State Board of Education Meeting July 9, 2025

001Welcome. Good morning. I see that nine of our 11 members are present in person here today. And I understand that Member McQuillan and Member Patio Bronson are participating remotely from their respective locations. Consistent with the recent changes in the laws governing our meetings, I must ask, Member McQuillan, could you confirm that you're present? Yes, I'm here. Good morning. And can you confirm that there's no other adults in the room from where you are participating remotely? There are no other adults in the room. All right. Member Petillo-Bronson, can you confirm that you're present? Yes. And can you confirm there's no other adults in the room from where you are participating remotely? There are no other people in the room where I am. Great. I know, adult is kind of like a squishy concept. Seeing that board

002members are now present, I hereby call the July 2025 meeting of the State Board of Education to order at 8.33 a.m. And I'd like to commence by saluting the flag. Member Clausen, can you please lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance? And with that, I'm going to start with our general announcements. I'd like to welcome board members, staff, and members of the public who are attending this board meeting in person. The proposed waiver consent items are W1 through W6. The proposed regular consent items are items 6 through 11. We will reopen item 1, SPE priorities, later today to take action on the preliminary report of actions, draft May 2025 meeting minutes, and to report on our liaison assignments. There will be no closed session today. Item 13 was revised on page 2 to clarify that

003nine of the schools recommended for funding served 79.3% or more on duplicated students. There is one addendum to the agenda. Item 3, the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress and the English Language Proficiency Assessments for California, updates on program activities. 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 at what time public comment will occur for each item. Public comment may be provided by dialing the phone number using the access code and then following each of the operator's prompts. Upon dialing in, callers will be added to the caller queue. The operator will notify callers when it is their time to provide public comment. We'll also ask callers to please turn down

004the speaker volume of 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 14 is the general public comment item during which members of the public may provide comment and matters that are not specifically listed on the board's agenda. And so we'll now take up item one and turn it over to the state superintendent to provide his report.

005Thank you, Madam President and members of the board. I would like to start by acknowledging all of our teachers, our classified staff, our administrators, students and parents on completion of our school year and work into summer. Since we were with you last, we celebrated the California Distinguished Schools celebration. recognizing 336 elementary schools that have demonstrated exceptional student performance and in some cases have closed the achievement gap. It was a wonderful celebration. As our schools have moved into summer, I want to acknowledge that some of our schools are engaged in summer reading programs to help. build skill and add on to skills that students have developed. We want to thank a company called Capstone who has made the donation of thousands of online reading materials available to enhance and support the experience of our students during

006the summer. And we will be working with other vendors who will do the same. Since we saw you last, the state budget has been finalized. There are many great things in the budget for education despite Facing a deficit, California schools are still supported with COLA, with a one-time discretionary block grant to help them for their purposes, and lots of great resources to support literacy and math proficiency, including programs for coaches and professional development. I also want to acknowledge the work of Board President and members of this board and our two statewide literacy directors to help us in completing the literacy roadmap. all that comes with that that there will be resources to help our educators as they support young people as you all know we announced to schools the California literacy roadmap literacy content blocks

007for English medium classrooms TK through five as well as the preschool through third grade learning progressions for language and literacy development California continues to bring forward the best to support literacy and biliteracy for California students. And the budget, in large part, supports those efforts, including professional development and programs to support the teacher residency program. I know that these resources are very important in light of many actions taking place at the federal level, including the recent actions of the U.S. Department of Education. in the Trump administration to essentially impound dollars that have already been approved by Congress for all of our federal title programs. This could result in a loss of a billion dollars for California schools. California has already sued the Trump administration on many fronts for withholding funds and has been successful. And we

008are exploring all options to protect and preserve these title funds, which support... migratory education, expanded learning, I'm sorry, English language arts programs, and technology and professional development for our educators. Stay tuned for updates. You know, these threats continue in many areas, including against our immigrant communities, and we have continued to push on legislation that will protect our students at school. One, so that they don't experience disruptions, and two, so that we can preserve attendance-related revenue in our schools. It's estimated that California schools could lose upwards of $100 million from the types of immigration actions and enforcement that are taking place in communities and impacting schools. People are literally afraid to leave their homes, and when kids don't show up at school, they can't learn. and we lose revenue. And for those reasons, I'm honored to,

009we are sponsoring two bills that will help to keep ICE off of school campuses. SB 48 by Senator Lena Gonzalez says that ICE can't be on school campuses unless the ICE folks have a judicial warrant and that data can never be shared about our students. And SB 98 by Senator Perez that says that information must be shared with families. when it is available if ICE is present in and around school communities. And so we continue to work with our school families and school communities to help them to know their rights while we push back on these very difficult attacks. We continue to stand for our transgender students and stand behind California law that says that transgender students have the right to participate in sports and to do so safely. And we will continue to hold

010that position. And, Madam President, I want to close with an example that reminds us that despite what comes out of the federal government, we have to continue to be focused on making sure all of our students receive a quality education. And during my travels, I had the good fortune to visit Vallejo City Unified School District, a district that has been in receivership for nearly two decades, that has recently been returned to local control. A DISTRICT THAT HAS BUILT STRONG FISCAL CONTROLS AND ALONG THE WAY MADE TOUGH DECISIONS BUT ALONG THE WAY HAS SEEN AN IMPROVEMENT IN THEIR OVERALL MATH PERFORMANCE AND THEY'RE ONE OF THE EXAMPLES THAT WE LIFT UP IN OUR MOVE THE NEEDLE INITIATIVE FOR HOW TO IMPROVE THE LITERACY PROFICIENCY OF OUR STUDENTS. AND LATER THIS MONTH WE ANTICIPATE ALSO CELEBRATING OAKLAND

011UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT WHO ALSO IS RETURNING TO LOCAL CONTROL. after being under state receivership for many, many years. And so despite the challenges and the questions that many have, we encourage all of our educators, our school districts, our LEAs to continue the work and to move forward on behalf of supporting quality student improvement in education. Now, this concludes my report. I'm happy to accept any questions from members of the board. Thank you so much. I want to start by expressing gratitude. to you and to the CDE for your leadership in this time. These have been very challenging times, both on programmatic efforts, and we heard about some of those, but also for your courageous response to the many challenges that we have been facing. We need that leadership at this time. So special thanks for

012that. And we're going to plow ahead because we have such a busy schedule. Those of you who have looked at the mega, mega accountability item know that we have a long day ahead. along with some other major and important items. We do appreciate everyone who is here and those who are joining us on the Zoom from around the state. We've just completed a successful school year due to the commitment and hard work of our educators and parents and the investments the state has made in nutrition and learning recovery and after-school programs and mental health supports. And we're so fortunate that many young people are currently engaging in summer programming. all around California. As Superintendent mentioned, however, these are challenging times and the federal government has announced its plan to withhold $6 billion in already appropriated

013funding, some of which is for not only the migrant education programs and teacher training and English learners, but also for summer programs. So we're addressing and we're having to confront that. In addition, the federal school funds and huge cuts in Medicaid funds that were just enacted in the reconciliation bill support a lot of aspects of children's health and special education services so that is going to be a huge impact on our schools as well it's slated to be an act to be implemented in 2026-27 when when that fiscal year rolls around. And as the superintendent noted, many communities have been very courageous in protecting children and their families from deportation. And we're lucky to have the kind of legislative backing on many fronts that allows us to work collaboratively with our families. Of course, actions

014like these make it harder to concentrate on the things that we really need to concentrate on, but we have been in California making positive progress that we will work to maintain. We have a big bright spot in the growth in the number of students enrolled in transitional kindergarten, which will be fully online this year. So every four-year-old can be in a transitional kindergarten. I think many of you probably experience, as I do, the gratitude of parents who are having wonderful experiences with their children in TK. And I think the kids are also grateful, but the parents are truly grateful. And we also have the budget from the recent enacted budget to allow full scale up of the ELOP program, the Expanded Learning Opportunities program. So those things are making an enormous difference. The governor officially

015launched the Golden State Literacy Plan in an event in Compton, another one of those districts that has come out of state receivership some years ago and has been progressing and is now one of the higher achieving districts in the state with respect to A through G completion and graduation and growing achievement rates. The literacy plan includes the literacy roadmap that the superintendent mentioned, the online screener that is the screeners that are coming full circle this year, coaching for teachers, and we have in the budget also coaches training for mathematics. So we're beginning to really make that investment as well. Teacher recruitment and retention package, you know, includes money now for student teacher stipends, for teacher residencies, for national board incentive grants. So we're continuing to lean in in those ways, as well as with the

016Golden State teacher grants. The 2025-26 budget also includes trailer bill language that directly pertains to us. It charges the state board with taking a more comprehensive look at the performance criteria for differentiated assistance for local education agencies, taking into consideration the recommendations from the state-funded WestEd evaluation of differentiated assistance and the need to appropriately focus our resources and supports where the demonstrated needs are the greatest. That report, published in 2022, noted that because of COVID-19 pandemic, many districts shared concerns that a substantial majority of districts would be identified for differentiated assistance and that this number would overwhelm the system in terms of staff capacity to provide differentiated assistance. Accordingly, system leaders recommended careful thinking about the sustainability of the accountability system. And indeed, shortly after this report, we saw the spiking of the chronic absenteeism

017indicator as a function of illness and climate events, as well as disengagement from school, which led to 60% of the state's districts being identified for DA. Now, when this was created, the idea was that there might be, you know, the federal government had asked for 5% of schools to be identified. We wanted a district approach, but the thought was that it would be at that scale, and now it has. ballooned to, in the years since, 40 or 50, sometimes as high as 60%. And in some counties, this has included every single district. So this dilutes the state's and the county's ability to focus intently on the places that have the greatest needs. In addition, the report noted the disjuncts between the federal accountability system, which is focused on schools, and the state system focused on

018districts, and they're often different schools in different districts. And they're running in parallel to each other. So the report urged us to move to a single coherent accountability and support system, reducing duplicative improvement processes and reporting requirements. And finally, the report noted a recurring theme from interviews with district, charter, and county leaders, which is concern over the administrative burden of current reporting requirements, which I think we have all heard in one way or another. So given the many changes that have been made within our system over the past couple of years, including the addition of a new student group and new indicators, we now need to take stock of what all these changes mean to ensure that we have a system where technical assistance is targeted to the LEAs that need it the most, and

019it's done in a way that is effective and supportive. We'll be talking about some of that today as we go through the accountability mega item. We have evaluated the recent addition of the long term English learners student subgroup. We've looked at the data. We see that that's another piece of the puzzle and we want everything that is. used as an indicator to be used in a way that incentivizes the behavior we want from districts as well as the supports that those who need it can get. So we'll be looking over this coming year at the system as a whole, consulting with interest holders, proposing changes to enable the system to become more coherent and focused and less burdensome and more effective. And we'll be keeping this in mind as we consider our accountability item today.

020Finally, I have a couple of important announcements. The Senate Rules Committee voted two weeks ago to advance Member Olkin and Member Yoshimoto Tauri to the Senate floor after a very successful hearing. They received support from all who testified and sent letters and, as you would expect, demonstrated why Governor Newsom asked them to continue to lead and shape California's schools along with all of you. And as most of you know, our new student member, Vanessa Ejike. will be with us for her first meeting when we next meet in September, which of course means this is the last meeting for our wonderful member, Julia Clausen. There's much to say about Julia and the great service she has provided the state and the board and the nearly six million California students. I'm pleased to present her with a

021resolution from her state senator and a certificate on behalf of myself and the State Board of Education honoring her for this service. And I believe there may be another resolution to be presented which I will turn to the state superintendent to present. Do you want to do that at this juncture? I'll just say congratulations and thank you, Julia, for your service. Congratulations on your recent graduation and thank you for your service on your school district's superintendent's advisory council. We thank you for being a teacher intern in your district. We do have a... plaque for you thanking you for your service and I won't read all the whereas is but Think of it as today is Julia Clausen day in the state of California Don't go away we have another one to present You can stay

022because there's going to be another one. And I am going to read a whereas, just one. Whereas the success of the state of California, the strength of its communities, and the overall vitality of American society depend in great measure. on the dedication of young people such as Julia Clausen, who used their considerable talents and resources to help better the lives of others. Now therefore, be it resolved by Assemblymember Josh Hoover that Julia Clausen be recognized for her outstanding service as student board member on the State Board of Education, applauded for her incredible record of volunteer service, peer leadership and community spirit, and extended best wishes for the continued success in future endeavors. I don't know how you're going to carry all this, Julia. But now you have. I hope your dorm room is big enough

023to hang these. I don't even think you're going to have enough space. I'll find space for that. That's your first day. And I'm thrilled that you're going to my alma mater, Yale University. Thank you. What college are you in? I'm going until next week. Okay. Love you. Thank you. Now I know all the board members want to say nice things about Julia and we're going to do that in our liaison reports at the end of the day. We so appreciate you. And now we're going to get on to today's business. So we're going to go to item two, which is the update on the implementation of the integrated local, state, and federal accountability and continuous improvement system. Action to implement the 2025 accountability work plan and updates on continuing work for future dashboards. And the

024item will be presented by Cindy Kazanis and Kimberly Mundek of the CDE. There we go. Cindy, please begin. I hope you have comfortable shoes. I did bring comfortable shoes today. Good morning. Cindy Cazanes with the Analysis, Measurement, and Accountability Reporting Division. It's nice to see everyone in person and those online today. To get started, I thought we could briefly just highlight a member of my team because sometimes we don't get a chance to tell you the people behind the scenes. It's not Kim and I. We have a whole group of people that gets us to something like today. not only hundreds but probably thousands of staff hours is the culmination of what is brought before you in this mega, or as President Jollyhound puts it, mega mega item. So the person I wanted to just

025briefly mention is Dana Robles-Jaron. She is probably our longest serving employee in our division, which puts her at probably close to 35 years of state service. Dana is the person behind the school accountability report card. So there is one person in this entire department that supports over 10,000 schools to put forward their SARGs, which is a requirement. And as some will tell you, it goes back to Proposition 98. So it goes back to the 80s. It's one of our longest accountability requirements in statute. and she is responding to thousands of emails a year. So the reason I mentioned Dana is because when I come back in January of 2026, she will have been retired. And again, we don't often get to hear the people behind the scenes on our work. We also have in the

026audience today, as we always do in July, a Stanford fellow, Charlotte Cowess here. She's sitting behind me in the corner, and she is helping us, actually helping Dana to do some knowledge transfer and some documentation. So again, we enjoy having students, whether they're high school students or college students, learn and also provide us with fresh perspectives. So we definitely take that to heart as well. We have a robust item today. I thought I would get started with just a brief reflection. It's only one slide of where we've been in 2025. It started in December of 2024, actually, with the California Petitioners Advisory Group meeting and providing input on the accountability work plan. You all provided input on that work plan and began taking action on that back in March. So in March, adopting the science

027indicator, the cut scores, the color scheme. We also heard from our experts from ETS about the growth model and its history. And then in May, we had more feedback, another couple hour discussion around accountability. And then in June, again, California Patrician Advisory Group met and heard this and provided feedback as well. We are here today to finalize items for the 2025 dashboard and also to start planning for next year. And just to provide a perspective on what happens and why we usually don't see me in the fall is because as soon as Our end of year collection closes in CALPADS, which this year is August 8th. We are all hands on deck processing that data, analyzing the data, making sure we've done the necessary data quality, data control checks, so that what you see for

028something as high stakes as accountability. has gone through all of that integrity and again data quality checks and we can look at that dashboard and know that with confidence that the data is accurate. So that is a multi-month process that this year we'll be putting out the dashboard probably at least a day before November 15th because that's a Saturday. So I'm thinking we'll probably round it up to the 13th. But that is just something for frame of mind. We will... be turning directly to preparing for the california patricia's advisory group which happens in december and that agenda usually has to get posted around thanksgiving so it's a it's it's a it's a 365 day journey and accountability we don't we don't take days off um in terms of responding to emails from the field from

029constituents from vendors from Educators on on what does this mean so to put that in frame of several different decisions that we are asking you to make today? We've broken this up into nine different attachments eight of which have actions and I think some of them will be maybe a little easier than others. We've had a lot of time with member Glover Woods and President Darling Hammond to discuss these topics, but some of them do have options. So there's not necessarily something that's risen to meet everybody's needs. So with that in mind, I will go through the attachments. individually. Kim is going to join me in just a bit to help cover some of this so you get a break. We get to take a break from each other and you can also hear a

030different, a different, somebody who's a little taller too, but you know just giving you all a chance to to dig into these. We will take I think per Darlene Hammond's request, we will take these one at a time and ask for clarifying questions and then move on with, of course, public comment and then a discussion and vote at the end like we normally do. All right, so to get us started, we're going to talk about science. And just in terms of science, we have spent quite a bit of time this year on it, quite a bit of time over the last several years, and there is quite a bit of excitement in the community still around science. And so in terms of the journey in 2025, again, back in March, you did adopt science points

031and the cut scores for status and change and the color scheme for the 5x5 grids. We looked at options in May about incorporating the science indicator into the local control funding formula eligibility criteria. After the May meeting, the Governor's May Revise came out and we got the trailer bill language that President Darlene Hammond provided feedback or an overview on during her opening remarks today. And so you'll hear a little bit about that in these slides. But the California Patricia's Advisory Group did hear a little bit about the trailer bill and took that into consideration as they provided feedback on the eligibility criteria options. So this is an example of where we could land for this fall for the 2025 dashboard. You've adopted not only a color scheme, you've adopted the science points, and then what

032we see for maintained, so our other statuses, we would have the full. report card as you can see on this card and then view more details you be able to break it down by the individual student groups there are letters in your folders that ask you to not put the color on the dashboard for this year so I just want to you know vocalize that there are even decisions you've already made there has been I think some in the field that are would like to see that removed but Right now as it stands this is what you've adopted to date. So today the request is around the options around LCFF eligibility criteria. So just how we bring this in or whether we bring this in to determinations for our districts and our charter schools. So

033the first option, and I'll walk through these individually on the next couple slides, is looking at the science indicator as a state indicator for one of the eight state priority areas. The second is adding the science indicator as a local indicator for one of the eight state priority areas. The third is the science indicator with the newly adopted status change and color performance categories would not impact LCFF eligibility determinations. And the fourth would be... to add the science indicator as a local indicator and transition the indicator to a state indicator later. I think that came up during your discussion at the main meeting. So again, for the first option, we did do a simulation to see how it would impact adding science to differentiated assistance. So the first, what would have happened last year based

034on the data, just bringing it straight in, is there was 434 districts who were eligible for DA. When we look at the first simulation of adding it in under priority area four, Science having a red on ELA math or red red or red orange in those categories, it would lessen the number of districts eligible to 324. Simulation two is science with a red or, so we're changing it from an and to an or. ELA math, a red red or a red orange, and that increases the number a bit from... the existing number that we had last year identified. The final simulation is adding it to priority area seven, which is currently a local indicator and would be a local indicator for this purpose. The science being a red or local performance indicator was not met

035for two or more years. That's option three. And we see that over half of the districts being eligible based on that simulation. During the CPAC meeting, we heard from members expressing interest of adding the science indicator into the academic performance section, so just where it would land. There was also support for option three to maintain it for informational purposes. There was compelling conversations around the trailer. the trailer bill language and just taking a pause on science and using this for informational purposes for a second year in a row, but this time, of course, having added status and change in color. We also heard concerns that changing this information, the LCAP cycle would restart in 2026, and so prematurely changing it may have additional burden on our local educational agencies. Additional feedback from the CPEG discussion

036was adding, again, adding it into the academic performance section. We, sorry, that's a repeat slide. Here we go. So with that in mind, for science, the department is recommending that the board adopt option three to maintain science for informational purposes and allow for a full review of the differentiated assistance criteria that was proposed in the governor's May revise. So I will turn it over to President Darlingham if there's clarifying questions or if there's anything that you'd like to provide in addition. Are there clarifying questions about the science? I think we're good. Let's plow ahead. There will be many on some items. I'm going to have Kim replace me. Good morning, President Darlene Hammond, Chief Deputy Roberson, and the rest of the board. I am so excited right now. You know it. I thought of different

037reasons I could, messages I could put on a shirt, ask my daughter to help me out with her cricket, maybe make something. But other than just growth, period, right? We've gotten here today. I'm so excited. And really, this truly is a culmination for the state in. too many years to count, as we know, but personally, an over decade long journey, right? From this new accountability system being adopted and growth being part of the first in claims, right? Of the LCFF system that we wanted to adopt. So I'm so proud to be here in this moment with all of you today. As you know, we've talked about growth at every. single state board meeting this year. We brought our friends from ETS to come and walk through an explanation of our unique growth system and walk

038through the differences between our system and other states, the caveats of it, and give you a rounder view of all of that. In May, we walked through in depth with the actual results of our system as it's currently displayed. on our dashboard, the 2024 dashboard for schools and districts, and really allowed everyone to have a opportunity to dig into that, right? Ask some more questions and go through. And then we also shared with our CPAC in June their opportunity to provide feedback on the choices that we make moving forward for growth as well. So it's very similar to the conversations that we had in May. They also had in June. So. Moving forward, we want to propose adopting performance standards today, specifically based on all of the guidance and feedback that you have given us,

039both in March and at the May meeting. And specifically in reference into our mega, mega item, that would be pages two to seven and attachment two for this board item. And I brought my computer up just in case there are questions about our other items and other things to walk through those other previous items. But in order to get to this big monumental decision today with setting performance standards, we have a few things we need to take care of. Specifically, just the adoption of performance standards in and of itself requires us to set the number of performance categories, right? create the names and labels for performance categories, which you guys are so good at now, and performance standards, cut scores, assigned to each of those performance categories. That in and of itself will allow us

040to create the performance standards. Additionally, we also have some cosmetic issues to take care of, right? And how we display the growth data for all of our schools and districts on the dashboard. So that's additional things, but the big thing to walk through today are those three things. And we'll start off with the fun one first, names and labels for our growth performance categories. And specifically, we were provided with feedback that asked us to come back to this meeting with recommendations for five asset-based... category labels that was the request that reflects that schools are growing even in the lowest because schools even in that lowest category of level one will show growth And there were, I believe, some comments in the letters and other things that have come forward that folks are like, why are

041you not just using our standard status performance levels? A very low, low, medium, high, very high. And the reason is that we are not measuring an objectively standard set of criteria, which we do on every single other indicator, right? We know that chronic absenteeism can be from zero to 100%. And that is always measuring the same number of things at the static rate, same with graduation rate. And even with our academic standards, we know that there is an average that could be at the bottom, right, and an average that could be at the top, you know, hypothetically speaking, and all values in between. The difference with growth is every single year, we are capturing and observing performance as it was. So we're looking at how the students did, right, from the prior year to the

042current year. Looking at what that average growth was, setting that as the expected growth, and then measuring against how many students scored above or below that. Every year we're resetting that expectation because it's based on how students did in that current year in that grade, going from third grade to fourth grade, fourth grade to fifth grade, et cetera. So it's not static. And it is also not a static measure of students didn't grow if the measurement is all in level one. all of the students at a school, if we have a school that scored in level one, all of them could have grown and increased their scores year over year. It's just they did not meet the same growth, average growth, that the rest of all of the students in that grade did for the

043state. But it doesn't mean they didn't grow. So that is a really, you know, that was a very key observation, right, that you made and you wanted to carry that forward. So I want to just repeat that. This is not the same thing we're looking at. So we do need to come up with a unique set of labels to attribute to these. Additionally, this is not also a color where we are looking at current year performance versus prior year performance and setting a color grid. This is simply one category that is attributed and it's based on three years of data that we have. So it's also very unique because, I mean, I don't know, science took the unique label, but let's give it to growth too. Growth is also unique now in our system. So

044that is why the labels that you have shown before you are different, look different, and are not our standard status labels. So options that we have before you are option one, minimal growth, moderate growth, strong growth, accelerated growth, exceptional growth. Two, limited, some, typical, high, accelerated. Three, limited, developing, typical, enhanced, exceptional. And four, our creative option, seedling, budding, blossoming, thriving, and flourishing growth. Following the decision of your labels, then we actually need to get down to business and set some cut scores and actually assign performance standards to these specific measures for the dashboard. For our growth measure, we do the same thing that we have done for all of our indicators. We look at the distribution of performance for LEAs. That is inclusive of all districts, county offices of education, as well as charter schools.

045So we're looking at a distribution of all performance in grades four through eight across all of those entities. And then we will set four cut scores to create five growth levels. The categories that we have proposed within the item start with level one, which is less than 20.1 points below standard. And we say below because we don't want to talk about below standard. We just have to talk about below and above. So that's why it's a little confusing. I apologize. But it is not negative numbers. It's going to be reflected as below and above. And the additional decisions you'll make today may not actually show that score on the dashboard as well. That's an option for you. Because we did hear before that showing these numbers are confusing. We've heard that from the other, you

046know, folks walking through. So that is an option for you later on. But the cut scores are less than 20.1 points below, 20 points below to fewer than five points below. five points below to fewer than five points above, five points above to fewer than 20 points above, and then more than or equal to 20 points above. So that is the distribution of cut scores. When we look at how that ends up for both English language arts and math, these are the percentages of LEAs that fall within those levels. So you can see that for the general observation here for level one and level five, we are capturing around 5% or fewer of LEAs within that distribution. And that's been the intent when we set cut scores moving forward. And the largest percentage, which you

047always look to set as well, is in level three. So you can see 38.7% of LEDs would score in level three for ELA and then 34.1% for math. So a little bit more in the high level for math, a little bit more in the low level for math, right? And everything else is pretty well distributed there. Now this list of how we can incorporate growth into LCFF eligibility criteria is one that should look familiar to you. We introduced it back in March and then additionally walked through it specifically in May with through all of the different options that were available to possibly integrate it into LCFF. In addition to the discussion that you had in May, we also brought that to the CPAC. And CPAC particularly showed interest in option four, which is the adoption

048of performance standards and continuing to publish growth score data as additional information on the dashboard with no impact to LCFF eligibility determinations. Multiple members expressed their concern that they did not want to add growth into DA eligibility criteria prior to the State Board review that President Darlene Hammond spoke about within her remarks earlier this morning, pending all of this trailer bill language and taking this discussion up for the next year. And additionally, a few members expressed... concern in disrupting the LCAP cycle and asking for additional information to be reflected upon prior to a new LCAP cycle beginning. So that was also what they were concerned with. All right, now the cosmetic fund. As far as how we actually display this information on the dashboard. This year we have heard from many public comments at all

049of our meetings that growth was hidden. And it was tucked away. And this was not by design, but simply because until it was adopted, it can't live on our big main page. That's a big decision, right? For anything to show up there. We know that as science. Remember, science showed up for the first time on the main page following the decisions that you made in 2024. So this year, the decisions that you make will allow the dashboard science information to grow up and live on that front page. But we need to know what we're going to display. So we need to have a growth graphic to display this unique set of information and categorical data that is not necessarily a color. And additionally, for the data box, we want to know what folks want to

050see about growth displayed on their dashboard cards. Because we had heard, right, that the score might not be helpful. That might be confusing to folks. It might bring in additional... confusion with our academic scores. So what can we display there that will help clarify that a little bit more? So we provided various options for growth graphics and the preferred option from CPag was the following graphic here that you see. I will personally apologize for the rainbow colors. We would choose a different color scheme similar to the one that is currently presented. Perhaps some 90s retro vibes of teal, purple, magenta, I don't know. But something a little bit... different as is currently displayed. So not intending to be the rainbow and confuse anyone with our current color indicators. But showing that growth is a category,

051right? Showing all of the categories and where folks have looked at. Now as for the data box itself, this is where I said you have options as well to include information that is different than simply the objective growth score display. So some of the options that we have for consideration first would be the percent of students whose scores improve from the prior year. So for example, 75% of students improve their score from the prior year. And this is where I mentioned before you could have school or district or a student group that scored perhaps in level one but maybe 90% of their students did increase their score from year over year right maybe they only went up one point right maybe they only went up a little bit and their growth is not as fast

052or as large as others but they still grew and I think that's really important to see addition you know so I think that's an important place that of information that we can provide that would allow for that Additionally, we could just put in the average growth of students is 15 points above or below and this would be whatever your middle level was. So if it was, if you chose level three strong, it would be above strong, above typical, et cetera. Students are making minimal growth relative to where they started last year. So you could insert and walk through, just put the category and state that. and students are making exceptional growth compared to their prior grade performance, or students are making minimal growth compared to their academic peers in California. So those are some of

053the options that we've created and prepared for them. Therefore, the action today before you, it's got a lot of parts in it, so therefore from CDE, it's simply to take action deemed as necessary and appropriate to adopt the performance standards and continue to publish growth scores, data as additional information on the dashboard. So I ask for clarifying questions on this section. All right, thank you. This is so exciting to be getting to this point of the growth indicator. Any clarifying questions? I'll just clarify one thing, which I think Kim did a great job of talking about. But when a score is above or below the typical growth, it may still represent positive growth. And in fact, you know, kids don't get less intelligent from year to year as they go to school. So that's why

054we want to have a way of describing. limited or minimal growth all the way to exceptional growth rather than the above and below concept which it's not that they're below where they were the year before it's just that they grew at different rates so you did a good job with that Kim I just want to reinforce that that that's the dear you know one of the key differences in this indicator and with if there are no clarifying questions we'll move right ahead All right. Attachment three, the review of new and existing college career indicator measures. This one also has a lot of pieces to it. In May, we presented the robust data that the team worked on throughout the year regarding the proposed modifications and all of these simulations that we worked on to present

055a fuller picture, right, of the options before you and decisions that you could make based. on all of that data. And then again, in June, we were able to present that same information to our CPEG members. for their comments on different elements. Particularly, they responded positively to the removal of course code 9227 college credit other from the list of approved college credit courses for the CCI. And delaying the action though until the publication of the 2026 dashboard in order to give schools and LEAs time to correct any data errors. And just as a full clarification for folks, this would allow. everyone the opportunity to go back and clean up their data. And that because that was the one thing we discovered within that section of code that folks were just kind of using it as

056a catch-all. So for instance, we found a middle college and they put every single one of their college credit courses in this course code. I was like, oh, they need to be in college credit math. They need to be in other places. So we would love to provide the opportunity, and I think in partnership with other movement this upcoming year that we have with regards to data quality and talking to folks about their CalPAD system and what's going into it, assist those in fixing. this error because a lot of the course codes that are in there that we do want to provide credit for just need to be appropriately labeled to fit into the right place. So that's what we're looking for doing that. And again, it would not be implemented until the 2026 dashboard

057to go forward. Additionally, they expressed support for adding AP coursework to the AP measure on the CCI. And there's been some questions about why we did not move forward with the recommendation with regards to IB that came up. And directly the reason for that is that not all IB courses are tied directly to exams. So there is significant IB coursework that happens prior to students being able to take those exams in later years. So it's not the same analogous course test kind of opportunity that is offered and availed within the AP system. So it's not analogous completely, so that is why we would not be recommending that moving forward as well. And then as some of the data collections for the proposed new measures is conducted outside of CALPADS, CPAC stated that the measures that

058weren't gonna be added to the CCI, if we stopped collecting them, that might ease some of the reporting burden for LEAs. I know that I get a lot of emails from folks being really attentive to these additional data collection measures and being really conscious and you know considerate of making sure they're in on time they're accurate what data needs to be in there and this is taking hours of folks time to be able to to submit that so if there is information that we because it's not This is that information that is typically gathered for any other reason, right? It's only being gathered for our use to look at for data purposes moving forward. So if we're not going to use it, it feels really bad to see people, right, continue to collect it and

059go through. So they also expressed that CPAC members thought that that would be helpful to ease that administrative burden on collecting that information. Therefore. For this attachment, CDE recommends that the State Board take the following action to modify the CCI measures. So removing the ROCP program participation from the state and federal jobs program measure of the CCI, beginning with the 2025 dashboard. Removing course code 9227, college credit other, from the list of courses used to determine college credits within the CCI, beginning with the 2026 dashboard. Modifying the Advanced Placement measure to include the completion of an AP course with a C- or better beginning with the 2025 dashboard. Modifying the Transition Classroom and Work-Based Learning Experiences measure to include students who are awarded a diploma in accordance with the Education Code sections 51225.31 and 51225.32

060beginning with the 2025 dashboard. And CDE also recommends that the State Board approve that you direct the CDE to stop the collection of one or more of the proposed career measures, internships, student-led enterprises, simulated work-based learning, and armed services vocational aptitude battery, to reduce the data reporting burden and lack of interest in these measures, and further direct the CDE to continue collecting the State Seal of Civic Engagement data. Any clarifying questions on CCI? Lots going on there. Yes. Member Rodriguez. Yes, good morning, and thank you. I have a question about the AP. So it's the AP class, but not necessarily passing the AP exam. So we would continue to reward schools for students who pass the AP exam. So that would stay in place. What we would do is add in also any students who

061passed the course with a C-minus or better. We would also consider that as success on that measure. So this would be additional. It would not replace. And I assume that's an unduplicated count. Yes. They do not double credit for that. Any other clarifying questions? Member Olkin, you look like you're gearing up. Thank you. My question is around the IB coursework. I'm wondering, it makes sense that that's a whole curriculum program, right, school program, but I'm wondering if there are particular classes that are... sort of at the end of a sequence that we might be able to look at. So it's like if you get to the final math course in an IB program, if that's something that we could consider. We did not look at that this year, but I think perhaps for 2026, maybe

062for the work plan, if that is something you'd like us to look into, we could add that. Thank you. Am I correct that IB exams already count? Correct, and they will continue to, yes. That is not being touched in any way. Commissions member Glover Woods. Kim, good morning. Thank you for the presentation. A quick clarifying question regarding the code 9227. I know you mentioned that LEAs would have the opportunity to do data cleanup. Would that require cleaning up every year? for students in the cohort. So if they have that course indicated on their accounting as CCI, they would need to go back and clean up. every year of data for that cohort, correct? Correct. And so, again, we would provide that opportunity. We would definitely let folks know we have our big accountability information meeting,

063which is in exactly a month from now, to be able to go through and do that. And the good news is that while we use a snapshot of the current year data, we go back and look at the operational data store or ODS. for all of the prior years of data. And that allows for folks who have perhaps made mistakes in prior years, if they've added it or updated that, we'd be able to grab that from the prior years. So it's kind of one of those big data cleanup type of things. But knowing that this is the most popular course, that folks have just been kind of catch-all-ing, we'd like to fix that and help that get better. Thank you. Member Olkin? Can you remind me what counts as internship credit? I don't know if

064that's the right word, but for this data collection? So folks are asked within CALPADS to submit information on students who have completed an internship program. This past year, the internship programs were required to be attached to a course. So for example, work experience education, WE, right? Through a CTE pathway or a CTE pathway. Some folks have organized courses within the pathway directly that relate to work experience. So they've just been submitting that information to us. The requirements have been that a teacher is overseeing it, right? So it's not external. So you're not, you know, your uncle got you hooked up with a summer internship, right? And then a school's, you know, contributing that. That's not the same thing. It has to be associated with it. direct course. So that's what they've been sharing with us.

065Have we been able to validate VET or walk through that? Not in depth yet, right? As I said, only this past year have we been able to isolate that to specifically a course code and look at which courses those are being associated with. Any other clarifying questions? All right. We're doing good. Oh, Member McQuillan. I'm sorry. Member McQuillan is on the show. He has a question. Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. I'm wondering if any of the data points that you want to possibly eliminate, whether that data is collected in any other way, especially the information on internships and career technical education. Thank you. Currently it is only collected in CALPADS right so and it is it was directed to be collected for our purposes and research purposes so that information and as as

066you know it's been a very limited set of information from a very limited number of LEAs right we are most definitely not receiving this information from all schools as in all districts in the state. It is not in accountability, you know, and as we know sometimes when you you know tip that trigger Suddenly we're gonna get a lot more data But at the present time it would not be part of any other data collection for any purposes any other clarifying questions All right moving right along. All right. I have one more attachment before Cindy pops back up It's the review of the dashboard alternative school status or das application renewal criteria We were able in May to walk you through the DAS application renewal criteria, our journey through the application modifications over the past few

067years, and we were also able to present that same information that we presented to you in May to the CPAC in June. The CPAC members, multiple members expressed general support for modifying the DAS application to only include CALPADS verified data. And also there was interest from multiple members in being able to collect and verify data for students considered to be credit deficient, which was one of the criteria we were considering modifying. Therefore, based on your feedback in May as well as the CPAC's feedback in June, the CDE recommendation is that the State Board adopt the following modifications to ensure validity of the DAS high-risk criteria. Specifically to, one, remove wards of court from the application-based DAS criteria. And secondly, not to remove students who are credit deficient, but rather to modify that criteria to only

068include students who are enrolled during the traditional school year, which is between August 16th and June 30th for consideration of credit deficiency status. And that is that for the section. Any questions? I'm not seeing any. Questions on this one. Thank you. Thank you so much. And thank you for all the work that has gone into getting us to this point. All right. So we're going to switch over to talking about our student level data system in attachment five, which is around differentiated assistance eligibility based on CALPADS submissions. in 2023 we had senate bill 114 which required any district or county office of education eligible for differentiated assistance we provided technical assistance for a minimum number of two years following identification based on the results of the dashboard this technical assistance piece for differentiated assistance and

069calpads excludes charter schools. So I want to be clear, this is only addressing county offices and our school districts that would be eligible for this criteria. We are putting forward to you today a formal adoption of this, easing in of this criteria and the eligibility. In 2023-24, we had a very just over the bar. If you failed to certify our end of year collection, again, which is happening right now and closes next month, we did not have any districts or counties that failed to do this. So we were grateful that 100% of our districts and counties got over the bar. current year we are again looking at not only our end of year certification but what we call final certification deadlines. So there are two other data collections that the state conducts for student level

070data which is our fall one, our student enrollment data and fall two which is course enrollment and staff information. So we do have some that will be eligible based on your action today that did not get over those first two collections. And we are working very diligently, my colleagues in our Educational Data Management Division under Liberty Van Natten and our partners with the county, with Kern County, who provide our first level support for our student level data system are working very hard to make sure that we have our districts get over the finish line for our end of year collections. For next year, we are looking at districts and counties, offices of education that fail to certify. Data by the fund of certification deadlines so carrying that forward but also looking at districts and county

071offices identify with a data quality issue and That is something that we are working to defined in collaboration with our counties Especially because they would be providing that technical assistance To the districts, but that is the action before you today is that the department? Excuse me, recommends that the state board adopt this phased in approach to differentiated assistance eligibility criteria related to submission of data to CALPADS, student level data system, CALPADS. Excuse me, California student level data system, CALPADS. No questions. I'm going to keep moving along to a large conversation I think around attachment six which is the review of priority one teacher assignment data. And I would just pause here to say that when we were thinking about this. plan overall for 2025 for accountability. We thought we could land everything and you will

072see with this particular attachment the department does have some reservations about being able to support the delivery of this for 2025. But there are definitely a lot of options for you all to figure out and decide which path you'd like to move forward on. So in terms of priority area one, we did bring it forward in January to have a conversation around the teacher assignment data and expanding out this metric on the dashboard. We provided you an update in May. The California Petitions Advisory Group discussed this at their June meeting and the modifications that you're seeing before you potentially today. And as way of background, for the past three dashboards, you have seen this metric of teacher assignment data on our local educational agency dashboards. And this is to ensure that we were in compliance

073with Education Code 520645, which requires what you can see on the on the slide that we're looking at standards for local indicators which the department collects or otherwise has relevant and reliable school level data for for all schools be based on objective criteria but which may include but are not limited to the extent of any disparities across school sites within a school district or county house of education or performance relative to statewide data this only affects one data point and that is the teacher assignment data, which you already see in the school accountability report card and which you already see on the department's website through DataQuest in the teacher assignment monitoring outcomes report. So this is yet a third location for these same data with a little bit of different flavors. So in May, You

074all asked that we bring forward options for expanding the data to make them more accessible on the home page and look at providing further disaggregated information at the school level. specifically looking at modifications to the dashboard currently when we look at priority one as a whole it is a couple of different metrics it's not only our teacher assignment data but it also looks at access to academic standards so it's more than just on the teacher assignment data but those priority area is is limited to displaying the categories of which local indicators use which is met not meant or not meant for two or more years educational partners requested that the information be displayed with its own dashboard card on the main page for each school and local educational agency dashboard So the department in the

075item, you'll see this on the next slide, has created a mock-up of a percent of clear teachers, whether it's at or above or below the state average. And again, this metric comes from Priority Area 1, and we are proposing, one of the proposals is to have the tile be in teal, similar to what we used. for the science indicator for 2024 to indicate it's for informational purposes and does not have a color attached to it by selecting the title you also get to move through the dashboard sort of this one click motion as opposed to having to drill down on the home page so this is the tile proposed tile that just says teachers has the percent of clear teachers for a school and whether or not it's above that or below the state average

076There was also a proposal from some of the educational partners around inter-district comparison of schools and what you see on this slide is a data chart that has the district name, the number of schools, the highest clear percentage, the lowest clear percentage, and the percent point gap. And this information would be expanded if you went to view more details to provide this. what you see above for potentially every single school in the district. The additional options that others have put forward is providing a narrative box for LDAs to use to provide their local context. This was something that we heard very strongly from the administrators and the county superintendents organization because they do have certain schools. And the example before that we showed before as far as the lowest clear percentage was for a continuation

077school. So we know that there are workforce challenges in this area and so this would allow them to provide that information in that local context the changes would also extend to the school dashboard pages we would relocate their local indicator data this would be on there for the first time so again local indicator data until now has been reserved just for local educational agency pages not at the school level so this is a big shift to expand it to our 10 000 schools In terms of the Calumetris Advisory Group, we did have feedback from them who, some of them talked about the data being redundant. As I mentioned when I first started that this does show up in some version of the school accountability report card. We also see it, the The term TAMO is

078our Teacher Assignment Monitoring Outcome Reports, which have now hit, will hit, this year will be our, I think our fourth year of data. So there's a lot of other places where schools and districts and the community can find this information. We had a member who shared that not everybody understands the word clear. What does that mean? If you were a parent, I'm a parent, and I think that it is confusing to know what is a clear teacher unless you're in that space. So there may need to be more additional details, definitions, resources provided, especially to our schools who, again, are not used to seeing this information on a school report card, or a school dashboard, rather. There were also concerns raised about the potential increase in workload for schools and LEAs in relation to the

079publication of this data. So again, the need for more resources. So this is an area where you have several different options, but that the department recommends the State Board take action as deemed necessary and appropriate to make further modifications to the Priority One Teacher Assignment Data Indicator. These options may include the following. They may be combined or as the board deems appropriate. So the first being directing the department to seek additional feedback on modifications to priority one, the teacher assignment data and shift this work to the 2026 accountability work plan. The second approving the modifications to priority one teacher assignment data, beginning with the 2025 dashboard to display the statewide information within priority one as its own dashboard card on the main page of each school and L.A. dashboard. And then finally approving modifications to

080priority area one teacher assignment data. beginning with the 2025 dashboard to include a new table that provides inter-district comparison of schools after selecting the view more details link. Any? Attachment 7. Great. Touchstone 7 is the review of the long-term English learner results on the dashboard and this was something that you added to the work plan at the January meeting. So this was something that the department took on that was new to us and specifically looking at this student group and the outcomes within differentiated assistance. So in May we provided you an analysis of the data based on the 2024 dashboard results and then we received feedback on this item at the California Patricia's advisory group We did receive some additional requests from the board liaisons for accountability, and so I'll say them out loud, but

081again, as we hit clarifying information, I'm sure Member Glover-Woods or President Darlingham, please share your thoughts because it's a little awkward for me to be telling you what you've said to me, but let me try this on this slide. So I think that there was a lot of... thought put into not only the conversation in May and I know that President Darlene Hammond had a couple of slides that she shared that she created but we have had a lot of discussion around this and following that public meeting we went back and debriefed and there was additional evaluation requests for the department to look at how adjustments to the criteria may impact differentiated assistance eligibility determinations. So what you see in the item and the following is something that is new but you do the information

082definitely is articulated in the item much more thoroughly. So specifically, the liaisons asked us to look at criteria around LTALs under Priority Area 4 being limited to the English Learner Progress Indicator. This would be a change from the current criteria of looking at red and red on English language arts and math or red and orange on English language arts and math or red on the English Learner Progress Indicator. Just to clarify, you would still see those results on the dashboard. Nothing would be taken away from the dashboard in terms of information. It's how we look at our districts and the eligibility criteria on what gets them potentially eligible for differentiated assistance. At the California Petitions Advisory Group meeting, some members supported removing the LTEL student group from the academic indicator for, again, the LCFF criteria,

083indicating that LB is a suitable measure of English learner student success. I should also say out loud that this, of course, these students are also represented in the English. learner student group so you do see them represented there but then you see them as this subset based on the accountability definition of a student who has been an english learner for seven years or more We did have mixed feelings on the proposed changes as well from the CPAC meeting on the differentiated assistance eligibility criteria because of the budget trailer bill and just, you know, do we take a pause on everything that is related to differentiated assistance or are there some things that, you know, that folks are ready to move forward on? And I think there was just general... confusion, not confusion, but just consternation

084around this policy change that may be looming in 2026 and making decisions in 2025. In terms of the other piece that we were looking at for long-term English learners, we had suggested that we analyze the suspension indicator and how that using the the suspension rate indicator based on the school type may actually be just disproportionately impacting our long-term English learners. We have done some of that work and reviewed that with our technical advisory, technical design group and some of our educational partners, but we do have some more work to do. And so we just weren't able to get that over the finish line to bring it to you today, but we are committed to bringing that back in 2026. And we think that that would be. absolutely something that is more aligned and appropriate for

085this student group is to make sure that the indicator and what we measure our students on is is appropriate so our recommendation on that is to bring it to you and to have this decision made in 2026. so this is the long one um the approval of the ltel updates and modifications on the dashboard and the department recommends that the state board engage in a policy conversation about modifying The differentiated assistance eligibility criteria for the long-term English learner student group to consider the following options which may be combined as the State Board deems appropriate. The first being adopt the State Board liaison proposal to modify the LCFF eligibility criteria for long-term English learners under priority of four to only include red on the English learner progress indicator beginning with the 2025 or 2026 dashboard. option

086two consider modifications to the english learner progress indicator including those proposed by the state board liaisons to modify the english learner progress calculation for long-term english learners to include students who have reclassified to english proficient as part of the 2026 accountability work plan And then finally, option three, I think is around three now, shift any modifications to the suspension rate indicator in response to the long-term English learner student group through the 2026 accountability work plan. And finally, shift all modifications on the LCFF eligibility criteria. for the long-term English learner student group for any indicator and or priority area to the 2026 accountability work plan. So you've got a whole wide range of options on this one and happy to take any clarifying questions or have the liaisons provide some feedback. If there are questions, we

087can certainly take them. I'll just remind people that the question arose because the LTEL group is an unstable group. As students get reclassified, they leave the group so the average goes down. So you could be, the better, the more you're doing to reclassify the students who are already seven years in, and there are many of them ready to be reclassified, the worse that group looks on the English and math indicators. So you get a counterintuitive, counterproductive way of incentivizing, reclassifying the students. So the LP measures progress. The question about how to take into account an adequate level of progress has also come up if we use the LP by itself. We'll hear from interest holders about that, I'm sure, in the public comment. And so there are questions about would you use both the red

088and the orange classification, for example, to communicate an adequate level of progress. But the question is about whether we use progress as the main goal for districts and for differentiated assistance, and how soon do we do that. So I don't know if that helps clarify what we're gonna be talking about but I don't want to get into the discussion yet because yeah, okay, so I think we can move on So this is a quick one as well. Attachment 8 is around the review of participation rate for the academic indicators in science. And this is something that the department, and reflecting on the fact that we've had a dashboard now since 2017, and times have changed, and districts are now much more equipped to do our computer-based testing in a timely manner. The department... Wanted to

089look at whether or not the grace periods are still needed Unfortunately, we just ran out of time to do all this work So this is one like the suspension rate piece for long-term English learners that we recommend a lane action allowing us time to engage with the field on this and to discuss why we think that this is a good time to Reconsider whether or not the grace periods are needed. So we're I'm suggesting that and recommending that you ship this issue to the 2026 accountability work plan for implementation in 2026. I will also just share with you that this does require extra work on the data file that comes in from our testing contractor. And as we look at next year and moving up the publication of the dashboard. entire month to align with

090the assessment results on October 15th. We are very cognizant of any extra work that has to be done and trying to streamline that work as well. It is a resource issue for us and I don't think that it's meeting its intended purpose anymore. So it's some of the things that when you've had a system in place for, again, over six years, some things... Looking at continuous improvement some things are good to leave behind, but that's just a preview for for 2026 and again That's one that will pick up with again your approval today next year And I don't think that, hopefully that doesn't raise any questions. So just to close out, to close out, while it has only been, you know, less than 60 days since we've last seen you, we did get to engage

091in some outreach activities. So between the last time that we reported on outreach activities, we had two person. two in-person meetings or two policy meetings, an in-person presentation, and eight virtual meetings. There is continued interest throughout the school year and the summer around accountability. And so this is just a reminder of the work that we do also on a day-to-day basis to support the field, to support educators, to support the public on how to use this tool that you've put together. So with that, the next couple of slides, and I don't know that we need to go through them individually, but it is the bulk of this recommendation in all the different stages. And then we do have the public comment slides. So I'm happy to take your lead, President Darlingham, and how you'd like

092me to move forward. We might take a quick look at the recommendations, but we're going to take a longer look at them when we come back to discuss. So I think it's good for people to see in one place what we're going to be discussing and voting on ultimately. But we can zip through them now because we're going to spend time on them later. Sounds good. So the first is around science. The department's recommending that the board approve the adoption of option three to maintain the science indicator for informational purposes to allow for the full review of the differentiated assistance eligibility criteria pursuant to the new budget trailer bill language proposed and the governors may revise. The second is around the growth model that we... I recommend that you adopt the performance standards and continue

093to publish the growth score data as additional information on the 2025 dashboard, including the number of performance categories, the names and labels for the performance categories, performance standards or cut scores assigned to each performance category with guidance around the growth graphic and data box. For the college career indicator, there are two different slides for this around the modification of these measures. First, removing the Regional Occupational Center Program, ROCP, participation from the state and federal jobs program measure of the college career indicator beginning with the current year dashboard. Removing the course code 9227, the college credit course other from the list of courses used to determine college course credits within the college career indicator. beginning with next year's dashboard, modifying the advanced placement measure to include completion of an advanced placement course with a C-minus or

094better, beginning with current year dashboard, and modifying transition classroom and work-based learning experience measures to include students who are awarded a diploma in accordance with Education Code Sections 51225.31 and 51225.32, beginning with current year dashboard. Direct the department to stop collecting one or more of the following proposed career measures. Internships, student-led enterprise, simulated work-based learning, and armed services vocational aptitude battery, or ASVAB. And then finally, further direct the department to continue collecting and analyzing the state's civil civic engagement data for inclusion in future dashboards. Shifting to the DAS criteria, the recommendation is to modify the following measures to ensure validity of the DAS high-risk criteria, removing rewards of the court from the application-based DAS criteria, and modifying students who are credit-deficient criteria to include students who are enrolled on or between August 16th and June

09530th for a qualification. In terms of differentiated assistance eligibility criteria based on CALPADS, adopting a phase in differentiated assistance eligibility criteria related to the submission of data in California student level data system CALPADS. And then the teacher assignment data piece, again, there are three different options that may be combined as the state board deems appropriate. The first, directing the department to seek additional feedback on modifications to this metric and shift the work to next year's accountability work plan. The second, to modify the Priority Area 1, beginning with current dashboard, to display the statewide information within Priority Area 1. as its own dashboard card on the main page of each school and LEA dashboard. And then the third option, approved modifications to teacher data beginning with current year dashboard to include a new table that provides

096inter-district comparison of schools after selecting view more details. Link. And then in terms of the differentiated assistance eligibility criteria for the long-term English learner student group, again, there's four different options for this one. The board may combine them as they deem appropriate. The first option being adopting the SBE liaison proposal to modify the LCFF eligibility criteria for LTELs under Priority 4 to only include red. on the English Runner Progress Indicator beginning with current or next year's dashboard. The second, consider modifications to the English Runner Progress Indicator, including those suggested by SBE liaisons to modify the English Runner Progress Indicator calculation for LTELs to include students who have reclassified to proficient as part of next year's work plan. The third, around modifications to suspension rate to shift that to next year's work plan. And then finally,

097The fourth option to shift all modifications on the LCFF eligibility criteria for LTELs to the 2026 work plan. In terms of participation rate for academic indicators and science and the grace period delaying that action for this year to the 2026 accountability work plan. And with that, I'll turn it to you or for public comment. All right. I think what we're going to do, let's leave the public comment slide up so the people who want to make public comment can queue up and be ready to call in. I'm going to take a 10-minute break now for everyone so that we're prepared to be fully alert for public comment and discussion when we come back. All right. Thank you. We'll be back at 10-11. We are reassembled and we'll now open the phone line for the public

098comment queue and see what public comment there is in person. There are 23 people signed up for in-person public comment. Will the following five people please line up at the microphone in the back of the room? Nicholas Watson, Leticia Reyes, Abbey O'Neill, Carson Eads, and Xavier Maltese. Good morning President Darlene Hammond and board members. My name is Nicholas Watson speaking on behalf of the California Charter Schools Association. We respectfully urge the SBE to include a growth measure on the dashboard as a standalone academic indicator with the color designation. This is critically important to ensure that all relevant data is required to be considered before high stakes renewal decisions. The failure to do so will result in the unfair closure of many charter schools particularly schools serving disadvantaged students. My colleagues and I are here today

099to express our concerns with the CDE recommended information only approach to growth data, to share examples that demonstrate the problems with this info only recommendation, and to suggest a path forward that will better serve California students. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Leticia Reyes from CCSA. A robust assessment of student growth over time is an essential component of determining the effectiveness of any school. AB 1505 included the use of verified data in charter renewals because at the time the dashboard lacked a student growth measure. The use of verified data was limited in time because it was assumed that a full student growth measure would be available within a couple of years. Six years later, the statutory right of charter schools to rely on verified data has expired, and it is critically important that the

100SBE approve a fully developed growth measure. Schools should not be judged for closure based on a dashboard that is lacking any true measure of student level growth over time, which disadvantages the many charter schools that serve the students in most need. The primary concerns with applying only current dashboard data to a high-stakes charter public school renewal decisions remain unchanged. The dashboard was not designed for the purpose of determining which schools should be renewed. Gaps in the dashboard academic data, the continued lack of meaningful student growth metric, its limited grade span availability once implemented, and the unique circumstances. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Abby O'Neill here from CCSA. Limitations in the current school dashboard require the adoption of a full growth measure. Some examples include the following. The current dashboard may reflect a bias

101because charter schools which serve the most high need populations are overrepresented in the low track for renewal. Statewide analysis suggests that schools identified in the low track disproportionately serve high need populations. In 2020, 86% of low track schools served majority low income students compared to 33% of high track and 67% of middle track schools. Moreover, 89% of low track charters serve majority Latino and black students compared to 39% of high track schools and 64% of middle track schools. Also, many smaller schools do not generate dashboard colors required for renewal tracks. When full dashboards were last available, 14% of these schools did not have two or more academic indicators for both years, disqualifying them from renewal track placement. Without the required consideration. Thank you, speaker. Time's up. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Carson Eads

102from CCSA. under current law a charter school placed in the low track may not be renewed unless the authorizer makes specific findings showing increases in student academic achievement to understand how this plays out in practice consider the following in 2020 a nemo ellen ochoa charter was categorized as a low track school by cde ochoa is part of green dot public schools which is recognized as a usdoe as a high quality charter school operator and a gap busting cmo for reducing opportunity gaps in both reading and math in a research study by credo at stanford although ochoa was designated low track students were learning at one and a half to two times the pace of their peers based on CAF scores compared to the average for the state. Without a requirement to consider supplemental growth data,

103the authorizer likely would have closed this high performing school. This high quality option would have been taken away from 341 students enrolled in Ochoa, 96% of which who are socioeconomically disadvantaged, almost all of whom are Latinx, and 24% of whom are English language learners. Because LAUSD was required to consider it, Ochoa received a two-year renewal. As of 2024, they are now middle track, and they are named by CDE as a California Distinguished School. Growth data is crucial to ensure that the high quality options are not taken away from vulnerable students. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Xavier Maltese with the California Charter Schools Association. The growth data that the CDE makes available has immense value and should be developed into a full dashboard growth measure. And the great irony of this situation is that

104we've seen numerous charter schools forced to use a statutory verified data process in order to even be able to present this CDE published growth data to authorizers during charter renewal considerations. This important data has not been incorporated fully into the dashboard. And as a result, authorizers have refused to consider the CDE student assessment data on growth unless it was included as part of the verified data submitted by the school. The inconvenient truth is that the student growth data the SPE is considering adding to the dashboard as an information item only will be completely unusable by charter public schools because the right to use verified data has now expired. Thank you. Will the following five people please line up at the microphone? Gregory McGinty, Jeff Vaca, David Conley, Steve McLaughlin, and William Minster. Gregory McGinty. The

105CDE has advised the state board that the time required to analyze and prepare student growth data for a full dashboard indicator would prevent CDE from meeting the data reporting timelines required by Ed Code. We disagree with this analysis. We would strongly urge the state board to adopt an amendment to the recommendations today that one, adds a full growth measure to the school dashboard as a standalone academic indicator with a color designation. Two, adopt findings that the growth indicator should be used for accountability purposes, but not for the identification of schools for direct TA or differentiated assistance. Three, direct the CDE staff to add the growth indicator to the dashboard no later than June 30th of each year. And four, direct the CDE staff to utilize the growth indicator for the placement of schools into renewal

106tracks no later than June 30th of each year. If the State Board takes this step. Thank you, Speaker. Your time is up. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. Jeff Vaca representing the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools. We are working closely with a coalition of local educational agencies and statewide education organizations. My comments will be limited to attachment number six on the teacher misassignment monitoring. We believe that as this is really the first time that we've been having this conversation about treating a local indicator in this fashion. that it does merit a deeper and longer conversation. We do have concerns about isolating a single element from one local indicator and presenting it on the dashboard without sufficient context. So we would be supportive of CDE's option number one to continue this conversation

107in preparation for the 2026 dashboard. We are grateful for the outreach from staff and the conversations that have taken place in the last 24 to 48 hours on this issue. Thank you. Good morning, I'm David Conley, Professor Emeritus, University of Oregon and founder and former CEO of the Educational Policy Improvement Center, EPIC. In 2014, EPIC was contracted by the State Board to produce recommendations for adding a college and career preparedness measure to the Academic Performance Index. In 2014, November 2014, I presented the report, Measures for a College and Career Indicator. At that time, we found that the AP and IB programs to be high-quality college and career indicators. Were we to conduct this analysis now, we would recommend inclusion of the Cambridge Assessment International Program as well. Its characteristics closely parallel those of AP and

108IB, and it could make a comparable contribution to the dashboard. As you consider adding measures to the dashboard, please give careful consideration to the Cambridge Program. Thank you. Good morning, Madam President, members of the board. My name is Steve McLaughlin, proud superintendent of Fullerton Joint Union High School District down in Orange County, California, starting my fifth year as superintendent. For the past six years, Fullerton Joint has proudly been a Cambridge International District. In that time, we've seen remarkable growth in student interest and participation in the Cambridge program. Our Cambridge students have gone on to earn acceptances at some of the state and nation's most sought-after colleges, including UCLA, UC Berkeley, NYU, and MIT. The quality of rigor of the Cambridge model is unquestionable and we know that firsthand. Troy High School in our district offers

109Cambridge AP and IB concurrently, giving us a unique lens through which to compare these programs. Cambridge holds its own every step of the way. Today we are here to advocate for the inclusion of Cambridge program in the California College and Career Indicator and are happy to work with your staff to provide any data or insight needed to support this important equitable step forward for not just Fullerton Joint students, but students around the state of California. Thank you. Good morning President Lynn Darley-Hammond and members of the board. My name is Will Minster and I have the privilege of beginning my 12th year serving as the principal of Troy High School in Fullerton Junior High School District. Troy High School takes great pride in our students and our teaching staff and we seek to provide our students

110with a rigorous high quality education. which means offering the best course of the programs. Year after year, 95% of our graduating seniors attend college. To meet our students' needs, we offer college-level courses with examinations through Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, and in 2020, we added Cambridge, building our program upon AS and A-level courses with examinations. Cambridge courses are rigorous and I would like to express my support for the inclusion of Cambridge into California's college and career indicator. This year 159 students took a combined 266 AS level and A level exams with 41 senior candidates for the Advanced International Certificate of Education ACE Diploma. Thank you. Please line up at the back. Sherry Reach, Brian Rivas, Stephanie Farland, LeAngela Reed, and Eric Primack. Good afternoon. My name is Sherry Reach. I'm here with Cambridge International. I wanted

111to let you know that my colleagues, Dr. Matthew Kay and I, certainly appreciated having the opportunity in May to speak with you all about possibly adding Cambridge to the career readiness standards. And we are very, very excited by the very positive comments many of you made about the potential of adding Cambridge to the college and career readiness indicators. Since our... Last appearance here, schools in particular have expressed how important it is their work and success is reflected and we are here to echo their sentiments. We have strong encouragement from schools, districts, and researchers to again advocate for Cambridge as a worthwhile contribution to college and career indicators. Our curriculum emphasizes critical thinking, problem solving, deep knowledge, and complex communication values we believe are those of California. We humbly request that you ask staff to bring

112back a recommendation for Cambridge exams and courses for inclusion. Thank you. Madam President, I'm Brian Rivas speaking on behalf of Ed Trust West. We continue to recommend the adoption of growth in science as a full state indicator and using it for the purposes of identifying LEAs for differentiated assistance. But I understand you're going to take some interim steps today. We agree with our colleagues in the LCFF Equity Coalition about how the data are displayed using the same performance levels as other state indicators and also Placing the data on the dashboard in a similar fashion. We have a letter of July 3rd that has some recommendations for you as you turn your attention to the adoption of new performance criteria. Please read it. I won't read it from you, or read it for you, but we're

113asking that you adopt some principles like maintaining high standards for student... achievement that you focus your resources on the most needy schools and that you not exclude high need schools thank you your time is up assistance if they have moderate growth thank you Good morning President Darlingham and members of the State Board. My name is Stephanie Farland. Today I am here representing Superintendent Darren Brawley from the Compton Unified School District. First of all I would like to thank you for your comments earlier about Compton Unified. We appreciate the recognition for the hard work that they're doing there. You've all received a copy of Superintendent Brawley's comments so I'll just go over quick. Quick highlights, and this is to the college career indicator proposed changes. Count employer approved non-registered pre-apprenticeships. Recognize pre-apprenticeships linked to DOL registered

114apprenticeships. Remove the pathway linkage requirements for internships. Align the CTE pathway plus college credit indicator with student career goals. Expand CCI access for students earning an alternative diploma, particularly those with moderate to severe disabilities. Ensure prospective implementation. of changes and establish a data validation window for CCI reporting. Thank you for considering, for reading the comments, for considering the recommendations and Superintendent Brawley is always available. Thank you. Good morning, President Darlene Hammond, Chief Deputy Roberson and members of the board. Lee Angela Reed on behalf of the Small School Districts Association. In the interest of time, I'd like to align myself with the comments. Of my colleague from Riverside and also what are reflected in the coalition letter that you received I want to spend some time talking about the TAMO item we I can't tell you

115how much I appreciate the conversations that I've had with staff over this issue, but I think we need a little time to now take this to the field. This is dramatic change, pulling it away from an out of a priority, moving it around. These are big things. There's a lot of things in this work plan. They're very ambitious, but to move forward ambitious, we also have to move forward smartly, and I think that takes some time for some feedback and for the field to be able to respond. So thank you for your consideration. Madam President, members, Eric Premack with the Charter School Center. As you've heard from us multiple times in the past, we strongly support the incorporation of growth indicators on the dashboard as a full-on indicator. This is absolutely essential if the dashboard

116is going to fulfill its statutory responsibility. Separately, we're very concerned about proposed changes to the dashboard alternative status eligibility. We do not believe that shifting to relying on point-in-time data and shifting to relying on CALPADS data is sound. We actually believe it's unsound, particularly with the rapidly turning over population that many of the alternative schools that we work with serve. go through those systems does not give you an accurate reflection of the student population being served and we would be deeply concerned if those changes were made so we hope that you will engage the affected schools in the discussion and vetting of any changes to the eligibility criteria they're very high stakes for some of our members and we're very concerned about that thank you Will the following five people please line up at the

117microphone? Manuel Bonrostro, Diana Vu, Lindsay Tornatore, Annie Cuniel, and Jessica Sauko. Good morning President Darlene Hammond and members of the State Board of Education. My name is Manuel Buenrostro with Californians Together. And I first want to talk about the proposed changes to the academic indicator for long-term English learners. We support continuing the discussion for LTELs as part of the 2026 work plan. However, if there is a move to change the requirement to only include LP to identify long-term English learners, We would hope that there is a look at increasing the expectations and the measure from just looking at red for LP. This could include making, either changing the cut scores or maybe exploring looking at red and orange on the LP. If we only look at red for. English learner progress indicator. We're essentially saying

118that we are only identifying districts where less than 35% of their long-term English learners have made progress. We think those expectations should be a little bit higher for the state of California. We also align with the comments made. Thank you, Speaker. Your time is up. Good morning, Dr. Darlingham and board members. Diana Vu on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators. Because of the directive of the 2025 Education Budget Trailer Bill requiring the board to update the performance criteria for DA by July 2026, along with our guiding principle that significant changes to the state's accountability system should be aligned with the established three-year LCAP cycle, AXA believes that these items should be part of a broader conversation that considers how each element fits within the overall DA system and their interaction with one another.

119Furthermore, we... We believe that these decisions that. which have wide reaching implications, specifically the TAMO, should be informed by broad inclusive engagement. Access concern that the TAMO data represents just one of three factors within the conditions and climate local indicator. And presenting an isolation on the dashboard offers an incomplete picture and may lead to misinterpretation of school performance. We would also uplift the concerns made by multiple CPAC members who stated that the TAMO data, which is already reported on multiple places, is redundant and may cause confusion without clarification. We respectfully ask that the board consider shifting any decision to the 2026 accountability work plan to allow for time and your time as a practitioner input thank you Good morning members of the board Lindsay tornatory on behalf of the California County superintendents the county superintendents

120are eager to engage in the upcoming policy work to reevaluate the differentiated assistance criteria for that process to be meaningful we believe all elements must be open for review we respectfully urge no major changes to be made to the dashboard or accountability system until the 2026 update is complete if changes are made for 2025 we ask that all decisions remain open for reconsideration on Tama we support data transparency but oppose the inter-district comparison and have concerns about the added tile which county offices feels redundant and may create unintended consequences for local indicator reporting as expressed by my education management colleagues today. Therefore we request more time to gather feedback. On CCI we urge the state to continue collecting the ASVAB data. Many of our DAS students pursue military careers and current CCI rules are nearly

121impossible to meet in court and community schools. We are eager to collaborate to find more equitable solutions for DAS students and the CCI. Thank you. Good morning, President, Vice President, members of the board. My name is Annie Cuniel. I'm the Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services at the San Joaquin County Office of Education and CISC Science Subcommittee Co-Chair. This is an exciting time for all of us as we celebrate the board's support to include science on the dashboard. The science community has always believed science is the magic that brings other content areas like ELA and math to life. We respect the board's process. to thoughtfully consider what next steps to take when ensuring high quality science instruction for all students. It is this momentum that drives the work of the state funded California Math Science Computer

122Science Partnership or CalMSCS. The CalMSCS is now entering the halfway mark of its funding period. However, the goal of this grant does not have an expiration date. These newly created systems will support educators in their profession. learning well beyond the lifetime of this grant. I would also like to acknowledge... Thank you, Speaker. Your time is up. Thank you. Will the following three people please line up? Melissa Marcucci, Amanda Chiatowicz-Claude here, and Jeff Rice. Good morning, Dr. Darling-Hammond, Chief Deputy Robertson, and members of the board. First of all, congratulations to members Olkin and Yoshimoto-Towery on your reappointment. My name is Jessica Sacco, and I'm here today on behalf of the California STEM Network, a project of Children Now. I'd really like to thank the department and state board staff for their work to bring science to

123the dashboard and their outreach to the field. The California STEM Network recommends that you update the science card on the dashboard with the color ratings and keep it on the 2025 dashboard for informational purposes only. Looking ahead to the work, I asked the board to express strong support for the inclusion of science in the revised performance criteria for identifying districts eligible for differentiated assistance. I've been advocating for the return of science to our state's accountability system for just over a decade. And so I really look forward to continuing this conversation and being a part of that conversation over the next few months. Thank you. Good morning, President Darling-Hammond and members of the State Board of Education. My name is Melissa Marcucci, and I am a science teacher in the Central Valley and president of the

124California Association of Science Educators. I've seen firsthand how our accountability system shapes what students experience in the classroom. While we appreciate the board's past support of science, now is the time to act boldly by updating the science indicator to indicate color rating and associated data for informational purposes only on the 2025 dashboard. In addition, we urge the board to commit to option one for 2026, making science a state-level academic indicator and in... including it in the revised criteria for differentiated assistance. Doing so aligns with the three-year LCAP planning cycle and gives schools time to prepare. Science must matter just as much as ELA math and English language development in K-12 education. Without full inclusion in our accountability system, we've seen persistent inequities in access to high-quality science instruction. When science is optional, equity is optional.

125I really urge you to also read our white paper submitted with our letter. Thank you. Hi, good morning. My name is Amanda Chadovich-Cludier, and I'm an eighth grade math and science teacher in Southern California, as well as the Region 4 Director for the California Association of Science Educators. With our students in the forefront of our thinking, I would like to talk to you about a couple of mine. Student H and Student R. H is a shining star in my science class and R in my math. Brilliant, minority, respectable young men thriving in fields that society would consider being against the odds. I am so proud of them. However, when I looked at profound state data, the boys' diligence and their academics, their natural brilliance and focus were not measured equally. We could track H's in

126math and make it comparable across the state. However, ours in science weren't even represented on the same data system dashboard until last year. While I am elated to see the progress that we have made in science, I hope we continue in this direction. Please consider option one for the 26th school year, placing science as an equal. player with math and ela on our dashboard in doing this i hope to see by the time h and r take their next state assessments that their brilliance is documented equitably thank you there Good morning everyone. Jeff Rice with A-plus representing more than 100 flex-based personalized learning public charter schools serving more than 100,000 students. These schools are also known as non-classroom based charter schools. Our schools typically experience higher than average mobility rates and enroll a significant percentage

127of disadvantaged students who come to us well below state averages in English, language, arts, and math. Our data consistently shows that we close the achievement gap with these students within two years, and they show accelerated growth at the point of three years and more. Given the growth metrics displaying that was discussed this morning, we would respectfully suggest that the most accurate measure, given this anomalous situation, would be the percentage of students that show growth year over year. Thank you for your consideration. We will now move to public comment on the phone line. There are 16 callers in the queue. I will open the phone line now. Caller with the last four digits, 1162, you are now live. Please start your public comment. You have one minute. Good morning. My name is Cindy Livers. I'm calling

128on behalf of Riverside County Educational Leaders. We want to express our concerns regarding two proposed modifications regarding this CCI measure. One, we have concerns with the removal of course code 9227, college credit course other, from the list of courses used to determine college course credits beginning with the 2026 dashboard. We thank the CDE for their outreach on this issue, but we do continue to believe this change will have significant impact on students in alternative education settings. Second, we oppose the elimination of the collection of career measures such as the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery, the ASVAB. We believe this decision risks undermining both equity and the full scope of postsecondary readiness we seek to offer our students, whether it's university, technical, training, military service, or immediate employment. Lastly, we look forward to being part of

129future discussions as the Board considers final decisions for the state accountability system and updating the performance criteria for differentiated assistance. Thank you. Thank you. Next caller with the last four digits, 4369, you are now live. Please start your public comment. You have one minute. Hello. Hello. This is Sally Fox calling from San Diego County on behalf of CABE, the California Association for Bilingual Education, which is also a member of the LCFF Equity Coalition and Californians Together Coalition. Listening to the mega, mega, mega item two brings a sense of pride in the amazing work achieved in the past 10 years, and more recently in the exciting focus on growth as a more meaningful model for school accountability. Earlier in my own career, which began as a bilingual teacher in Imperial Beach, California, I was trained as

130a lead teacher and later science staff developer through the California Science Implementation Network. So in the 90s, I was exposed to the power of authentic performance assessments. I'm particularly proud of California for taking on that challenge. Reattachment 7, CABE elevates concerns expressed about the ELPI standards being too low. If in the future we only shift to ELPI, we hope we will go beyond looking at red to look at increasing expectations. Thank you. Thank you. Next caller with the last four digits, 3640. You are now live. Please start your public comment. I have a question on the recovery fund. Hundreds of millions of dollars came to California. Caller with the last four digits, 3640. You are now live. Please start your public comment. My name is Kavi Suresh, and I'm from Santa Barbara County. I'm a

131student at UC San Diego and an equity fellow for children now. I entered California's public school system. As an English learner and with the help of community support, including English learner reporting, I was able to reclassify in four years. However, the supports were not made accessible to many of my friends and peers who continued to face barriers to reclassification as they advanced to high school. Two years ago, I served as a student board member at the Santa Barbara Unified School District, and I learned that students who were performing exceptionally on ELPAC were unable to reclassify because of their performance on Smarter Balanced English Language Assessments. As a result, they were unable to access important college prep courses. While Children Now supports the board's proposed compromise to use the ELPI red and orange for the 2025

132dashboard, we recommend adding this issue to the 2026 Accountability Work Plan to develop other options to account for the ELA and math assessment for our long-term English learners. Thank you. Next caller with the last four digits, 8945. You are now live. Please start your public comment. You have one minute. This is Suzanne Cooey of the Charter Schools Development Center. We urge the Board to ensure a clear path for using student academic growth data in charter renewal. Provisions to use verified data showing growth on local assessments expire this year. That needs a fix, but today please ensure a path for using student growth on the CAST test by adopting growth indicators. To value performance and progress equally, place growth indicators next to the existing state indicators. Please also release the growth data file to enable interpretation

133of growth scores and performance levels in context. Regarding science, like the existing dashboard indicators, change does not measure improvement due to turnover in the students in the indicator year-to-year. Also, without using pre- and post-tests, there's no growth measure. Robust approaches are possible, but we haven't gotten to them yet. Thank you. Thank you. Next caller with the last four digits, 4726. You are now live. Please start your public comment. You have one minute. Hello, my name is Lorraine Richards and I am a classroom teacher representing the California Teacher Association. For priority one data, CTA has concerns with the proposed title of this information on the dashboard. The broad label teachers implies that the data is comprehensive on teachers when in fact it is only one data point. We would never see students as a tile that

134contains only one set of test scores. CTA supports fully credentialed teachers and data and accountability systems that promote clear communication with interest holders. We recommend the tile displays a more accurate title that captures the data such as teacher credentialing or teacher assignments. For the science indicator, we need time to be familiarized with material and resources in order to be successful. Teachers need to be supported and prepared before science is added as a high-stakes indicator on the dashboard. Thank you. Thank you. Next caller with the last four digits, 8674. You are now live. Please start your public comment. You have one minute. Good morning. This is Rachel Murphy with Public Advocates and the LCFF Equity Coalition. First, we reiterate our previous recommendations to fully integrate the growth indicator into the dashboard and accountability system, including through

135amendments to the statutory dashboard timelines. Next, regarding the trailer bill language requiring the board to update the performance criteria for differentiated assistance, we recommend that the board meaningfully engage with educational and community partners. including the LCFF Equity Coalition, in this process and ensure sufficient time and analysis and feedback. Additionally, to prioritize student success and equity, we suggest maintaining adequate standards for student outcomes, focusing resources on the lowest performing LEAs, and considering alternative support structures for LEAs that are not identified for differentiated assistance but would benefit from additional efforts and supports to improve consistent low performance. Thank you. Thank you. Next caller with the last four digits, 9563. You are now live. Please start your public comment. You have one minute. Good morning, Chair Darling-Hammond and board members, John Affelt with Public Advocates. As to the

136options before you on Priority One teacher data, we strongly urge you to adopt today for inclusion this year school level educator data regarding each school's percentage of clear teachers, i.e. those who are fully prepared and properly assigned. Ed code requires local indicators, quote, shall reflect school level data, unquote, on the dashboard if the department has it. Well, the department has the data. Its inclusion was required in the dashboard in 2020. We're five years overdue. Every parent and student and community member ought to be able to see the percentage of cleared teachers at their school. Please adopt option two without further delay. As to the inter-district teacher equity component, we in the Equity Coalition are open to further conversations to refine it in 2026. Thank you. Next caller with the last four digits, 0025. You are

137now live. Please start your public comment. You have one minute. Good morning. My name is Jillian Smythe and I'm a Children Now Equity Fellow and an incoming senior at UCLA. I grew up in the public school system in the very rural section of the Central Valley where access to fully accredited and adequately trained teachers is scarce. The consequences of the scarcity and ignorance about it severely impacted my academic achievement. For example, I consistently scored in the bottom 10% on state tests over multiple years. If I had not been able to access outside aids during the latter half of middle school and high school, I would have surely never have made it to UCLA. Even with the additional support I received outside of school, I remain largely behind in subjects such as science, having taken courses

138taught by instructors who are not properly credentialed. By increasing transparency to teacher data at the school level, families in similar situations would have been able to access the information needed to determine whether the school their child attends has the proper staffing to meet their educational needs. This is why I support greater transparency about staffing between schools within the district and set criteria for performance and equitable distribution of teachers. Thank you. Thank you. Next caller with the last four digits 6 2 0 0. 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 Karin Lewis and I am the Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services at the Monterey County Office of Education and I serve as the current chair of the Curricular

139Improvement and Support Committee. First I want to thank Dr. Darling-Hammond for your opening comments regarding the need to be purposeful about how we continue to grow the statewide system of support and our approach to differentiated assistance. I would like to build on the California County Superintendent's comments and emphasize CISC's commitment to upcoming policy conversations on re-evaluating differentiated assistance criteria. As you know, CISC includes representatives from all 58 counties who oversee DEA support for California's LEAs. We welcome the opportunity to share valuable lessons learned and to support the refinement process. We also respectfully request that the state explore the option of facilitated discussions or study sessions beginning early in the year. We believe this will allow ample time for input and idea sharing in upcoming... Thank you. Next caller with the last four digits, 9234. You

140are now live. Please start your public comment. You have one minute. Hi, this is Jason Dougal of the National Center on Education and the Economy, or NCEE. I've phoned in today to provide public comment regarding your potential consideration of Cambridge assessments as part of your dashboard. Cambridge was NCEE's most trusted and reliable partner in a rigorously evaluated multi-year, multi-state research project to pilot a proficiency-based approach to high school. Our pilot relied on Cambridge assessments as a valid and reliable measure of college and career readiness. Cambridge was selected for its ability to simultaneously assess deep disciplinary knowledge and higher order thinking as well as durable skills such as complex communication, collaboration, critical thinking, problem solving, and innovation. Cambridge offers a wide range of advanced coursework across dozens of disciplines and was identified by NC as a

141comprehensive option for providing students for the demands of a rapidly evolving global economy and civic life. Cambridge, like AP and IB, provide a rigorous academic pathway for high achieving students. But it also includes offerings designed to be accessible across all grade levels. DIRECTOR HAMPSON- Thank you caller. Thank you caller your time is up. Next caller with the last four digits 7 9 0 0. You are now live please start your public comment. You have one minute. Good morning, President Habman and members of the State Board. My name is Mark Scavarna, and I serve as the superintendent of Montebello Unified School District in Los Angeles County. We became aware of Cambridge a couple of years ago and began implementing of Cambridge in our elementary program. Montebello Unified is a diverse school district with almost 30% of

142our students being English language learners. Cambridge takes a unique interest in the districts like ours. which is a direct extension of their work in more than 160 countries around the world. English is a predominant language in only 10 of those 160 countries, which points to their success in embracing cultural and linguistic diversity. Ensuring that Cambridge is part of a college and career indicator recognizes the commitment to our students the schools are making to this rigorous, well-respected program. Once again, I would state rigorous, well-respected program. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next caller with the last four digits is 9002. You are now live. Please start your public comment. You have one minute. My name is Nikki Wesley. I'm the superintendent of Redonda Beach Unified School District and I speak today in strong support of including

143Cambridge courses and assessments in California's college and career indicators. Here's the bottom line. Cambridge programs are more than just rigorous academics. They are powerful vehicles for developing critical thinkers, effective communicators, and globally minded problem solvers, skills that today's employers and universities consistently demand. Skills that won't fade after memorizing for a final exam. Cambridge doesn't just teach content, it shapes thinkers, encourages students to dig deep, question boldly, and communicate with clarity and purpose. So by recognizing Cambridge and the CCI, we are saying, yes, we want to validate the diverse ways students prepare for success beyond high school. Yes, we want students to graduate with a strong foundation for college and career readiness and be significant members of society, not just successful, significant. And yes, we want students to apply knowledge with confidence, independent thought, and creativity.

144So I encourage you to say yes to our students, access to rigorous options, and yes to Cambridge. Thank you, Board, for your consideration. Thank you. Next caller with the last four digits, 1389. You are now live. Please start your public comment. You have one minute. Good morning. My name is Sarah Kleinberg. I'm an advocate with the English Learner Leadership and Legacy Initiative. I'm calling regarding the... accountability for long-term English learners on the dashboard. I respectfully submit that this is a conversation that needs more discussion and I favor the option of moving changes to accountability to the 2026 cycle. Please bear in mind that long-term English learners are students that are successfully navigating school in a language other than in English. And if they're not successful, some of them are doing very well related to LP.

145It's not the LP score that's causing them to not reclassify. It's a complex issue, and we really need to look at the whole child, not just their progress in developing English language arts skills. Thank you, and have a great afternoon. Thank you. Caller with the last four digits, 8846, you are now live. Please start your public comment. You have one minute. My name is Rana Panyawa. I am a current undergraduate attending UC Berkeley as well as an equity fellow for Children Now. I was able to achieve these opportunities following my K-12 education in the San Fernando Valley. And during this time, I was able to witness firsthand the lost opportunities that close friends and peers experience because of their struggles and language attainment. These colleagues lost access to the college-bound academic track that impacted their

146future options at an early stage. These experiences shaped my understanding regarding the need for effective equity-centered policy action. I wish that my school district had received external support to improve their programs for ELPEL and help my fellow students reach the classification. For this, I recommend approving the board's ELPEL compromise to use red and orange on the ELPI for the 2025 dashboard, and in addition, recommend adding this issue to the 2026 Accountability Work Plan to develop longer-term options. Thank you. Thank you. Next caller with the last four digits, 4228. You are now live. Please start your public comment. You have one minute. Good morning. My name is Hattie Rose, and I am a Children's Equity Fellow for the Children's Movement of California and a recent graduate of UCLA. I'd like to urge the board to hold

147schools accountable for science and commit to incorporating it into the accountability system in 2026. Having attended public schools in San Francisco, I know firsthand that a lot of schools undervalue and underfund their science programs, and that as a result, students miss out on opportunities for academic growth. In my experience, my school science program lacked proper lab equipment and very little support for hands-on learning. So when I got to college and was exposed to a broader STEM curriculum, I felt completely underprepared and like I had missed out on this essential subject in my education. That is why we must hold schools accountable for science so that we can identify these gaps in our system early on and ensure that our students have the tools they need to succeed. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next

148caller with the last four digits, 1505. You are now live. Please start your public comment. You have one minute. Good morning, President Darnley and members of the board. My name is Mariano Lozano. I'm a teacher and educational researcher from San Diego. I'm calling on behalf of Californians Together, an advocacy organization that promotes equitable educational policies for English learners. Today, I want to express my support for the integration of the growth model as an element of accountability in the California Dashboard. At the same time, I want to ask you to consider disaggregating the data in this model to display academic performance for English learners and reclassified English proficiency separately in order to better understand and respond to the needs of these distinct student groups. At the same time, I want to comment regarding the LTAIL indicator

149as a criteria for DA. If you were to adopt on the LP, please consider having a higher threshold because as it currently stands, it's a very low expectation for English learners across the state. Thank you. Thank you. Next caller with the last four digits, 8256. You are now live. Please start your public comment. You have one minute. Hello, this is Robert Manroy from Children Now. Children Now supports adding a student growth indicator as a state indicator at some point in the future and suggests adding a December supplemental release of the dashboard to accommodate this. We support, in the current context, proposed cut scores for the growth indicator and adding a graphic and would suggest using the traditional performance descriptors instead of the newly invented ones. On the long-term English learner issue, while we continue to

150have concerns with excluding ELA and math scores for long-term English learners, we would support a board compromise that uses red and orange on the LP for the 2025 dashboard, and then, in addition, adding it to the 2026 accountability work plan as it re-evaluates differentiated assistance in a more broad process. Thank you. Thank you. Next caller with the last four digits, 4642. You are now live. Please start your public comment. You have one minute. Good morning. I'm Vivi Spitz, a UC Berkeley student and equity fellow at Children Now and want to make recommendations about accountability for DOS schools. DOS schools serve our most vulnerable student populations and often inherit students with educational deficiencies in 11th or 12th grade. Our accountability measures don't work well for this student population. We currently use four-year graduation rates or 11th

151grade tests. metrics that reflect the student's past, not the school's impact. That's like blaming the janitor for the mess in the classroom. As the federal government backs away from K-12 education, it provides California with the opportunity to move in policy directions previously not allowed. We need a new model, one that measures what DOS schools are built to do, support one-year graduates, reduce chronic absence, and help students transition into successful outcomes. The California Alternative Education Task Force already laid out SMART-specific indicators. I encourage the board to put them to use. Thank you. Thank you. Next caller with the last four digits, 4330. You are now live. Please start your public comment. You have one minute. Hello, my name is Aaron Smith, I'm an administrator with Alta Schools. At Alta Schools, our hybrid classroom optional DOS charter

152schools have supported over 18,000 students to graduate in the past 30 years. We support the work of the SBE in continuing the DOS status criteria. However, we have concerns with modifications to credit deficiency as one of the criteria. We want to ensure credit deficiency continues to be a criteria qualifying schools for DOS. It's an objective, well-documented measure that directly reflects academic risk. We have no problem with the August 15th to June 30th date range, but we would like more clarification from the CDE in terms of how it will be measured. since it is not currently included within CALPADS as a monitoring factor for students. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes public comment for item number two. Roll up your sleeves. We have a lot of decisions to make. I want to be sure that we're

153giving enough attention to each item. I also want you to know that we stand between ourselves and lunch. And we probably will move the assessment item to after lunch so that we can really give this the attention that it needs. So in terms of the we may wanna have those back up on the screen. I'm gonna suggest that we ultimately. come back to we're going to do science first we may come back to growth at the end i said because we have to decide on labels and we've had an experience of that previously i want everyone to be thinking hard so that we can but i don't want that to slow us down to to get through all the other items so we will come back to um to that one at the end when

154you're really hungry and ready to be efficient So we're gonna start with science. And the state board, the CDE recommendation is that we adopt option three and maintain the science indicator for informational purposes to allow for full review of differentiated system pursuant to the new trailer bill language. And I wanna know if there's any further discussion on that. And if not, is there a motion? We have a question. Yeah. Hi, Cindy. Just to clarify, to go with option three, is it then assume that the display on the dashboard for informational purposes would reflect the color tile that the board has already approved in previous meetings, and that's how it would be shown on the dashboard? Correct. So I've moved the slide deck to that slide, which is the proposed layout. The difference between this and

155every other state indicator is it would be in a section. The current section that we have right now where science lives is informational purposes. It would remain in that section. OK. But it would be displayed in this way? That is the proposal to be displayed in this way based on your prior actions around the science indicator. Thank you. I was looking for the little button. Before we take a vote, I do have a comment on this. Just as a person who is a science teacher and works with science every day, I'm encouraged to see that science is moving forward in a visible place for our state's accountability system. But with that being said, I think it's essential that we move at a pace that sets schools up for success. Keeping the science indicator informational for

1562025 is a thoughtful decision. It gives districts time to straighten their instructions, support teachers, build the systems they need without the pressure of immediate... accountability tools. Adding performance colors too soon before schools fully understand the expectations to have time to adjust would create more confusion than clarity. We need to be careful not to send mixed signals or unintentionally penalize schools that are still working hard to implement the next generation science standards in meaningful ways. This next year can be used to really dig into what data and helps schools make sense of what is in context of real teaching and learning. It is also to set a clear timeline for when science will be fully included in accountability with checkpoints along the way. That way schools and educators can prepare for thoughtful. and not be reactive

157to it. So I do see science moving forward. I just want to make sure that we build trust and capacity at the same time before we include colors and accountability. So just to clarify colors and accountability don't have to go together I think as I'm understanding the proposal the colors would be there so people have an idea about where their performance is But there would not be any use for accountability. So just informational would be informational colors. Okay any other clarification on Science and if not, maybe Yes, remember Yoshimoto Tari I wanted to repeat what I said at the last board meeting, which is I think we should put a stake in the ground so that LEAs can plan ahead in a long-term manner if we are going to... use this as an on-ramp to

158something later on. Several of the commenters talked about 2026 moving to option one if we were to select a different option today, such as option three. So I do think it's helpful for those implementing out in the field to know what is coming. And so I would encourage us to think about that as we. And I think the question about option one is that we will be also rethinking differentiated assistance. So what it means to be fully on the dashboard might shift in some ways. We don't know yet. Any further? Yes, Member Glover-Woods. And I believe my comment aligns with both Member Yoshimoto-Towers and Member Orozco-Gonzalez. As we think of publishing... the science indicator for informational purposes on the 2025 dashboard utilizing colors. I think it provides a good view for LEAs on what the

159performance looks like for students in the status and change structure that has now been approved in it. Because it would be on the dashboard for informational purposes, this would be a very good year. to be able to look at that data in exactly that way and make instructional decisions as we move forward for 2026. Because as some of the comments have been made during public comment today and in previous meetings, it is not lost on me that NGSS is not new. It has been around for a very long time. The science test. has been around for a while so providing an additional way to look at this data and having it for informational purposes and then engaging in conversations as to where it would be placed as it relates to an indicator for lcff or

160differentiated assistance eligibility is a good place on the 2026 work plan to work out some of those other pieces Yes. In light of all the other items, the discussion we had before of really having feedback and discussion and how this will affect accountability and hearing your report you shared, how does it align to federal accountability? I think those discussions have to happen in either... in a concerted fashion or at least in some fashion, right? And so I think option three seems to be the most viable option. So I definitely, if there's no any other discussion, I'd like to move to option three. All right. We have a motion to adopt option three. Is there a second? Well, you can have that after the second. I'm just following Robert's rules of order. Is there a second

161for that motion? Thank you, Member Olkin. Is there further discussion on the motion? Member Yoshibun Otari. The other reason I believe it's important to have that long-term view is that LEAs need time to also think about course sequence and curriculum because it is unfair, I believe, to ask an eighth grader to remember what they learned in science in sixth grade. and in seventh grade and in 11th grader to remember what they learned in science in ninth grade or 10th grade, particularly if a district isn't using an integrated course sequence or course curriculum. And so I believe this long-term view in science is particularly important. Yeah. And I think we've heard a lot of enthusiasm from the field and we've heard enthusiasm on the board for science to move towards becoming a state indicator. And I

162think the question then about how we're going to position those vis-a-vis LCAP and differentiated assistance is a question we'll resolve this year as well. So we have a motion. We have a second. Any further discussion in the motion? If not, we need a roll call vote because we have two members on Zoom. Brooks call the roll. Member Clausen. Yes. President Darling-Hamond. Yes. Member Escobedo. Yes. Vice President Glover-Woods. Yes. Member Lewis. Yes. Member McQuillan. Aye. Member Olkin. Yes. Member Orozco-Gonzalez. Yes. Member Petillo-Brownson. Yes. Member Rodriguez. Yes. Member Yoshimura-Towery. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. And I think we want to then go to CCI as the next topic area. I think we can manage much of that expeditiously. We'll see how that goes. And Cindy, do you want to put up the CCI? It's on my screen.

163Oh, I'm on my screen, but there we go. I'd rather see the item than myself, so there we go. It's two slides, the first having the first three pieces and then the second having the... So let's just see if there's discussion of these first pieces. Modifying the existing CCI measures. to remove the ROCP participation from state and federal job programs measure because it's really no longer needed. It's a redundant element. Remove course code 9227 from the list of courses used to determine college course credits and then modify the advanced placement measure to include completion of an AP course. So why don't we take that batch. and see if there's discussion of those and then maybe we can get those moved along as we are then moving to the other batch. Yes, Member Olkin. Thank you.

164I was curious about the course code for credit course other. Actually what I'm curious about is the other categories. Basically what I'm getting at is that we heard some callers who were concerned that there might not be an appropriate category for them to move their courses into. And I was just curious what the other types of categories are. I'm sorry if that's. So I'm going back to our May item. So I'm going to do this verbally. I hope that's okay. Our table three on page five of attachment one from May, we have 9020, which is visual arts. This is all college credit courses is the title. This is the state course code. 9082 is dance, 9096 is theater, 9120 is English, 9154 world language, 9200 history, social science, 90... 227, other, 9273, mathematics, 9303, music,

1659358, science, and the 7000 through 8999 with code 23-24 is CTE college credit courses. So I think Kim spoke to, you know, the allowing for this to take effect in 2026 to... remember Yoshimoto Tauri's example about the last thing, is you hold the field and you help them along so that by the time we get to implementation, they have had the ability to correct that information in the operational data store. And again, this is two courses would get a student to prepare. So it's not their entire course taking. career in high school unless of course you're at like a middle, what do they call those, middle colleges, which we found actually middle colleges are coding things wrong. So even the premier place where they're designed to do dual enrollment, there's some work to do and

166I think with the help of our COWPADS office and then Kern County with CSIS, I think we can get there. Thank you. Member Glover Woods. And I will say I agree that there are a lot of other course codes that can be utilized and probably the bulk of the courses that are being coded, let's say in other, in 9227, could fall into the plethora of that list that you just read. My concern is about the cleanup, particularly as it relates to cleaning up every year for a cohort. It sounds like a lot of work that LEAs would need to engage in to go back into their system and recode their 9227 for the previous years of the cohort. So my question is, if we were able to say that up to this point, if you've

167coded 9227, that counts. you don't necessarily need to go back and do a cleanup, but starting with the 2026 data collection, and I may be using the wrong term, Cindy, I apologize, that 9227 is no longer going to be available. So that course code is removed. Can we do that without requiring LEAs to go back and clean up multiple years of 9227 and recoding it? I want to make sure I understand your ask. So are you suggesting that if this is implemented, effective with the 2026 dashboard, that the graduating class of 2026 would get a pass with those other courses? Moving forward, class of 27, class of 28, class of 29, the expectation would be to clean up those data sets if they had taken those courses as freshmen, sophomores, juniors, seniors. Is that what

168you're asking? I believe so, but say that again, Cindy. I don't want to get us too far into the weeds. Just to add a piece of what I think is part of the question is, as you said, Cindy, you only need two to be prepared. So you might be getting those in junior and senior year anyway, most likely. So it's not like, you know, the question of. For the future cohorts, it should not require for most of them to have to go back anywhere. Exactly. So to that point, and Cindy, to the clarification that you stated previously, that is what I'm saying. And to get to the rationale behind it, I'm just concerned about the amount of work. it would take to go back and clean up all those years and is that really time

169spent well? Can we make it not retroactive? Is that what you're asking? Yes, that is. Although I would just ask for clarification. I mean, maybe it's better and Kim, please help if I'm not getting this right either is for the graduating class of 2026 for that cohort, we wouldn't go retroactive but if we had class of 27 and they took a course that was other as a freshman, that information would need to be updated in the ODS. If they hadn't also taken the two courses that were going to count as juniors or seniors. Sure, if they had taken it, yeah. And then also to be clear, we're not suggesting to stop collecting this information. I think this is valuable information to have in CALPADS because it shows the full breadth of a student's course-taking activities.

170It would just not be used for accountability purposes. Thank you. That's helpful as well. Take care of your question. Yes, it does any further questions. Let's put that recommendation slide up again. This light is up on my screen There you go Thank you Any other questions about these three recommendations? If not, I would take a motion. Member Patila-Brownson has her hand up. As we modify the AP measures, I heard a lot about Cambridge. If we can at a later date. to see if there's a way to expand the advanced placement. We would want to add to the motion consideration for the 2026 work plan, some consideration of Cambridge, and also international baccalaureate courses. I believe there may be some additional bullets for CCI, so just a point of clarification. There are. going to make a

171motion just on these three or do you want to do CCI as a whole? We could, I think it would be better to do them in chunks. Okay. Right, so that we are all clear about what we're voting on. There's no reason we can't do it in pieces. Yes, I want to get to Priscilla Bronson. Member Priscilla Bronson, please come in. Actually, I think it just got addressed. There she is. I think it just got addressed as the possibility of having 2026 look at IB programs and the Cambridge program as well. Okay. So maybe with that set of things, can I get a motion about that basket of member Glover Woods? I'm going to try. Okay. Here we go. Here we go. I move that we remove the Regional Occupational Center Program participation from the

172State Federal Job Programs measure of the CCI beginning with the 2025 dashboard and that we remove course 9227 from the list of approved courses not to be done retroactively beginning with the 2026 dashboard. and that we modify the advanced placement measure to include completion of an AP course with a C-minus or better on the 2025 dashboard, and that we provide moving forward for the 2026 accountability plan, getting more information regarding and in Cambridge to the college career indicator and IB. aligned to the exams, IB exams. We got a second. Thank you, Member Rodriguez. Any further discussion of the motion? All right, Brooks, can you call the roll? Member Clawson. Yes. President Darlene Hammond. Yes. Member Escobedo. Yes. Vice President Clever Woods. Yes. Member Lewis. Yes. Member McQuillan. Yes. Member Olkin. Yes. Member Roscoe-Gonzalez. Yes. Member

173Petillo-Brownson. Yes. Member Rodriguez. Yes. Member Yoshua-Montari. Motion carries unanimously. All right. Moving to the next slide. Part two. So we have the recommendation that we modify the transition classroom and work-based learning experiences measure to include students who are awarded a diploma in accordance with Ed Code 51225.31, 51225.32, beginning with the 2025 dashboard. We have the option to direct the CDE to stop collecting one or more of the following proposed career measures Internships student-led enterprise simulated work based learning armed service vocational aptitude battery and Then we have the option to further direct the CDE to continue collecting and analyzing state seal of civic engagement data So let's take discussion on those three elements remember open I just have one question. I'm noting it says for the state seal of civic engagement, it is not inclusive of

174the state seal of biliteracy. It's already there. Oh, good. Okay. Just wanted to make sure. Thank you. That's a couple dashboards ago. But if I might just add to the state seal of civic engagement that it might be a good year in the work plan to figure out how to actually move that indicator onto the dashboard so that we do it not just to continue analyzing but seeking to look at the ways that we might move it to the dashboard. Anybody else have comments on these? Member Olkin? Since my first question was moot, I'll go to myself. I just wanted to say that, you know, in my experience, particularly working at the high school level, the types of activities in the, you know, related to internships, student-led enterprise. simulated work-based experiences and ASVAB, those are

175types of things that really not only engage kids in what they're learning, but also prepare them for what comes next. And so I would be hesitant to reduce those drastically. though I would be interested in hearing what others hear about why we might reduce them at all, I guess. I just think they're important. Ms. President Glover-Woods? My understanding, to clarify on that particular bullet point, is the fact of CDE collecting the data for it. So I don't believe the intent, and Cindy, you can clarify for me, I don't believe the intent is to... have schools minimize or stop doing work in these areas, but the the thing between before the board is Should CDE stop collecting? data at this level for One or more of those measures and I can recall I can't remember, it

176may have been the May meeting, May or March, one of those, where we looked at numbers to really see, well, what is the level of impact? And I do recall for student-led enterprise, it was very minimal impact, very, very small, as well as the simulated work-based learning for the collection period. To conclude my comment, I think we should continue, or ask CDE to continue collecting the internship data and most definitely the ASVAB, the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery data. But perhaps the student-led enterprise and the simulated work-based learning, they can stop collecting that. So that's kind of my thought there. That was my recollection too about the incidence rate of the different. And I have the information. Student-led enterprises was 7,323 of our 2 million high school students. Simulated work-based learning is 26,838. Internships is

177close to 20,000. And ASVAB is about the sixth. OK. So it isn't as big a differential as I'm remembering. It's normal when you think about it being a 2 million student cohort or so. Yeah, on the other hand, internships and apprenticeships are really becoming a big part of the career master plan and so that could grow significantly. Yes, Member Yoshimoto-Towery. Just a clarification on the previous comment. So if CD no longer collects any one of these four data sets, then there's no way for students to get. or to earn CCI credit based on, not credit but. They're not currently earning credit. None of these are in the CCI. We have been doing this collection thinking you would want to move forward on something and we've not moved forward on anything. So they're just being collected

178but they're not in the CCI. No. I guess my comment is, although the numbers are small, we're thinking about two million high school students, they're still in the thousands, right? So at least 7,000, 20,000, 26,000. And so I think that generally speaking about... College and career I've heard comments that the people are concerned that it's becoming more college Indicator as opposed to a career indicator. And so I want to make sure that we're Equally balanced in terms of providing as much access Being as most inclusive as possible Yet consistently applied and consistently understood. I'm hearing I'm hearing concern about Discontinuing that data collection. So I'd like to suggest we put that aside as a separate motion So we can vote that. I'm just trying to move us along because we're not close to the middle,

179much less the end of this item, and then consider the others. And Member Olko, if you want to make one more comment on that. I was just wondering if this might be one where in lieu of stopping the data collection, we ask to... Think about it next year put it on the work plan. I don't know if this is something I mean just a possibility and so I'm suggesting we Do the vote on that separately so people can weigh in and then let's see if there's any comment on any of the others I think I'm hearing nothing on the first bullet. On the third bullet, I suggested that we not only collect and analyze, but we start to try in the 2026 work plan to move towards the possibility of getting it onto the dashboard.

180And then I'm hearing a variety of views on the career measures, right? So I wonder if we could get a... motion on the first and third bullets and then we'll take a separate motion on the second bullet. Okay, member Rodriguez? You're so good with your motions. Give it a shot. Okay, so I'd like to move points one and two. Should I read the We're just going to try to take one and three together. One and three, I'm sorry. Modify the transition classroom and work-based learning experiences measure to include students who are awarded a diploma in accordance with Ed Code sections 51225.31 and 51225.32, beginning with the 2025 dashboard. and further direct the CDE to continue collecting and analyzing state seal of engagement data for inclusion in the future dashboard. I'd like to amend that last

181one to say and work in the work plan towards getting it to the dashboard. With the amendment. All right. Any further discussion? I want to understand that Jim McQuillan is also wanting to make a comment. So as we take discussion on, we have the motion. Let's get a second. Then we'll take discussion. We have a second on that motion. Member Escobedo, thank you. Member McQuillan, please zoom in. You separated out. It was on, my comment is on the second bullet, so I can wait. Okay. We'll come right back to you. Okay. So we have a motion, we have a second. Let's have a roll call. Member Clausen. Yes. President Dylenham. Yes. Member Escobedo. Yes. Vice President Glover-Woods. Yes. Member Lewis. Yes. Member McQuillan. Yes. Member Olkin. Yes. Member Roscoe-Gonzalez. Yes. Member Petillo-Brownson. Yes. Member Rodriguez.

182Yes. Member Yoshimoto-Towery. Motion carries unanimously. All right, let's go right back to Member McQuillan and hear your comment. All right. Thank you. I just wanted to sort of reiterate what was said. I, too, want to put in a plug to maintain the data collection on internships. I think it's important and it does provide that balance between college going as well as the career technical education. So that's it. Thank you. So I think at this point we could take a motion either way on that particular bullet, either to continue all of them or to continue some of them. So I would welcome a motion. Member Yoshimura-Towery? I'd like to move that we direct CDE to continue collecting. the four proposed career measures, internships, career-led enterprise, simulated work-based learning, and the Armed Forces Vocational Aptitude Battery with

183possible inclusion into the CCI in 2026 for future consideration. For future consideration. I think we would want to put it in the 2026 work plan to evaluate how it might be included in the CCI. Is there a second to that motion? Second. Okay, we've got several people wanting to second it. I'm going to take Member Rodriguez's second. Sorry. And I think we're going to take a roll call vote. Is there further discussion of that? I think we've heard quite a bit of discussion. Member Escobedo? I'm just curious why those internships are so low in number. And reading Superintendent from Compton's letter, it could be because the process is flawed. Right. There are many opportunities out there where... because they're not registered. Yes, because it's right now a pathway linkage requirement. Exactly. So I think there

184might be a system issue here. Yeah, yeah. I'm fine with the motion, but I would like to amend it to really look at the system and perhaps correct it so the numbers and the opportunities can increase. Yeah. Just a correction. So all of the data that you saw displayed in May was not directly linked to a course. So all of the information that you see available was internships as schools. It's only in this current year data collection in the prior year that was linked directly to a CTE pathway or course. So I think we should take the motion we have on the table and then we might take a next motion that says we would like to have, there are a set of really interesting issues raised around. pre-apprenticeships, you know, how we consider those.

185That seems like a study topic that we could make as a separate motion. Okay? So we can move this one forward. Yes, Member Glover-Woods. I just wanted to get clarification on the motion. Could it be restated? I know it's the collection of all four of those areas, but I didn't know, was it to look at it and put that consideration on the 2026 Accountability Work Plan? was that the he made the motion member yoshimono tari it was to uh move that the cds continue collecting all four measures listed in bullet two and that we also consider having all four of those on the work plan for 2026 for inclusion into the cci dashboard at some point clarification thank you all right and we have a second we've had some discussion is there any further discussion

186Moving that along, Brooks, please call the roll. Member Clawson. Yes. President Darlene Hammond. Yes. Member Escobedo. Yes. Vice President Glover Woods. Yes. Member Lewis. Yes. Member McQuillan. Yes. Member Olkin. Yes. Member Oscar Gonzalez. Yes. Member Pelo Bronson. Yes. Member Rodriguez. Yes. Member Yoshimura-Towery. Motion carries unanimously. All right. So now we've got... the question that you raised, Member Escobedo, about sort of some of the system issues that are raised around these other career, the ways that we consider career indicators. So did you want to move something on that? Yes, I would like to move. study to look at some of these recommendations of looking at our CCI on what deems to be a registered internship slash apprenticeship. Definitely would like to expand the opportunities, maybe create criteria perhaps. and have it maybe more locally controlled. We've

187been talking about having a study session on CCI, so I think this fits with that. Member Yoshimoto-Towery? Short amendment to also include students with extensive support needs. Yeah, as we look at this. Second? Sorry, just as a quick point of order, if you're proposing an amendment to the motion, if you can just either restate the motion, because otherwise we can't add on that way. I can attempt to restate the motion, but maybe can you restate it and then I'll restate it? Surely. If he does it correctly, you don't have to do it. Okay, my motion is to have a study on our current... on internships slash apprenticeships for CCI and. Including students with extensive support needs. Including students with extensive support. Is there a second on that? Thank you, Member Clawson. Any further discussion? That

188would be part of our big CCI study probably. All right, why don't you call the roll. Okay, never Clawson. Yes, present down Hammond members Cabrera. Yes vice president little woods. Yes, remember Lewis remember McQuillan Yes broken. Yes, Oscar Gonzalez. Yes, you're still a Bronson Yes Rodriguez yes, I'm Biosha monetary Carries now sleep. All right, let's move to the next one the desk criteria is their discussion on these criteria We had a lot of public comment about concerns about the the new criteria the second one not the first one Removing words of the court there was no discussion of that in the public comment number open, right? I have a question just to make sure I understand The proposal so So the the second modify so students who are credit deficient criteria to only include students

189who are enrolled on or between August 16th and July 30th for qualifications. So just so I understand, because I read in a public comment a school that starts in July. So if a student was enrolled July 15th, who was credit deficient and then remained at that school for the entire year, how would that student be? It'd count. They would count. They would count. So we do see a small group of schools within this DAS space that have less than 30-day enrollments in the summer with no courses taken, no course completion information. So to say that by default they're credit deficient to us doesn't lend itself to data integrity. So this would capture, for example, locally Elk Grove has tracks that start July 16th. As long as that student was enrolled, still through August 16th, they

190would count. So, thank you. I'm still trying to make sure I understand. So that is, we've heard about point-in-time enrollment versus cumulative enrollment. There's a lot of confusion around that. Yeah. So, okay, so a student who... I'm not even sure I quite understand. I just want to make sure I get it. So the point in time enrollment was the historical way that we looked at it. We allowed schools to self-report. We are now trying to remove that burden because they're already reporting and certifying who their students are through our student level data system. So we can actually grab information from the student level data system, see who was enrolled at any point in time. cumulatively means any point in time during August 16th and June 30th. This is how we calculate every single metric on

191the dashboard. Suspension, all the cumulative pieces, chronic absenteeism, those metrics. So that is, again, there's been confusion around that, and there was questions around the data quality of that. The data quality is excellent. We use it. We've been using it for a number of years for accountability purposes. I'm gonna keep thinking through it. I feel like I'm still confused, but maybe other people have questions. So let me think for one second. Maybe this is a, should have been asked during clarifying, but it appears that this item refers to charter schools more than schools that are already deemed qualified as a DOS school due to statute. Absolutely. Those that are qualified due to statute are automatically in. And if I look back at the slides that we presented in May, I actually had a data table

192I wanted to just share. So of the ones that are automatically in, 778 are statutorily defined under Education Code Section 52052D. The other categorically piece that you all... your prior board made decisions on was around special education schools, of which there are 32, which leaves schools of choice, which there are 30 of, and then charter schools, with which there are 121. So again, there's 150 schools that are in this space where we are trying to alleviate the burden, trying to make sure that we hold to the fidelity of having high risk mean high risk, not looking at summer school 30-day enrollments. and all those kids exit and you can't say for certain that they were there to do credit recovery. We are giving these schools the benefit of the doubt if they enrolled between August

19316th and June 30th that it was truly a credit recovery piece. Right, so it's tightening the rules for summer enrollment, many of whom... May not be students of those schools during the school year. They are definitely going to other schools during the traditional school year That's where we're seeing them exit out of Vice president Clever Woods. Yeah, just to clarify Cindy if a student is enrolled sometime between August 16th and June 30th, they don't need to be enrolled in that school during that entire time period. If they came in August 16th and then they left out in September or something or another, they would still count in this modification. Correct. Yeah, there were several comments about the fact that there are two elements of... that are using different denominators now. And I couldn't follow all

194of that. I don't know if you wanna. This is the more generous denominator in which we're looking at, again, between August 16th and June 30th. So the accumulation of students enrolled at any point during that time. The other thing that has been raised is to allow the school to pick when they want to select the point in time. So, you know. Picking the day that they have so this is all about trying to meet the 70% threshold right this isn't about Options to schools are you saying we're the prior that was our option? Do you still care and now we're suggesting that we we have we moved to a cumulative piece but for this particular metric which is a which is one of the One of the two that we are not able to verify

195in CALPADS, we are suggesting by default we can say that those students who were enrolled between August 16th and June 30th would by default, we would assume are students who are credit deficient. So in some ways it is more generous than the current definition. In others, it does tighten for certain schools that have these programs that operate. I feel like I don't understand the math adequately personally. And I'll just say for myself, I'd rather come back to this in September when I do understand the math and understand the public comment that we received. I don't know if others have. So if we do that, I just want to say from a resource perspective, we're going to be processing data and it'll have to be delayed until 2026 implementation. I understand. I know you've got so

196much on your plate. Appreciate that. Yes, Vice President Glover Woods. I think you should try. I will try. Okay. I move that we modify the DAS criteria measures to, one, remove wards of the court from the application-based DAS criteria. And as it relates to modifying the students who are credit deficient. put that for further study and consideration on the 2026 accountability work plan. Is there a second for that motion? Thank you, Member Escobedo. Is there any further discussion of that motion? All right, let's take the roll. Member Clawson. Yes. President Darlene Hammond. Yes. Member Escobedo. Yes. Vice President Glover Woods. Yes. Member Lewis. Yes. Member McQuillan. Yes. Member Oken. Yes. Member Oscar Gonzalez. Yes. Member Patella Bronson. Yes. Rodriguez. Yes. Yoshima Atari motion carries unanimously. All right. Moving on to CalPADS DA eligibility. This is

197like running a marathon. Okay. So this is to adopt a phased in DA eligibility criteria related to the submission of data to California student level data system, CalPADS. Any questions, comments, discussion on that? Any motion? I'd like to make a motion that we adopt, move to adopt a phase in differentiated assistant eligibility criteria related to the submission of data to California student level data system, CALPADS. Is there a second? Thank you very much. Any further discussion? Call the roll. Member Clawson. Yes. President Darlene Hammond. Yes. Member Escobedo. Yes. President Cleverwoods. Yes. Member Lewis. Mayor McQuillan? Yes. Mayor Wolkin? Yes. Mayor Orozco-Gonzalez? Yes. Mayor Patilio-Brownson? Yes. Mayor Rodriguez? Yes. Mayor Yoshimura-Terry? Motion carries unanimously. Okay. Moving on to the teacher data. Priority one teacher assignment data. You can see the options. First to direct CD to

198seek additional feedback on modifications. Second, to approve the modifications to Priority 1, beginning with the 2025 dashboard. And third, to approve modifications that would include a new table that provides intra-district comparison of schools. And this has been a, you heard a lot of commentary on this. So let me open up to board commentary and discussion. Maybe I'll start us off. So it's complicated and as we know, it's complicated in different views. I want to just do historically a little backtracking to Ed Code, which Section 52064.5 was amended in 2019. to require that the standards for local indicators for which the department collects or otherwise has access to relevant and reliable school level data for all schools statewide shall, to the extent practicable, be based on objective criteria which may include the extent of any disparities

199across school sites within an LEA or performance relative to statewide data. So that... was also applied to priority one in the state's eight priorities. And statute had initially required us to complete the work by 2021. So we've been talking about this, how to do this for a long time. The department has done wonderful work to finally get all of the data, which is a complicated thing to be able to produce the TAMO. tables that we've seen for the last couple of years. And those are now up and running. And the CDA has already updated the dashboard to compare the LEA level teacher data to statewide data. So that piece of it has been accomplished on the local indicators page, supported by an additional report that shows the teacher data for every school within the LEA.

200So a lot of this has been accomplished. And in terms of the data being And we've heard from our interest holders that additional work may be needed before we're ready to display the extent of disparities across LEAs. But at the same time, we are trying to be responsive to this longstanding effort to meet the statute. So I know that SBE staff have developed an optional approach to the most challenging piece of this and I think Rigel is prepared to show a slide. Is that right? Which can help us consider whether we want to move forward in any way on this indicator. Yes, you may. So while they're setting up, I just wanted to say the importance of knowing that our students have teachers who are prepared and have met the criteria. And I also appreciate

201the comment from especially some of our county superintendents that oftentimes teachers may be teaching a few subjects. So the data may look. as though the teachers aren't qualified. Or like in the case of when I was teaching AVID, and it said that there was an unqualified teacher for that subject because there isn't a credential in that area. So, you know, I'm very open to having our LEAs demonstrate, you know, that the teachers are qualified, fully qualified, and also find a way to have a caveat for those, you know, that are shown as not qualified, but for the reasons stated. Thank you. Point, yes. Member Roscoe-Gonzalez. Just to build on that, when you look at the tile, it just says teachers on there. So making teacher assignment data transparent can be very powerful, but where it

202says a label like teacher assignments would be more accurate, help avoid confusion, because when you just say teachers on there, there's really nothing more to that. You wouldn't. just put that on the dashboard for instance, something as general as students. So I think that I support the full implementation in 2026, but using the time to co-design the rollout with educators and LEAs from experience when new data tools are introduced without clear guidance, they can sow doubt and misinformation. So I believe it's better to have a collaborative effort in developing that. icon where it says just the little, what are they calling it, little tool to, when it's just so general, teachers, I just think that's so ambiguous. And like Member Rodriguez mentioned, that I think it could be confusing for LEAs of how to categorize

203teachers. Like I hold a multiple subject credential. I remember when I was a middle school teacher, I taught science and math. So I think that I was qualified to teach both, but sometimes it could be a little ambiguous with that. So I think adding teacher assignments would probably be a little bit more informational. Clover Woods. I do want to give Rachel a chance to present what she was going to present, but do you want to? I can hold. I'm going to connect to. Go ahead. Go ahead. Okay. And I agree. As far as the labeling on the card, I think something like teacher assignment and whatever would be a lot more accurate on the tile itself. And I'm just holding two things in my mind. One, the. Ed code or whatever that you just read

204around the fact that it does need to be displayed But how do we do that and still ensure that there's opportunity? for partner conversation and Feedback into what this looks like moving forward. So how can we do both? Meet that but still ensure that we're engaging so I'll stop there and And I think Cindy mentioned that, you know, people don't know what clear means, clear credential, right? I mean, there's a lot of language issues in the display that are not accessible. Yes, Rigel, do you want to explain the thoughts that you've... Worked out with us in response. You can hear me. Okay. Yeah in response to the Rich input we've received from interest holders. We were discussing a modified option, too So again, this is really just for transparency purposes for the data which the

205department has relevant and reliable school level data to lift up that data at the LEA and school level And so the slide you're seeing before you now would be the LEA dashboard page would have an I hear the discussion you're having around whether it's two teachers or teacher assignments. It would have the percent of clear, the designation above, at, or below state average, and then the link to the existing content on the dashboard. Now, for the school level, the proposed modification would be to remove from that tile the comparison, right? In your item, I think it's attachment figure four in attachment six has the percentage clear and then comparing at the school level to the statewide average. We're just really hearing loud and clear that any kind of comparison or that we need to pause

206on those discussions. And so there was the possibility of just elevating the data from the school. This is currently accessible data. I understand that it is accessible if you're able to click through from the LEA page to the local indicator into the additional report. The intention here would be lifting that data up to the school level page for school level community members to access easily without having to go through the LEA dashboard and through several clicks. This new card would then click to the existing LEA page. This is again sort of the modified approach, not creating at this moment a school level page and a school level table, but just linking to the existing LEA page where you see the LEA's total. FTE, their percentage of clear, and the comparison to the statewide average. Again,

207that's an existing page. So that was just a modified, just given the difficulty we're hearing with these proposals to just focus this year on transparency and kind of moving forward with that meeting the spirit of 5206. So 6.4.5. Yes, Member Glover was. So right, so just a clarification this data is already available and accessible doing it in this way just Makes it easier to be found on the school dashboard page That's correct. Currently on an LEA, currently this data is not accessible on a school level page. You have to go to the LEA's page, click into the basics, right, the priority one data. Once you get into there, you can see on the right, this is the page that exists currently. It would be lifting up that teacher assignment data, which we do have down

208to the school level, to the school page. And then additionally this card on the LEA page to make that more transparent. So in essence avoiding multiple clicks to get to the same data, just putting it on the page itself. Yes. Thank you. For school level, those who are interested in school level data, it would not solve all the problems of the labeling and the description that make it more accessible, which I think. needs to go on the 2026 work plan, it sounds like, to really get to all of the deeper issues. Member Yoshimoto-Tower, you look like you're about to ask a question. I ask for extreme clarity. I'm looking at the three options as recommended by the department on this slide, 70. And what Rigel just presented, is that one of these three options, or

209is it a fourth option? It's a modified option, too. So it would be, yeah. So, Rigel, do you want to explain how we would think about that? Pulling it up. Option two currently would have on this card for the school level, it would have the comparison data. So it would compare the school's percentage to our statewide average. Option two also would link to not the existing LEA page, but a new school page where you would see the school compared to the LEA and the state. So we're proposing to hold on that comparative aspect at the school level and focus only on the data we have, the clear credential properly assigned teacher data at the school level. So you see the note here highlighted, the school level title does not include reference to the state average.

210That would have been included in the current option too. all right i think we need to oh i'm sorry remember a patilla bronson is waiting and then i'll come to you remember roscoe gonzalez i um so i'm looking i was looking at the powerpoint and i just want to clarify option two still will provide a fewer number of clicks to get through to the school level data is that correct it will just remove the comparisons Correct. That tile will be for informational purposes on the school's dashboard page. And does option two take off the table any of the word changes for teacher versus teacher assignment? Not currently in the slide I'm showing you. Sorry, it does not. It still says teachers, so the board could modify that as it sees fit. Okay. Okay, that's helpful.

211And while I have my mic open, I'll just say with modified option two, I think it would be very helpful to incorporate that change of including teacher assignment just to give the greater clarity. Where does option modified option two leave us with? clarifying the definition of clear. Let me ask a question for Cindy or one of her colleagues. If we were to want to change wording like from clear to fully prepared, for example, which is because it's actually clear plus preliminary credentials, which means that you're fully prepared. Can that be done for 2025 or does that need to be punted to 2026? I just wanted to bring up. And maybe I can defer to Rigel as an attorney or Brooks or Kieran. I believe that's in statute. So the definition of clear or it's in

212the SSA plan. We need to look into it. Yeah, I doubt that it says that the display has to look like that. It may be that you need to say the percentage of clear, but you could define it. I mean, I think part of the downside is that that's what we have in the teacher assignment monitoring outcomes report in the TAMO. So if you want to venture away from those definitions, it's not consistent. So we have two different other places we're putting. We already have this information on the SARC and TAMO and now priority one. I'd like to propose that we think about two motions. One is that we make a motion about option one, two, or modified two, modified option two, that we decide on what we, you know, that we move that in

213some way, and that we separately move some of these definitional questions to be handled as expeditiously as they can be handled. And on that second point, I would personally move that we, this has been a... long-standing set of conversations that we use the teaching assignment we make it clear that we're talking about the percentage of fte teacher assignments and that we use the term fully prepared to explain what clear or preliminary credentials are meant to indicate so I will move that one now and that could happen as it is possible for it to happen in time. I don't want to preempt whatever the processes are that the department would need to undertake to make changes since it is in multiple. Second that. I offered to second that. Thank you. All right. So any further discussion

214on that piece of it so that we can set that aside after we vote? Yes. Just to be clear, did you suggest the tile labeling? I think I heard you say that. This is tile labeling, and it would also pertain to the TAMO report and the SARC. Because this question about percent clear has been a confusion for a while. So that really we go to percent fully prepared. That's what clear and preliminary credentials mean. You're fully prepared. And then we make it clear that we're talking about assignments. Okay. But because that has multiple places that need to align, I don't want to put a date on it. I don't think we should put a date on it. I think we should work with our colleagues in CDE to figure that out. Okay, I understand. Any

215further discussion on that? So that we can get that out of the other motion. It's too complicated to, okay, you want to call the roll on that? Member Clawson? Yes. President Darlene Hammond? Yes. Member Escobedo? Yes. Vice President Glover Woods? Yes. Member Lewis? Yes. Member McQuillan? Yes. Member Oken? Yes. Member Orozco-Gonzalez? Yes. Member Patila-Brownson? Yes. Member Rodriguez? Yes. Member Yoshimoto-Towery? Motion carries unanimously. And now just to clarify how to move forward on the other motions. Option one was to punch everything to 2026 and not make any of the changes. Option two is to adopt the version that... included those comparisons that were viewed as problematic by many folks in the public comment. And option, modified option two, maybe because you called option three, would be to remove the disparity data, but allow getting people to

216get to the data from the school level dashboard. Is there further? Yeah, option three, we can call it. It's option modified. It's modified option two on that screen. So does anyone want to make a motion? Member Escobedo? Make a motion to move on modified option two. Is there a second? Okay. Any further discussion on that motion? Yes. Member Yoshimoto-Towery? No? All right. If you're feeling confident, Member Glover-Woods? So a little bit of discussion on that, trying to think how to phrase it. Give me just a moment. So the motion is to move with modified option to put these tiles on the school dashboard page with the click through to the view more details. Is there anything included in the motion about what should happen on the 2026 accountability work plan? Because I thought that there

217was. that we Some of the comment and some of the discussion we had was that there needed to be a lot more conversation around this I think especially as it relates to comparisons which are not going to be in on this modified option So I think my question is and I apologize if it's starting to sound a little confusing my question and maybe a lot confusing at this move in addition to modified option to to seek additional feedback on further modifications to priority one including the interdict comparison table as part of the work part of the 20 Okay. Yes, because there seems to be a need for a lot more conversation with But since we have a motion on the table and it's been seconded, can we make that separate so we can vote on

218the motion that's on the table? Okay. Brooks, you want to call the roll? Member Clausen. Yes. President Darling-Hammond. Yes. Member Escobedo. Yes. Vice President Clever Woods. Yes. Member Lewis. Yes. Member McQuillan. Yes. Member Olkin. Abstain. Member Orozco-Gonzalez. Yes. Member Petillo-Brownson. Yes. Member Rodriguez. Yes. Member Yoshimotari. Motion carries. All right. And then I think you wanted to also add the work plan. I move that we add to the 2026 accountability work plan additional feedback and guidance related to priority one teacher assignment data on the dashboard. including the inter-district comparison question? All of it. All the questions, including if we don't mind adding, because I think the big question is about inter-district comparisons. Is there a second to that motion? I second that. All right, thank you. Member Yoshimoto-Towery seconded it. Any further discussion? I just wanted

219to confirm that this would include outreach with... interest holders inclusive of families as well as all of the school partners. I think we can instruct that to be so after we pass the motion. Great. Thank you. Member Shimabura-Towery. Just a second. What Board Member Patel-Labronson said. I remember being a principal and I'm reading access letter. This is an important one because at the school site level, when these data points come out, it's difficult. There's not much you can do. And you're in the front line and you're explaining to families what it means. And I think that we really owe it to our school site leaders and those on the front line to include them in the conversations. really as a state think about whose job is it to do the recruiting and continuous improvement of

220all of our educators and continue that conversation, continue to highlight that conversation. All right, we have a motion on the table, which is to instruct the 2026 work plan to look further at any further modifications that might be needed to reflect the intra-district data and to take up these other questions that have been posed about how to make it accessible and understandable. We haven't started voting yet, right? No, we have not started voting. Clarifying question on the motion then? Yes. Is this in essence sort of like option one was? Yes, it's adding option one to option the one that we just voted. Okay, which is what? Yeah. Okay, thank you. All right. Call the roll. Member Clausen. Yes. President Darling-Hammond. Yes. Member Escobedo. Yes. Vice President Clever Woods. Yes. Member Lewis. Yes. Member McQuillan. Yes.

221Member Olkin. Yes. Member Roscoe-Gonzalez. Yes. Member Petillo-Brownson. Yes. Member Rodriguez. Yes. Member Yoshimoto-Towery. Yes. Motion carries unanimously. All right. Our next one is the LTEL, Differentiated Assistance Criteria. Thank you, Rigel. We've heard a lot of conversation about this. Vice President Glover, would you look like you're ready to say something? I was just going to lift up the multiple comments we heard about looking at using the LP for the eligibility criteria, but looking at red and orange, not red only. So we heard a lot of that, and I think there's definitely merit to that, if that were to be considered. It would allow us to both measure progress and not disincentivize reclassification, but also to have a higher expectation for the progress that's made for English learners, who, by the way, are seven years in to

222learning English. Would you like to move that so that we can move along and see where we are? I can move that for the first point, and then we'll have another motion for the others. Is that correct? Well, these are the options. These are, well, there's a separate one on suspension rate indicators, so we should take that up separately. Oh, okay. Yeah, so. Okay. So let's just work on priority four right now. So that would be what you just said. Option one with red and orange. You would need to specify the year. Yeah in 2025 or 2025, okay I Will do that part, okay, so I move that we modify the LCFF eligibility criteria for LTELs under priority for to include red and orange on the English learner progress indicator beginning with the 2025 dashboard

223And do we want to talk through all of them at this point or? Well, you've got a motion. No, that's fine. I'm just trying to keep us moving along. So let's have a second on that motion if there is one. Okay, we've got a couple. And any further discussion of that motion? If not, we'll call the roll. Member Clawson. Yes. President Darlene Hammond. Yes. Member Escobedo. Yes. Vice President Clever Woods. Yes. Member Lewis. Yes. Member McQuillan. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

224Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. The second one here really would have to do with the 2026 accountability work plan to consider the modifications that would also include reclassification as part of the calculation. So it would really be LP plus reclassification, which has the benefit of giving credit to the districts each time a student moves up a level and becomes reclassified. That takes a little bit more. complex calculation, so it's not something we can do immediately, but it could be something we put on the 2026 accountability work plan. And

225then consider what the appropriate cut points are for that, whether it's red, orange, or whether there's any other way that we would want to consider that. Yeah. Bundle two, three, and four in one motion? You could, yes. Yes, I would like to consider all of these modifications, two, three, and four to the 2026 accountability work. Well, four is different than one. So you could put two and three together. I think we've already eliminated four. Thank you. Thank you. So let me re-motion my... I would like to consider modification for number two and three for the 2020, the 2026 accountability work. So that would also then add leaving the suspension rate indicator in the 2026 accountability work plan. Correct. All right. Thank you. This is a man who wants to get to lunch. And I think

226has thought hard about these motions. Is there a second for that motion? Thank you. Member Lewis, any further discussion? All right, let's take the roll. Member Clawson. Yes. President Darling-Hammond. Yes. Member Escobedo. Yes. Vice President Glover-Woods. Yes. Member Lewis. Yes. Member McQuillan. Aye. Member O'Connor. Yes. Member Oshka-Gonzalez. Yes. Member Petillo-Brownson. Yes. Member Rodriguez. Yes. Member Yoshimoto-Towery. Motion carries now, sir. So I just want to add one more thing on the LTEL issue. You know, we have two definitions for LTELs in the state now. One is the seven-year... level that's on the dashboard. The other is the definition in Ed Code section 313.1, which is still used for DataQuest, which is six years without evidence of progress, which requires two data pieces to put together. It's a more complicated indicator. We now have this indicator on

227the dashboard being used. And I do think that we need to work to align. the definition to the new definition, the seven-year definition. I don't think that's something CDE can do on its own, so I don't think we need a motion to instruct them to do it. I think we have to work on this together, but I just want to flag that, and I appreciate Cindy has been really doing the analytics on a lot of this and trying to help us think about how to be efficient and aligned and forward-moving on this, so I just want to note that publicly. That is, I think, a direction. that would help us do this work in a more coherent way. If there's any other commentary, if anybody disagrees, they could say so. Otherwise, they could just nod

228their head. And we will move to the next item. I know that we have a couple of still big ones to go, so I want to keep us moving. This one is not a big one. This is, well... everything is important this is a review of the participation rate for academic indicators in science and to delay action related to the participation rate grace periods for the academic indicators this year shift the issue to the 2026 accountability work plan is there a motion on that remember rodriguez thank you is there a second second remember oaken lewis And any further discussion? All right, yes. Just a comment that again, it's not just shifting the grace period, but it's also communicating to the field that participation rates will become something similar to ELA and math. So I just

229want to reinforce that the, I mean, just keep thinking about the real ID. Like we had a deadline as a state where you couldn't fly with the real ID, and then we kept moving the deadline, which is fine, but you had, there was a stake in the ground where people knew there was something coming. And I think that we need to do that for any of these decisions that we're making in the future so people can plan. All right, just to clarify, the participation rate is included for science for this year because you guys pushed it to this year and for ELA. Like this isn't. impact participation rate, it's what your windows are within who counts. So it's what we call, so I just want to make sure that you- Thank you. That's very helpful.

230What this purpose is. So the participation rate is already counting, and this is just the window around your grace period. Or getting rid of the grace period altogether. But again, this is a decision for next year, but I want to make sure that that was on the record. Grace period is what we're talking about. Yeah, but not the doing of it, because that's already done. I think we're on the same page. All right. With that clarification, we're going to vote on the motion to accept this recommendation. Works? Member Clausen. Yes. President Dallin-Hammond. Yes. Member Escobedo. Yes. Vice President Glover-Woods. Yes. Member Lewis. Yes. Mayor McQuillan. Yes. Member O'Connor. Yes. Member Orozco-Gonzalez. Yes. Member Petillo-Brownson. Yes, with Cindy's clarification. Member Rodriguez. Yes. Motion carries. So coming back to growth. I actually know that Vice President Glover

231Woods has been thinking hard about this one, so I'm going to be looking to you to help us get through this. So the recommendation is that we adopt performance standards and continue to publish the growth score data as additional information on the 2025 dashboard. We need to make a motion about the number of performance categories, which, you know, in this item talked about five performance categories. The names and labels. for the performance categories which we saw examples of in the item. The performance standards cut scores assigned to each performance category is also specified in the item. The growth graphic, the data box, all of those are, and there are recommendations for the Number of performance categories in the item to be five that cut scores are recommended by CDE after having done serious work on

232them the growth Graphic is recommended in the item. We saw that earlier. And there are questions about what goes in the data box. So the areas where we don't have a single recommendation from CDE are in the areas of the labels and what goes in the data box. And it might be that we want to... Thank you very much. This is like, woo, talk about Star Wars. Thank you. Thank you, Cindy. So I don't want us to get hung up on the labels until last, because we are going to have labels. But we do have, could you go to the slides that show the cut points and everything right after the labels? Yeah, so the cut scores were already recommended after you know some Thorough examination and the discussion in the item gives you the

233walks you through of the things that you would need to consider, you know around this the This shows you the growth levels based on the proposed cut scores, which is also in the item so The lowest level, which would, when we get to colors, would put a district or a school in the red is shown there as less than 5% of students making adequate growth, et cetera. You want to show the next slide? Next slide is the options for incorporating growth, and then we skip ahead to the... The growth graphic. Why don't you show us the growth graphic, which is recommended. And as Kim suggested. Yeah, the color distribution is a little different. So the colors could change, but the idea of that. So all of those have been really thoughtfully vetted with the department.

234And then we have to come back and say what are the labels we want for level one, level two, level three, level four, level five, which could just be numbers or could be words. And I will come back to that, I promise you. I just don't want us to get hung up too long on that. So we might want to consider a motion that sees if we agree about everything else that's there and then come back to the labels and come back to what's in the data box. Can I try? Yes. Yes, you may try. I think I understand. So I move that we approve the number of performance categories and the performance standards assigned to each performance category as well as the graphic as proposed by CDE. Is there a second to that motion?

235Second. All right. And is there any further discussion of that part of that motion before we get to the other items? All right. Let's have a vote on that part. Member Clausen. Yes. President Darlene Hammond. Yes. Member Escobedo. Yes. Vice President Clever Woods. Yes. Member Lewis. Yes. Member McQuillan. Yes. Member Olkin. Yes. Member Roscoe-Gonzalez. Yes. Member Petillo-Brownson. Yes Rodriguez yes, no, but you're so monetary Motion carries now. All right, and could we go to the labels next? Okay, so just so I have I have the labels and then the adoption of how it gets incorporated or whether it gets incorporated Yes, we will get to that too. Yeah. Well first we have to have it and then we have to incorporate it China this is you know, we're trying to do this. So As much

236as I like seedling and budding and blossoming and flourishing, I'll share my own predilection, which is the minimal, moderate. I would shift strong to something like typical, accelerated, exceptional, because it gives you a sense of the size of the growth, the amount of growth, in a way that I think is understandable. Member Olkin? I was just going to, I like, well, I really like the bottom one, but I understand that it doesn't make sense for this purpose. People, you can imagine how many questions from Paris. What does it mean that my students' clothes is blossoming? But in any case, in terms of what you proposed, the label for level three, I wonder about. not using the word typical and maybe something like expected? Yeah, expected is a reasonable alternative. It does, it has conjured challenges

237in other contexts where people say, well, how do you know what's expected from my child? Sometimes it's been because growth models have also had regression strategies where they're putting in student characteristics and then coming out with expected growth. We don't do that in our model. But I just wonder whether there would be people saying, well, how do you know what to expect from my child, right? So that word might have a little bit of loading, but... Yeah, and recognizing... Or average is what this is actually doing. It is... determining how far you are from that middle band. Member Escobedo? I was going to say average growth may be more descriptive. Sure, average would be fine. That is actually statistically what we're reporting there. And I'm fine with option one. It makes a lot of sense

238for me. Yeah. member Glover Woods I'm just going to second that emotion option one with average replacing strong in level three I think gets where we need to go here all right thank you any further discussion can we get a motion on that clarification we're talking about option what you suggested originally board president was option one right with instead of strong which is hard to interpret and knowing where it is along the continuum using average because that is statistically what we're basically putting in that level three. A band around average is what it is. So not to mix motions, but I did want clarification on this motion in particular. If you switch to slide 26, when we look at the options for growth data, the growth data box. We've used the labels that we've decided

239here. The label that we decide in option one is minimal will show up in the growth data box as students are making minimal growth compared to in California. That's right. Well. We have to decide that. That's a decision for us about whether it's compared to academic peers. The word minimal would show up, yeah. It would show up in the growth box data. And it could be with level one. Or it could be what? Sorry. Level one will be there. You could have level one and minimal, or you could just have one or the other. But we could have numbers and words, which I think we might want to do. Really, the choices are minimal or limited. I would. Or seedling. I don't want to cut this conversation off too quickly, but I also want to

240say we have to move this along. So if you have a concern, let's get it on the table. It's just my preference for limited over minimal. All right. Does anybody want to talk about that choice? Yeah, we have emotions have to move the motion so you can move I did Making motions and don't even realize I made it. Okay. I thought I just made a statement. Okay Which wants it to be a motion All right, so we have a motion on the table, thank you sir for keeping us honest here, okay why don't I withdraw the motion that I made that I didn't know I made? I'm going to make this really simple. We went around for, as you know, a long time before. I think our choices are minimal or limited. If you want

241to vote for one or the other, please feel free to do that. Or we can vote the motion up or down. I personally would go with minimal because that's what we've decided for other. But I think, I understand their views. And I just want to bring out the point as we get ready to make a decision that we're, this is a little bit different from the conversation before because we're not talking about students. Right. We're talking about the growth. Of the group of students. So for that reason, I would again. without making a motion, would say that the option one, replacing strong with average, would be representative of this data set. Right. And for me, as an adjective describing size, minimal is a size-related adjective. Anyway, I think Member Petillo-Bronson wants to get in, so

242we look forward to seeing you. There you are. I was going to move to adopt the modified option one with strong being replaced by average, and I think that was the only modification. All right, so now we have a motion on the floor. Do we have a second for that motion? Second. All right, we have a second. Any further discussion of the motion? All right, let's vote. Member Clawson. Yes. President Dallin-Hammond. Yes. Member Escobedo. Yes. Vice President Glover-Woods. Yes. Member Lewis. Yes. Mayor McQuillan. Yes. Member Olkin. Yes. Member Roscoe-Gonzalez. Yes. Member Petillo-Brownson. Yes. Member Rodriguez. Yes. Member Yoshimura-Towery. Yes, Dean. Motion carries. All right, and now we get to talk about the data box. And then we're going to talk about how it appears on the dashboard, which may be the most important piece, but

243we have to have it before we can put it somewhere. So there are different ways that the growth data box could read. It could be the percentage of students whose scores improved from the prior year, like 75% of students improved their score from the prior year. It could be the average growth of students in the school is some number of points above or below typical. That I think personally is gonna be hard for people to interpret what the points would mean. It could be one of these adjectives. Students are making minimal growth, exceptional growth, whatever. And then it could be relative to where they started last year. And I would, and it could be compared to their prior grade performance. It could be, this last one says compared to their academic peers in California. I

244think I would worry about that because it sounds like we've done a comparison group of some sort, a matched comparison group, which we aren't doing that. I would say for any of the bottom ones, we should add the words on average, again, to reflect the fact that this is the aggregated group. Students on average in the school or district are making minimal growth or exceptional growth or average growth, whatever. So I want to hear discussion about these different ways of presenting. I think we get one of these in the data box. So, you know, which which way do we want to present the level of growth in the school and or the district? Yeah, remember Glover Woods and then members. What is the difference between? Where they started last year and compared to their prior

245year grade performance Is there a difference? And they didn't actually start last year because we don't have a measure of where they started last year. That's where they ended last year on the state test. So it actually would be students are making whatever growth relative to their score last year. But it would not be the beginning of the school year necessarily. And prior year performance is the same, basically. So those are just two different ways of saying the same thing. And the last one could say students are making minimal growth compared to other students in California, but there's not a matched comparison group to them by characteristic or something. Other students at their grade level in California. It would be something like that. Member Yeshima-Otawi, I thought you were wanting to offer a comment. I

246just wanted to actually hear other perspectives on the first bullet point. I feel like the first bullet point is specific to that school. The last three options are a little bit more general. Do you like the first one for the specimens? I just wondered if there were any opposing comments or any other. That's about the first remark on that Like the specificity to read with that that I would rather have a percentage of how many of my students are would be Have improved from the prior year because I think the others don't give much information. They just are descriptive And I have a clear, never mind, I just answered my own question in my head. That's great, that's great. So the first one does give us that specificity of how many students are making progress.

247Yes, Member Clawson. I agree with my other two members. I think that the first bullet point, I think it centers students and prioritizes them, and it's also very clear for parents, families, and students to understand. So I would support either the first bullet, but I also, I like the fourth as well. Students are making exceptional growth compared to their prior grade performance. I think that's also very clear and accessible, and I prefer prior grade performance to relative to where they started last year. I think prior grade performance is more accurate. describes the growth. Cindy can we have two things in the growth data box or do we have to choose one? Kim is telling us one. Limited real estate. So let me just show you what it looks like. This is the baseball card. The

248more language you use, the less accessible it is. That's right. I take that point. So I like the points that have been made thus far. We've got that first one where a lot of people have commented. And I think that was your preference, Julia, between the two. So do you want to make the motion? Yes, I move that for the growth data box, we adopt a bullet point one, which would be the percent of students whose scores improved from the prior year. Terrific. You're seconding it? Yes, on Julia Clausen Day, I'd like to second it. Awesome. Awesome. Any further discussion in the motion? All right, Brooks, crawl the roll. It's only fitting that we start. Member Clawson? Yes. President Darlene Hammond? Yes. Member Escobedo? Yes. Vice President Glover Woods? Yes. Member Lewis? Yes. Member McQuillan?

249Yes. Member Olkin? Yes. Member Oscar Gonzalez? Yes. Member Patila Bronson? Yes. Member Rodriguez? Yes. Member Yosemite Towery? Yes. Motion carries unanimously. All right. Now we need one last motion. before we could go to lunch, which is about how we treat this on the dashboard. And so here are the options, making them into full state indicators on the dashboard. Modifying the components of the existing indicators for ELA and math to include growth scores. That sounds a little complicated to do overnight. Modifying differentiated assistance criteria to include ELA math growth scores. Adopting performance standards and continuing to publish growth data as additional information on the dashboard with no impact on LCFF eligibility determinations. And then finally modifying the ESSA criteria. Vice President Glover Woods. I think option four works well as long as we are clear that

250this will be revisited in the 2026 accountability work plan. So for the 25 dashboard, publish it as information only. And with the thought and understanding that in the 2026 accountability work plan, we'll revisit. and see if that's where it should continue to hold. Can I build on that and make an additional part of the motion, which would be that we include the ELA and math growth indicators on the state dashboard in 2025 for informational purposes for this year and confirm that these indicators should be used as additional information for charter renewal purposes and that we move toward, in the 2026 work plan, consider how to move toward full state indicator status for growth to be considered. in the eligibility determinations. Yes. So should I make an official motion or just can that? I think I

251can do it, but you could, can I do it, Brooks? I did it. All right, just in terms of the expectation this indicator would come out after the dashboard is published So I want to make sure when you use that term indicator that it is informational purposes But it's not released at the same time as the dashboard and because of that statutory language I'm just concerned and I don't know I see what you say because you know, we might need an additional motion that calls for a supplemental aspect of the dashboard And as we want this to be understood as being part of the dashboard, it will not come out as quickly as the rest of the dashboard because of the time that ETS needs to do the calculations. And the department, please. And the

252department, yes. I didn't mean to leave you out. I know that your hands are in everything we do. I appreciate that. But we may need to be clear that for it to be used as a... dashboard information for Charter renewal purposes for example that it is considered even though it's later that it is considered for that purpose so I don't know if any of our lawyers want to instruct us in that regard but is my motion as stated a reasonable for the purposes we've just described Karen President Darling-Himmon, do you want to state it one more time? Yes. I move that we include the ELA and math growth indicators on the state dashboard for informational purposes this year and confirm that these indicators should be used as additional information for charter renewal purposes and that

253we move in the 2026 work plan toward considering full state indicator status for growth for the growth indicator. And I think the question that was raised is whether we could do that as part of it for the growth indicators, I think, as Cindy noted, is whether we could do that supplementally after the deadline, right? For the dashboard publication. Okay. Sorry, I see Brooks up there. Brooks is contemplating. I'm wondering, if we want to say. if it was a friendly amendment to the greatest extent allowed under law to allow for the fact that there will be an exploration by council to make sure that we can do that, but to the extent there may be some limitations. I don't know, having not looked at it, specifically the question, I can't render an opinion. Yes, I think

254we can make that amendment that council piece of what to the greatest extent possible needs to be Limited to some part of it that is to say it's critical without verified data that these data be available to be used for charter renewal Determinations whether they're considered part of the dashboard or not Because the the deadline expired on the verified data so I wouldn't want to make, there's nothing in the law that says that couldn't be done, but I would want to be clear that the question is whether it's considered part of the dashboard because the dashboard publication date is what it is, and this is going to come out after the dashboard publication date because of the logistics. So I just want to be sure that we state that in a way that doesn't leave

255it in limbo in some fashion. Can you? Will you please restate it as you had it? We do have, even in our options, making the ELA and mathematics growth scores into full state indicators on the dashboard. Yeah, that was... Options consider the fact that it would be on the dashboard. That was my question. I'm unsure what the difference is between what you're proposing and option one, because... I'm proposing that those, well, full state indicators right now also trigger LCAP and PA determinations. Well, except for that option four is no impact on LCFF or eligibility determinations. Right, so it would be there for information. Right, but that's why I don't understand the difference between what you are proposing and option one. Because I'm proposing that it be on the dashboard for information purposes. not for full

256LCFF eligibility determinations as the term full state indicators. I'm proposing that that be taken up for 2026. I see. Okay. Not for 2025. I'm clearly missing something obvious because I swear that's what option, I don't see the difference between option one and option four. Option one. Option one. It's the terminology of the word indicator and option four does not use that word, but it does meet the letter of the law in terms of what is needed to use the growth model for charter school renewal. This is something that we definitely ran by both councils ahead of this being published. So option four would meet that same letter. Okay, so thank you for that. I appreciate, so what you're saying is according to council and option four enables this data or this information to be used

257for the purposes of charter renewal without triggering eligibility for a DA. It would. Probably with no impact on option four. Oh, you're saying up in your option four, right? That's what you're I just want to make sure I'm under Here's to go back to what you just said a second ago option for Option four would get us over the finish line pursuant to Education Code Section 47607.2 , which states that the adoption of a pupil level academic growth measure for ELA and math, the State Board may reconsider criteria as soon as you've adopted this. So this is the piece. But I would, I mean, I'm not your legal counsel. I would defer to. Yeah, but I'm just trying to make sure I understand what you're saying. You're saying, one more time. Option four, the adoption

258of performance standards and continuing to publish growth score data meets the letter of the law to be able to use this for something entirely outside of the dashboard for charter school renewal process. But it isn't entirely out of the dashboard because that's what 1505. This is a component of the dashboard being utilized for charter school renewal, right? So the dashboard is being utilized for. what it wasn't intended to be used for, but that's okay, yeah. Semantics, right? I guess I'm not disagreeing with you there. Go ahead, yeah. So maybe we just add to option four the language, we just put it in there, so it's part of the option that, and it is to the part that you had, and it will be, and it's eligible for charter renewal. Maybe that's what you started with.

259We're back at it. I could read again what I said, which was include the ELA and math growth indicators on the state dashboard for informational purposes this year and confirm that these indicators should be used as additional information for charter renewal purposes. In addition, move toward full state indicator status for growth to be considered in the 2026 work plan. Is there a second on that? All right, any further discussion? All right, let's call the roll. Sorry about that. Do we just want to add the to the greatest extent possible? Okay. If it comes to... Member Clawson. Yes. President Darling-Hammond. Yes. Yes. Member Escobedo? Yes. Vice President Glover-Woods? Yes. Member Lewis? Yes. Member McQuillan? Yes. Member Olkin? Yes. Member Orozco-Gonzalez? Yes. Member Petillo-Brownson? Yes. Member Rodriguez? Yes. Member Yoshinomoto-Ori? Motion carries unanimously. Congratulations. And let's give

260Sidney and Kim a round of applause. And the entire division for all that they did. to help us get to this with all the information that we had. We're gonna break for lunch. We'll be back at 1.30. All right, we are reconvened. And we'll now take up. I have to go back to item three. The California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress in the English Language Proficiency Assessments for California Update on Program Activities. And this will be presented by Vigdis Asmanson and Deborah Atwell of the Los Angeles County Office of Education. Vigdis with the CDE. Welcome, Vigdis. Thank you. Hello. All right. Chief Deputy Roberson, President Darling-Hammond, Vice President Glover-Woods, board members. I am Dr. Vignes Asmundson. I'm the Education, Research, and Evaluation Administrator for the Science Office in the Assessments, Development, and Administration Division.

261Today's presentation is going to cover two topics related to the California Science Test or CAST Innovations Initiative. Representatives from the Los Angeles County Office of Education or LACO, as well as Digital Promise and Education First are going to present an update on the curriculum embedded performance tasks in Science Bank. And then representatives from ETS will share an update on the mini performance tasks or mini PTs assessment development. First, I am going to provide a brief overview of the CAST Innovations concept. The California Next Generation Science Standards, which were adopted in 2013, emphasize the importance of scientific practices. These are things like using models, planning investigations, analyzing data, and constructing explanations. All of the fun parts. This requires students and educators to move beyond recalling facts and into doing science. In January 2024, the State Board

262of Education approved the receipt of the CAST Innovations Concept Paper, which outlined a proposed novel approach to continue improving assessment to engage students in science and science practices. This proposed assessment-related system has four components. Classroom performance tasks embedded in learning, we call them PTELs, that would be available at all grades. Common PTELs available specifically in the assessed grades 5, 8, and high school. An end of year summative assessment that includes that mini PT and opportunity to learn science indicators. Looking at that another way, this slide contains a schematic of those four components. You are going to be hearing additional information about two of those components today and seeing this diagram a few more times because it's really guiding our CAST innovations work. Through your classroom, PTELs are represented there in the top left and they

263show a variety of resources available throughout the instructional year. These could be used as desired by teachers working with students in kindergarten through grade 12, and they would be available via an online bank for educators. This component is the presentation by LACO Digital Promise and Education First that you are going to hear. The next section below represents the through-year common PTELs, which could supplement summative testing. This section has fewer performance tasks that are targeted for those assessed grades, 5, 8, and high school. On the right hand side is the end of the year summative state assessment. This includes a set of discrete items that would cover the breadth of performance expectations or science standards, as well as that mini PT. ETS is going to be presenting information about that section today. And then lastly, the

264fourth section represents the opportunity to learn indicators. These indicators can help understand the extent to which students have equal access to science resources. They wouldn't be used in scoring, but they would provide context to interpret scores and help guide decisions, for example, curriculum choices and professional development. The Governor's 2024-25 State Budget for K-12 education included $7 million in one-time Proposition 98 general funds to support inquiry-based science instruction and assessment through the development of a bank of high-quality curriculum-embedded performance tasks for science. Senate Bill 153 appropriated that money from the general fund to the superintendent of public instruction for allocation to LACO to contract with one or more nonprofit organizations to develop the statewide repository of science resources. The Assessments Development and Administration Division is working together with the Curriculum Frameworks and Instructional Resources Division to

265oversee this project. Our divisions worked closely with LACO to select a subcontractor through their RFP process for this exciting work, which closed with the selection of Digital Promise and Education First. I am now going to turn it over to three representatives from these organizations to tell you more about the project. I'd like to introduce Deborah Atwell from Los Angeles County Office of Education, Josh Weisgrau from Digital Promise, and Anisha Badranarian from Education First. Can everyone hear me? Well, thank you, Vigdus, for the introduction. Board members and board president, Dr. Darling-Hammond, the Los Angeles County Office of Education. is proud to, or is pleased to be here with you this afternoon to share an informational update about the performance test embedded in learning task bank, commonly referred to as PTELS. As laid out in the ETS

266concept paper presented to the board in January 2024, the PTELS task bank is the foundation of the California science assessment redesign. Through the Task Bank, we aim to provide flexible classroom-ready performance tests for K-12 science instruction and create the Task Bank as an educative tool. that supports meaningful shifts in science instructional practice. We do this by modeling evidence-based approaches such as the use of science and engineering practices that are the primary mode for learning and performance of all students. We leverage user profiles, advanced search features, and a wide range of task types to help teachers find relevant. high quality resources ready for immediate use in California classrooms. And we also include supportive resources such as annotated student work, classroom implementation videos, and professional learning tools that makes performance assessment practical and usable in classrooms while

267we honor teacher agency and local context. The PTILS project places California science educators and stakeholders at the center of the design and development process to ensure alignment with their needs and priorities. Engagement strategies to date have included educator interviews and educator focus groups to inform key decisions in the design and development of the bank. Iterative feedback loops throughout the platform and task development. An educator advisory panel, which guides the project through all phases. And stakeholder advisory and steering committees that focus, that develop the project around California's specific needs. An important example of educator input was the feedback. that the PTELS, an important aspect of the PTELS project is educator feedback. And I'm gonna share one piece of that feedback with you today as an example of the type of feedback we're getting from educators in

268our focus groups. A lot of the educators who participated in the focus groups indicated that they were unfamiliar with the acronym PTALS and that it really did not resonate with what they would be looking for in a science assessment bank. So users expressed the preference for a more approachable and meaningful name. In response and with input and approval from the CDE, the task bank has now been renamed to ATLAS and that stands for Authentic Tasks for Learning and Assessment in Science. So with that, I'm going to pass it off to Josh Weissgraf at Digital Promise. He'll speak more to the Atlas, the design and development of the Atlas task bank. Thanks, Deb. And thank you to the board. So I'm... Digital promise is working with Lego and education first on this and in particular. I'm

269leading the development part of the of the platform Which will actually be a web-based application for the Atlas platform the As Deb mentioned we've been Really rapidly trying to build in feedback loops with educators. So as you saw in the previous slide We have worked across three stages already of educator input, and we've had the input of 135 educators across nine different focus groups that we've held, mostly virtually. Educators representing, I think at this point, every county in California. Certainly all the grade levels, we've had some TOSAs as well as classroom educators, elementary, middle school, high school. So we've gotten feedback at various points and across three stages. So the first thing we did was engage teachers around understanding the need and what exists already to solve that around finding tasks. What we identified is

270that existing options, one, didn't provide enough tasks, right? Teachers were often searching for something and unable to find it. And the existing repositories initially will speak more to the actual volume of tasks themselves that we're working with now. And then also that the platforms weren't intuitive to navigate or that their search and filter functions didn't prioritize the things the teachers were actually looking for and the ways that they wanted to search for them. So we're trying to design our platform with a streamlined interface that gives teachers access to their most desired information for selecting tasks with the minimum number of steps required. That's kind of the basic goal of the user experience design of this platform. But that's really complicated because there's a lot of variability in both the tasks themselves and the criteria that

271teachers are using to search for tasks. Ultimately, what that meant for us was that we needed to create a search-first interface. And what I mean by that is rather than a list of criteria and checkboxes, we needed to build a system where teachers could express their criteria in their natural language and use the sort of most advanced tools for search right now, semantic search and different engines that power that to... help them find what they're looking for based on the way they want to search for it. So you'll see a little preview of what we're building, which is going to feature this sort of interface with the searches as prioritization to try to get teachers to their desired tasks as quickly as possible. As they continue to go through, they'll have more options to filter,

272refine their search, and browse the details of tasks before they eventually start selecting the tasks themselves and downloading the materials to use with their students. Lastly we're building in lots of features that have been requested Things like the ability to create collections of tasks to return to them share them with colleagues create groups, etc And we're building in all sorts of things like that based on on The the feedback from the teachers what will be most useful and the the place we're at now is is we have Going through those rounds of feedback the final round actually was sharing with teachers some of these initial Page designs that you see excerpts from on the slides themselves getting feedback finalizing those designs and we are moving into the development stage of the website Literally as we

273speak That we sort of wrapped that design phase last week We're moving into development and we are on track for the targeted January launch So with that I'll hand it over to Anisha to talk more about the tasks themselves Good afternoon. We are really excited to share with you some information about the assessment tasks. I'm Anisha Bajranarian. I work at Education First, and I'm supporting Digital Promise, LACO, and CDE in the development of this bank. When we were thinking about inclusion of tasks, one of the things that we heard loud and clear from educators, and we had heard already from CDE and LACO, is that there are so many assessment tasks, performance assessments, that people have been developing through principled processes, evidence-based efforts that have existed, and teachers cannot regularly find them. They don't know

274where they went. They know that they existed at some point. and they are lost to us as we continue moving forward. So one of the things we wanted to really make sure was true of this particular task bank is that all science teachers who came to the bank could find something that was going to be meaningful to them and that that was going to help them move their practice toward more meaningful, higher order thinking oriented teaching and learning tasks in the classroom. So to do that, we set up a three-step process for task inclusion in the library. The first step was to set up the threshold by which we were going to recruit tasks to be included. So we really set two major criteria for this threshold. One was that it had to be aligned

275to the California NGSS. We wanted to make sure teachers only found tasks that were going to be aligned to their standards and actually help them engage in meaningful standards-based instruction. The other was that it had to actually require performance. This might seem like a very basic requirement for a performance task library, but there are many, many different definitions of performance assessments. So one of our inclusion criteria is that tasks have to require students to engage in a generative performance that actually results in a student-generated artifact and actually have them produce that artifact. Once we sort of went through and found those tasks, the next step for inclusion in the library is actually a very robust tagging system. So Josh mentioned that one of the things that we're really centering in this process is making sure

276that teachers can find things based on all of the different. search criteria, contextual experiences that they may have and that they may be experiencing. So our team is currently reviewing and tagging every performance task that has been surfaced through this initial inclusion step for over 300 features that govern how tasks might be selected and used, informed by both science education experts from California as well as teacher users who are telling us what they want to see. There are 300, so I'm not going to name them all here. But I do want to sort of call attention to the fact that some of the things that we are prioritizing are things like instructional materials and instructional models, so that teachers can easily find tasks that are going to work with the curriculum materials that they are

277using, or maybe even enhance them, depending on what they are doing. That they are able to find tasks that are California-specific. in context that have been vetted for relevance to not only to students generally but to specific communities of students, to specific developmental levels of students, and really make sure that teachers can find things that are going to speak to the students that they are teaching. include supports for differentiation, and that there are durable skills or higher order skills, communication, collaboration, critical thinking, problem solving, those types of things that are addressed as well. So we are currently tagging tasks for all of these different things that is going to allow them to be found and categorized and searched for as people engage in this library. The final step of our task inclusion for the January

278launch is... a modest amount of new task development. So we expected that there would be some gaps in the tasks that we found. And so we had planned to do some ongoing new task development that will start now for the upcoming release. But we expect will be an ongoing process as more people develop tasks, those will be included in the library. And these will be specifically targeted around those, around both gaps and needs that we're hearing from educators. As we put forward our current comprehensive task library, I wanted to share with you a little bit about what we currently have that we are working with. There are currently over 1,200 tasks that are there. We have 1,275 existing performance assessments that are developed through processes that include principal design processes, student and teacher co-design activities,

279as well as piloting with students to ensure that they are reliably used. And this bank includes tasks for every grade level, K through five, as well as all of the grade bands, six through eight and nine, 12. Those are grade banded because the standards are grade banded, so they tend to be tagged that way. Every performance expectation is reflected in the bank. That includes all of the major science domains included in the California NGSS, as well as all practices and all crosscutting concepts. So at this moment, the current library includes tasks that everyone, no matter where you are teaching and what you are teaching in the K-12 spectrum, there is something there for you to find. I wanted to show you one example of a type of task in this bank. This is very small,

280so I'm going to describe it to you. This is an example of a slightly longer embedded performance task where students are grappling with a phenomenon. they encounter this phenomenon that there has been an increase in the number of concussions that both youth soccer players and professional soccer players have been experiencing more recently. And there has been a proposal, this is a true thing, there's a proposal to ban headers, or the collision between a person's head and a soccer ball, in the game, to ban it from the sport. And they're tasked with developing a recommendation for whether or not they think headers should be banned. In the first part of this task, students do some individual work, and they're really sort of using that individual work time to organize their thoughts and thinking, to activate prior

281knowledge, to consider what's going on when collisions are happening, so really bringing their physical science understanding to the table. During the second part of the task, they engage in collaborative work. They collaboratively explore how mass, speed, and object hardness affect collision forces through experiments that they design and conduct in the classroom that are designed to model the actual experience. They reflect on the limitations of their model and what might be true in the real world situation that may or may not be true in their classroom situation. And they create models that they're going to work with to explain how all of these factors relate to concussion risk. And then the final part of the task, they take all of those collaboratively developed meaning-making opportunities, and they make individual recommendations. They construct an individual argument, and

282they make an individual recommendation about whether... headers should be banned. This task allows it, it's aligned to standards, all three of those standards. You can hear the practices being really foregrounded, but we have not lost the content at all. This kind of task is a good example where there's collaboration and communication deeply embedded in the process of doing science. It's not tacked on somewhere. It's a really, really... foundationally sort of cultivating and allowing students to demonstrate those higher order skills and that there's an authentic problem and there's relevance to students not every student will be a soccer player almost every student will know someone who plays soccer they will have seen it and it's something that teachers can create a common experience for in the classroom if students haven't had prior experience with it so

283with that i just want to share a couple of next steps for the atlas task bank between now and our planned january launch in in 2026. We are continuing robust outreach to California educators as well as the intentional engagement of science education leaders and other interest holders in the state who might be interested in participating. There is a QR code on this slide for anybody who has access to the slides if you'd like to participate. We will be reaching out but we also welcome people to tell us that you want to provide us with some input. We will launch our beta test of a functional platform in October and be working with a group of about 50 educators to really deeply test a lot of the assumptions and the design decisions that we've made to

284make sure that they're actually going to work and have opportunity to fix those before January. We will be. creating new tasks in collaboration with educators between now and the end of the year with the expectation that they will be piloted in an ongoing way throughout the 2025-2026 school year. And we are currently working with a number of partners to design and develop professional learning materials and other educative supports for performance task inclusion that will be included with the library so that when the library launches, there's also lots of support for how to use it and how to use it to improve teaching and learning because that's really our goal. So with that, I'll say thank you and hand it off to our colleagues at ETS to tell you about the next part of the system.

285Thank you Deb, Josh, and Anisha. We really appreciate you being here and we appreciate this very fun work that you are doing. The next section that you are going to hear is some work that ETS has been doing on another component of the CAST Innovations Initiative. This work on the mini PTs is going to set the groundwork for a work plan and timeline that is going to come before the board in the September meeting. So I would like to introduce Dr. Randy Bennett, Fredrickson Chair in Assessment Innovation from ETS. President Darling-Hammond. Vice President Glover Woods, Chief Deputy Roberson, members of the board, it's a pleasure to be here to discuss design considerations for the California Science Test's mini performance tasks. In the talk, I'm going to do four things. First, I'll call out few important

286points about the California Next Generation Science Standards. Second, I'll describe CAST as a partner to those standards in encouraging ambitious science teaching and learning. Third, the bulk of the talk will focus on some proposed design principles for those many performance tasks. And finally, I'll say a word about next steps. The California Science Standards view science learning and assessment as three-dimensional. The three dimensions being the science and engineering practices, the disciplinary core ideas, and the cross-cutting concepts. The California NGSS envisioned providing every student in the state with opportunities to develop what's called scientific sense-making, a habit of mind in interacting with the natural world that encourages questioning, that encourages making observations and predictions, that encourages constructing explanations, that encourages arguing from evidence. The California Next Generation Science Standards emphasize the doing of science in this scientific

287sense-making way as a primary vehicle for learning and for assessment. CAST has been a partner to the California Next Generation Science Standards in encouraging ambitious science teaching and learning since its inception seven or eight years ago. The current design of the California Science Test organizes that assessment into three parts called segments. The first segment measures the science standards broadly using test items that are short, that are either selected response, some are constructed response, that sample those standards very broadly. Each item is independent of every other item. Those items measure either two of the dimensions at a time or all three together. The second segment, segment B, measures more deeply. So instead of trying to cover the standards broadly, it tries to cover fewer standards with greater depth. It does that through the use of item

288sets, that is clusters of items that are not independent of one another because they're linked to a common stimulus or scenario. In one of the science domains, life science, physical science, or Earth and Space Science. Again, these items are selected response or short constructed response. And again, they measure either two of the dimensions simultaneously or all three. The final segment is simply a field test segment, a segment used for trying out new items that will be used or may be used in future test administrations. The rationale for rethinking this current design is that a lot has happened in seven years. CAST was innovative at the time it was introduced. We've learned a lot about how to teach the California NGSS better. We've learned a lot about how to assess the California NGS better. It's time

289to up the game. We can measure more deeply. than we do now because now we have the knowledge and the technology to do so so the current proposal is to recognize that the deeper measurement that's provided by that segment B is restricted in that these short items make it harder for students to engage the science and engineering practices and the sense-making that those practices entail because they provide limited opportunities for student-driven inquiry and the real world. kinds of applications of science that we'd like to encourage in the classroom. So the proposal is essentially to replace on the end of your assessment segment B, the item sets in segment B, with a mini performance task. A mini performance task that has a lot of the character of the classroom performance tasks embedded in learning and of

290the common performance tasks embedded in learning, though not all of that character, because this mini performance task needs to fit within the context and constraints of an end-of-year assessment. The mini performance task, by being on that end-of-year assessment, we feel better support. the California NGSS vision and enhance CAST's instructional utility. A key question that comes up when we Think about the mini performance test is what design principles to use to guide their development and we would suggest that there be six of those principles. I'll walk through them one by one. The first principle we would propose is that they be authentic. The mini PTs in concert with other CAS components could and should present compelling real-world phenomena and complex problems for students to address. They should ask students to demonstrate the three NGSS dimensions in

291the context of these authentic science activities. They should allow for multiple possible paths to a solution and multiple solutions because that's in fact what characterizes complex problems and real-world phenomena. They should require higher order skills like application, analysis, and decision-making. Second, we would propose that the mini-PTs be supportive of coherent sense-making. They should present a coherent logical flow that leads the student through a phenomenon, a problem that that phenomenon presents, and a process for addressing that problem. They should start with a central question, a question... that drives students to more progressively engage with that problem, to stay motivated. They should allow for students to make meaningful choices along the path to solution. And they should be connected to the more ambitious common p-tells and the classroom p-tells. That connection could be made in a number

292of ways. It could be made by using common scenarios. Say for example, a scenario about water pollution in California rivers, streams, and lakes. That common scenario carrying through at least one classroom performance task embedded in learning, one common performance task embedded in learning, and one mini PT. that connection also could be made by using a common data set. So same scenario, same data set across those three assessment activities, but a different problem for students to address in each activity. Third, we would propose that the mini performance tests be educative. They should encourage students to do science, to engage in scientific sense-making, to ask questions, to make observations, to construct models, to make predictions, to construct explanations, to argue from evidence. They should be a learning opportunity. Every student who interacts with a mini performance task

293should come away from that experience knowing something important that they didn't know before. They should model high quality science teaching and learning, displaying for students how a scientist might go about addressing that same problem. They should be supplemented with rubrics, that is scoring guides, and annotated student work that helps students and teachers understand the standards more deeply and how to become masters of them. Fourth, the mini-PTs should be developmental and asset-oriented. We would propose that they could and should scaffold problem complexity, that is step-by-step increase in difficulty, to encourage students to sustain their engagement and their motivation to perform. They should provide opportunities for all students to demonstrate what they know and can do, surfacing evidence of aspects of understanding along this step-by-step progression of learning. Fifth, the mini performance task should be reflective and

294responsive. to learners, reflective of them and responsive to them. Alongside other caste components, they should center phenomena and problems that are connected to the diverse experiences and cultural backgrounds that students bring to school, allowing them to draw on those backgrounds in doing their scientific. sense-making. They should allow for multiple presentation and response modalities. So, for example, in the water pollution scenario, there might be readings about water pollution occurring in California rivers, lakes, and streams. But a student who does not read as well as he or she might like to might prefer to hear that reading. read to him or her, and that should be an available option on the assessment, thereby enabling all learners to engage in sense-making regardless of their competency level, in this case, reading competency. And finally, the mini-PT should be useful

295for informing instructional decisions, providing insights for teachers and administrators to improve instruction, if not in the current year, because this is an end-of-year assessment, in the subsequent year, for planning how to teach differently and how to teach more effectively. Finally... they should potentially employ technology-enhanced scoring and reporting to provide more useful insights. This kind of... reporting and scoring is becoming more and more feasible with the advent of generative AI. I could imagine giving the entire set of responses to a mini PT as well as the responses to other parts of CAST for a classroom and having generative AI assist in identifying commonalities across all of those responses that a human might have great difficulty and have to invest great time and effort in pulling out. And the same would be true for the school and

296for the district. In terms of next steps, in collaboration with CDE, SBE, and educators, we'll be initially exploring design, content, and development-related questions and needs, meeting with interest holders to refine the design principles I just described, establishing a framework for the development of these. tasks, developing some sample ones to highlight key goals and attributes, conducting a cognitive labs type pilot, and then providing recommendations in response to the pilot results. Thanks very much. Thank you, Randy. All right, to wrap this up, here are the next steps for the SBE. In September of this year, we are going to present a mini PT example task and bring the timeline and the plan to the board for approval. And then in January next year, there will be another update for the scheduled launch of the Atlas Bank of

297Science performance tasks. So we are happy to answer any clarifying questions that you have right now. put the public comment slide up and before and let people queue up for public content comment by calling the number and using the access code on the slide and before we take comment let's see 30 clarifying comments from our liaison remember Roscoe Gonzalez will go before me Good work, Victus. Just so excited about this. As a classroom teacher, I just want to express my gratitude to the entire assessment team behind this work. What stands out to me in this item is the intentional and thoughtful support. being extended to our educators, not just in the form of tools, but in how those tools are designed and delivered. The updates for tools for teachers, for example, might seem small on

298paper, improved navigation, smarter search features, streamlined lesson plans, but in the classroom, these things make a big difference. When you're juggling 30 students, adapting instruction for language learners and trying to keep up with pacing guides every second counts. Tools for Teachers now includes more than 750 curated resources and nearly 13 million interim assessments were administered in 2024 to 2025 alone. This tells me teachers are using these tools and updates to functionality and content help do our jobs better. enhancements show a deep understanding of what teachers need and when teachers are supported students have more opportunities to thrive. I'm so excited about the development of the science tests that are rooted in real inquiry and performance. It's not just about testing what students know, it's about asking them to think, to investigate, to engage. The development

299of almost 1,300 curriculum embedded performance test to the PTEL project, which with valuable input from California science educators shows that we're serious about making science assessments authentic and meaningful. With the upcoming launch of Atlas platform in January, 2026, teachers will soon have access to robust. educator informed task bank that models best practices and supports classroom science instruction in real and practical ways. Just listening to the presentation I was saying yes, yes, exactly that. As also the gate. the gifted and talented coordinator that accepts all students, not just gifted and talented, and STEM challenges after school. I think about all the times I pull up those resources to come up with a STEM challenge for my students and how excited they are to go through the process of inquiry, of curiosity, and just exploration is so

300exciting to see. So these are the kinds of learning experiences that stick with students and build the skills that they carry into the future. kind of shift that tells teachers, we see you, we trust you, and we want assessments that actually reflect the complexity, creativity of your instruction. What makes all of these more powerful is how educator voices are woven in every stage from focus groups, cognitive labs, pilot testing, the many PTs currently under development for summative science testing, scheduling for pilot updates. at the September 2025 SBE meeting are just another sign that the work is grounded in collaboration. That's the kind of collaboration that builds trust and it's just so meaningful to our teachers and students. And this just item, I know if you hear the enthusiasm in my voice, because I'm a science

301teacher at heart, it just reminds me that when we center educators, not just as implementers, but as designers, we move closer to an assessment system that supports learning. and not just measures it. So thank you for everyone involved for uplifting the profession in a way that is practical, respectful, and rooted in real life world teaching, which is what we want our students to become, just those critical thinkers that question everything and are curious all the time. So thank you for your presentation. And as our second liaison, I want to say plus one to what she said. And simply note that the many PTs that we heard about, that will be on the end of year test, are very much like the performance tasks that we have in English, language, arts, and math on the Smarter

302Balanced Assessments. So that piece of what we've... Try before this more curriculum-based classroom-embedded piece will be a new piece that really builds the whole system. So with that, let's go to public comment, and then we'll have some discussion. I do want to note that we're about two hours behind our schedule, and I don't want anyone to miss their plane. So I want to hear all your comments, and I want us to just be aware of being efficient. Public comment in the room. There are three people signed up for in-person public comment. Will the following people please line up at the microphone in the back? Ashley Lugo, Annie Cunial, and Melissa Marcucci. Good afternoon President Darling-Hammond, Vice President Glover Woods, and members of the board. Ashley Lugo on behalf of the California County Superintendents. We would

303like to thank the state for its ongoing commitment to advancing high quality equitable science education in all California classrooms. The state's support to the Sacramento and Los Angeles County Offices of Education reflect that commitment in action. We applaud LACOS leadership in developing a statewide bank of over 1,200 curriculum embedded performance tasks that bring the California NGSS to life. We also deeply appreciate Sacramento County Office's work to strengthen LEA capacity through professional learning and assessment literacy, helping educators turn data into meaningful instruction. These are essential elements to the efforts to build LEA capacity to increase access to and improve high quality standards. based science instruction for all students. So thank you for investing in the tools, partnerships, and innovation our schools need to support every student to engage meaningfully with science. Thank you. Good afternoon, members

304of the board. My name is Annie Cuniel from the San Joaquin County Office of Education and CISC Science Subcommittee. As science leaders across the state, we appreciate the state board support to provide additional opportunities for students, educators, and LEAs to impact student learning through informed teaching. As we all know, the CAST is an end-of-year summative assessment which is only administered in grades five, eight, and high school. The PTEL Task Bank is designed for teachers and students in all grades K through 12. The use of PTEL's will provide opportunities for students to apply scientific understanding, opportunities for educators to implement strategies and pedagogy, opportunities for LEA teams to work collaboratively to collect and analyze data on student learning outcomes. The use of these PTELs will help ensure all students experience the magic of science all year,

305every year. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam President and members of the State Board. I'm excited to be in front of you again demonstrating the fever in California for science education assessment and accountability. As a reminder, my name is Melissa Marcucci and I'm a science teacher in the Central Valley and president of the California Association of Science Educators. We're excited to see the progress outlined in item number three, especially the alignment with the CAST Innovations Concept Paper and the addition of science assessment resources to the Tools for Teachers website. We want to thank LAC. COE and CDE for their leadership on this important work as well as their partners including but not limited to the NGSS Collaborative and Education First. We also appreciate the ongoing efforts to more authentically assess science through performance tasks. As an

306organization independent of members who may already be involved, CASE would like to formally offer our support and engagement as this work moves forward. Thank you for your leadership and your continued commitment to high quality science education. Any comment on the phone? There are no callers in the queue. That concludes public comment for item number three. All right, science fever. Is there any comment or discussion among board members? This is an information item. Yes, Member Clawson. I just briefly want to say thank you for the presentation. As a student, this is so exciting and I wish that my teachers had had this bank throughout my education. And I just would like to thank you and appreciate the emphasis throughout the presentations on, you know, making science relevant to students and engaging them in it. Because when

307we know that when we prioritize teachers, we prioritize students and their engagement in the classroom. Also the phrase generative performance and, you know, really making. students be scientists in the classroom is so incredibly important and really this this bank of all the performance tasks many performance tasks allow a diverse set of learners diverse opportunities to show mastery and their ability to be scientists so thank you so much any other Commentary, yes, Member Escanado. I'm just very impressed with the presentation. We'll love to know. I know they're coming again. We'll love to know a little bit more about the generative AI component and a lot of the lessons that... We learn here wonder I mean it's really related to our next item you know the procurement of assessments and what we learn from you and the

308the cultural responsiveness the you know making making science real how do we do that for ELA and math as well I think having that cohesiveness and how we assess and instruct and inform ourselves and how to best support our kids We got to see all of that integrated. So thank you so much for the presentation. Thank you. I appreciate it. Yeah, we have a lot on our minds. We have a lot of work ahead of us. And we're certainly taking notes on everything that you are is on your minds as well. Terrific. All right. Yes, Mayor Rodriguez. I also want to thank you for this. This is. It fills me with optimism. I'm imagining our little scientists becoming big scientists and solving a lot of the problems that we face. And, you know, these tasks,

309filling them with wonder and awe and as they take on the natural world. So thank you. Go science. Go ahead, remember all again. Just quick thought. When we were in our last item discussing the science indicator, I was thinking just about how science classes. there's so much vitality often in them because there's so much doing of learning. And so it's exciting to see that last item and this item paired. Because I think it's trying to continue that vitality through to the assessment piece as well. which of course we know will shape a lot of what people are doing in the classroom. So it's exciting to have the whole system approach for it. I'm going to move us along. I hear enthusiasm. We're going to hear more in September, and we'll see some tasks, some many

310PTs, and examples perhaps, Francisco, that illustrate the features that you were discussing. And with that... aiming to pick up steam we're on item number four uh and we're going to take up the proposed goals and priorities for the next california assessment system procurement uh there's uh this is an information item only and it'll be presented by chad portnoy of the cde chad nice to see you please begin could you bring your other microphone over all the speakers have been a little hard to hear yeah i don't know whether that will help maybe yeah I'm Chad Portney. I am the Associate Director of the Assessment Development and Administration Division. You may remember me from a November 2024 SBE meeting where we began a robust discussion of changes to reporting achievement level descriptors that wrapped up most

311recently at the May SBE meeting and I hear it still even from this morning influencing conversations. In this presentation I'll provide an update on the proposed goals and priorities to be included in the procurement for the next assessment contractor. Summary of our presentation, very short. Background, tentative procurement process and schedule, proposed goals and priorities for the next California assessment system procurement, and State Board of Education feedback. This is an information item as president darling Hammond said no action is requested at this time We're soliciting feedback from the SBE which will be incorporated into an August 2025 Memo and then we'll return to the SBE in September 2025 with a request for approval to incorporate the proposed goals and priorities into the call for submissions California Education Code Section 60643B1 requires the California Department of Education

312to develop and the superintendent and the State Board of Education to approve a contract to provide for the California Assessment for Student Performance and Progress as outlined in Education Code 60605 through 60648.5. Also, the English language proficiency assessments for California are ELPAC as defined in Ed Code sections 313 and 60810. The procurement process differs from the prior procurement process for 2227, which was a four-stage request for qualifications that started in March of 2020 and included Stage 1, a qualification stage. Stage 2, a demonstration stage. Stage 3 was request for submission or RFS of a proposed scope of work, a draft proposed budget, and a transition plan. Stage 4 was contract negotiations with the selected contractor. The CDE found that the multi-stage process was necessary at the time so the state could identify potential contractors with

313the capacity and expertise needed, particularly in light of the need for remote testing during the COVID-19 pandemic. The CDE is proposing That the upcoming procurement process proceed with an RFS and contract negotiations with the SBE and Department of Finance a more streamlined competitive and open process to identify an assessment contractor with the proven capacity and expertise to successfully implement the California assessment system This change should hopefully result in additional vendors apply The CDE will issue an open request for submission to competitively procure its next assessment contract for five administrations of the California Assessment System. The CDE is informing the SBE that for the California Assessment System RFS, the CDE will request from potential contractors a formal written submission that contains a proposed scope of work, a draft proposed budget, and a transition plan. This contract

314contingent on the availability of an appropriation for this purpose is projected to begin March 1 2027 which allows for a 10-month overlap with the current contract for transition activities and continues through December 31 2032 the current contract with ETS ends on December 31 2027 our proposed procurement schedule starts with an SBE information memo in June 2025. This presentation, the SBE item, July 2025. As I mentioned, we'll come back to you in August, or not come back to you, but we'll present a memo, we'll post a memo in August on any feedback that you've given us on these proposed goals and priorities, any modifications. And then in September, we'll ask you to approve those proposed goals and priorities for inclusion in the request for submissions. We'll then follow that up with a posting of the request

315for submissions in the fall of this year and a contractor webinar to discuss the request also in the fall. We'll follow that up with submission due date in winter of 2026. Submission evaluation will happen in winter and spring of 2026. Then the State Board of Education includes action on and approval to negotiate the contract and we'll bring that to you in May of 2026. The contract negotiations will occur spring and summer of 2026. And then another SBE item will come back to you in September of 2026 for approval of the contract. And then, as I mentioned, the contract begins March 2027. Finally, the proposed goals and priorities. The CDE is seeking feedback from the state board on the following goals and priorities. We'll incorporate those revisions and bring it back to you. The first priority

316is to implement the California assessment system during the 2027 through 32 school year with the development and administration of high quality assessments that provide actionable results. We'd like them to provide a robust assessment system that's comprehensive and coherent, flexible and accessible to support the needs of educators, students and families while providing data that support valid inferences. innovation to increase efficiency and value, not just innovation for the sake of innovation, design with technology solutions that meet industry best practices and standards, and support California in complying with applicable state and federal laws. And that is the end of my presentation. Just letting you know that these goals and priorities and any feedback you give us will obviously inform the RFS and come back to you. Any questions I can take and I'll probably ask my wife. Take

317a moment to see if there are any clarifying questions and then we'll come back for discussion. Any clarifying questions and then I'm going to turn to our liaison member Roscoe Gonzalez to give any thoughts before me. I just think as this process moves forward, it's essential to prioritize vendors who understand classrooms, not just in theory, but in practice. The most successful tools are those designed that within. direct input from educators and students who use them every day. So centering teacher voice throughout the development from piloting and reporting will ensure that the system remains grounded. So when I just think of these, I want to ensure that this assessment system reflects the thoughtful shift towards tools serving teaching and learning and not just accountability. That's great. Can we also ask for the public comment slide to

318go up? And people can queue up for public comment if they care to. And I will have some questions to add to those when we get to the discussion part of it, but I would, again, plus one to Member Orozco-Gonzalez who has said the most important things to be said. And at this point, is there any public comment in the room first? There is no public comment in the room. And is there anybody queuing up for public comment on the phone? There are no callers in the queue. Okay. So I do have a few questions. Let me just ask if anyone else has questions or discussion on this item. So just... Understanding what the process is. There's a lot in if you put up that slide of all the things that are being asked for

319It's a five-year contract Anticipated with only one vendor is that right? That's our current anticipation that the one vendor would Subcontract to additional vendors who might have specialties in other areas and it would be for five years to avoid kind of ongoing contract negotiations. Yeah. And I think the one big question is like, you know, how the procurement process could ensure that when it comes back to the board, the options we receive are going to be most, you know, responsive to our priorities and goals. And what do we do if somebody who's really good at administration doesn't have... the track record for the kind of innovation and technology tools and solutions that are anticipated all in this one contract. I understand some of them previously have been three or four years, five years is a

320big commitment to a single vendor for a lot of things. So that's what I'd most like to understand. Yes, I understand what you're saying and I think what we're planning to do is encourage vendors to try to work together to submit an application together where there would be one larger general contractor and that vendor who has a specialty would be a subcontractor in that area. In terms of the five-year timeline, I'll let Mao Vang speak to this if she has anything to add, but I would just say that again You know, we did do a shorter timeline in the past, and it resulted in a lot of contract amendments, and so we were constantly in this churn of contract amendments, contract approvals, contract monitoring. So that was our main motivation. Yeah. And what would we

321do if we got a vendor, you know, three vendors, one of whom is really good at this and somebody else is really good at that, and somebody else has, you know, yet a third thing? Will there be flexibility to create? set of skills and tools that are available to us. Hi, good afternoon. Mel Vang, Director for the Assessment Division at the CDE. I just wanted to say a few words about that piece. This contract is very special, for lack of a better word, or very different because you could pretty much do that through the negotiation process as well, right? There's the piece of it's not just deciding through the procurement process only, but once... that process goes through, there's also opportunity to negotiate with the contractor or groups of contractors that submit that final application

322that makes it through the process. So I hope that that would help at that end where the CDE leadership as well as SBE and Department of Finance, it's a whole statewide effort to make sure that we get what we need to lead the efforts of this very important contract for the whole state. All right, thank you. So we'll look forward to hearing more about that in September because I know this is going to come back then. Kim Portillo Bronson is on the phone and I think is wanting to ask a question also. DIRECTOR HAMPSON- I had just one quick comment which is appreciating the call out in the proposed goals and priorities for making the information accessible to families and frontlining that as an explicit goal and priority. The question that I had is about

323sort of thinking about how how these data reflections could potentially be mine to get us to more of the type of information that we've been discussing in terms of portrait of a learner. Particularly thinking about how many reports have come out of late around the degree to which AI will make so many jobs of the future, ones that don't exist today, and will require that learner and adaptability mindset. I'm just wondering if how and if you see that as part of this. Yes, thank you. Yes, we definitely do see ourselves moving in that direction in terms of Portrait of a Learner and something that we want to highlight in our next contract as something that we want to focus on. We'll have more specific information for you as we develop the RFS. Any other questions?

324Member Escobedo? I'm just curious. What type of portrait of the learner will you be using to help inform? I'm just trying to understand because we have so many throughout the state. That's still to be determined. We're still in the early stages of writing the RFS, so we need to narrow down some of that information. Okay, thank you. Well, we hope to have one ourselves to adopt sometime in the next. And I think it's the timeliness of ours. Yeah, that's what I mean. When will the RFS go out the door? We're hoping to get that out sometime this fall because it takes a lot of time for the vendors to prepare as well to give them as much time as possible. So this is an opportunity for you to provide some of that feedback, right? If

325having a portrait of a learner. through this process to put something out there statewide is important and maybe this negotiated contract could allow us to do something system-wide like that, that might be one point of feedback. We will have developed something through our process but we might want it to be reflected in what is being looked at. So I guess I think this is an information item, so we can move along. I would just suggest that we really pay attention to this question of potential divisibility, that we've got science, English learners, math and English language arts, development, administration, innovation, all in one big contract. So I think we're going to be wanting to be sure that we're getting the best. support we can get in every area and just to keep that in mind as

326we're going through this process. Absolutely. Thank you. All right. And we have finished. There was no public comment, so we're going to move right along. I'm trying to be expeditious here so everybody makes their plane. Item 5 is the English Language Arts ELA, ELD Instructional Materials Follow-Up Adoption. There's an approval of a Schedule of Significant Events Reviewer Application, an Adoption Notice, and Review of the SBE-Approved Evaluation Criteria Map and Standards Maps. And that's the list of things we're gonna be asked to approve and the item will be presented by Mike Torres of the CDE. Mike, nice to see you. All right, thank you so much. And hello Board President Darling-Hammond, Vice President Glover-Woods, members of the board, and those watching. watching this meeting. So thanks for having me back here. It feels like I was

327just here not too long ago, and I just love talking about curriculum, right? You heard me say yay math about a year ago, and we heard a yay science a little bit earlier today, right? And so now we're going to talk yay English language arts, English language development. So, so very excited for that. So today, as you mentioned, we're recommending that you approve a set of documents to kick off this process for an English language arts, English language development follow-up adoption. In your packet, you have a draft 2026 California English language arts, English language development, instructional materials follow-up adoption notice of intent. A draft 2026 California ELA-ELD instructional materials follow-up adoption schedule of significant events. A draft 2026 California ELA-ELD instructional materials follow-up adoption online application to serve on a review panel. So, as I've

328outlined to this body before, there are three pillars of work that we have in the Curriculum Frameworks and Instructional Resources Division. That's the standards, the frameworks, and subsequently the instructional materials that are aligned to that framework and aligned to those standards. Those are all interconnected. When standards are created or revised, the frameworks guide their implementation and they specifically define the criteria for which standards and frameworks aligned in structural materials for educators will be reviewed to ensure students meet those standards. In the past, frameworks revisions encompass the chapter's outlining requirements for publishers, that's the instructional materials evaluation criteria, and initiating a full primary adoption. And most recently, this process played out, as you recall, after the board adopted the 2023 mathematics framework, which included the revised criteria for publishers submitting materials for this year's mathematics instructional

329materials adoption, which we kicked off in early 2024. And just in two weeks, we'll be reconvening some reviewers, a large number of them over the course of two weeks here in Sacramento, to come up with what they found and recommend materials for mathematics. But today, ELA is on the spotlight for this action. Today, we're asking for your approval to initiate this follow-up adoption. So you might be wondering, when you looked at the information for this item, what is a follow-up adoption and what's a primary adoption? Why isn't it a primary adoption? Or even, why is ELA ELG adoption action occurring so closely to the current mathematics instructional materials adoption? Well, I'm glad that you asked. I happen to have an answer for that. I'm so glad. But before we jump into the answers to some

330of that, just a little bit of history on how we got to where we're here today. So in the governor's budget bills, Senate Bill 101, funds are appropriated to support the 25-26 fiscal year activities of the Instructional Quality Commission, your advisory body, with respect to everything related to curriculum and instruction. And that includes any operational costs necessary for the IQC to initiate an ELA-ELD adoption for the... 25-26 fiscal year. The funds that were appropriated are available for encumbrance or expenditure until June 30th of 2026. So as a follow-up adoption it would align to the current ELA-ELD framework including integrated and designated English language development instruction, oral language development, vocabulary and background knowledge and comprehension. Materials would also need to be aligned to the dyslexia guidelines and additional guidance that's been funded and required to be

331developed to support this follow-up adoption and subsequent implementation of the ELA-ELD development instructional materials by the IQC and the State Board of Education. This guidance was authorized by the Governor's Education Omnibus Trailer Bill, Assembly Bill 121, in order to support this follow-up adoption. All right, now back to that burning question of, Dr. Torres, what is a follow-up adoption? Education Code 60227 describes a follow-up adoption as any adoption other than the primary adoption. Genius. The follow-up adoption can include communication with publishers to determine publisher interest in participating in such a follow-up adoption The follow-up adoption is further detailed in the California Code of Regulations title 5 section 951 7.1 Requiring the preparation of the documents that we have prepared for your review today and that were recommended that were recommended by the IQC at their July

3322nd meeting just last week Again, they include the schedule of significant events specific to this follow-up adoption and instructional material reviewer or IMR content review expert or CRE application for the follow-up adoption that's similar in content to the IMR and CRE applications that were used in the primary adoption, as well as a notice of intent to hold the follow-up adoption with the information that's specified within said regulation. Someone might think then if this is a follow-up adoption and we already have a list, what's the interplay and the interaction of those things with each other, right? Are the new materials going to replace the current materials? Well, let me cite education code. Instructional materials approved by the State Board of Education in a follow-up adoption shall be added to the existing adoption list for that subject

333and remain on the list until the established expiration date for that list pursuant to regulations. Follow-up adoption shall be based on the curriculum framework and the evaluation criteria used for that primary adoption. The following procedures for the adoption of instructional materials for the primary adoption as set forth in multiple regulations from 9510 to 9525. My staff actually wrote every single one and I wasn't going to read them all for you. So then the other question is that why is this so close? We're not even finished with mathematics and we're going to conduct an ELD follow-up adoption. Well, first and foremost, the last time English language arts materials were adopted by the State Board was 2015. And a lot has occurred since 2015. That's 10 years of best practices, research. 10 years of publishers and content

334developers who have possibly created some new and novel ways to teach literacy. And literacy is on the forefront. And so it does make sense. There had been a piece of law that was in place to keep the two mathematics and ELA from being adopted within one year of each other. But that was repealed in last year's trailer bill of 2024. So now we can proceed. with a much anticipated ELA ELD adoption. So follow-up adoption. So I'm gonna take you back in time just a little bit back to 2014. For the record, it was my second year here at the Department of Education and not really knowing what I was doing. But let's look at that 2014 curriculum framework for ELA ELD. And note that this slide does say that it was adopted in July of

3352015, that was an oversight. So July 9, 2014. So although the ELA-ELD framework is currently 11 years old, it does remain California's blueprint for ELA and ELD guidance. It provides a comprehensive and integrated model of literacy that provides evidence-based literacy instruction in the classroom. It's grounded in relevant research and among other important guidance, it advocates for explicit instruction in phonics, phonemic awareness, and other decoding skills, as well as the development of vocabulary, comprehension, writing, speaking, and listening skills. In fact, emphasizing its relevance just last year, the department's co-directors of literacy, Nancy Brynelson and Dr. Bonnie Garcia, provided the field with a nine-part webinar series designed to recenter onto the ELA-ELD framework. Each gathering reached hundreds of educators from across the state, including educators at the school, district, county, and higher education level. all of whom

336wanted to refresh their knowledge about California's recommended literacy policies and practices, as well as why the ELA-ELD framework is as relevant today as it is in 2014. This webinar series and resources are available on the CDE website, as well as via a playlist on YouTube for anyone who wants to view them. Now let's talk about that evaluation criteria chapter that I've been alluding to throughout the beginning of this presentation. It's chapter 12, if you want to skip right to it, and the evaluation criteria includes five main areas of review. It outlines the criteria for evaluating instructional materials in both primary and follow-up adoptions. These criteria are used by publishers to develop materials that are aligned to this framework. And as noted earlier, the stipulations and regulations note that follow-up adoption shall be based on the

337curriculum framework and the evaluation criteria that's issued for the primary adoption. Category one includes instructional materials, checks for instructional materials including the content that's specified in the California Common Core State Standards for ELA and the California English Language Development Standards as appropriate for the program type that's being submitted. Programs must meet all of the identified standards for the appropriate program type to be eligible for adoption. Instructional materials support instruction and learning of the standards and include such features as the organization and design of the programs and standards in chapters, units, lesson overviews, and glossaries. That was category number two of the review. Category number three talks about assessment. ironically enough, after our assessment items. Instructional materials include assessments for measuring what students know and are able to do and provide guidance for teachers on how

338to use assessment results in order to guide and inform instruction. Category four, instructional materials provide access to the standards-based curriculum for all students. That's inclusive of our English learner students, our students with disabilities, advanced learners, students who are below grade level, and any of the strands of English language arts and those who speak African American English. Category five, information and materials contain a clear roadmap for teachers to follow when planning instruction and are designed to help teachers provide effective standards-based instruction. So we talked about the 2014 curriculum framework in the ELA-ELD. Let's talk a little bit about the 2015 primary adoption. Ultimately, it was a two-year process to start and finish that primary adoption. It was scheduled to effectively accommodate reviewer schedules to ensure that our educators were available to be trained on how to

339review instructional materials in those best best practices as well as have some time over their well-deserved summer vacation to review instructional materials and then reconvene before the school year starts in July in order to deliberate and talk about their recommendations to the State Board of Education. In 2015, the State Board of Education appointed IMRs and CREs over the course of two separate meetings. The reason there were two separate meetings back in 2015 is because there were only 127 applications received during the first application period, which fell short of our needed 220 plus reviewers to conduct the adoption. So the reviewer application was reopened and we ultimately were able to acquire enough instructional material reviewers and content review experts to proceed with the adoption. Also important to share is that the curriculum framework provides for five

340different programs to be submitted by publishers and content developers. The first program is a basic English language arts program in K through eight. Program number two is a basic ELA-ELD program in K through eight. Program number three is a basic biliteracy course. Program number four is intensive intervention course. And program number five is a specialized English language development course. And so back in 2015, there were 27 programs that were submitted for review by publishers. 25 of those programs were recommended by the IMR CRE panels with some recommendations contingent upon completion of edits and corrections as is our regular practice. And on the current list now, we have six programs available in that program one type. We have nine programs in program two. We have two programs in our program three type, five programs in program

341four, and three in our program five. So while there has not been an official revision to the 2014 curriculum framework, it's been used as crucial guidance to align a number of our statewide initiatives that were brought forth to support and improve literacy instruction for California's students. These include the English Learner Roadmap, the Dyslexia Guidelines, the Comprehensive State Literacy Plan, Literacy Roadmap, and of course the work that's recently been done on universal screeners for those with reading difficulties. To support those guidance documents that I just talked about on the previous slide, the state has provided funding for school districts in the form of block grants and initiatives rooted in state superintendent of public instruction, Tony Thurmond's Reading by Grade Three initiative. These include the California Dyslexia Initiative, the Comprehensive Literacy State. comprehensive literacy state development grant,

342the early literacy support block grant, the reading instruction and intervention grant, and the literacy coaches and reading specialists grant. Additional initiatives that are not listed on this slide, such as the reading and literacy supplementary. Authorization Incentive Grant, the Arts, Music, and Instructional Materials Block Grant, which could be utilized for ELA, ELD materials, and the Reading Instruction and Intervention Grant were also available. New educators have seen revised literacy teacher performance expectations since the last adoption, and literacy teaching performance assessment and preparation program standards reading and literacy supplementary authorization incentive grant. Here we are fast forward to last month. Breaking news, June 2025, the governor released the Golden State Literacy Plan here in June of 2025. And it highlights current and ongoing investments in improving literacy across the state. The state invested a total of $715 million

343for literacy coaches from 2022 and beyond. And as of the current 24-25 school year, 818 of the state's highest needs. schools have been funded to hire and train literacy coaches and reading specialists. We've moved to ensure our youngest learners are on track by approving tools to identify reading difficulties. In fact, the 24 Budget Act provided $25 million to support educator training and administering these literacy screenings. And starting this upcoming school year in 25-26, California's kindergarten, grade one, and grade two students will be annually screened for reading difficulties, which potentially impacts 1.2 million students at the earliest ages. Prior to these approved screeners, the state-funded Multitudes Literacy Screener, developed by the University of California in San Francisco, was created. It became widely available for use by schools across the state last year in 2024, and is

344still the only no-cost option available to screen all students in all three required grades in Spanish as well as in English. The Commission on Teacher Credentialing in 2015 adopted teacher education standards aligned to the ELA-ELD framework and further updated the literacy program standards in 2022 to align with evidence-based literacy instruction. In 2024, the Commission also strengthened the literacy assessment of teacher candidates. The superintendent has aligned his priorities with these investments, including the Move the Needle convenings with educational leaders across the state. This initiative focused on raising test scores through transformed systems and aligning funding, tools, and strategies to accelerate academic growth in English language arts and mathematics. Now that I've talked to all to death, let's talk about what I've asked you to review and approve so we can kick off this ELA-ELD adoption. The

345first is the notice of intent to hold an adoption. This document is spelled out in Title V regulations, and if approved, the notice of intent will be posted on the CDE website, and it'll be distributed to all publishers and content developers that are known to produce basic instructional materials in this subject. The posted notice will include an approved schedule of significant events, a statement that each publisher choosing to participate will be charged a fee of $8,000 per grade level for each program that is submitted for review. Interested publishers who respond to the notice with a statement of intent submit to the department in accordance with the date set forth in the schedule of significant events that we'll talk about here in a second. And each publisher's intent to submit will include the number of programs

346that the publisher will submit and the number of grade levels covered by each program. Now, it is important to note that publishers or content developers can request a small publisher fee as defined by education code. The small publisher fee is a reduction based on qualifying documentation submitted in response to this notice of intent. There were several small publisher content developers that utilized this fee reduction in the current mathematics adoption that we are just finishing up. This slide is a representation of the schedule of significant events that you have before you. Note it's not the full schedule. There are only highlights on here. This this span of time ensures the CDE plan plan aligns with education code and regulations and it allows for involvement from reviewers and content experts provides publishers with communication on the necessary

347elements for effective instructional materials and time to create and present their programs and allows for the involvement and support from members of the Instructional Quality Commission and the State Board of Education In order to ensure that our reviewers can engage in a comprehensive review and also convene in Sacramento for deliberations, we need to train them in the spring so that they can use the summer break to perform a comprehensive review. As such, the draft schedule proposes traditional training and deliberation dates which advances State Board of Education action on submitted materials to November of 2026. Also note advanced communication with publishers. Rather than hold an intent to submit in January as has been our practice, we've moved the presentation up to September because of the escalated timelines of this adoption. On the side you'll also note

348the proposed window for reviewer recruitment beginning in August next month in September will host the invitation to submit meaning meeting meaning that by the end of October our division can start to prepare and recommend reviewers to the instructional Quality Commission and share that information received from publisher intent forms and small publisher fee reduction requests also due in October According to our draft, the State Board can then appoint reviewers and consider small publisher fees at your meeting in January of 2026, and the CDE will collect publisher fees in April and conduct training of facilitators and reviewers in Sacramento at the end of April. The programs will be due May 6th of 2026, giving reviewers potentially 10 weeks to review assigned programs. This draft currently includes two weeks for deliberations as we're currently doing with mathematics. This

349can change depending on publisher submissions and the size of the follow-up adoption. In other words, we may only need one week instead of the two, but we are asking for two just in case it is as large as mathematics. It's also important to note that the posted draft schedule of significant events includes board adoption of the guidance document that I alluded to earlier to support the review and implementation of the ELA-ELD materials to be approved to inform this adoption. The details of this guidance are outlined in the Governor's Education Omnibus Trailer Bill, and we're working to ensure that the board can approve this in November of 2025. And I'll end by noting that the IQC last week recommended the draft schedule for significant events for review and approval to this body at their meeting last

350week. The last item for your consideration is the reviewer application. Recognizing that the trailer bill language does mandate the creation of guidance to support this adoption, we incorporated elements from the language within trailer bill within the reviewer application so that we can best meet the needs of this adoption. To update the application, our team solicited feedback from our colleagues from other divisions within the department. Yay, breakdown silos at the department. We worked with our multilingual support division to ensure educator expertise and experience aligns with expectations within our English Learner Roadmap and support for students who are English learners. We also work with our special education division to ensure that reviewers have experience working with students with disabilities including universal design for learning, individualized instruction plans, and section 504 plans. We also work with our state's

351literacy co-directors to ensure accuracy in reviewer qualifications around literacy and language development and to ensure that expertise aligns with the work in the preschool learning foundations for language development and the state's literacy roadmap. The reviewer application was also discussed at the July 2nd IQC meeting and recommended to the State Board for approval. During that meeting, commissioners in the ELA-ELD Subject Matter Committee discussed the application, providing feedback on the section outlining content expertise, which can be found at the bottom of page four and onto page five. This section identifies a bulleted list of areas of expertise, asking applicants to identify how they relate to our current work. Commissioners discussed nuances between expertise in the aspects of ELA concepts and standards that are identified in bullet one versus the expertise in direct, systematic, explicit instruction in foundational

352skills that are found in bullet number two. They recommended that on page five of the application we remove the second bullet which reads quote, direct systematic explicit instruction in foundational skills such as print concepts, phonological awareness, phonics, and word recognition and fluency, close quote. They further suggested taking that language and instead moving it upward into the introductory paragraph so that it applies to all of the bullet points subsequently below it. The Seaford staff is ready to implement this change from the draft that you currently have. The full IQC also recommended the draft reviewer application for review and approval by the State Board of Education. So that brings me back to a reminder of our recommended action. So after this lengthy overview, key definitions and draft documents that are created to initiate. this follow-up adoption. We

353are asking you today and we are recommending the state board approve the draft 2026 ELA-ELD Instructional Materials Follow-up Adoption Notice of Intent, the draft 2026 California ELA-ELD Instructional Materials Follow-up Adoption Schedule of Significant Events, and the draft 2026 California ELA-ELD Instructional Materials Follow-up Adoption Online Application to serve on the review panel. Now I've been doing a lot of talking and you've been doing a lot of listening. So that concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions that you have at the appropriate time. Are there clarification questions at this moment? I do have one, which is you talked about something the IQC recommended that we do differently. And I didn't see it in my item. So maybe it's there and you could refer me to where to look or you could explain it again. Yes,

354absolutely. So the recommendation by the Instructional Quality Commission is that on page five of the application, there is a bulleted list of the qualifications for the reviewers. And the recommendation was to take the second bullet that's identified on page five, the one that says direct, systematic, explicit instruction in foundational skills such as print concepts, phonological awareness, phonics. word recognition and fluency and to move that content into the introductory paragraph for that section because the assumption is that the reason is that that that applies to all of the other bullets it shouldn't be its own separate bullet because the way the language is written in there is that reviewers could provide their expertise in any one of those bullet points and really it's imperative that reviewers have expertise in everything identified in that second bullet. So

355that's the reason the IQC recommended to move that up to the. On page five, did you say, of attachment? Tell me again where to look. On page five of the application, it's attachment number three. And. I'm on page five of nine of attachment three. My notes say page five, but it's actually page four. Bottom of page four under content expertise. And that second bullet point starting with direct and ending with fluency is being recommended to be moved up to the introductory paragraph prior to the bullets. I don't see, I'm trying to understand what that would read. Explain the role that one or more of the areas of expertise below. What would that paragraph now say if you move it up there? Let's see, I don't have a copy of our. I can't make it make

356grammatical sense. I can't make it, I can't put it together in a way that makes sense for me. So, you know, we could come back to that, but I'll just note that I'm a little stuck there and maybe you can unstick me at some point. Other clarification questions? All right, let me, oh, okay. Member Petillo-Bronson? I'm actually, it's not a clarification question, so I'll say that. Okay, so we'll wait for discussion. Yeah, sounds good. So we'll put up the public comment slide, and then while we're waiting for people to queue up for public comment, we'll ask our liaisons, Vice President Glover-Woods and Member Lewis, if they have any initial comments before me. All right. Thank you very much. First of all, again, just thank you to Dr. Torres and Seaford staff for really facilitating a

357very good IQC meeting as well as this process in and of itself. Just so... a reminder of the fact that the follow-up adoption is meant to supplement the existing list, not replace the existing list. And I think Dr. Torres touched on that quite clearly in his presentation. And I also thank him for the responsiveness to the... IQC feedback related to moving information on that application. And President Darlingham, and I know we'll get some clarification on what that looks like, during the conversation it was stated that it was important that reviewers understood direct systematic instruction in all of those areas, not that being its own sub-bullet in and of itself. And then the last part I will add is the process that has been utilized for the mathematics instructional materials review has gone very well. Seamlessly,

358reviewers have been set up for success for their summer review, and I'm quite confident that as we engage in the ELA-ELD follow-up adoption process, it will be just as effective as what has happened thus far with mathematics. Member Lewis? I won't add a lot. But I'll add a little bit more than ditto. So again, my thanks also to Dr. Torres for the very thorough presentation. I think he really outlined the why, the what, and the reason behind this. And the only other thing that I would like to point out is that the... another reason the why behind this if you remember in the agenda item it talked about how a lot of our students are still not meeting grade level standards for literacy and so even though the framework is still valid everything that was

359produced before there is a need to incorporate new innovative evidence-based strategies and instructional approaches to help our our teachers better instruct our students. So this is timely. It seems like the schedule of significant events is very compressed, very quick, but I think that's in order to meet our deadline of November 2026 in order to get this adopted. So kudos to everyone who had a hand in making this possible, especially the IQC bringing this recommendation to us. And that's all I will add. All right. Do we have any public comment in the room? Yes, we have four people signed up for in-person public comment. Will the following people please sign up at the microphone in the back of the room? Brian Rivas, Andrea Ball, Christina Salazar, and Heather Calamese. Hi, I'm not Brian Rivas. I'm Andrea

360Ball. Here on behalf of the California Association of Suburban School Districts, delighted that this follow-up adoption is taking place. Thank the State Board, the State Superintendent, and the Department for the leadership and work on literacy. We discussed the follow-up adoption at our spring meeting of the suburban school districts and district leaders are thrilled to have an enthusiastic to have this coming to have updated materials that reflect recent research best practices I think one of the questions that came up is how long will these materials be? Considered on the adopted list. How long was does this list last because I think in the past there were traditionally eight-year cycles. I don't think we have that now. But a heads up on how long this is expected to last I think will help districts as they make

361decisions on selection, piloting, and purchasing new materials. Thank you. Good afternoon, Cristina Salazar with Californians Together. We would like to urge that despite the short timeline, the adopted materials should reflect California's rich diversity and build on students' home languages and cultural assets. We urge publishers to develop high-quality resources aligned with the comprehensive literacy approach to the ELA-ELD framework, addressing the full range of English learner typologies, including... newcomers, long-term English earners, and duly identified students. We also urge the call for support for reviewer expertise in comprehensive ELD and recommend that each reviewer panel include at least one such expert to ensure language development and equity are fully considered. Lastly, with the expansion of TK, we encourage the inclusion of TK and early learning experts in the review process, especially to support multilingual children who speak language

362other than English at home. Thank you so much. Good afternoon President Darling-Hammond and members of the board. Heather Calamees with Edvoice. I just wanted to thank you all for embarking on the ELA-ELD instructional materials adoption process. Your commitment ensures that students and teachers have access to high quality evidence-based resources that support literacy development for all. Looking forward to getting this process underway and engaging further in the coming months. Thank you. And we have three people, three callers in the queue. I'll open the phone line now. Caller with the last four digits, 4301, you are now live. Please start your public comment. You have one minute. Good afternoon, Lindsay Tornatore on behalf of the California County Superintendent. We support the CDE's proposals and commend Dr. Torres and the CFIRS team's work, fully recognizing the significant undertaking

363of leading a large-scale math adoption while simultaneously preparing for the first-ever ELA-ELD follow-up adoption. We would also like to make two requests. First, we urge CDE to clearly communicate this follow-up adoption is intended to supplement, not supplant, existing ELA-ELD materials. Given its timing so close to the math adoption, there is a risk LEAs could mistakenly believe they are required to adopt new instructional materials. Second, we request that CDE release the guidance to support the follow-up adoption of instructional materials for public comment before the November 2025 SBE 10-day posting period. While we recognize the limited timeline prevents IQC review, additional time for feedback would be appreciated. The CISC ELA-ELD Committee values its ongoing partnership with CDE and is eager to support the development of this guidance. Thank you for considering our request. Thank you. Next caller

364with the last four digits, 2051, you are now live. Please start your public comment. You have one minute. Good afternoon. My name is Amber Riemann, a professional learning specialist with Californians Together. Before this role, I taught newcomer students for eight years, and I've seen the difference it makes when materials truly reflect who they are and what they need. As you consider the ELA-ELB instructional materials follow-up adoption, I urge you to prioritize the unique needs of newcomer students. One-size-fits-all English learner strategies simply don't meet the needs of newcomer students. Instructional materials must reflect the diversity of their experiences. especially for those who have interrupted formal education and must include culturally responsive resources that meet them where they are. AB 714 recognized this need by calling out the importance of tailored supports for newcomers. Let's ensure that

365the materials adopted not only meet policy requirements, but truly reflect the students who we serve, honoring their stories, strengths, and starting points. Thank you. Thank you. Next caller with the last four digits, 1389. You are now live. Please start your public comment. You have one minute. Good afternoon. My name is Sarah Kleinberg and I'm an advocate with the English Learner Leadership and Legacy Initiative partnered with Californians Together. First, I want to thank the board for putting forward this second go at adopting English and ELD curriculum. I do want to echo a comment previously of the importance of making sure that there are ELD content experts on every panel of reviewers. So many of our students are passing that six-year mark and entering middle school because their needs are not being met as newcomers or even

366as like mid-range learners. in their elementary curriculum. And this is an opportunity to sort of stop that pipeline to long-term English learner identification and allow students to be fluent and ready for middle school and high school to be as academically successful for post-secondary opportunity as possible. So thank you again so much for this. Thank you. Next caller with the last four digits, 7557. You are now live. Please start your public comment. You have one minute. Hello, this is Martha Hernandez, Executive Director of Californians Together. I'm calling at the last minute. I am very concerned about the change that was recommended by the IQC. I think I need more information as it would suggest that that one component of foundational skills. Direct systematic instruction would apply across all areas or be given primacy to the other

367elements of the ELA-ALD framework. And of course, direct systematic instruction is an important component. It is not the only component. And so I'm hoping that there will be more conversation about this. if there's a component that should apply across everything it would be integrated eld but so hopefully there there's more explanation and discussion about that and again concerned and maybe opposed to the change thank you thank you that concludes public comment for item number five great uh so at this point we're all open for board discussion Maybe Yoshimoto Tauri, you're raising a finger. Does the board member, Priscilla Brunson, wanted to? Oh, yes. Board member Priscilla Brunson, we want to come back to you first because you were ready. Go ahead. So I have three questions. The first is. about the possibility of updating some

368of the language that recurs throughout the motion as well as the broader item that uses the old language of K-12, which I recognize, obviously, there's lots that's still in statute that if you're referencing a reg or a statute that should actually have the title. But there's lots that is forward looking, particularly in the context of the reviewer application referring to K-12 experience, K-2 experience. And so my amendment proposal would be to actually update and just do a quick find and replace for anywhere that is not statutorily or regulatorily required to refer to old language or even the 2014-2015 materials adoption that we update it to reference TK-12. I also just want to say, obviously, I recognize that TK is the first year of a two-year kindergarten experience. And I think many people, as a function

369of whether they identify as a TK teacher versus a kinder teacher, would not see themselves in it if it's not explicitly signaled. The other point related to that that I wanted to lift up, I appreciated Dr. Torres's reference around alignment and sort of moving beyond silos and the mention of how to build in. the Preschool Learning Foundations and just would encourage that again that be explicit it doesn't appear in the text of the documents for the item and would want to make sure that we are not missing the opportunity for that alignment. Maybe I'll pause there before I get to the other two points and see if there's any response. from the department. Mike, do you have any response to any of those points? Absolutely. So as far as the point about the preschool learning

370foundations, so I believe the general idea is that this guidance is going to be created to help inform this adoption. We'll be able to help us include some of that guidance to our reviewers as well as to publishers. on what that looks like. So that is the hope, that is the way in which we can incorporate the preschool learning foundations as well as the P3 progressions into this adoption. And then as far as the find and replace for TK, there's no opposition from the department to go in and change all of those. I just remind the state board that it is a K-8 adoption, although TK is mentioned and included within the materials as well as high school. The focus of the adoption is on K-8. And I would just raise the question. Because the

371way the standards are written, the criteria are written now, all materials have to include all things. We wouldn't want to get things that are labeled TK that are actually inappropriate for TK or have publishers not able to come to the table because they haven't thought through what a TK curriculum should be. So while I think it's important to be thinking about those questions, I just want to be sure that we also are. seeking to both get a wide range of good materials and not suggest to people that they need to label something TK that isn't and thereby become developmentally inappropriate. It may be a little bit of a tightrope that we have to run there. DIRECTOR HAMPSON- I would also submit that the place where I could see a lot of this work being done

372is in the reviewer application material where if it were in if the invitation were to TK onwards teachers and experts that that is a place where I think that developmentally appropriate lens could be brought to bear. DIRECTOR HAMPSON- Yeah. And we might even think of it at this point as as we have in the other materials as pre-K, TK, because a lot of the four year olds are in pre-K. But that's a good point, a good place to look for it. Kim, did you have another third point? Yes. Actually, so the second question is just if Mr. Torres could address the newcomer, the degree to which the newcomer issue is encompassed within some of the existing materials, or actually, I would just be more interested to hear his thoughts on that. And then the last

373question is about the PowerPoint. Slide six lays out the evaluation criteria. Interspersed throughout the document, there's several references to evidence-based instructional materials, but I was somewhat surprised to see that the evaluation doesn't actually... lift up whether there is an evidence base for the materials that are either being proposed to be repurposed from another state to the extent that some publishers might do that, or that there are techniques that are evidence-based that have been shown to drive growth, that that strikes me as something that should be part of our evaluation rubric as we're considering different materials. Thank you so much for those questions. So starting off with the newcomer question and meeting the needs of all learners. So the evaluation criteria for category four point to universal access and points to ways in which the reviewer

374can evaluate instructional materials for students who or multilingual learners or students with disabilities. So it is encompassing in there and then when we get into the reviewer training, we can go in and provide some additional guidance to our reviewers of what it means to meet the needs of English learners and what does it mean to meet the needs of a newcomer. So there is some latitude in there with respect to universal access of the instructional materials. And then the evidence-based piece as well as the newcomer piece may play into the guidance that has yet to be created that's going to be adopted by the State Board in November to help inform. this adoption. So it is possible to have some additional guidance within that that provides some further clarification on what some of the existing

375evaluation criteria mean, like what does it mean to be evidence-based and what are the latest evidence-based strategies since the adoption of the ELA-ELD framework back in 2014. All right. Thank you. I'm glad that member Portillo Brunson went first. I just need a clarification then on the some of the points that she said the because the math framework that we adopted in 2023 had chapter six that referenced transitional kindergarten even though statutorily and regulatorily where it's a k-12 framework the ELD frame yield the ELA LD framework does not have a chapter dedicated to TK. So what can you just clarify for me? I think you might have already answered it, but what is the process for addressing that seamless transition? That's a great question. So right now we're not able to open up the ELA-ELD framework

376to revise it, but the route in which we can provide further clarification and additional guidance to help inform the follow-up adoption as well as implementation of the ELA-ELD framework is through this guidance with the funding that we received this year in the trailer bill. And so the hope and the desire is for this guidance to help. fill in those gaps without having to reopen the entire framework, rather provide that further clarification. And so that's definitely an opportunity within this guidance to include information around that. Thank you. And the guidance, great. Second, the reviewer application, I'm glad that it asks for ELD expertise and expertise with students with disabilities. I would support a question on expertise with early learning or four-year-old is very different and although it's not in the framework the guidance will address that

377transition so it would be helpful to have something in specifically in the reviewer application and maybe in the front matter of the reviewer application to include the preschool transitional kindergarten learning foundations as a source document if that's appropriate or whatever the name of the new guidance is Vice President Glover Woods, did you have your hand up a minute ago? You did not, okay. Member Olkin? I just have a quick question. One of the people who gave public comment was talking about any guidance and understanding when there might be another framework, the ELA framework, and so as a way for LEAs to think about the level of investment at this point. Is that decided by statute? Do you have any guidance for us on that? Thank you so much for that amazing question. I sure wish

378I had a crystal ball. The development of curriculum frameworks as well as standards are typically driven by legislation and funding from the legislature as well as the go-ahead from the State Board of Education. Those have not lined up since 2019 to kick off and start the revision to the mathematics framework. I am very excited and very happy and pleased to share that one element within this year's Education Omnibus Trailer Bill includes a funding in order for the CDE to contract with an entity to do research on what do other states do with respect to standards, frameworks, and instruction. structural materials adoptions in an effort to help streamline our processes so that it's not potentially a multi-year process. I'm not against improvement or streamlining, but always like and love and appreciate the current open and transparent

379processes that we have here in California. But definitely excited to get that project under the... get going and I think that might help inform any kind of schedule of creation of adoptions and potentially cost related to future adoptions and development of curriculum frameworks. Thank you. I think that's, we've covered, oh, remember your Shimoda, Terry. One more question. I was a principal when the kids born in 2006 got to TK the very first year. And during that time, there were no materials. for TK teachers to use that were different than the kindergarten materials. So what happened is students either had to sit, have the same materials two years in a row, or they were, I guess it differed at different schools, how they were doing that some of the teachers didn't use the kindergarten materials in

380TK. But what... I just want clarity. Is it the idea that we would have supplementary materials for teachers who are in TK even though we've given everything else we've said today? Or is it not the idea that they would have additional? So ultimately what it boils down to is what is this guidance going to say? And how is this guidance going to help inform this adoption? There is a caveat or a mention within the Education Omnibus Trailer Bill that does talk about the usage of multiple programs. to meet subsets of the standards and subsets of the framework, which then kind of calls into mind what a partial program might look like. I would err on calling it supplemental materials because that might have another connotation to educators. But all of that is still being worked

381out as it's a new piece of legislation. I just want to say, given that we have more and more students entering TK as an option, as a four-year-old, I hope that we prioritize that. Thanks. And I really hope my colleagues in the early education division are watching because I've joked with them multiple times that, hey, you're welcome to participate so you can see what the adoption looks like should the early education division decide or be part of any kind of future adoptions. Sorry, Stephen, didn't mean to throw you under the bus. I mean, there's a gray area there just to be, the state board does not have jurisdiction over pre-K. TK is kind of pre-K, and so we do have jurisdiction over TK because it's part of kindergarten. There is work going on in the

382early childhood division around curriculum and getting recommendations and so on. So we should have them in this conversation in some way, and we should have people representing knowledge about that age group. But I just want to clarify that that is one of the things that is left unresolved. in the way that all the statues have grown up over time. And the language that Dr. Torres was referencing around multiple programs is, I think, we'll get more from the guidance about what that can mean, but suggests that if you adopt, you might adopt something that has a particular purpose or a particular grade level or whatever, and you must adopt other materials. that cover the rest of it, so to speak. But it is in part because the way the field of materials is growing up. The

383old image of just you get a big fat textbook and it has everything in it and that's what you're adopting is fast. changing in the world and you have some wonderful materials for example for foundational skills that may not be accessible to you if you also have a rule that says they have to have everything else in them for example and so I think this question which the guidance I hope will shed light on could allow people to develop a confluence of materials or a set of materials that do a good job of doing the various things that need to be done. I have two just quick comments. Something Linda said about adopting a curriculum that might not be developmentally appropriate for TK students. As someone who started her career in preschool, as a preschool

384teacher and have a degree in child development and all the necessary early childhood education units needed to teach TK. know that there's a large, just enormous difference between a four-year-old and a five-year-old. It is unbelievably different. It's when we had a whole discussion about the ELPAC, if you recall, about testing. And they're just, from the attention span to just their fine motor skills. And so I just cautioned the fact that we want to adopt something that would be... TK through forward that just would not meet the needs of those students. And I know that in different LEAs it looks different at the supports that they do for teachers when it comes to working with transitional kinder. I know that those supports are just so key and essential to ensuring that the materials are hands-on and

385exploratory and very constructivist when it comes to working with that population. I also want to mention about the incentives for participating as a reviewer. As a classroom teacher and knowing how difficult it is to be pulled away from the classroom, I notice that there are no stipends for participating. for, I'm sorry, there is a stipend, but there is no sub coverage. And I wonder if that would stifle maybe a teacher and encouraging them to participate. And I know that some of the work is done in July, so that's helpful because their expenses are paid. And is there sometimes partnerships with... regional counties of ed or with the districts for release time to cover the possible reviewer so that they would be more encouraged to have a larger pool of, because when I look at these

386qualifications, there's very few people that meet the extensive. qualifications, great. I mean, I applauded and I was looking and I said, yep, I meet that, I meet that. But someone like me would, you know, every day is so valuable and I would have to take a sick day to participate in May. Can we move on because I'm just watching the call. Sorry, I just thought, let's just call my question, sorry. Just because I want to encourage a larger pool of participants. Absolutely. Those are great points. So with the mathematics adoption, we did, for the first time, offer stipends to reviewers to try to increase the pool of reviewers and content review experts. And so we plan to do the same thing again this time around with English language arts, English language development. And the other

387is the placement of the training. As you mentioned, July for the deliberations is over the summer. So getting subs typically is not an issue unless it's a year-round school for that teacher. But typically the placement of our reviewer training is right around the spring break time, around that Easter holiday. And so it's strategic in that sense to try to, again, try to make as much time available for educators to be able to participate. and the adoption. I'm going to urge us to move along to a motion. We are now an hour and a half behind. We might get out by six if we stay on it, but we're literally, I worry about your airplanes, so I'm just trying to, I don't want to squelch any discussion. I do want to note that as we're getting

388ready to get a motion here that. We did hear some commentary about the IQC suggestion about moving something into the paragraph above. I've read it now several times. I can't see how that, I'm an old English teacher, I'll just confess to that, and I can't see how that works. in the sentence or grammatically. I don't know where you'd put it. But I'd also note that the first two bullets do underscore the very important aspects of foundational reading skills. Because the first one says, foundational reading skills including print concepts, phonological awareness, phonics and word recognition and fluency. The second bullet says, Direct systematic explicit instruction in foundational skills such as print concepts, phonological awareness, phonics and word recognition and fluency. So we already have it twice in the bullets. So I'm not sure whether there's, I

389mean, I think we should all acknowledge that that's very important and be sure that it is an important element, but I'm not sure that putting it, shoehorning it into a sentence which doesn't seem to have room for it will. emphasize it even more than it is emphasized now. So I would love for us to move to a motion if we can. Do you want to say something, Mike? Yeah, I did a phone a friend while we were having a discussion. And so here's the recommendation is explain the role one or more of the areas of expertise below relates to your current work, your qualifications to serve, or your experiences with standards-based educational programs and practices that include direct, systematic, explicit instruction and foundational skills such as print concepts, phonological awareness, phonics, and word recognition and

390fluency in. English language arts literacy and or English language development, which might very well be the longest run on sentence for an ELA ELD adoption, but it fits that content within the program. Yeah, I think that we've had questions raised about it and I personally think we should not try to shoehorn it in. And then might I add just one more thing in response to the preschool learning foundations and I'll make this really quick. Another phone or friend from my team is that criterion statement 5.18, so the 18th one, criterion five, says that kindergarten materials include guidance for teachers and administrators to adapt those materials for use in a transitional kindergarten setting, including a combination of transitional kindergarten, kindergarten class. Guidance should build on the California Preschool Learning Foundations, address appropriate social and emotional development

391and language and literacy skills and the pacing expectations and amount of learning that is situated in playful contexts. So there is an evaluation criteria specifically for that. However, we're hoping to get more from the guidance that's going to come out. Very helpful, thank you. Vice President Glover-Woods. I have a question and then I think I can go to a motion. Very quick question. In the motion. Can there be a statement in relation to the application that says CDE and SBE staff work together for the final? online application for reviewers. That makes sense because we got a lot of feedback about reviewer qualifications of many kinds. So. Okay. Okay. We'll add that to the, do you want to make a motion? I sure will. I sure will. Okay. I move that we approve the following items.

392The draft 2026 California ELA ELD instructional materials follow-up adoption notice of intent. The draft 2026 ELA ELD instructional materials follow-up adoption schedule of significant events. And the draft California ELA ELD instructional materials follow-up adoption online application to serve on the review panel with edits and collaboration between CDE and SBE staff on the final application. All right. Do we have a second? Thank you very much, Member Lewis. Any further discussion? Let's have a roll call. Sorry. The language that you just provided around having CDE and work on that will be reflective of the comments we just provided. Is that correct? Yes, as it relates to the application. That's the way the motion was, the way I stated the motion. We would be able to work together on finalizing the application. But not the actual rest of

393the document that refers to K-12 throughout. If you want to make a different motion on that, let's get this motion handled, okay? Okay. Come back to that. I'm just trying to keep things moving. Because, you know, we... We probably have to discuss that. So let's get this one done and then we can discuss that. We have a motion and a second. And we've had discussion on the motion. Can we have? So just additional discussion on the motion that I think might help to clarify for Member Portillo-Brownson. The three items that we would approve, the notice of intent and the schedule of significant events, I don't believe has a lot of language in it related to TK or K or some of the things we've been talking about. There may be more in the application. That

394really is a question for the guidance, I think. Yes. So I think we could. approve the motion as stated knowing that when we receive the guidance uh document that comes to us in november that's where we would see uh language that reflects the discussion that we just had so yeah that's very helpful thank you all right can we have a roll call remember clausen yes president darlin hammond yes members cabello yes president clever woods yes louis yes remember mcquillan Yes. Member Oken? Yes. Member Roscoe-Gonzalez? Yes. Member Petillo-Brownson? No. Member Rodriguez? Yes. Member Yoshimura-Towery? Yes. Motion carries. Okay. We're going to move on to consent agenda. And let me just ask, just so we know, because there's a certain point if we lose a certain number of board members, we can't pass. We have to have

395a certain number to pass anything. Are there folks who, if we go past 6 o'clock, will have to miss their planes or have to leave before 6? Okay, you're tight. Anyone else? All right. We're going to try to keep things moving, but we're right now kind of on schedule, slated for sometime after 6. Yeah. Okay. Let's keep going. Yeah. So let's... Stay focused. If we can. Consent agenda now is regular items six through 11. We'll open up the phone line for the queue for public comment on consent items six through 11. Members of the public wishing to provide comment can do so in person or by calling the telephone number and using the access code provided on the slide that is shown now. Are there any speakers signed up to provide comment in person? Nobody

396has signed up to provide comment. Okay. And how are we doing on the phone? There are no callers in the queue either. Okay. I'll ask for a motion on consent items six through 11. Thank you. A second. Thank you. Brooks, can you call the roll? Member Clawson? Yes. President Donahue-Hammond? Yes. Member Escobedo? Yes. Vice President Glover-Woods? Yes. Member Lewis? Yes. Member McQuillan? Yes. Member Oken? Yes. Member Roscoe-Gonzalez? No. Member Patil-Brownson? Yes, Rodriguez. Yes, maybe you're so Motari Mason cares Item 12 is the consideration of a request for a determination of funding for Phoenix Charter Academy College View as required for non-classroom based charter schools pursuant to California Education Code sections 47612.5 and 47634.2 and associated California Code of Regulations Title V. And the item will be presented by McKenna Huey from the CDE. Thank you.

397All right. Good afternoon, Board President Darling-Hammond, Vice President Glover-Woods, and esteemed members of the State Board. My name is McKenna Huey, representing the Charter Schools Division, and I'm here today to present Item 12. So item 12 consists of the determination of funding requests from Phoenix Charter Academy College View, hereby referred to as Phoenix. Phoenix requests 100% funding for its non-classroom based average daily attendance for its first two years of operation, which is 22-23 and 23-24. The department recommends that the state board deny the determination of funding request from Phoenix. At its June meeting, the advisory commission on charter schools heard this item and made two motions. The first motion made was to recommend approval of the department's recommendation to deny the request. This motion failed with a vote of two to six. The second motion

398made by the ACCS was to recommend approval of the request from Phoenix for 100% for one fiscal year, 22-23. And this motion passed with a vote of six to two. So a little bit of background on funding determination requests. Education code provides that charter schools may receive funding for their non-classroom based instruction or ADA only if a determination of funding is made by the state board. Regulations outline the specific eligibility requirements and criteria for funding for non-classroom based instruction. Regulations state that charter schools shall be funded pursuant to applicable regulations unless there is a reasonable basis to recommend otherwise. Regulations also provide that funding determinations shall be in increments of two to five years. So a little bit of background on Phoenix itself. But before jumping into that, the department does note that there is

399currently a moratorium on the establishment of new non-classroom based charter schools. Specifically, statute states that from January 1, 2020 through January 1, 2026, the approval for the establishment of a new charter school defined as non-classroom based is prohibited. The petition to establish Phoenix was approved on December 16th, 2021 by the governing board of the Columbia Elementary School District. The petition was approved as classroom-based and outlined two educational programs that it would offer. Specifically, the petition described a classroom-based personalized learning program in which the school week is divided into two parts, Monday, a home day for home-based independent study activities and a Tuesday through Friday classroom schedule. The petition also outlined a homeschool track in which students may engage in learning at the campus but would not be required to attend the school site to complete

400their assignments. So Phoenix implemented the educational programs outlined in its petition in its first year of operation and reiterated this on their actual funding determination form which is linked in this item. Phoenix's exact description is provided on this slide. With specific regard to how it reported its average daily attendance, Phoenix stated that it recorded all of the ADA generated by its classroom-based program, including Mondays, where it was optional on-site attendance, as classroom-based ADA. It also offered a full homeschool program to approximately 20% of its students. Education code defines classroom-based instruction and non-classroom-based instruction. Classroom-based instruction occurs when charter school pupils are engaged in educational activities required of those pupils and are under the immediate supervision and control of a certificated employee of the charter school. Non-classroom-based instruction occurs when a charter school's pupils are not

401under the immediate supervision and control of a certificated employee of the charter school. So as Phoenix stated in its petition, as well as on its funding determination form, it offered both a classroom-based and a full homeschool program. However, for its first year ADA, Phoenix initially reported 100% classroom-based instruction. Specifically, it reported approximately 273 units of classroom-based ADA to the department. As non-classroom based instruction occurs when charter school pupils are not under the immediate supervision and control of an employee of the charter school, in October 2023, after a meeting with the department, Phoenix revised its ADA to account for its homeschool program, which is detailed on this slide. Phoenix recorded all of the ADA generated through its classroom-based program as classroom-based ADA, even though students within that program were not under the immediate supervision of an

402employee of the charter school on Mondays. So in January 2024, the department notified Phoenix that its ADA could not be reported in this manner. In February 2025, Phoenix's revised 22-23 audit included a finding that Phoenix's actual non-classroom-based ADA exceeded 20% of its total ADA, as Phoenix offered remote classes for its classroom-based students on Mondays. And since instruction must occur in person to count as classroom-based, ADA for 34 Mondays must be reclassified as non-classroom-based. So as a result of this audit finding, Phoenix must report revised ADA for its first year of operation. So if we were to add all non-classroom based ADA generated through both of its programs, so the Mondays of its classroom based program, as well as its homeschool track, Phoenix's total non-classroom based percentage for its first year of operation is approximately 35%.

403To receive funding for its non-classroom based ADA, Phoenix requires a funding determination approved by the State Board. So the department's review. Based on audited first year data, Phoenix meets the regulatory requirements to qualify for its requested level of funding for its non-classroom based instruction, which it offered in its first year of operation. However, the department recommends that the state board deny Phoenix's request as permitted by regulations, which state that an exception for recommendation for funding may be made when there is a reasonable basis to do so, even if regulatory criteria have been met. The department finds the following as a reasonable basis for denying Phoenix's funding determination request. Phoenix was established and began serving students after January 1st, 2020, when the prohibition on the establishment of new non-classroom based charter schools was in effect. Phoenix

404offered non-classroom based instruction in excess of 20% during its first year of operation. Specifically in its first year, Phoenix's non-classroom based ADA constituted approximately 35% of its total ADA. The CDE finds that approval of Phoenix's request for a funding determination for its non-classroom based ADA in its first year would be inconsistent with the prohibition set out in statute. So in conclusion, the department recommends that the state board deny the determination of funding request from Phoenix. To reiterate what occurred at the June ACCS meeting, the commission did make two motions. The first motion was to recommend approval of the department's recommendation, and that motion failed with a vote of two to six. The second motion made was to recommend approval of the request for 100% funding for its non-costume-based instruction for one fiscal year, and this

405motion passed with a vote of six to two. So the department notes that the commission's recommendation was for funding for only one year. However, regulations does require that a funding determination be for at least two years. So if the state board does approve a funding determination, the period shall be for at least two years. However, for all of the reasons described in this presentation, the department recommends that the state board deny the determination of funding request as approval of a funding determination would be inconsistent with the prohibition on the establishment of new non-classroom based charter schools. Denial of this request would mean that Phoenix would not be eligible to receive apportionment funding for the non-classroom based ADA it reported in its first year of operation. However, it would continue to be eligible for apportionment funding

406for its classroom based ADA for that year. Thank you for your consideration of this item. That concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions the board may have. Turn to our liaisons. Well, let's post the public comment slide and turn to our liaisons for comment before we go to public comment. Vice President Glover-Woods? May I ask a clarification question before? Yes. Yeah. McKenna, you just mentioned that if the board were to approve the funding determination, it would have to be for two years, not just the 2022-23 that was recommended through ACCS. Did the charter have two years of non-classroom-based instruction, or was the 22-23 school year the only year that that occurred? The 22-23 school year was the only year in which the charter school reported non-classroom-based ADA in excess of 20%. Okay, thank

407you. Thank you. I can move to my comments and I'll make them very brief. A few points as the recommendation is to deny the funding determination. First is that Phoenix was approved as a classroom-based charter, not a non-classroom-based charter. It was authorized as a classroom-based charter. The State Board of Education issued a CDS code for them as a classroom-based charter. and they operated that first year based on what was in their charter, which was those Mondays. The threshold for meeting the classroom-based instruction after the 22-23 school year has occurred, so that was the only year where they fell below what would be considered a classroom base. based on what was shared in the CDE presentation, the information that the way they have it structured fell into the determination for non-classroom base came after the 22-23

408school year. That was not determined prior to them operating. So I'll leave that and I'll let Member Olkin. go into any other pieces that she may want. I won't try to hog the whole thing. But I think it's important to understand that context. Thank you. Yeah, just also briefly just to reiterate that while the prohibition prohibits approving new classroom based charter schools during the moratorium period and this school was actually approved as a classroom based charter school and then the second piece just that I want to make sure to point out is that this is a request for funding that in essence, or actually in reality, has already been given and spent. So it would be money over a million dollars that for approximately 95 students in the 22, 23 year school year, that the

409school would have to pay back, which is just over a million dollars if we were not to issue a funding determination. And I think that's it for now. Wait for public comment. Thank you. Is there any public comment in the room? Yes, there are seven people signed up for in-person public comment. Will the following people please line up at the microphone in the back of the room? Lee Rosenberg, Dr. P. Dougherty, Cassie Mancini, Eric Premack, Jeff Rice, Nicholas Watson, and Angela Stegall. Good afternoon. I'm Lee Rosenberg, legal counsel for the school. I submitted a detailed letter with attachments that I asked the board consider. I ask you to support ACCS's recommendation to approve a retroactive one-time funding determination for the school to avoid catastrophic loss of education funding that could cripple the school. CDE's opinion

410that granting funding determination to the school is contrary to the moratorium is simply not fair where the school is clearly eligible for 100% funding under SBE regs. It's needlessly harsh and disruptive and not in the interests of kids who were served two years ago. The school was approved by Columbia Elementary School District as a classroom-based charter. I helped write the petition as a classroom-based charter. Relitigating it here is not appropriate. See, the auditor for this school also approved the program before it was implemented. ACCS Commissioner Taylor highlighted the disconnect in his recommendation. He noted CDE was, and I quote, taking the law that was meant to prohibit non-classroom based charters, new ones being created, and stuffing it on top of this fact pattern, end quote. ACCS Commissioner quote said, and I quote, the charter acted

411in good faith. The CDE went back and relitigated the authorization. And that to me is problematic. Thank you. Your time is up. Thank you, Speaker. Your time is up. Hello, my name is Dr. Patricia Daugherty and I'm the Executive Director of Phoenix Charter Academy College View. I appreciate that it's been a very long day and so I just want to quickly underscore that the ACCS made a thoughtful recommendation after considering all the information and we ask that the State Board adopt the ACCS. CS recommendation to avoid severe harm to our students from funding loss. We're here to answer any questions you may have and thank you very much for your time and consideration. Good afternoon again, Jeff Rice with A plus in support of the ACCS recommendation for 100% funding for Phoenix Charter Academy. I

412also would like to reiterate a lot of the other comments and commend the ACCS for a very thoughtful and thorough review of the evidence and the facts and the history around Phoenix Charter Academy where they absolutely concluded without a doubt that Phoenix Charter Academy petitioned as a classroom based charter was approved as a classroom based charter was established as a classroom based charter and had the full intent to operate as a classroom based charter therefore finding the the department's position that it violated the moratorium on the establishment of new non classroom based charters completely unfounded and so I I recommend that you follow the ACCS recommendation and approve the charter for 100% funding. Thank you. Good afternoon. Nicholas Watson from the California Charter Schools Association. We also support the ACCS recommendation. The school should receive

413full funding. The moratorium should not apply to a classroom-based school, and there's no legitimate reason to deny funding to this school and to their students. Thank you. Angela Stegall, I'm a classroom teacher representing the California Teachers Association. CTA appreciates CDE's recommendation to deny the Phoenix Charter Academy College View's funding determination request for the 2022-2023 school year. Phoenix Charter Academy College View was established after January 1, 2020, and operated its first year as a non-classroom-based school. We agree with the CDE's analysis that an approval would conflict with education code added by AB 1505 that prohibited establishing new classroom-based charter schools. Thank you. There are five callers in the queue. I will open the phone line now. Caller with the last four digits, 9520, you are now live. Please start your public comment. You have one minute.

414Good morning, this is Kathy Mancini here on behalf of the California School Employees Association. CSEA would urge the SBE to adopt the staff recommendation to deny Phoenix Charter Academy's funding determination request. its petition to its authorizer and to the student Phoenix promised to operate a classroom based program and by falling below the instructional threshold Phoenix has failed to fulfill that promise the SDE cannot fund Phoenix through the non classroom based funding determination process because doing so would patently violate the statutory moratorium on establishing new non classroom based charters exposing the State Board to legal liability approving phoenix's request would also set a troubling precedent allowing other any other charter schools to reduce their in-person instructional time without authorizing or approval in order to circumvent the moratorium for these reasons we respectfully ask the sbe to

415adopt staff's recommendation thank you thank you next caller with the last four digits three eight eight seven you are now live please start your public comment you have one minute Hi, my name is Kara Brummett. I've been a parent at PCA for many years with three daughters that have been part of the program. In 2022, I was part of a team of people that helped move PCA to our new location and supported the petition for our classroom-based school when we were told by the sponsoring district that we could not move our blended model and had to become a classroom-based school. PCA did as their sponsoring district requested and put together a strong classroom-based program starting in 2022 and has continued to offer an exceptional program for the students and families. Because of the education that

416my children received through PCA, both in our blended model program and the classroom-based program, one has gone on to become a private business owner, one is starting nursing school in the fall, and one just completed the EMT program as the top student in her class. PCA has excelled at offering a student-centered classroom-based school since 2022, and I hope they will continue serving our students for many years to come. Thank you. Thank you. Next caller with the last four digits, 6684. You are now live. Please start your public comment. You have one minute. My name is Gina Parks, a teacher at PCACV. I wanted to address our efforts as staff and families to move from abundant model charter school to the inception of PCACV as a classroom-based school so that we could safely meet the requirements

417of our new charter and of the state. As a staff, during that transition, we made sure to explain the changes needed for many of our independent study students in order to meet the new maximum cap of 20% for that student designation. Several of our families chose to leave our school rather than become classroom-based, and others made the decision to change the way they had been doing school to become classroom-based. The transition also changed the recordation workload aspect for teachers. As a teaching staff, we worked diligently to meet the requirements for both our independent study and our regular classroom-based students during those first school years. We have all worked hard to be sure we're meeting the requirements of our charter and of the state so that we can continue to serve our students in a way

418that best meets their needs. Thank you. Thank you. Next caller with the last four digits, 8312. You are now live. Please start your public comment. You have one minute. Good afternoon. My name is Cassie McKeachin and I've been a teacher with PCACV since its inception. We launched our program with the understanding that our instruction model, four days of site-based instruction and one day of home-based learning, was fully aligned with an approved classroom-based charter framework. We are excited to offer our students high-quality, rigorous instruction designed to help them reach their academic goals and meet their individual learning needs. A year and a half in, we were notified our model didn't align with classroom-based requirements. In response, we acted swiftly, collaborating closely with our board, teachers, and families to pivot mid-year to a five-day classroom-based model within

419just a few weeks. We've maintained this model ever since. Throughout this process, we've acted in good faith, working diligently to comply with all requirements while providing our families with a program that meets both their needs and the expectations of state standards and curriculum. Our families continue to rely on us to deliver the rigorous, supportive education they've chosen and trusted year after year. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next caller with the last four digits, 8680. You are now live. Please start your public comment. You have one minute. Hi, my name is Priscilla Freitas. I've been a parent at PCA with my three kids going there since, I want to say, 2018. Coming from Miami, coming from a very high standards, academically focused environment, moving to PCA, I can only say that I've been... just

420in awe of what the teachers, the principal, their vision, and what they do academically speaking. Both me and my kid's father are professionals. We teach at Simpson as professors. And the level of education at PCA is above and beyond what we see in Reading. We're very driven. This is the place we want our children at. For the past few years, I've only seen the demographic at the school to just increase in terms of kids who want to go to college and want to keep on growing and become professionals and the way they adapt and pivot to whatever is asked of them thank you is just nothing short of amazing thank you caller next caller with the last four digits 9259 you are now live please start your public comment you have one minute Through the

421chair, President Linda Darling-Hammond, and the board, this is Steven Dougal with CFP, a union of educators and classified professionals. CFP completely agrees with CDE's recommendation that you deny determination of funding requests from Phoenix Charter Academy College View. Services weren't rendered in the way they were supposed to. There's a cost to that, and that's what this is. We don't have a time machine. This is the right thing to do. Thank you for listening. Thank you. That concludes public comment for item number 12. Ready to go to board discussion? Vice President Glover-Woods? Thank you. And thank you, McKenna, for the presentation and for everyone who gave public comment. I want to just go back to a couple of pieces as we get ready to engage in our discussion. And I'll anchor it on what the last caller

422said about not delivering the program as they said they would. If we can go even to slide number six, please, in the presentation, that will be helpful. The moratorium is specific, and we'll see on slide number six, about the approval of a petition for a non-classroom-based charter. They were approved as a classroom based charter and the area of concern which is the Monday those Monday home days that was explicitly in their charter petition That was what was approved as a classroom-based charter by the authorizer and also what was approved by CDE in giving them a CDS number as a classroom-based charter. Again, based on the information we've received after that year, that is when they were told that those Mondays would not be able to count. So I just want to put it in context

423because I think it's very important that... the moratorium is very important and that it be adhered to. But in this particular situation, based on the information we have, they were approved as a classroom-based charter, they received a CDS code as a classroom-based charter, they operated based on what was in their charter petition, which was the Mondays off, and after that school year had completed, that is when the conversation took place with CDE and others to say that those Mondays could not count. which caused for them to fall into a non-classroom based status. And again, based on the information we received in the petition, they do meet the requirements of a funding determination for non-classroom base for that year, based on the different percentages that we've looked at in the past. So as we engage in

424our conversation, I think it's important to have that context in understanding the unique nature of this particular situation in this funding request. That makes good sense and thank you for that clarification. Is there further discussion or do we have a motion? Right. And they have no longer taken the Mondays off. That is correct. It was. In one number of minutes. That is correct. It was only the 22-23 school year that was in question and they've been operating as a classroom-based charter since that time and continues to operate in that way. And they thought they were doing so in 22-23, but they didn't realize that their charter, which had asked for the Mondays off, would put them in this status of more than 20% time or something. That is my understanding based on the information we've

425received and also based on the ACCS conversation. Thank you. I was going to say, I can make a motion if we're ready. I'll just make a motion. Okay. So given the unique circumstances in this case where Phoenix was approved as a classroom-based charter, was issued as a classroom-based charter, and has continued to operate as a classroom-based charter, I move that we approve the recommendation of the ACCS with a slight... which is so I move that we approve a funding determination of 100% funding requested by Phoenix for two years, since that's required the 2022-23 school year and the 2023-24 school year. Thank you very much. Is there a second? Thank you. A further discussion of the motion. Okay, let's take the roll call vote. Member Clawson. Yes. President Darling-Hammond. Yes. Member Escobedo. Yes. Vice President, Clever

426Woods. Yes. Member Lewis. Yes. Member McQuillan. Yes. Member Olkin. Yes. Member Roscoe-Gonzalez. No. Member Petillo-Brownson. Yes. Member Rodriguez. No. Member Yoshimura-Towery. Yes. Motion carries. all right thank you we're moving right along we're not going to call a break if you need one take one and we're going to move to item 13 which is the california community schools partnership program approval of additional cohort for implementation grantees presented by erica torres hi erica and maybe others as well we have thank you it's great to see you we encourage you to be as efficient as you can be in the presentation just because of the time. Good afternoon. We're here with the additional cohort for recommendations. Thank you so much, and good afternoon, President Dr. Darling-Hammond, Vice President Dr. Glover-Woods, members of the State Board of Education, members

427of the public. It's such an honor to be before the State Board of Education to provide an update on behalf of our California Community Schools Partnership Program. My name is Erica Torres, and I am proud to serve as a Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction for the Student Success and Career Readiness. branch and joining me today I have our new division director of our College and Career Readiness Division and also Hamed Razawi, our Education Administrator of our Community Schools Office. And today we are seeking our State Board of Education's approval of 11 additional local educational agencies to receive implementation grant awards under Cohort 4. of the California Community Schools Partnership Program. In addition, what we're gonna do is to provide you with an update and brief highlight of our 2025 Community School Summit, which was held

428in Fresno, and we're also going to share our next steps and future activities. And so as you know, in May, the State Board of Education approved implementation grants for 121 LEAs serving 458 school sites. And today we are pleased to recommend the addition of 11 more LEAs serving. 12 school sites, bringing the total number of cohort four school sites to 470. And so the California Department of Education recommends that the State Board of Education approve of these additional school sites for an implementation grant under cohort four. And attachment one of our State Board of Education item outlines the recommended school sites and the corresponding funding allocations for each new grantee. So with that, I am honored to introduce to all of you our new division director, who's going to continue with our presentations. Dr. Parsons.

429Thank you so much. It's great to be here. So to date, the SBE has approved and the CDE has awarded two cohorts of planning grants serving 419 LEAs in the amount of $82,694,554. In addition, we have awarded four cohorts of implementation grants to over 500 LEAs. serving approximately 2,500 schools. That's nearly a quarter of all public schools in California participating in our California Community Schools Partnership Program. Approximately $3.3 billion has been allocated to our implementation grantees for cohorts one through four. CDE recommends funding these additional 11 LEAs to support 12 more schools using the remaining cohort for funds. All LEAs had a planning grant and all schools served met the threshold of the unduplicated student count or the non-stability rate. Using this criteria, we are ensuring we meet the intent of the legislation and that

430the funds are reaching the most impacted communities throughout California. If these 11 LEAs are approved, we will allocate an additional $15,319,000. This would give us a total of 522 LEAs receiving an implementation grant for cohorts one through four. The 2025 California Community Schools Empowerment Summit was held in Fresno on June 12th through the 13th, and it was hosted by our statewide transformational assistant center, Alameda County Office of Education, and they did a wonderful job. The summit brought together 2,000 attendees from approximately 400 school districts. Attendees included educators, caregivers, parents, students, community members, SBE members, CDE staff. The summit featured eight regional networking sessions, two keynote addresses, and more than 130 breakout sessions, including presentations and office hours from our CDE committee school's office. Here you'll see from the photos, the summit was really highlighted with

431youth voice and student leadership. This was an opportunity for our grantees to share best practices and learn from one another. It created a space for LEAs and attendees to learn about how to strengthen and implement and sustain their community schools program. The youth that spoke were truly inspiring. Each of them shared powerful stories about how the community schools partnership program changed their lives. and transformed them in so many ways. Their voices were really a testament to the impact this program is making every day. It was an exciting opportunity for all and I was honored to be there. So in terms of next steps all grantees will be invited to attend a cohort for webinar and they'll get a chance to connect with their regional technical assistance centers they'll talk about how the support and technical

432assistance will be provided to them as a July 1 2025 the Sacramento County Office of Education is our new state technical assistance center They're already hitting the ground running and they've been gun they've begun working closely with the regional technical assistance centers and they've begun to start planning out activities for the 25-26 school year. The CDE's community schools office is looking forward to providing a comprehensive update on the community schools program at the SBE meeting in November, so stay tuned. So and with that, the California Department of Education recommends that the State Board of Education approve these additional 11 LEAs for cohort four implementation grant. Thank you so much for allowing us to present today and we welcome any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any clarifying questions? If not, I'm

433going to turn to our liaison member, Member Yoshimoto-Towery, to see if she has any initial comments. Just thank you to the department staff for the summary just Because of time I'm not gonna go over what you said already but the empower summit was was excellent and had a time had a chance to speak with a lot of the rural schools and small schools as well implementing community schools across the state including those with high instability rates I want to thank Alameda County for leading the s-tack in the past couple of years and also to Sacramento County Office for taking the baton. In the May board meeting, we approved almost 500 schools, and so this is just adding 12, because we had a little bit of money left over because we had saved money for appeals

434that did not end up needing to be used. So that's it, it's a small-er item, and thank you again. And I'll just add as the other liaison how much I appreciate all the work that's been done. I think we've had an amazing runway for community schools, and this is the last of the initial tranche of money, but that does not mean it is the end of our work both to sustain these schools and to continue the movement in California. So just big thanks to you for all that you've done to make that possible. And with that, we wanna see if we could put the public comment slide up. And if you wanna call in, you can use the phone number and the access code on this slide. Is there any public comment in person? We

435do not have any in person public comment. All right. I'm not good at wait time, but I'm gonna count to 10. Okay. Is there any comment on the phone? We do not have any callers in the queue. Okay, thank you very much. So we're open for board discussion. Is there any board discussion? We're asked to move to adopt the recommendation for these schools. Is there a motion? All right, Member Rodriguez. All right, Member Yoshimura-Towery. Any further discussion of the motion? Please call the roll. Member Clawson. Yes. President Darlene Hammond. Yes. Member Escobedo. Yes. Vice President Clever Woods. Yes. Member Lewis. Yes. Member McQuillan. Yes. Member Oken? Yes. Member Roscoe-Gonzalez? Yes. Member Patila-Brownson? Yes. Member Rodriguez? Yes. Member Yoshua-Monotary? Yes. Motion carries unanimously. All right. Thank you so much. We appreciate you. And we're only an

436hour behind now, so. With the help of our friends from CDE, we might make it by 5.30. We're going to move on to the waiver consent calendar, which is items W1 through W6. We'll open the phone line for public comment queue. We'll put the public comment slide back up again. Are there any speakers signed up to provide public comment in person? We're zipping along now. Nobody has signed up to provide public comment in person. All right, thank you. I'm going to count to 10 again and see if there's any public comment on the phone. Is there any public comment on the phone? We do not have any public comment on the phone. All right, thank you. Do we have a motion to adopt consent waivers W-1 through W-6? I move that we adopt consent waiver

437items W1 through W6. I second. Thank you, Member Escobedo. Brooks, can you please call the roll? Member Clawson? Yes. President Darlene Hammond? Yes. Member Escobedo? Yes. President Glover Woods? Yes. Member Lewis? Yes. Mayor McQuillan? Yes. Mayor Volkan? Yes. Member Roscoe-Gonzalez? Yes. Member Patila-Brownson? Yes. Member Rodriguez? Yes. Member Yoshua-Montari? Yes. Passing now is the... All right, item waiver seven. We're gonna take up item waiver seven, which is the request by San Luis Obispo County Office of Education to waive California Code of Regulations Title V, Section 35. 3051.16 that educational interpreters for deaf and hard of hearing pupils meet minimum qualifications as of July 1, 2009 to allow Casey Loden to continue to provide services to students until July 31st, 2025 under a remediation plan to complete those minimum requirements. And the CDE item will be presented

438by Nancy Hilliback-Aman. Good afternoon, board. It's been a long day for all of you, I'm sure. Nice to see you all today. I'm here to talk about the educational interpreter waiver request. One second. To explain the waiver itself for educational interpreters, they must have at least a 4.0 out of 5.0 on the Educational Interpreter Performance Assessment, the EIPA, in order to work as a classroom interpreter within the classroom in the state of California. According to the state, we have roughly 17,000 deaf and hard of hearing students across the state, not all of which use interpreters, but many do. Many are placed in districts that need to provide qualified interpreters. And the reality is that many of these school districts are facing challenges of finding qualified interpreters. They do not have enough assessments available out there.

439And it becomes a bigger challenge for many who are being able to work in the classroom with our students. This particular waiver for San Luis Obispo, there's been two requests in one. They wanted to waive the interpreter, Casey Logan, who received a waiver in 2023. for one year with a contingency. They took their EIPA exam on May 23rd and got a 3.7. Casey Logan took another test November 4th, 2023, received a 3.9. And they asked if they could continue to this July 31st, 2025. I do want to add that we did have some conversations and research with educational internments. interpreter performance assessment in Utah, where it's based, the EIPA, at Utah University, they are backlogged currently with their assessment process to provide their evaluation results. Because of that, many interpreters have not gotten their results

440for at least a year from the time they've taken the test. So if she took it in November, or Casey rather took it in November, they won't get their results until November of this year. They're asking for an extension for this person until they get their results. We made a recommendation asking for, really there are seven total. We asked that Casey take the assessment by July 31st, 2025. The school district must submit documentation to CDE that the exam was taken by August 15th 2025 if Casey Logan did not meet those qualifications and that standard under section 3051.16 C by September 1st 2025 Then San Luis Obispo County Office of Education would no longer employ her as an educational interpreter. Three, SLO must also provide Casey Logan at least two professional development trainings provided by the

441EIPA Center and RID by July 31st, 2025. And the school district also must provide documentation to CDE of those trainings by August 15th, 2025. Recommendation number four, if it is passed, if they are unable to do that by August 15th, then they must show documentation that they are getting weekly mentoring from a qualified interpreter beginning July 10th, 2025 to July 31st, 2025. Number five, San Luis Obispo must also represent that they are actively trying to recruit qualified educational interpreters. and they must also provide any supporting evidence including documentation of those recruitment efforts to CDE by July 31st, 2025. Number six, San Luis Obispo Office of Education will provide, hold on, sorry. So the resources that Casey needs, they will provide those resources by HHSC in Fresno and then the school district must provide proof to

442CDE showing that they provided those resources to support this interpreter by August 15th, 2025. SLO, COE, will not apply for a waiver of section 305. 1C, 16C rather, and the reason because they've had multiple waivers. They've taken their test now three times. This will be their fourth attempt to see how they do on this exam. So any questions at this point? I'm not seeing any. Oh, yes, Member Lewis, yeah. So I'm just clarifying that we're still September 1st deadline. That's in the recommendation. Correct. Based, because, well, when I contacted the EIPA, they said they typically, their trend that they're facing, generally speaking, is that it's a year. But for Casey Logan specifically, their request is that we've asked when they expect the school district to get the results, and they said they should get them

443by the end of July, beginning of August. Is this, are we done then with the presentation of the item? Yes. Okay, thank you. So at this juncture, we're going to put up the public comment slide. Anyone who wants, wishing to make comment, thank you for the recommendation slide. Let me, yeah, we'll put up the public comment slide so people can queue up for public comment. And then we'll ask, are there any other clarifying questions from the board? Seeing none, we'll see, is there any public comment in the room? There's no public comment in the room. I count to 10. Is there any public comment? I count quickly. Is there any public comment on the phone? There are no callers in the queue. All right. So then I think the question is, is there any further

444discussion? Sorry? Someone has comments? Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. Yes. Do you have comments? presentation we provided approval for previous waivers for Casey Logan to provide interpretation services to to the students and the waiver request before us today is only through July 31st 2025 less than three weeks away and along with previous approvals the CDE has put conditions in place that to help Casey Loden and SLO County Office of Education know what they need to do in order to help her move towards certification. And we want to do all that we can to retain individuals who have a passion to help our students. But with that said, I believe that we should approve the waiver to allow Casey Loden to continue providing services to students through July 31st, 2025. Are you conditions in the CDE recommendation

445and do you feel comfortable with that with that date then well with She explained that I guess in checking with the district. They believe that she'll receive them before September 1st If if it would correct know how if that's gonna be possible. If we could adjust it, I'd like to go to September 1st. I mean, excuse me, until November, if that's possible. Is that what the certifying agency says is the time by which they must give a result? No, in her presentation, the reason I asked the question in the recommendation, they're recommending that if by September the 1st that she has not received her results and met the requirements, that she will no longer be employed with SLO County Office of Education. But in the presentation, she mentioned that in checking with the testing agencies,

446they say that they're behind and that. there's a possibility that she would not, Casey Loden would not receive results until November. And so that's why I was asking is are we still sticking with that recommendation? That's why I'm asking you whether you think we should amend the date in your motion or do you want to stick with September 1st? Because she's checked with the testing agent. May I interject quickly? I just want to clarify. Casey Logan themselves told the school district that they were supposed to get their results this summer, July, August. I then decided in an effort for clarification, I contacted EIPA directly and asked them, because this is not the first time. We've had a lot of people taking this and not getting their results quickly within two or three months. and a

447reasonable amount of time, if you will. And the EIPA admitted to me, yes, they are backlogged because they don't have enough evaluators working on these assessments. And that was a general comment. It was not directed to Casey themselves and or their test. So those were two separate things that occurred. And also keep in mind too, if we decide to move forward with this individual until November, then they will have a direct impact on a student's access to education within the classroom. And then they will be moved in the middle of the school year. and the ability to get full access to their education may be thwarted. So I think it's reasonable to give the school district an opportunity to actually look for, recruit, and hire a qualified interpreter for the full school year. And I

448guess I'm wondering what happens if they can't find one? Because there's also a shortage. But maybe we should just go with this recommendation. Because there's some... I'm sorry. No, I recommend that we stick with the recommendation and if she happens to pass the test by September 1st, then they're no worse off, right? And if she doesn't, then I guess SLO County is left without an interpreter. It seems like a devil's choice, doesn't it? Yes, Member Lewis, you're correct. I do know that sometimes similar staff are not employed as interpreters and can still be in other capacities, classroom assistants and other things that don't necessarily require the same qualifications as interpreters. So I'm just putting that out there that in the past there have been districts that when they can't employ someone as an educational interpreter

449but they have staff that can provide. comparable or related services they sometimes do hire them in in different capacities and in this case the lea did did seek a waiver specifically for the educational interpreter position so what you're saying is what you're saying that if she does not pass the test that they could doesn't get her results excuse me and doesn't meet the certification requirement that they could employ her under a different title other than an educational interpreter? Is that what you're saying? They could. We've heard of LEAs in the past employing... people who did not meet those criteria is for example instructional aids in other capacities that don't require the certification requirements and of course that means however if i can interject that's not appropriate that's highly inappropriate they have to be certified what

450school districts are typically doing is if they don't have an interpreter that's qualified they will hire through an interpreting agency outside contracted agency and outsource their interpreting out of having a staff person because interpreting agencies can then send someone who is qualified. It's not ideal because they may send different interpreters daily to work with this student, but then they have a qualified certified interpreter, but that's a difficult part of this community within California. I don't disagree with. what Director Amon just shared, but just that in connection with different, if it's a different position, of course there are different duties, right? So certainly not suggesting that it's the same thing, but in the past, simply speaking to LEAs have exercised other options, and I would just note in this case that the school district did, or

451sorry, the LEA did ask for a waiver specifically for the educational interpreter provision. So I just want to be clear on that. And thank you for that clarification as well. Can I ask you another question, Karen, while you're there? Is the motion, one of the requirements from the CDE says that there cannot be any more requests for a waiver for Casey Loden. Is that some legal requirement? I mean, is there a moratorium on how many requests you can have for a waiver? Or is that just something they agreed to? I guess what I'm getting at is if we go to September 1 and she hasn't passed, this is very strong language says that they will no longer employ her and they cannot seek further waivers. Is that because that's just something we're imposing on them

452or is that law that she's exceeded her? number of waivers because she's she passed with the 3.7 then she did a i think the last one's a 3.9 she could possibly get the 4.0 this time that seems like it's very strong to say you can't have no any more waivers and um we agree that we're just not going to employ her so is so what's the answer there it's cda's recommendation so i'll let the director respond to that yeah that rate was set for a reason There's no excuse. They need to go to school. They need to get training. They need to get mentoring. And the mentoring that's happened is very simple. It's not even signing or language related. Someone below 4.0, now mind you, 4.0 is not even the best. For an absolute perfect

453measurement of 5.0, that is equivalent, or rather 4.0, that's 80% of the information coming through, 80%. So they're only receiving at their best 80%. We don't even accept teachers who can't. teach fully at full capacity. So now we're asking for this interpreter that's doing 80% and now well if they do maybe 60% at their best because 3.7 is 60, 65, that's not full access to their education. That's vital for these children and that's the bottom line. I think that's what we need to understand is we can't continuously allow them year after year after year to apply for a waiver that they continue to fail the minimum qualification for their performance assessment. I understand that Len has some answer to your legal question. Wearing different hats here. Yes, thank you very much. I hope it's okay.

454In responding to Member Lewis, I think the answer is that, as you can tell, it's a strong recommendation from CDE that there not be further waivers, but to my understanding, there's no legal bar to there being further waivers. I would just also add that with respect to teachers, we have about half of the teachers hired each year on not full credentials, yeah, on some kind of substandard credentials. So the shortages are real things, that's all that we're experiencing. So, Member Lewis, I'm sorry. Yeah, go ahead. You still have the floor, Member Lewis, and then I will go to Member Nish. I understand. you know, the shortage and I understand also that. that what's been mentioned is there's a problem with the testing timeline, there's a problem with them getting their results back, and couple that

455with the shortage, and we have interpreters that are servicing kids. Some of the questions that I would ask is have there been complaints from the schools, have the kids been successful under the services of the educational interpreter? I just feel with the shortage, and having such strong language that they can never come back for a waiver for this person is pretty strong, especially since it's already been presented that the shortage, and we don't even know, even with the outside agencies that would contract, if they have enough interpreters to go around. So I think that's the language I'm not comfortable with now, is the... You can make a motion that you are comfortable with. I want to hear from Member Yoshimoto-Towery. before we take the motion and anyone else who has a question and then we

456can take whatever motion you want to put forward. This is more of a comment, Director Aman. I understand the shortage as well and the need for high quality interpretation services for our students. I would just ask that if that is a rule or guidance in terms of four opportunities for a waiver that we're consistent with that across all of these. This is not the first waiver that's come to the state board. So if there are other situations like this. we probably could expect others in the future that we just have some kind of consistency in regard to our implementation of waiver requests as they come forward. Thank you. Okay. And we're going to start to lose people from the dais here. Come back to Member Lewis for the, for or to, you know, for whatever

457motion you want to put forward. The motion that I would like to put forward now is that we approve the waiver. for Casey Loden through July 31st, 2025 with CDE recommendations one through six. Okay, thank you. We have a motion. Is there a second? Member Clausen, thank you. Is there any further discussion on the motion? Let's take the roll call vote member Clawson. Yes present darling hymns. Yes members cabello. Yes, it's present clever woods. Yes member Lewis Yes, remember Quillen Yes, I broken. Yes member Roscoe Gonzales. Yes, no, Patilla Bronson Yes, remember Rodriguez. Yes, maybe you're sure monetary Motion carries now. All right. Thank you very much. And thank you so much for presenting the item Thank you very much We're going to reopen item one to take action on the preliminary report of actions

458draft May 2025 meeting minutes and report on our liaison assignments. Are there any speakers signed up to provide public comment on the meeting minutes? There are no public commenters in the room. All right. And the public comment slide is up. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Are there any public members of the phone? There are no callers. Thank you. So I want to get to our liaison reports. Oh, we need a motion. So we have a motion from? I move that we. approve the draft preliminary action of minutes from the main meeting, May 2025 meeting. Thank you. Member O'Connor is second. Second. So can you call the roll? Member Clawson. Yes. Member Hammond. Yes. Member Escobedo. Yes. Member Lewis. Member McQuillan. Yes. Member O'Connor. Yes. Member Gonzales. Yes. Member Patilla-Brownson. Yes.

459Member Rodriguez. Yes. Member Matari. Motion carries unanimously. Okay, and if Member Orozco-Gonzalez would like to give brief liaison report before she runs out the door, then we'll go to Member Lewis to make a brief liaison report, and we'll go back into alphabetical order. Member Escobedo also, he'll be third. I'm going to go first. of time since my item was discussed thoroughly, my two items. I just wanted to just mention a workshop that, well I should say a summit that I attended a few weeks ago. So I had an honor of participating in the Unidos U.S. Accumulating Summit Defending the Future of Public Education and the Future of Assessment and Accountability, co-hosted by the National Urban League. The event brought together civil rights leaders, educators, researchers, and policy advocates to discuss how accountability systems can be

460reimagined in advance to advance equity and opportunity for all students. During the panel on state and local leadership, I shared California's progress in building a more inclusive and transparent accountability system grounded in the states. 2025-26 work plan. I also highlighted how we are working to ensure that English language learners, students with disabilities, and historically underserved students are seen, supported, and prioritized in our data and decision making. It's things that we take for granted in California. And I always say it's the California way because it's not reflected in every state in this country. And just so proud to share the work that California is doing around assessments, inclusivity, and just really centered on equity. And I just emphasized also a little piece that on California community schools, a movement of as a model. of systems transformation

461by centering the needs of students, families, educators through whole child supports, shared leadership, and integrated services. I also had a privilege to join a coalition of leaders committed to justice and share how California's approach is approaching this work with urgency, care, and the belief that every student has a voice and educator experience must drive our path forward. Terrific, thank you so much. And Member Lewis, do you have a minute before you have to run? I want to give you the opportunity and then Member Escobedo because I know you have the earliest flights. I have two pages here, guys, but I'm going to cut it down. It's your plane. I'm just going to give a brief report on the California Subject Matter Project Concurrence Committee semi-annual meeting that took place on June the 4th. We had

462our first started off with a report from our executive director, Claudia Martinez. She touched on the. basically shared some of the exciting developments around state professional learning efforts that the subject matter project are involved in and these include the new math professional learning partnership the mplp grant which under the leadership which is under the leadership of the current county superintendent schools office and it includes 10 county offices of education that will be serving as hubs to support the statewide rollout of the math framework The California Math Project regional sites are partnering with these hubs to develop and deliver education training, primarily focused on the training of mathematics coaches and teacher leaders. The Computer Science Integration Initiative, which supports K through 12 educators in incorporating computer science concepts and practices across a variety of academic subjects.

463And the initiatives... Professional development activities are designed to enhance teacher capacity to deliver interdisciplinary instruction that includes computer science elements that are authentic to the discipline. Kendall Brown, the executive of the California Math Project also provided updates and what they'll be doing in addition to the MPLP which includes the Chino Math Project and the Sonoma Math Project. and they're working closely with the Rural Math Collaborative on bringing professional development to rural areas. And the final thing I'll report on is Emily Schell, who is the director of the Global Education Project, announced that Jessica Matthews will be the new State Board of Education representative for the California Global Education Project Advisory Board. Thank you. All right, thank you all. And Member Escobedo? Yes, as you all know, I'm chairing the conference for NASB, and fitting enough,

464we sent out a survey, and the number one request from NASB member was... Metrics and measures for continuous improvement. Very appropriate for today, isn't it? That was followed by recruitment, retaining educators, and AI. So June 30th was the final day to turn in proposals. We received significantly, I think closer to 40 proposals. We need to dwindle it down to like 10 to 12. And we're having a meeting. next week to find out who made the cut. We should have by my next meeting, our next meeting in September, I should be able to share the final agenda, let you know who the speakers are, and we'll have our conference in Austin, Texas, I believe it's October 27th through the 29th. That's my report. All right. Thank you very much I'm gonna now go back to alphabetical

465if that's okay member Clawson As I conclude my time with the board, I have so much gratitude for this opportunity to serve my state, but most importantly, gratitude for the opportunity to engage with my peers across the state and work on vital initiatives to advance their interests. In particular, upon reflection, I'm so grateful to have been able to provide feedback during the development of the Native American Studies curriculum, which will be available by September 1st of this year, and it is absolutely beautiful and so impactful and vital. important during this time for all students in California and I'm very excited for future students to have access to these activities, stories, and lessons. I've also concluded my time with NASB's Student Advisory Council, which was an incredible opportunity to collaborate and learn from fellow student board

466members, such as my friends in Nevada, Kentucky, and Massachusetts. And I look forward to potentially returning to the council as a mentor for other student board members. I'd also like to highlight the SPM social media account that I created this year which has allowed me to connect with thousands of students, local student board members and community partners. I was able to share resources and opportunities and post meeting notices for every single board meeting and hopefully make the agenda a bit more accessible to all students. This past month I wrote an op-ed for EdSource discussing this position and the application process and I look forward to utilizing that and the social media to help with the recruitment efforts for a future student board member. And speaking of future student board member, I've begun the transition process

467with Vanessa and I am very excited to see how she shapes the role and I'm very excited for the rest of our conversations this month as she prepares to begin in September. And then I would just like to once again say how grateful I've been to serve on this board. It's been an honor and a privilege. I feel lucky to have been able to work with all of you and also all of the staff as well. And I feel incredibly privileged to be a representative of the nearly six million students in the state. As I move on, I hope to always pursue a life of service, especially with reflection on this role. And that concludes my report. Thank you. Yay. Vice President Glover Woods. Thank you, and let me say, Julia, what a pleasure it

468has been to serve with you. Your impact has been so great, and it's hard to believe it's just been one year and you've done all that. But you have truly served as the voice for the students in the state of California, and I would venture to say for our education system. I will surely miss you, your insightful comments, as well as your insightful questions. on all of the items and I wish you just the very best as you move on to your collegiate journey. Your star will be shining brightly and I will be looking up to see all the wonderful great things that you're going to do and just thank you again for the opportunity to serve with you. Wishing you all the best, all the best. So my liaison report, you know, but I

469had to lead with that. It was Julia Clausen Day. So I had to start with that. But I will also tell you a little something about the CCEE as well as I do my liaison report. So just a few things. And I'm going to, I didn't go very much into detail last month because we were short on time. So I'm just going to bring up a few highlights from May and then move forward to current information for you. One is just to let you know that the end of year report for 24-25 is on the CCEE website, and it highlights the contributions and impact as a partner in the statewide system of support. And so, again, please visit the CCEE website. as well as looking at the executive director report. The CCE website, as you

470guys hear me say every time we come together, is just a source of information, and I strongly encourage everyone who has the time to go there and take a look at it. We also had some hot topics that looked at the school transformation efforts related to the intensive assistance model, and I think as we move forward with our work on differentiated assistance and having conversations about that aspect, the technical assistance aspect. aspect of our accountability system, looking at some of the work that is happening with direct technical assistance as well as the intensive assistance model will be very helpful. So that pretty much concludes our next CCEE board meeting will take place in what month are we in? Are we in July? Okay, so it's going to take place in August. I'm thinking, did August

471already pass? Not yet. That was just, just felt like it today. So our next meeting will be in August and I'll have more information for you about CCEE in September. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. Member McQuillan, are you still there? Yes, we see you in the corner of our screen. I'm still here. There you are. Let me find my report here. We kind of heard a little bit of an update already on the statewide model curriculum coordinating council. We had our last meeting and we gave our final reviews of the statewide model American Indian curriculum developed by Humboldt County Office of Ed in San Diego. And as we heard member Claussen say, we're waiting CDE to finalize that and the rollout will start in September. We also heard many of the rollout

472activities for the Orange County Department of Education Southeast Asian Model Curriculum, including Cambodia American Studies, Hmong History and Cultural Studies, and the Vietnamese American Experiences. There have been a lot of rollout activities over the last couple of months, including an event in May for the Hmong Model Curriculum in Fresno, a three-part webinar series implementing all three curricula. Later this month, there will be a four-day summer institute on all three curricula in Irvine. A Vietnamese American Experience event in Garden Grove will happen in September, and then a Cambodian American Studies event in Stockton in October. So lots of good rollout activities for those statewide model curriculum. They are very worthwhile taking a look at. They're available on the repository at UC Davis, and you can find additional information. on the California Department of Education website. Some

473really fantastic curriculum. The other report I have is on the Career Technical Education Committee. It's meeting this Friday again coming up. And we have only three items on the agenda. One is looking at state standards on CTE at Friday's meeting. So thank you. Thank you. Member Olkin. Thank you. I just want to quickly echo everything that my colleagues have said about you, Julia. Member Claussen, as we were walking out and you were taking stock of your last time upstairs, your last vote, I saw you do that. I just want to say we are all so appreciative and I am so appreciative of the level of engagement, wisdom. leadership commitment that you show. And as I said in my card, I hope when I grow up, I'm half as inspiring and impactful as you are already.

474And then in terms of my liaison report, I'll just report on two aspects of the things I'm working on. The first is the personal finance requirement. So just a reminder, Assembly Bill 2927 in 2024 mandated that high school students will be required to pass a standalone one semester personal finance class. starting in 2030 slash 31. And in order for that to happen, high schools need to start offering that class considerably sooner. And so the big job on our to-do list will be in May of 2026, approving a curriculum guide. That curriculum guide is already underway. I was at the IQC meeting. last week where they saw the first draft of it. The commissioners unanimously said it was incredible. It's really well thought out and there's going to be a period of public comment and then

475we see it later this fall. So that will be exciting and then just another quick thing to hit on is in my role related to environmental literacy I spent the last several years at each meeting giving you an update on curriculum units related to environmental literacy that were being developed across the state for each grade level as part of an appropriation couple years back in the budget. They're incredible curricular units and they are now readily and freely available. The website is seedstosolutions.org and if you go to seedstosolutions.org you can find these curriculum units that are really in keeping with all we talked about today about project-based learning, real assessments, you can find them and use them in your classrooms. And I think I'll just leave it at that for now. Thanks so much. Member Petillo-Brownson.

476I will also continue with the Julia Clausen celebration and just... voice celebration and appreciation for how consistently and thoughtfully you have raised up student voice in places sometimes that were expected and sometimes that really, I think, just deepened our conversation overall. So I'm super excited for your adventures ahead on the East Coast and grateful for your service here. I am going to describe briefly a site visit that I did on the six-month anniversary of the fires down here in Los Angeles County. I visited Madison Elementary School, which is a TK-5 elementary school site. that was spared the fire, but was certainly surrounded by quite a lot of destruction. It was incredible to see in action many of the things that we talk about in terms of summer of joy, joy of learning. There was a

477fantastic group of students who I got to meet who were doing ELA and math. music, dance, sports. It was also led by a fantastic group of teachers who had clearly been not just instructional leaders, but very much. sort of emotional leaders for so many of the students who I met. It was also in many ways just seeing so many strands of what we all work on here at the State Board together. There were people who had been funded through the Community Schools Initiative. There were people who had gone through the teacher prep programs that had been funded in the state budget, literacy coaches who had been funded in the state. budget and to the point of some of the earlier presentations, the silos really were not there. It was all sort of very kid-centered, very

478beautiful, bilingual teachers, teachers from the community. And I just wanted to leave you with the thing that one of the parents told me afterwards on the six-month anniversary, which is don't forget us and don't forget our children. Thanks. Lovely. Member Rodriguez. Yes, thank you so much. And I echo all of the comments about Member Claussen. And I'd like to add how much I have enjoyed sharing the space with you and getting to know you. And I love your sense of humor, your intelligence and wit, and your kind heart. And I look forward to also following your next steps. And I love that you will continue serving because it's so important for our community to have people who have hearts and minds like yours. So before I get emotional, I will start with my SB liaison

479report. Good afternoon. Oh, and parents, Julia's parents, I just love how supportive you are of your daughter. That's just phenomenal. Good afternoon or early evening members and interest holders. Last month the CTC took several important actions including receiving the final report and adopting the recommendations of the work group to review the design and implementation of the teacher teaching performance assessment. This work will ensure that the teaching performance assessments are embedded in preparation and the program support their candidates to demonstrate their readiness to teach. The Commission also adopted three literacy performance assessments, the CalTPA, EdTPA, and FAST, each of which will be applicable to multiple credential candidates. With these adoptions, authentic assessment of educators' ability to teach, reading is the new norm in California. And on a related note, the CTC approved the fourth and final

480report to the legislature on the implementation of SB 488. In addition to having new literacy performance assessments, the commission is nearly complete in certifying that all teacher education programs provide statutorily required preparation in comprehensive literacy instruction. I also wanted to shout out the teacher investments in this year's budget. President Darlene Hammond mentioned a few of them. But not only did we see an additional investment of 30 million in my favorite program, the National Board Certification for teachers to support teachers in high-need schools to obtain their National Board Certification and subsequently pays them to remain in teaching in these schools. But we also saw an additional $70 million investment in teacher residencies and 300 million in stipends for student teachers. who complete 600 hours of clinical practice without pay until now. The vision for streamlining administration

481of these investments at the CTC is also very exciting and will enhance uptake and strategic staffing at the local level. And lastly, I'd like to congratulate Dr. Todd Fennell, who is the superintendent in Imperial County, my county, the third to have been elected as the California County Superintendent President. So congratulations, Dr. Fennell. Very proud of you. Alrighty, so I'll just share a few updates from the last Advisory Commission on Special Education. And the first one really, I just wanted to share that Orange Unified received an Impact Award from the ACSI Commission for their Pathways to Possibilities Inclusion and Action Initiative, which is dramatically increasing inclusive placements, graduation rates, and college and career readiness for students with diverse needs. And they, as an example. They've provided over 4,000 hours of paid job training and expanded access

482to post-secondary opportunities by working with local employers in the Department of Rehabilitation since the program started in 2018. So congratulations to Orange Unified. And then the other two updates, quickly, Dr. Sohil Sood from the California Children and Youth Behavioral... California Youth Behavioral Health Initiative, CYBHI, presented and just shared that they also are piloting with 500 districts. the first in the nation medical reimbursement model for school-based mental health services and training over 6,000 educators. They're working with over 1,300 organizations. And I raise it because it's very much connected with the community school effort as well in California. And so that should be working seamlessly together. Finally, the Orange County Hospital, Children's Hospital of Orange County also shared about their school reintegration program. It was... impressed that since july 2023 they served 1100 students that were hospitalized

483for psychiatric a psychiatric hospitalization but over 85 percent of the students that have participated in their program have avoided re-hospitalization and most returning to school within 24 to 48 hours so i just wanted to share that as well And then I will end today saying that Melissa Bassanelli, the superintendent in San Juan Unified School District, let me know before I met Julia how amazing she was. And certainly, Julia, as everyone has said, we've been so impressed by you, the way you network with people, connect young people, help to... harness their voices. I overheard you in the hallway earlier talking about your social media post that's coming up soon. And just wanted to congratulate you for just, this is just the beginning for you. So we're very excited. And I don't know if anybody, everybody knows,

484but Julia was born on the same day my twins were born. The exact same day. So I'm particularly proud of you. And what's that? I'm a triplet. And I wanted to congratulate your parents as well. So they're in the audience right here. Congratulations, Julia. And I will. Round up the liaison reports just about everything that I liaison for has been talked about at this meeting So I won't add a lot of the content there you know we are looking ahead to figuring out how to complete our work on the Portrait of a graduate, portrait of a learner, all of the work that we've been doing. California is a member of the NASBE Task Force on High School Redesign, and so I am in that context, and Vice President Glover Woods, along with the head of

485the community colleges system, and our leadership in the Department of Labor, and the CDE leadership. Chief Deputy Ingrid Roberson has been part of this. And so we're all at that table trying to think about what it means for high school redesign in California. We have taken some steps. We have pathway programs. We have dual credit. We have a variety of elements. And so part of our mission is to pull it all together. And we are working on a set of strategies to do exactly that. So I just want to report that NASB did have a... a meeting that we all attended virtually because it was in the middle of budget week for us in California so nobody could really leave and we also had help from our state board staff and participation I think Katie

486was able to zoom into a meeting or two so we're now going to take stock there's another sort of event coming up and figure out how to move forward and we may have some interest from philanthropy to help us get a smooth runway for that. So just to say that we're on that case and we're gonna stay on it until we get to where we need to go. And then I just wanna wish Julia well. You've been such a thoughtful voice. I was thinking today when you made the motion about how we should think about the dashboard, what was it called? Yeah, the data box, yes. And you have a way of sort of saying, well, this is a high priority. Here's another good piece. And moving the agenda forward, we all seek to do

487that. You've learned it really well. And you bring the student perspective in a way that resonates. Not only with your own personal experience, but with the experience that you know other students are having as well, which is a really important way to help move the agenda forward in a way that is enhancing equity and enhancing the work for all. We're all very proud of you. I'm particularly proud of your onboarding to Yale. Can't wait to hear what college you're in. We'll stay in touch. And with that, we're ready for public comment. And this is for general public comment on any matter not included in the agenda. Do we have some general public comment in the room? We do. We do. Andrea Ball and Melanie Garduno. On behalf of the California Association of Suburban School Districts,

488thank you for the work you are doing to support California students. And thank you for recognizing the challenges school districts face in light of the federal actions, including the anticipated impact of the enacted reconciliation bill and the recent withholding of federal funds intended to support our English learner students, students who are migrant, and to provide professional support to teachers. The withheld funds also include the 21st century learning centers, which is one of the few funding sources for after-school and summer programs that serve our adolescent youth. For the most part, districts have developed and are doubling down on contingency plans to address the challenges and minimize disruption. Given the unfortunate likelihood these programs may not receive federal funding in the near future, local and state efforts to support these students are more important than ever. We

489appreciate the earlier statements today from the state superintendent and state board president on these issues and to address the federal funding freeze. We stand ready to collaborate with you to find ways to continue these programs and services we know are so essential to our students. Thank you. Michelle Warshaw, California Teachers Association. Just wanted to make a general comment. I appreciate the board's efforts to be conscientious of time, but it should not be at the sake of public participation. I had a teacher try to call in and by the time she had halfway done typing the number, it had already ended. And also just with the live stream delay. So just a note, thank you. It's an important comment, thank you. There are no callers in the queue. public comments in person um so i hereby

490adjourn our july 2025 sbe meeting at 5 32 p.m may you all make your planes trains and automobiles see you