what the CAS website is. The CAS website goes into great detail. Just like for some things for the dashboard, we send folks to DataQuest for more information. I think about chronic absence and why students are absent. We have a whole report on that on DataQuest. And so thinking about this linkage between the dashboard and the CAS. results webpage. So what we are looking at and what the indicators currently show on the dashboard is distance from standard. That would be change

280to distance from proficiency. We also look at change from the prior year and performance levels for our schools, our districts, and our student groups. And then just as I mentioned, but let me just be explicit, the indicators don't show the difference in the four different performance levels. So before us today would be adding in CAASPP results. by performance level. Actually, this is, yes, by performance level as stacked bar charts for the all student group. We also would have a description of the graphs and a link to the CAS reporting website, which is much. you know, this is much more larger scale than what we do for accountability and it meets several requirements, not only on the federal side, but I'm sure on the state side. And so also having that link present as well. So

281again, a stacked bar chart, description of the graphs, and a link to the CAASPP results, not only on the ELA indicator, but math and science indicators. So in terms of the feedback we received at CPAC, this specific piece of the attachment, there was support for the all student group being the stacked bar track. bar graph because of just real estate on the webpage, but also I think to Member Portillo-Bronson's question about the last one, like how do you get more information and really taking them to the source of the data where it has these beautiful displays and color and is interactive, just some things that we have limitations on for the dashboard. So in terms of the recommendation, we recommend that the board update the term distance from standard for the English language arts mathematics

282indicator on the dashboard to distance from proficiency and that you approve the display of trends in student performance at all performance levels for ELA math on the Smarter Bounce summative assessment and California alternate assessment and then link to the LEA school CASP webpage. So I can pause for questions before moving on to the last pieces. Or maybe that was good enough. Great. OK. All right. So these last two, I will go through very quickly. And I'm going to group the two together. This is the pieces to bring growth and then science as full indicators. And you've already had a discussion about this in the other item. These are the timeline that we anticipate for. for both of them. So for growth and bringing it in as a full indicator is to now just shift this

283conversation over to the differentiated assistance performance criteria conversation because this really now has become its own item. In terms of the principles that it aligns to, we see those on our page. And then there's also some, we've put together some implications of making growth a full indicator. So we would remove it from being for informational purposes. Whether or not, again, this is your decision that you'll be making in July with the DA criteria. Does it get brought into differentiated assistance? Does it get brought into the federal support determinations and potentially be used for looking at school eligibility for comprehensive support and improvement, additional targeted support and improvement, and targeted support and improvement, which would necessitate an amendment to the ESSA state plan. In terms of the feedback for growth, we did have conversations with CPAC

284on this as well. They did like the metric. They see that there's rigor in it and were supportive of making it a full indicator. Some other members did share that it was difficult to explain to parents. that it doesn't apply to all grades. So it leaves out high schools and high school districts. So we've talked about the next steps and shifting this over to the DA item. So let me pick up attachment three, which is the science piece. Similar. path as growth with the the work plan as well as the principles and Also the terminations almost exactly it is exactly the same right it would move away from being informational purposes to a full state indicator And it could be you know depending on your decision be used for differentiated assistance And then again what

285what is the path if there's a path forward on bringing it into our federal support determinations for schools? In terms of science, we've actually been thinking about this for a while, and CPAC has weighed in on this more than once. So back. almost a year ago in June, the CPAC members did express interest in bringing it on as part of the academic performance priority area. In March, there was mixed feedback. So we did have a little bit of a different take on it, and I think really this differentiated assistance, larger conversation has shifted some. some minds you have seen that at least i've seen that in the correspondence and um some some reticence when we think about the broader picture but um we have again taken this back to cpag i'm sure this will be

286part of the conversation at june cpag again and happy to support in any way um how do we bring this this forward for for for fruition or for for action um so uh same as growth i'm looking to bring this as part of the da criteria conversation and so I don't know if there's any clarifying questions around that. I know you have spoken about this already quite a bit this morning. Okay, so this is the fun part. At least this is what I consider to be the fun part. So what else have we been up to, right? And one of the things is that we, you know, to support the dashboard is a year-round process, right? We're getting asked questions constantly. We're getting asked how does this interact with, can we use the dashboard to

287do it for this grant? Can we use the dashboard to show who should be a distinguished school? Those are all things that this dashboard has legs, right? It has taken on other lives, rather. We continue to support the field. We did have a policy work group meeting with about 40 participants and we were able to do several in person and virtual presentations with nearly 3,500 participants. The other piece I wanted to let you know is that we are tracking how many people are visiting the dashboard throughout the year and since it was released we had nearly 350,000 visitors to the site. They had 765,000 unique sessions and just in the last year the last month or so we captured 53,000 users. So they are using it throughout the year. How they're using it and what

288they're using it for, I'm not quite sure, but I think that that's, you know, like LCAPs, right? Thinking about how folks are performing. Maybe they're getting ready for the differentiated assistance criteria conversation, but it is being used. The other thing we've been spending a lot of time working towards for the last several years since this became part of our lives is this moving up of the dashboard to October 15th. This is the first year we're going to release the data by that date. And we have been speaking a lot with our assessments colleagues, and particularly Mal and her team. about talking about having this as an aligned release. And so the leadership not only of the Department of Education but the State Board of Education have been speaking about this since the beginning of the

289calendar year. And we want to share with you that we will have an aligned release. You will not see two desperate press releases. You will see this information land on the same day. So we can talk about. really this whole school approach, this whole child approach, right? It's not about the single assessment that was taken. It's also about did they come to school? Were they disciplined? Did they graduate on time? How did they do on the college career indicator? So our chief deputy Ingrid Robeson, Dr. Robeson sent out a letter last week to the field sharing this information and also encouraging our local educational agencies to look at and use their data and talk about their data early. There is no reason to wait until October when you know when a student exits your school,

290you know, whether or not they graduated, right? You have a local student information system. And so we are... if you can't tell, really passionate about this because we want to empower our schools to not wait for the state. I know it's nice to have a comparison against that neighboring district or that school rivalry that you had, but. But be bold and I always, I do like talking about Los Angeles because the superintendent there talks about it in August, right? They get it out there and maybe there's a little bit of a change when we do actually produce the data. Maybe there's some shifts that we can only see at the state level. But for the most part, what we're getting absolutely is coming directly from our local educational agencies and we just think you can

291start supporting those students. especially if they're not coming to school. Hopefully you're supporting them every single day to get them to school, right? This lag in data from the state is really not meant to be real time. And in other states, and I've said this before, they'll... they'll actually give information for their accountability system a full year later. So they won't ever report on current near graduation rates. So we're passionate, we're excited, we're gonna be supporting the field over the next couple of months, talking about what this means, how we can support them to look at these data and be prepared for this mega release. So this is the letter, we also have a page stood up, it's literally called the Aligned Data Release, I think. Something simple, but that's up with some FAQs. So

292with that, I have the item recommendation. And we've walked through each of these. And so I would defer to President Darling-Tamman on how you'd like to proceed. And I'll turn to Vice President Glover Woods for any comments before me. And we'll let you know when we have more questions, which we undoubtedly will. We probably will, but I'm just excited about all of this. And I just, again, can't thank Cindy, Kim, and team for all of the work that goes into all of these items on our accountability work plan and doing all the work. That is done. We have a number of things in front of us to make decisions about. I appreciate the clarity of the presentation so we know exactly what we're looking at. And I do think what was brought before us in

293the presentation reflects conversation that we've had before around these measures. So I look forward to the conversation. Again, much gratitude, Cindy, Kim, and team. And I'm excited to dialogue. move forward most definitely. Yes, and I will just really underscore that we've talked about all of these pieces before. It's great to see them coming together. I do want to ask that we get the public comment slide up so that those who would like to queue up for public comment, there we go, can do so by using the phone number and the access code that are shown on this slide. And with that, let's see if there's any public comment in the room. Yes, we have eight people signed up for in-person public comment. I'll call the first five up, so please line up at the microphone

294in the back of the room. Nicholas Watson, Carlos Machado, Christina Salazar, Natalie Shin, and Diana Wu. Please remember to state your name and affiliation for the record when it's your turn to speak. Good afternoon. Board President Darling-Hammond and members of the board I'm Nicholas Watson speaking behalf of the California Charter Schools Association. CCSA supports the inclusion of robust growth and science data as full academic indicators with the color designation on the school dashboard. This is critically important to ensure that all academic data is considered by authorizers during high stakes charter renewals. We applaud your efforts to develop full dashboard indicators for growth in science. Doing so will ensure that these data sources will be used by the CDE for the placement of schools in performance categories and will be considered by authorizers during renewals. Several

295limitations of the current dashboard require the addition of fully developed growth indicators. Most importantly, the current version of the dashboard may reflect a bias because charter schools which serve the most high need populations are overrepresented in the low performance category. In 2026, more than 90% of low track schools serve majority underserved student populations. With the recent expiration of the provision requiring authorizers to consider verified data the adoption of fully developed growth indicators Thank you Your time is up. Thank you Good afternoon. Carlos Machado with California School Board Association. We appreciate the intent to make the CCI more accessible for DAS schools. However, time remains a significant barrier for juvenile court and community school programs. With enrollment ranging from mere days to months, students often lose CTE progress because no system exists to track or transfer

296the work back to the home districts. We are eager to partner with the state to develop a system where CTE progress... follows the student across educational settings, ensuring their efforts toward readiness are recognized. Regarding teacher assignments, we support the shift to the term fully credentialed and properly assigned to increase their transparency. However, we urge the board to prioritize governance coherence and consider the severe recruitment and retention challenges LEAs face. We must ensure that new metrics do not inadvertently mis-assess the economies of scale impacting small and rural districts. We ask for greater contextualization. in the dashboard to reflect the complex factors LEAs navigate while working to staff classrooms and improve student outcomes. Thank you for ensuring our accountability metrics. Thank you, Speaker. Your time is up. Thank you. I'm noticing that it's harder to hear folks

297both on the phone and in the room. I wonder if our technical folks could make sure that the microphones and system is adequate for the volume. Go ahead. Okay, perfect. Good afternoon president and members. Christina Salazar with the Riverside County superintendent of schools. We support CDE's recommendation to include reclassified students within the LP because it recognizes the full trajectory of student success. It also creates a more accurate picture of the district performance. We also appreciate the continued review of the college and career indicator but can continue to urge support to consider the realities of justice involves students and our COE Court Schools disability rate this year was at 2.6 percent compared to 91.5 percent statewide and students stayed on average about 28 days which is a good thing because it means successful re-engagement into their

298home districts, but it means they are rarely on track for to completing a traditional pathway. These students demonstrates growth through skill building and and their own progress. So we encourage these measures to reflect the realities of the students they are intended to serve. Thank you. Good afternoon, members of the board. Natalie Shin here on behalf of Californians Together. We are in strong support of including reclassified students as an additional level within the English Learner Progress Indicator for the Long-Term English Learner Student Group and want to thank you for providing simulated results using the new calculation. We also support the recommendations on teacher assignment monitoring outcomes and align our comments with the LCFF Equity Coalition. Thank you. Good afternoon, Dr. Darling-Hammond and board members. Diana Vu on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators. On

299ELA and mathematics growth, ASSA continues to support publishing student-level growth data on the dashboard for informational purposes only with no accountability implications. Growth data is a valuable resource for educators and families, but is limited to grades four through eight, excludes California alternative assessments, and its inclusion is... In accountability systems, we delay the DA determinations by shifting file availability from October to December. Growth data should remain a tool for improvement, not a trigger for accountability. On the college career indicator, access supports including the state CL civic engagement as a standalone measure. This preserves flexibility for LEAs to implement the civic engagement opportunities that reflect their local context and ensures broader, more equitable access for students, particularly those in alternative education settings. On the teacher assignment data, AXA supports aligning terminology across all accountability platforms and appreciates

300the board previously stated alignment on removing the term ineffective, which is a misnomer that does not reflect a teacher's qualification or ability. AXA recommends disaggregating teacher data assignment by- Thank you, speaker. Your time is up. Thank you. Will the following three people line up at the microphone in the back of the room? Lindsay Tornatore, Matthew Kay, and Dena Wilson. Good afternoon, President Darling-Hammond, Vice President Glover-Woods, members of the board, Lindsay Tornatore on behalf of the California County Superintendents. We broadly support the CD's recommendations for this item. However, major barriers still remain for our county office, juvenile court, and community schools in meeting the CCI. Our students are highly mobile, often with us for only days or months, and that mobility is a good thing because it reflects successful reengagement back to their home districts. but

301there is no system to carry students' progress from CTE pathways back with them. The continuation of progress made through dual enrollment courses is dependent on the district's partnership with their local community colleges. Therefore, meaningful college and career readiness progress often ends up getting lost in the system. We also continue to urge the board to use the one-year graduation rate for COE CCI calculations as it better reflects our programs. Finally, while growth is an important data point, we believe it should remain informational on the day. on the dashboard rather than becoming a full state indicator. Thank you. Thank you, President Darling-Hammond and board members. My name is Matthew Kaye, and I'm representing Cambridge International. We appreciate the recommendation of inclusion of Cambridge courses and exams in the dashboard CCI, but we do want to raise an

302objection to the recommendation of the measure's exam threshold of a C or higher. As has been communicated before to the CDE, our passing threshold is E or higher. The E or higher is the standard recognized consistently in K-12 state and federal accountability systems and at colleges around the nation, and setting the measure at an E or higher would be equitable with other similar programs, a core of the recommendation of CPAC in March. We ask that the board work with staff to revisit the item and clarify so that schools facilitating our program are not disadvantaged and students have an equitable landscape of educational opportunities. Thank you. Good afternoon, President Darling-Hammond and members of the State Board. My name is Dena Wilson. I speak to you on this item as the parent of a California public high

303school student. I question and caution the inclusion of the ASVAB in the CCI. The primary purpose of this assessment is a military recruitment tool, and in light of our current global climates, this gives me pause both as a parent and a former high school administrator, and great concern as it creates the strong potential of our students' personal information being provided to recruitment centers. Why do we value and promote the ASVAB over other assessments? If adding assessments are part of the CCI, why only ASVAB? Why not SAT or ACT, which has shown college readiness above 1150? Why promote and value the ASVAB over other career assessments, ones that are not designed which to determine our children who are best suited for mechanical, administrative, or combat roles? Thank you. That concludes in-person public comment. We'll now move

304to public comment on the phone line. We have 18 callers in the queue. I will open the phone line now. Caller with the last four digits, 7084, you are now live. Please start your public comment. You have one minute. Thank you. My name is Dr. Michelle Herzog representing Californians for Civic Learning. We are a statewide coalition of civic learning organizations and leaders across California. We strongly support the inclusion of the California State Seal of Civic Engagement on the California Dashboard. We believe including it as a standalone measure is ideal, but having it on the Dashboard in any form is a step in the right direction. As you know, the social sciences and civic education in particular are marginalized in most school districts. The state seal is a great incentive for districts to prioritize civic education

305and civic engagement of students, but it is largely underutilized. Including it on the dashboard will incentivize all districts to prioritize programming to prepare all our students to become informed, responsible, civically engaged members of our democratic society. Thank you. Thank you. Next caller with the last four digits, 4121. You are now live. Please start your public comment. Hi, good afternoon President Darling-Hammond and members of the board. I'm Ryan Woodard from Talion Academy where we serve TK through 12th grade students who are often highly mobile, credit deficient, or re-entering school after long absences. Our model is built on meeting students where they are and helping them take their next big step in education. As the board considers changes to the dashboard indicators, I want to emphasize the critical importance of DOS alternative indicators. Schools serving high risk

306and highly transient populations cannot accurately be measured by traditional dashboard metrics. DOS indicators allow us to demonstrate real progress of credit completion, re-engagement, persistence, and growth over time. The measures ensure accountability is to be fair, accurate, and aligned with the realities. that the students we serve. I urge the board to reinstate DAS alternative indicators. We further support adding ELA and math growth as a full state indicators, especially if our school can be compared to DAS schools serving high risk students like ours. Thank you for your commitment to equity. Thank you. Next caller with the last four digits, 4369. You are now live. Please start your public comment. You have one minute. Good afternoon President Darling-Hammond and members of the board. This is Sally Fox again calling on behalf of CABE founded in 1975 when California

307passed a bilingual education law beginning our statewide journey to multilingual education for all even if the road has been sometimes bumpy. For item three, CABE is in agreement with the letter submitted with our Equity Coalition partners and encourages the State Board of Education to adopt the recommendation presented by CDE related to the long-term English Learner's LTEL and the English Learner Progress Indicator, LP. to approve the inclusion of reclassified students, RFEP, as an additional level within the LP for the LTEL student group. The coalition supports, therefore, augmenting the LP calculation, and we appreciate the simulated results using the new calculations provided by the CDE. Very helpful. Thank you again for your leadership, SBE and CDE. Thank you. Next caller with the last four digits, 8945. You are now live. Please start your public comment. You have

308one minute. Hi. This is Suzanne Cooey from the Charter Schools Development Center. ELA and math growth should be separate full indicators because they convey distinct information from static achievement indicators. Measure what matters. Growth matters. Full indicators would improve charter renewal in two ways. First, through the calculation of charter renewal categories, the high, middle, low thing. And second, as data required to be considered in charter renewal decisions. For all schools, school indicators would make growth valued with transparent and accessible data. That's scary, but it's less scary if used with nuance. Please do check out our public comment letter for our growth display mock-up. It shows student growth growth scores relative to state averages, and it could show even more helpful nuance. Our mock-up suggests brief text to guide interpretation, the intuitive board-adopted color scheme, and more.

309Thanks so much. Thank you. Next caller with the last four digits, 9064, you are now live. Please start your public comment. Good afternoon. I'm Dr. Kai Mathews with Public Advocates. PA would like to thank the CDE and SBE for continuing to evolve the dashboard and for including inter-district teacher assignment comparison data. We strongly support this important step towards greater transparency and educational equity. We also strongly support the proposed shift in terminology from clear to fully credentialed and properly assigned. As this work evolves, we encourage the board to consider how educator equity and quality can become a stronger focus within VA and broader accountability conversations. Additionally, since we know that in many districts inequities are less about school type and more about which students schools are serving, we further support exploration on ways to display inter-district

310disparities, specifically grouping schools by high need status versus non-high need status, so we can determine whether schools are in higher concentrations of low-income students english language learners and foster youth experience less access to fully credentialed and properly assigned teachers thank you thank you next caller at the last four digits 8674 you are now live please start your public comment good afternoon this is rachel murphy with public advocates in the lcff equity coalition on the lp we align our comments with our equity colleagues and echo support for augmenting the lp calculation to include reclassified students On the College and Career Indicator, we support the department's recommendations related to the work-based learning pathways, the state field of civic engagement, IB courses, and Cambridge International courses and exams. but have concerns about the use of the ASVAB as

311discussed in our letter. We continue to recommend modifying the indicator to measure student preparedness for both college and career, not one or the other, and at a minimum, separately report on the number and percentage of students who met the college readiness requirements, career readiness requirements, and both. On growth, to help close achievement gaps, we strongly support including the ELA and math growth model as a full dashboard indicator and incorporating it into DA eligibility criteria. Growth measures provide a more accurate understanding of student learning over time and help surface inequities that proficiency rates alone can mask. Thank you. Thank you. Next caller with the last four digits, 2832. You are now live. Please start your public comment. You have one minute. Members of the board, my name is Dr. David T. Conley. I'm president of EdImagine

312and professor emeritus, University of Oregon. I'm calling in support of advocating inclusion of the Cambridge exams in the CCI with a score of E rather than C. This recommendation is based on national research that Ed Imagine did in developing a policy brief on the topic that was shared with CDE. Part of the challenge, as noted earlier, is the difference in the grading scale used by Cambridge versus those used by AP and IB. The score of E on Cambridge exams will represent a more fully comparable measure of college and career readiness. Thank you. Thank you. Next caller with the last four digits, 6214, you are now live. Please start your public comment. You have one minute. Good afternoon, state board members. I'm Dr. Kristen Maida. Prior to serving as an educator and instructional leader in Ventura

313County, I worked as a manager in the tech industry. I know firsthand the importance of STEM education for our economy here in California. If you want to remain the fourth largest economy in the world, we need to preserve our competitive advantage as an innovative state and world leader in science and technology. We already have a robust system of support for science instruction across our state. However, the lack of accountability for science education has caused many LEAs to deprioritize science instruction. It's time for that to change. There's a well-known adage that you get what you measure. If what we want is to remain a world leader in science and technology, we must measure the effectiveness of science education in California. we must include science as a full statewide indicator. Only by collecting this type of data

314can we engage in the type of ongoing system improvement that will ensure our state remains competitive as a world leader in science and technology. Only by making science a full indicator can we ensure that the state and LEAs prioritize science on equal footing with math and ELA. This is necessary to close opportunity gaps that persist regarding student access to high-quality science education and to address inequities in preparing historically marginalized students for future careers. Science is the driver of growth for our state. It needs to be a greater priority in our accountability system. Next caller with the last four digits, 6769. You are now live. Please start your public comment. Good afternoon. My name is Nancy Wright and I'm an elementary science teacher in the San Francisco Bay Area. I love what I do because I

315get to watch students follow their curiosity and wonder as they engage in scientific explorations and make sense of the world around them. Unfortunately, elementary science has been under-prioritized because the accountability systems in place are only for math and ELA. Science education supports the development of critical thinking, creativity, collaboration, and perseverance. Science engages students as they develop skills that transfer to language arts, math, and language development. I strongly urge the board to support full inclusion of science in accountability systems so that science can be prioritized by districts and so that California students can get the science instruction that they deserve. Thank you. Thank you. Next caller with the last four digits, 3732, you are now live. Please start your public comment. Good afternoon. This is Natalie Wheatfield-Lum from Ed Trust West. And we'd like to align

316our comments to the letter submitted by the Equity Coalition on this item. And in particular, we urge the board to adopt the department's recommendation to include reclassified students as an additional level within the LP for LTELs. For teacher assignment data, we greatly appreciate the department and the board's efforts in bringing this recommendation to fruition, and we recommend adopting it. Additionally, we recommend exploring additional opportunities to make intradistrict inequities in teacher assignments more visible. And at a minimum, we recommend including a link to the LEA Data Quest page that displays clear teacher percentages by school. And we strongly urge the board to incorporate math and ELA growth as state indicators as well as science as a full state indicator. And for the college and career indicator, we align our comments with other members of the LCFF

317Equity Coalition. Thank you. Thank you, caller. Next caller with the last four digits, 4364, you are now live. Please start your public comment. Good afternoon, Lucy Salcido-Carter with the Alameda County Office of Education. Although we recognize the value of the proposed new measures for the college career indicator, they are largely not usable in the court and community school setting. High quality, shorter term work-based learning opportunities could be developed specific to these populations of highly mobile students. CTE course completion is a possibility versus pathway completion. the state seal of civic engagement as a standalone measure might work in some settings. We would welcome the chance to partner with you all to identify CCI measures for our county office of education operated schools. On a different note, although we love science, we strongly oppose making science a

318full designated a dashboard indicator or a criterion for DA eligibility, believing that schools have plenty of work to do to improve outcomes with existing math and ELA indicators. Thank you. Thank you. Next caller with the last four digits, 4270. You are now live. Please start your public comment. Good afternoon, on behalf of the Compton Unified School District and Superintendent Darren Brawley. We'd like to support the inclusion of work-based learning into the CCI. And while industry certification was not part of the work planning discussion today, we hope that it will continue to be part of the conversation. And Superintendent Brawley and Compton Unified urge the board to consider not just further including, but also making work. uh industry certification of standalone in the cci thank you thank you uh next caller with the last four digits

319eight two five six you are now live please start your public comment Hi, this is Robert VanVeer from Children Now. Children Now supports the staff recommendations for long-term English learners being added to the LP and making the adjustment for reclassified students. We also support the college and career recommendations with the exception of the armed services test. We believe that the 31st percentile is simply too low. For comparison, the 31st percentile on the Smarter Balanced Math test would put a student at level one, which is clearly not. college and career ready. For the English, language arts, and math assessments, there's a recommended action to adopt displays of trends of student performance. However, no displays have been shown. We recommend delaying this action until you have drafts of the displays that interested parties can comment on. For

320teacher assignment monitoring we recommend and appreciate the work on this and suggest adding a state average for comparison. And then finally we we strongly support student growth and science being a core part of a redesigned differentiated system. Thank you caller. Next caller with the last four digits 6 0 7 5 you are now live. Please start your public comment. Good afternoon President Darling-Hammond and members of the board. My name is Melissa Marcucci and I'm a science teacher in the Central Valley and president of the California Association of Science Educators. Case. I've seen firsthand how accountability systems shape what students experience in the classroom. What we measure communicates what we value. I urge the board to grant science full state indicator status alongside English language arts and mathematics. If science remains informational only, many districts will

321continue prioritizing only the subjects tied directly to accountability, widening inequities and access to high quality science education. Science is not an enrichment subject. It is where students learn to think critically, solve problems, communicate evidence-based ideas, and apply literacy and mathematics in meaningful contexts. It prepares students for STEM careers, civic participation, and the complex environmental and technological challenges facing California's future. California adopted NGSS more than a decade ago. Educators across the state have worked tirelessly to implement them, and we now have a robust statewide network ready to support the continued growth. Students in every zip code deserve access to high-quality science instruction, not just students in well-resourced communities. When science is informational only, equity is informational only. Thank you. Thank you. Next caller with the last four digits, 7768. You are now live. Please start your

322public comment. Hi, Peter Ahern, California Association of Science Educators. We've been really enjoying the discussion today, especially enjoying the board discussions in favor of making science part of DA and also adding environmental literacy to the profile of a learner and hoping the board will go further and do the right thing and make sure that science is a fully recognized statewide indicator. I want to respond to a caller a couple of callers ago who... you know said that districts had too much to do working with english and ela and you know uh case has put out a white paper which we have shared with you as part of our coalition letter that shows that districts that have invested deeply in science have shown increases in attendance in math scores in the la scores and that's because

323science is a really powerful context that gives meaning to the learning that you're doing in ela or math it gives you something to read about it gives you something to to do math with and we thank you for making science a full indicator as as we've been waiting for for 13 years since the adoption of ngss thank you so much board thank you next caller with the last four digits 3849 you are now live please start your public comment good afternoon members of the board my name is tanvir dylan i'm a 15-year educator former high school science teacher and currently county office administrator It was really encouraging to hear the board talk earlier about science deserving a full indicator status alongside English language arts and mathematics. Making science a full indicator would send a clear

324message that science education matters for all students in every community. AS WELL THE SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING PRACTICES IN THE CALIFORNIA NGSS STRONGLY ALIGNED WITH CALIFORNIA'S BROADER VISION FOR STUDENT SUCCESS AND THE PROFILE OF A LEARNER. WE HOPE YOU CONTINUE MOVING FORWARD WITH GRANTING SCIENCEFUL INDICATOR STATUS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT CALLER WITH THE LAST FOUR DIGITS 5284. YOU ARE NOW LIVE. PLEASE START YOUR PUBLIC COMMENT. GOOD AFTERNOON STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION AND PRESIDENT DARRELL AND HAMMOND. I AM THE PRINCIPAL OF A CHARTER MIDDLE SCHOOL IN LOS ANGELES. Our school takes very low scoring students when they enter as sixth graders and raises their scores significantly by the end of eighth grade. Right now, our charter authorizer does not use ELA and math growth scores that show this progress. Full indicator status will ensure that our

325school's growth is considered in renewal. not making it a full indicator opens the door for good schools doing good work to be closed or not renewed even while they raise students achievement and that is not right. Additionally, the removal of the actual amount of the growth scores off the display made it very confusing. That is a problem because the difference between an accelerated score of five is very different from an accelerated score of 19. Thank you so much for your time. Yeah. Next caller. With the last four digits 0592, you are now live. Please start your public comment. Thank you for taking my comment. My name is Jennifer Rossi, and I'm in education. I've served in a lot of different roles. I've been a classroom elementary teacher. I've been an instructional coach. I've been a

326site administrator. And I know that, and I also, now I work in the district office supporting multiple schools with science. And I know that the dashboard really drives what districts and schools focus on. And as a result, I ask that you include science as a full indicator. I also have two children of my own, and I think the dashboard provides transparency to families to be able to see what their kids are learning. and i think that we really owe it to families to be up front across the board including ela math and science my own experience i've seen great growth in science and so i think that there are kids that flourish in science that provide something to them and that ela and math doesn't provide so it can really serve as a lever to

327support our students to learn across all content areas thank you Thank you. That concludes public comment for item number three. Thanks to all for all of that very rich public comment. I am going to suggest we take a break for about 10 minutes and then come back and try to find a succinct way to discuss everything. We'll see you back at 2.41. Thank you. So we've had a very rich conversation from the public about these indicators. We're going to try to go through the recommendations one at a time. Thank you, Cindy. We're going to need your help. And if you can put them up on the... Slides, all right. The first one, and we were asked to, I think, group these together, so is around the long-term English learner recommendation and the English learner progress

328indicator. So approve the inclusion of reclassified students as an additional level within the LTE or LTELs. The second is around the teacher assignment data, updating our data references from clear to fully credentialed and properly assigned, and then adding a comparing schools within this LEA data table. And then we have the pieces around updating the language for the English language arts and mathematics indicator from distance from standard to distance from proficiency as well as providing a trend graph to show all student performance at the various performance levels for early and mathematics. And also the link to the CAASPP webpage for that particular. And then finally we have all the CCI recommendations. So I don't know if you want me to walk through those or if you want to take these one at a time. We'll take

329them one at a time. We'll go back to the top. And some of these are pretty straightforward and hopefully we can address them pretty quickly. And then we'll stop where we need to if we have to have additional conversation. There may be one or two. So the first is the inclusion of... the reclassified students as an additional level within the LP for the long-term English learner group. Do I have any further discussion on that point? Is there a motion? No. No, Mr. Cabrera? Oops, we just lost the slide for the recommendation. It disappeared. There we go. Thank you. Okay. We move the recommendation. Is there a second? Who said that? Thank you, Member Shimane-Tauri. Any further discussion? All in favor? Raise your hands. Lisa, are you taking... Brooks did not get his lunch, so he

330had to go upstairs and get some lunch. Okay, that was unanimous approval. So then the next one is the one about the teacher assignment data, updating the language to fully credentialed and properly assigned. Yes. Cindy, just a question. Is the box for LEAs to provide their explanation, that contextualization, is that still a part of the tables that would be displayed for this particular area? Absolutely. The optional narrative is available to any local educational agency that wants to complete that specifically around the teacher assignment data piece. And I think the March item we provided you, we had about 250 is what I recall, less than 300 LEAs respond or use the narrative box. It is available. That's great. Thank you. And with that clarification, do I have any further discussion on that motion? Is there a

331motion? Thank you. Member Rodriguez, and a second? Member Orozco-Gonzalez, thank you very much. All in favor? Aye. Raise your hand. No opposed, no abstentions. All right, moving right along. We have the... It would be great if they put that full screen. Thank you. Now I can read it. We want to update the term distance from standard to distance from proficiency since we want to be clear about what the standard is that we're talking about. And then the department would work up a display. I assume we'd see the display before it goes live. So is there any further discussion about that? And is there a motion? Member Olkin? I move that we accept the department's recommendations. All right. Member Lewis? Second. Thank you very much. Moving right along. Now here we get into the... Oh yeah,

332we have to vote. All in favor? All right, we've had quite a lot of consensus at the table. Thank you very much. So the college and career indicator, we're going to go through each one, okay? So the first is the high-quality definitions for all of the work-based learning elements that are listed there. Any further discussion of that item? Okay, do I have a motion? Motion that we accept the recommendation. for the college career indicator to approve the high quality definitions for work-based learning, internship, work-based learning, student-led enterprise, and work-based learning simulated, work-based learning, and approve the high quality work-based learning as a measure combined with other measures in the CCI. Thank you. Mic drop. All right, do we have a second? Member McQuillan, thank you so much. All in favor? All right. No oppositions. We'll

333move on. The next is to approve the state seal of civic engagement as a measure to be combined with other measures in the CCI. Is there any further discussion? Okay, Member Glover-Woods. Thank you. On the list of the other measures for the state seal of civic engagement was the work-based learning. My question is, are we approving that as an additional measure? with just the high quality definition of the 50 hours or more or Would that work based learning criteria? Be the high quality definition plus with the plus measure It's the last bullet under state seal of civic engagement. It says something about work based learning phone a friend, okay So I just I didn't know if it's just with the 50 hours or if it's the full definition that we just approved actually in the

334last motion. So work-based learning, Kimberly Montank, work-based learning would just be the high-quality definition. So it would be high-quality work-based learning. So either the internship with the full definition, right, or the 50 hours under simulated work-based learning, right? So that is it plus. So it's acting as a plus within this measure. Okay, so there's not an additional plus. It's just the hours or whatever the definition is. Thank you for the clarification. It itself is now a plus. Thank you. All right. I think we've got it. Any further discussion of the seal of civic engagement, Member Escobedo? I just want to make sure there's parity between the IB and Cambridge exams. Oh, we're not up to that yet. I'm going to take these one by one. That's okay. That's all right. Yeah. I appreciate the enthusiasm.

335Member Olkin. Just a comment on the state seal of civic engagement as a plus measure. My understanding of this is it's a slightly different way of thinking about a plus measure because we're taking if you in order There's a the full list of possible plus measures can be combined with with the state seal of civic engagement To create prepared does that make sense to you guys? So if you if you if you receive the state seal of civic engagement and you also achieve any of the other plus measures for college and career readiness that creates a prepared and that's a different sort of paradigm than we've looked at before which I'm excited about and so perhaps in the future we'll come back to looking at that as a model we could look at for other

336things. And in fact that model is incorporated in some of the others we're talking about today the idea that you'd find two things that can be combined. And I think there's another bigger question that we'll hold till the end of the motions about how we want to evolve the CCI because we did hear about varieties of ways that states are doing this with different kinds of combinations. And we have a particularly, what's the word, complicated. system that has evolved and there may be ways to simplify and aggregate differently, but for now We would be looking at adding one other measure to the seal of civic engagement Any further discussion remember Rodriguez? Are you ready? I'm ready to make a motion Oh, we will hold your motion. Member Yoshimoto-Towery. As the civic learning liaison, I just

337wanted to comment that I'm really glad to see the state civil civic engagement up for your addition to the CCI. And just wanted to acknowledge that we don't have full agreement in the field as to whether CCI should be a standalone or it should be a plus measure. However, we did make. movement from the March meeting because we've added additional options to pair with the state civil civic engagement. And it's really this balance between holding a level of rigor and being as inclusive as possible for options. for our students and our districts, our LEAs to achieve. So I just wanted to acknowledge that I think we've moved and have made growth from March to today's meeting and I plan to vote for the recommendation as is. Thank you. Thank you. Member Rodriguez. Okay. I move

338that we approve the state seal of civic engagement as a measure to be combined with other measures in the CCI. Do I have a second? Second. Ms. Muattari, thank you. All in favor? Please so indicate. All right. Then the third one here, C, is approve the ASVAB as a plus measure to the Leadership Military Science measure in the CCI. Is there any further discussion of that motion? Yes, Vice President Glover Woods. Just a very quick comment. I know that there has been some public comment about the number of the 31st percentile. I just refer us back to the item that we saw and that's really where the military has set their cut as well as many of the states. And while there are mixed feelings about the military as a career, again, I think we

339have to recognize that it is a very viable. career desire for many students within our state and having it as a plus measure with the leadership military science honors that, honors the schools that do that and honors the students and the families who see that as a viable path. Is there any further discussion? All right. I would just like to add that the ASVAB is given to all students who want it. And there is a place for them to opt out, to not be contacted by recruiters. But it does give them a very robust view of what they want to do, what skills they have, and how they can build those skills. Thank you. Is there a motion? I'll take Member Lewis since I saw her hand go up. I move that we approve the

340Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery as plus measure to the Leadership Military Science Measure in the CCI. All right. And a second? Member Escobedo. Thank you very much. All in favor? So indicate. All right. Modify the International Baccalaureate Measure to include completion of an IB course with a C-minus or better beginning with the 2026 dashboard. That's been discussed multiple times. Member Ojiga, you're leaning forward. Do you want to say something? All right. Would you like to make that motion? Please do. I move to modify the international black laureate measure to include completion of an IB course with a C- or better beginning with the 2026 dashboard. Thank you very much. Is there a second to that motion? Member Ojiga. I have to pay attention to this side of the room, you know, because they need encouragement.

341All in favor, please so indicate. And then approve the Cambridge International exams and courses as a measure in the CCI. I know there was some discussion about that one, further discussion of that item. Member Escobedo, yeah. I just want to make sure that there's parity between Cambridge and the IB measure. I know many U.S. universities do accept an E. I know it's not on E, but if we can investigate, I'm sure many of you... I actually did while we were having our break, and it is true that most universities take the E or better. The more selective universities may... go up the ladder a little bit, but most do take the E or better, which I think is the standard we have for AP, the three or better, and the IB. So I think that

342might be a modification to the details of the recommendation. Was there any other comment or discussion about that before we take a motion? I just wanted to make explicit that I had inquired about what is our criteria as a board for inclusion of new types of AP, IB, Cambridge type items or opportunities for students. And I think my conclusion was that if it's equivalent to AP, IB, all these letters, AP, IB, that that would be sort of our metric and our, our own internal way of evaluating whether something met the mark. So that's the case for Cambridge is my understanding. Yeah. And I think it's the case for using the E or better because that's the way we treat AP. There are places that don't accept AP at all, my own alma mater of Yale,

343but the places that do take a three or better. So using the metric that most colleges accept. Any further discussion? Is there a motion? Member Escobedo? Cambridge International exams and courses as a measure in the CCI. All right. Do you want to add the modification? Yes, with the modification to ensure that the score of E or above is used. On the A levels? On the A levels. So there's also a separate thing for the AS. Okay. All right, all in favor? Oh, we need a second. Vice President Glover Woods, thank you. All in favor, please so note. Also unanimous. There we go. Now on to the next slide. That's it. We did it. So I do think that we, an applause for Cindy and Kim and the team. This has been this whole process of

344updating the dashboard. There's still more to come, but we still have to get through July. But we have done. I do want to note, and I mentioned this a bit earlier, that our system, and we mentioned this, has kind of been built by patchwork over time. And we've got this plus this and the other thing and so on. We did have a discussion with Some of our you know research colleagues about AI are presented a landscape of how other states are approaching College and career readiness indicators there are a couple of takeaways First a lot of people a lot of states do not use these fixed measure combinations the way that California says grown-up they use a point based system or a weighted system Where students accumulate credit across a menu of pathways? greater rigor

345or Engagement earns, you know greater weights some states very and how they define and measure readiness. So there are different ways to conceptualize this, and we may want to take those up in the future. But for now, we've, I think, really broadened the vision for the college and career indicator. And I just want to say that as we proceed, we may take up some of those other questions. And then, Member Yoshimoto-Towery, please. I just had three. I didn't want to hold up the vote, but I have three comments. One is... I just wanted to thank you and highlight the commitment of our partners including county superintendents and county operated school programs for examining alternative ways to ensure that our system involved youth have opportunities to complete CTE, college course credit while in high school and

346finding ways that progress can follow the students so they also have access to these opportunities. And then secondly, again a forward looking question. Conceptually, we've discussed the possibility of renaming the CCI to the CCCI, the College Career Civic Indicator. So I just wanted to know what the forward facing process for that might be. And then third, also more operationally, we have in our documents, the PDFs that explain the CCI. We have a separate document for college and a separate document for career. And I'm wondering what the process is to recommend a merging of those two documents as we heard in some of the public comment. We have students with disabilities, students in DAS schools who are also in college. sets this false dichotomy that I don't think we want to perpetuate. So just questions around

347how do we agendize those or take action on those things. I think both of those are things that we should agendize for July if we have time for it or for very soon thereafter if July is. full up. We've talked before about the messaging of a college career and civic engagement indicator. False divide between college and career I think is very rapidly being closed in California through a number of vehicles including the Career Master Plan a lot of the other work that we've been doing the link learning initiatives etc So it's a timely thing for us to be taking up Do you want to make a comment? We're prepared to add that to our 2027 work plan, but in terms of the resources and the combining of the flyers, that's something we can definitely do

348for 2026 now that you've taken this action. So I think, I can't remember who's the one that made that comment. Maybe it was Member Olkin about how we've now taken a new path. You've taken a new path with this action today, and the flyer is something that doesn't. necessarily need board action but the other pieces that you've talked about the fact that you started this whole calendar year with a study session i mean maybe that's what we do again in january of 2027 but we are complete with today's action with our 2026 accountability So I think in terms of actions that might be associated with changing the label from CCI to CCCI or combining those Documents the PDFs those would be things that will take time and effort for sure and make sense to be

349in that work plan the decisions about those are things though that we could agendize to then trigger the in the instantiation of those actions into the work plan so that the directionality is clear. We won't do that obviously today, but we'll figure out when we can do it. All right, give yourselves a hand. And we're gonna keep right on moving. We're moving right along here to the consent agenda. which is regular items five through nine, and we're gonna put up the public comment slide. And we're gonna take up those items. Those wishing to call in on public comment for items five through nine on the consent agenda should call the phone number and use the participant access code on this slide. Are there any speakers signed up to provide public comment in person? There is

350one person signed up on item number seven. Please line up in the back, Lorraine Richards. Take it away. Good afternoon. My name is Lorraine Richards. I am a classroom teacher representing California Teacher Association. We urge the State Board of Education to amend the funding determination for options for youth to one year and to direct further investigation into the financial practices. Both the Menifee Union School District and the Riverside County Office of Education have raised significant concerns regarding the network's financial management practices. These concerns deserve great scrutiny before long-term funding approvals are granted. CTA also remains concerned about the current funding determination process for non-classroom based charter schools. The process lacks the transparency necessary for both the Advisory Commission on Charter Schools and this board to provide meaningful public oversight. Potential misuse of public education funds

351harms students, schools, and the integrity of our education system. Thank you. Thank you. We'll move to the public comment on the phone line. There are no callers in the queue. That concludes public comment for regular consent items. 5 through 9. Vice President Glover-Woods? I move that we approve consent agenda items 5 through 9. Any second? All right. Any further discussion of the items? All right. Let's call the roll. All in favor? So indicate. Any opposed? All right, thank you very much. And we're gonna move on to item number 10. I understand that Member Escobedo and Petillo-Bronson will be both recusing themselves. This is the California Assessment System request for approval to enter into contract negotiations with a successful bidder. And the CDE recommends that the state board approve the request to begin negotiations with the

352Educational Testing Service, the successful bidder who passed the submission evaluations with the highest overall score for the contract to implement the CASP. and English Language Proficiency Assessments for California, beginning March 1st, 2027 through December 31st, 2032. This item will be presented by Mary Nicely, Deputy Superintendent, and Mao Vang of the CDE. Please begin. Can you hear me? No, yes, this one. Okay, we'll go with this one. I'm gonna try and figure out best glasses to wear, but here I am. So, can you hear me? Are we good? Okay. Good afternoon and welcome to the second half of Information Technology Branch SBE Day. Just so you know. I'm Mary Nicely, Deputy Superintendent of the Information Technology Branch. I'm here with Mao Vang, Director of the Assessment and Administration Division. And I want to say thank you.

353Chief Roberson, President Darling-Hammond, Vice President Glover Woods, and board members for having us here to discuss this with you. And the item before you today is an action and an information item. Am I advancing this now? Okay. Okay. You can tell I don't do this enough. So today's presentation topics will include the following, recommendation for the approval, background on procurement processes, request for submission or RFS, evaluation process overview, bidders, subcontractors, and scores, and the California Department of Education recommendation for approval. So in this section, I will give you... recommendation for approval so i'm going to give you the recommendation for approval so That's not working. Okay. The California Department of Education recommends that the State Board of Education approve the request to begin negotiations with Educational Testing Service, or ETS, the successful bidder who passed

354the submission evaluations with the highest overall score for the contract to implement the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress, CASP, and the English Language Proficiency Assessments for California. ELPAC beginning March 1st of 2027 through December 31st of 2032. Now I'll hand the presentation over to Dr. Mao Vang to present the background on the procurement process. Thank you, Mary. Chief W. Roberson, President Darlingham, and Vice President Glover Woods, and our esteemed board members. As Mary mentioned, I'm Mao Vang, Director for the Assessment, Development, and Administration Division at the California Department of Education. In the next few slides, I will cover some background information on our contract procurement process. This procurement process is rooted or guided by our California law. California Education Code Section 60643 exempts the California Department of Education from typical contracting requirements which

355would require awarding to the lowest bidder. Our education code also requires a competitive and open process using standardized scoring criteria. So this process is called a request for submissions or RFS. And it is set forth in detail in a 200 plus page document posted on CDE's website at https://www.cde.ca.gov. GOV forward slash 657068 on December 18th, 2025. So the RFS process with minor variations have been used by the CDE ever since about the 2024-25 school year. What is the request for submissions? So the request for submissions is made available up to, has made available up to about 300 points for the quality of the submission and up to about 150 points for the cost submission. And thus the quality of the submission is more heavily weighted than the low cost. This weighting is really opposite from

356a solicitation that awards to the lowest responsible bidder or a typical request for proposal or RFP, which focuses on price once minimum standards are met. This contract also will cover five administrations of the CAASPP and ELPAC collectively. Both these programs are known as the California Assessment System. And the contract is expected to begin March 1st, 2027 and continues through December 31st, 2032. This allows for a 10-month overlap between the current contract and the next contract for transition activities. As you may recall, in September of 2025, the SBE approved the following goals and priorities as part of the California Assessment System, RFS. and we implemented, one is to implement the California Assessment System during the 2027 through 32 school years with the development and administration of high quality assessments that are authentic, culturally responsive, inclusive, and

357provide actionable results that inform teaching and learning. And then to provide a robust assessment system that is comprehensive and coherent, flexible and accessible to support the needs of educators, students and families while providing data that supports valid inferences or references. And then innovative to increase value and efficiency and designed with technology solutions that meet industry best practices and standards. And of course to support California in complying with applicable state and federal laws. The CDE incorporated these goals and priorities into the procurement for the next assessment contract. The schedule of key events for this RFS includes the following. The RFS was posted on the CDE website on December 18, 2025, as I mentioned. An informational webinar was conducted by staff from the Assessment Development and Administration Division on January 6, 2026. And then the intent to

358submit form and... the intent to submit form and the questions from bidders were due on January 9th, 2026. And then the questions and answers were answered and posted on the CDE's website on January 23rd, 2026. The submissions were due from bidders on February 12th, 2026 by 1 p.m. And the review of submissions occurred between February 13th and March 30th. The CDE's recommendation for approval to enter into negotiations with the successful bidder who passed the submission evaluations with the highest overall score is occurring now at today's SBE meeting. The CDE approval of the negotiated contract is scheduled for the September 2026 SBE meeting and the anticipating contract start date again is March 1st, 2027. In this next section, I will begin by providing an overview of the request for submissions evaluation process. The source document for

359the evaluation process is the scoring guide in the request for submissions, Appendix D. The scoring guide describes the evaluation process for the submissions. The evaluation process consists of these three phases. Phase one is a requirements checklist. Phase two is the submission and cost evaluation, which we completed and are bringing today. And then phase three is really the recommendation and contract negotiations. The RFS stated that the CDE would open the entire submission to check for requirements, including all requirements of the cost submission. The RFS also contemplated that the CDE would contact each submitter to obtain any missing information. The CDE contacted both submitters to get additional information and clarification to ensure a fair and competitive scoring of each solicitation. So in phase one, the requirements checklist, the CDE staff used the requirements checklist in the scoring

360guide to verify that each of the required components was included in the bidder submission. And the submissions were rated on a yes or no basis. Do you have it or you don't? This phase of the evaluation did not evaluate content, only the inclusion or exclusion of required components. The requirements on the checklist are presented in the following categories. The intent to submit delivery to the CDE, the submission delivery to the CE, the scope of work, management and staffing, capacity and experience, facilities and resources, the required attachments and forms, and including the cost submission. So both submissions or submitters pass phase one. Now I will hand the presentation back to Mary nicely to present the remainder of the item. Thank you, Mal. So we will move to phase two of the submission and cost evaluation. So

361phase two consisted of a sequence of events beginning with submissions evaluation. During the submission evaluation, the evaluation team evaluated the scope of work as well as bidder capacity and resources. The evaluation team, which consisted of 10 evaluation panel members, used consensus scoring process and a minimum score of 240 points out of 300, that's 80%, was required for submission to advance to the next. event in phase two, which was the cost evaluation. The cost evaluation score was based on the total cost for the submission. The lowest cost receives 150 points. Other bids are proportionally reduced. I will now provide more detail on each of the events in phase two. So, the submission evaluation focused on how the submission addresses requirements set forth in RFS section 7 and 3.1, section 7 being the scope of work and

362section 3.1 being bidder capacity and resources. The first six bullet points align with the six tasks in the scope of work and show the corresponding number of points possible. Each bidder's submission for Task 1, which is the comprehensive plan and schedule of deliverables, could earn up to 25 points. Program Support Services, or Task 2, could earn up to 35 points. Technology Services, or Task 3, up to 35 points. Assessment Development and Accessibility, or Task 4, up to 35 points. Test administration and security, or Task 5, could earn up to 50 points. And scoring and reporting, or Task 6, could earn up to 60 points. In addition to the scope of work, the evaluation team evaluated and scored three sections related to the bidder's capacity and resources. Each bidder's submission for organization structure and personnel resources,

363which are covered in RFS Section 3.1.3, could earn up to 30 points. The submission for capacity and experience covered in RFS section 3.1.4 could earn up to 15 points. And the submission for facilities and resources, which are covered in RFS section 3.1.5, could earn up to 15 points. For each of the tasks and sections evaluated as part of the submission evaluation, the evaluation team considered the quality of the submission, how well the submission addresses the requirements of and meets the specifications of the RFS. The complete list of evaluation questions considered by the evaluation team is provided in the scoring guide, which is Appendix D of the RFS. each submission could earn up to 300 points on the submission evaluation. Only submissions that earned 80% or more of the total possible points, so that's a score

364of 240 or higher, were eligible to advance to the cost evaluation. So, some details of the submission evaluation. and the time that was required of our evaluators. Day one was a two hour orientation on how to read the RFS. Day two was read and score tasks one, two, and three. For bidder one, that was six hours. Day three, read and score tasks four and five, bidder one was six hours. Day four, read and score tasks six and sections 3.1, bidder one was six hours. Day five, read and score tasks one, two, and three for bidder two was six hours. Day six, read and score tasks four and five, bidder two, six hours. Day seven, read and score task six. and sections 3.1, Bidder to 6 hours. So an equal number of hours per bidder. So

365then we had included on this slide and the next are the guiding questions provided to the evaluators for task one. Similar guiding questions were used for tasks two through six. All guiding questions for all sections are detailed in the RFS scoring guide. The specific guiding questions for RFS Section 7, Scope of Work, Task 1, Comprehensive Plan and Schedule of Deliverables are as follows. How well does the bidder's submission address the requirements of RFS? How well does the bidder's submission meet the minimum requirements and demonstrate the capabilities? to meet the specifications of the requirements in the following subtasks. So as you can see here, 1.1 was the schedule of deliverables, the narrative schedule and timeline. 1.2 would be meetings, 1.3 coordination and continuous improvement, 1.4 records and minutes, 1.5 web document and accessibility standards, 1.6 CDE

366notification and approval requirements, 1.7 monthly written progress reports, and 1.8 transition of contract plans. So the The next part of Phase 2 was Task 1, Part 2. The specific guiding questions for RFS Section 3.1 submission requirements, comprehensive plan, and schedule of deliverables are as follows. To what extent do the proposed project staff have the organization, management capability, competency, and expertise, and related experience to perform the task? To what extent do the proposed project staff have the personnel resources by fiscal year to perform this task? To what extent do the bidder and the bidder's proposed subcontractor or subcontractors, if any, have the facilities, resources, equipment, technical capacity, and experience to perform the work required by the task? To what extent do the bidder and the bidder's proposed subcontractor or subcontractors, if any, possess sufficient professional qualifications

367and experience for these tasks? So, for the cost evaluation review, a maximum of 150 points was available. The bidder with the lowest total cost gets 100% of the 150 points. And so we have a hypothetical up here. Bidders with higher total costs receive fewer points based on the lowest bidder's cost relative to their cost. So here in an example, we have bidder A who's got the lowest cost at $1,000 or $1,000,000 or whatever we want to say that is, and bidder B and bidder C. Bidder A receives 100% of the 150 points. If a bidder A's cost is 67% of the bidder B's cost, then bidder B receives 67% of the 150 points, which is 100 points. If bidder A's cost is 50% of bidder C's cost, then bidder C receives 50% of the 150

368points. So, we are now entering phase three of the RFS process. The tentative timeline for phase three is as follows. Today, at the SBE's May meeting, the CDE is requesting approval from the SBE to begin contract negotiations with the successful bidder who passed the submission evaluation with the highest overall score from the scoring of submissions. Once the CDE receives approval from the SBE staff, from the CDE, SBE, and Department of Finance, we'll commence contract negotiations with the successful bidder. Contract negotiations are slated to begin on June 3rd, 2026. And in September 2026, the CDE will bring a recommendation to the SBE for approval of the negotiated contract documents. So next I will go through. the bidders, the subcontractors, and the scores. So bidders and subcontractors, we had two bidders, delivered submissions by the required deadline

369of 1 p.m. on February 12th. One bidder was NCS Pearson Inc., and the other subcontractors include American Institutes for Research, American Printing House for the Blind, Amira Learning Inc., Digital Promise Global, Edcount LLC, Metametrics Inc., Sacramento County Office of Education, School AI LLC, Smarter Balanced, and University of California Santa Cruz, and the University of Southern California Rossier School of Education. The other bidder was ETS. Their subcontractors include ABZ Learning, Cambium Assessment, Inc., Idle Moon, Impact Your Pathway, Measurement, Inc., Metametrics, Inc., Pragmatic, Rachel Perry of Perry Consulting, Randy Bennett, Assessment Innovation Matters, Sacramento County Office of Education, Smarter Balance University of California, Santa Cruz, and WestEd. So in the submission evaluation, the submission from NCS Pearson Inc. received the following scores for the scope of work. Task 1, Comprehensive Plan and Schedule of Deliverables, 18 out

370of 25 points. Task 2, Program Support Services, 26 out of 35 points. Task 3, Technology Services, 29 out of 35 points. Task 4, Assessment Development and Accessibility, 30 out of 35 points. Test administration and security, 40 out of 40 points. Task six, test scoring and reporting, 48 out of 60 points. In the submission evaluation, the submission from ETS received the following scores for the scope of work. Test one, comprehensive plan and schedule of deliverables, 22 out of 25. Task two, program support services, 32 out of 35. Task 3, Technology Services, 31 out of 35. Task 4, Assessment Development and Accessibility, 31 out of 35. Task 5, Test Administration and Security, 46 out of 50. And Task 6, Scoring and Reporting, 54 out of 60 points. So NCS Pearson received the following scores on the submission

371evaluation related to capacity and resources. Organization structure and personnel resources, 21 out of 30 points. Capacity and experience, 11 out of 15 points. Facilities and resources, 10 out of 15 points. NCS Pearson Inc. received a total of 233 out of a possible 300 points. NCS Pearson Inc.'s submission evaluation score of 233 did not meet the required minimum points of 240, so the submission did not advance to the cost evaluation review. ETS received the following scores on the submission evaluation related to capacity and resources. Organization and structure personnel resources 28 out of 30 points. Capacity and experience 14 out of 15 points. Facilities and resources 13 out of 15 points. ETS received a total of 271 out of a possible 300 points. So this submission advanced to the cost evaluation review. While both bidders scored closely

372on 7.3. and 7.4 assessment development and accessibility within one or two points, there are several sections where the difference between the bidder scores was six points or larger. For example, program services, plus six, test administration and security, plus six, scoring and reporting was plus six, and organizational structure, plus six. This difference in points was also notable where the total possible points available were smaller. The evaluation team undertook a lengthy, deliberate process that I will try to provide an example context of how and why the scores differed. For Section 7.2, Program Support Services, bidders had to respond specifically to support for assessment coordinators, such as workshops and presentations, videos, et cetera. Administration Management and Technical Assistance Center. The bidder with the highest score received more points for clearly responding to each of the requirements of the

373RFS and the increased level of support that was provided. So here we look at the list of scores and ranking. ETS exceeded the minimum number of points to advance to the cost evaluation review. They received the full 150 points available for the cost of submission. Adding the 271 points from the ETS submission evaluation to the 150 points from the ETS cost evaluation resulted in an overall score of 421 points for ETS. NCS Pearson did not reach the minimum of 240 points to advance to the cost evaluation. NCS Pearson Inc.'s overall score was 233. ETS was the bidder with the highest overall score and is being recommended to the SPE to approve the request to begin negotiations with ETS. So, total points calculation with 80% minimum removed. Hypothetically, if the 80% minimum requirements to advance to

374the cost evaluation was removed, NCS Pearson Inc.'s cost of $304,330,773 would have received 100% or the 150 points. Once the cost score is added to the submission score of 233 points, the total for NCS Pearson would be 383 points. ETS cost is $28,027,430. The NCS Pearson Inc. cost is 92% of the ETS cost. Therefore, ETS would receive 92% of the cost points, which equals 130 points. Adding ETS cost score of 139 points to their submission score of 270 points equals a total of 410 points. This means that even with the 80% minimum requirement removed, ETS would still have received more points than NCS Pearson 80. And so now and I are happy to answer any clarifying questions you may have. Questions at this point before we proceed. Yes, Member McClellan. Thank you for that complicated

375presentation On top of a full day of complication Can you share out the evaluation team who that included was it all CDE staff or were there any external folks? They were mainly subject matter experts their CDE staff and SBE staff clarifying questions all right at this Seeing none at this point we're going to ask for the public comment slide to be displayed and although as we display it anyone who wants to call in can use this telephone number and access code displayed on the slide although the State Board is not legally required to hold a public hearing on this item or provide any opportunities for bidders to speak to the SBE outside of the designated public comment period for the item as a courtesy, we will permit separate presentations from both bidders. As follows, a

376presentation from representatives from Pearson, not to exceed three minutes total, and a presentation from representatives from ETS, not to exceed three minutes total. And then following these presentations, there will be an opportunity for public comment from members of the public who were not part of either presentation. or of either bid of Pearson and ETS. And then the representative from Pearson can come up and you have three minutes to present. And then we will take public comments thereafter. Thank you. Thank you President Garlingham and the board for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Trent Workman and I'm the president of our dedicated K-12 assessment division. Sorry I'm a little too tall over here. Today we partner with 23 states on their statewide assessment systems to deliver high quality assessment systems that students, educators, and

377families can trust. This includes formative, interim, and summative with over 100 million tests delivered every single year. At the heart of that work is over 1,400 professionals, many are former teachers and administrators, who have all dedicated their careers to getting assessment right because they understand what's at stake for every single student. Our commitment to this work is why we believe so strongly in the integrity of this process. Since 2014, the California assessment system has operated under an exemption to the state contracting process. These procurement standards exist for a reason, to ensure fairness and public confidence in outcomes. Unlike DGS standards for large scale procurements, the CDE exemption offers no opportunity for formal review. However, we would like to stand before the board today with a focus on looking forward. Assessment is changing rapidly as we've

378heard all throughout the day today and your stakeholders are asking more from your assessment system. They want to do more than measure proficiency. They want to connect to personalized instruction and pathways and they want to make sure they understand that students can demonstrate the skills needed for the jobs of tomorrow. We invest heavily in these core capabilities and are confident in our capability to be a true partner in delivering the California assessment system and we know we can evolve at pace. Pearson came to this RFS with a strong proposal. and we did not come alone. Throughout our bid, we brought forward a coalition of nationally recognized partners aligned to California's vision for the future of assessment. We brought nonprofit partners with AIR and Digital Promise for third-party validation, forward-looking design, and a focus on research.

379We brought California University partners with USC Rossier School of Education and SCOE for deep California expertise and educator engagement. We brought equity and innovation partners, EdCount, a woman-owned business with a focus on inclusive design and a mirror in school AI to connect literacy, AI, and actionable insights. Regardless of the outcome of the evaluation, Pearson remains committed to California. That's why we're here today. We have two nationally qualified organizations that responded to your procurement. They showed up, they invested deeply in California's future, and we each, ETS and Pearson, brought meaningful visions to the next generation of assessments for the state of California. The decision rests with this board. Please consider today engaging both vendors in moving forward in negotiations and bring forward the strongest possible solution for California students and educators instead of just proceeding with

380the incumbent through the negotiations. Thank you for your time and consideration. And at this point, the representative from ETS may present. Please begin. President Darling-Hammond, Vice President Glover Woods, esteemed members of the board, Chief Deputy Roberson, good afternoon. My name is Mary Ann Ursula. I'm executive director for all K-12 state assessments at ETS, a not-for-profit organization dedicated to advancing the science of measurement to power human progress. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this afternoon. We appreciate the California Department of Education's recommendation to begin negotiations with ETS for the next California Assessment System contract following a rigorous evaluation process described by Dr. Nicely aligned to the state's goals and priorities. For more than two decades ETS and the ETS team have supported California's assessment system through a series of successful program transitions. We

381are honored to help advance the state's vision for fair, valid, reliable, and equitable assessments that support an instruction-first mission. Excuse me. Our proposal is built on a simple commitment to California, stability today and responsible innovation for tomorrow. California's assessment system is large, complex, and sensitive to disruption. ETS has successfully operated CAASPP and ELPAC at statewide scale and our team is prepared to go forward on day one with the new contract with no interruption to educator access or to established local workflows. Equity, fairness, and accessibility are foundational to our proven approach. We embed universal design and accessibility. We conduct extensive bias and sensitivity review. And we develop culturally responsive content to ensure that results are meaningful and defensible to all students. And this new contract is about more than continuity. California is asking ETS to help

382increase the instructional value of the assessment system. We are ready and able to operationalize and scale key assessment innovations, including science, and to deliver more actionable reporting, enhanced educator tools, and clearer, more transparent insights that directly support teaching and learning in classrooms. We respect the state's process and if you approve the department's recommendation ETS is prepared to work collaboratively with the Department of Education the State Board and the Department of Finance during negotiations Thank you again for the opportunity to speak. Thank you very much Before we open the phone line for public comment I'd like to ask whether the department has any responses to the issues were raised in the presentations by the bidders Thank you to NCS Pearson and ETS for being here today and once again we Stand behind our recommendation and believe

383we have a very strong Evaluation team that did a great job putting forth this recommendation. So Thank you. No other comment. All right any clarifying questions from the board We will go then straight to public comment and we can put up the public comment slide again. Thank you very much Members of the public wishing to call in please use the telephone number and access code on this slide Do we have any public comment in the room? There's no public comment in the room And I do want to ask member or Osco Gonzalez if she would like to make any comments before we get To the rest of the public comment if there is any I just want to thank the CDE staff for all the work that went into this process. I value the continued

384focus on accessibility, cultural responsive practices, meaningful reporting for educators and families, and maintaining a comprehensive assessment system that supports both accountability, teaching, and learning. I just want to recognize the thoroughness of the review and evaluation process that supported this recommendation. Transition to any other public comment that we may have on the phone. There are no callers in the queue. So that concludes public comment for item number 10. All right. Thank you so much. So we're now open for board discussion. Any other questions, comments, or ultimately a motion? Vice President Glover Woods? Just a comment to the CDE staff. Thank you for a thorough and very insightful presentation. Just really appreciate the way you explained the evaluation process, how the points were allocated, and what the results were. So thank you for the time to do

385that to help us as we make our decision regarding your recommendation. Any other? Questions, comments, discussion? Seeing none, do I have a motion? Do I have a member of GK? Can you put the slide up for the motion? There we go, member of GK? I motion to accept the recommendation that this SBE approves the request to begin negotiations with ETS, the successful bidder who passed the submission evaluations with the highest overall score for the contract to implement CASC and ELPAC beginning March 1st, 2027 through December 31st, 2032. I second. Member Rodriguez, any further discussion? All right, all those who say aye, signify by raising your hand. And any abstentions? Any nays, okay. We have the two abstentions from recusal. Thank you very much, Mary and Mel. And it is 3.48 p.m. and I hereby, oh,

386they can come back in to hear me adjourn the meeting. I end today's session at 3.48 p.m. and look forward to seeing you all tomorrow. Thank you.