Part 2: Virginia Board of Education Business Meeting 06/25/26

001Mhm. >> Mhm. >> I'm going to call us into session. Uh We are now on item H. We have Mr. Jennings, that that is you. >> It's me. Welcome back. So, today I have before you item H, which is amendment nine to Virginia's ESSA Consolidated State Plan Amendment. We're specifically looking at two items here, the growth methodology for school year 25-26, along with the exit criteria and progress levels for the WIDA Alternate Access Test. There are also a few minor revisions to Title III, some programmatic updates to terminology there. And so, we'll begin with an outline talking about the purpose for making an amendment to our state plan. We'll share with you stakeholder feedback since our presentation to you in April, the detail on the proposed revisions in these two areas I've mentioned, and then

002our next steps. So, these two specific areas again we've mentioned to you, this is not ideal ideal. This is not a best practice that would be coming to you at an end of a school year asking for changes changes to a school year that's already concluded. And so, we we want to honor that, recognize that. And these two specific items are needed for federal compliance, and it's the work that's been done over the past year, and it's been talked about, socialized, and we've been collecting feedback over the past year, but finally now bringing it to the board. And so, those two specific items that we do need to run accountability for the 25-26 year. So, since we presented to you in April, we did open up officially the public comment period. Again, we've been talking

003through this throughout the year in presentations to you, associations, organizations. I presented to the Virginia English Language Supervisors Association. I presented to the coordinators for Title III specifically around the practices for English language proficiency and how it impacts them. We presented to the superintendents association, secondary principals, elementary principals, principal groups, different focus groups around this, virtual sessions, in person sessions. And so after the board adopted for first review this item, we did open up a 30-day public comment period where they could email or fill in a form. We tried to have a form that would collect some specific data. And from that period we did receive 81 responses. 97% of those responses support the adoption of the value tables, which we'll talk about. 89% were in support of the recommended exit criteria with the level

004four on the WIDA Alternate Access test. And 74% supported the proposed progress levels for that assessment, and we'll talk through those. I did want again share that this has been socialized. We received feedback. We've tweaked based on the feedback we received. We've made adjustments to the value tables. We made adjustments from the committee for the alternate access. So we incorporate that. And we didn't just go out and share and say, you know, this is what it is. We incorporated that. And so in our feedback, the public comment form, all eight superintendent regions were represented. We had division and school leaders who filled in the form, educators, experts specifically in multilingual learners, community members, parents. We had a nice diverse group that we really were seeking feedback. And so with growth, specifically reading and mathematics, many

005prefer the use of value tables. We shared with you last time what these value tables do as a growth methodology, measuring from one year to the next. Our technical advisory council has noted that because of the transparency, consistency, and familiarity of Virginia, they would recommend them. Virginia has used student growth percentiles before. And what I would share with you as I looked back about 10 years ago at the we presented to the board at that time to move away from student growth percentiles, it was some of the same themes you're going to hear in our public comment now about why division leaders, school leaders do prefer this to be our growth methodology. Um this would give us consistency between SOL test and VAP test. Uh last year we used value added as you know, and

006we were unable to use value added for our VAP assessments. And so we had two different growth methodologies. This would bring both back under the same one. And the last bullet there, educators stated that using these tables provides better communication with families and public on student growth. So currently with our our uh vertical scale is used to measure growth. Uh this was through a linking study that we did, and we're looking to see the same items, the same type of content from one test to another. And so in reading and mathematics, we we look to see that that correlation there all the way through. And so we have a different scale. It's called the vertical scale. Uh it has a different score range than it does with our zero to 600. We explain this to

007the school systems, uh and we can provide resources to explain this to families. It was used on our previous uh growth assessments. I'm saying previous, maybe a little ahead of myself because uh July 1st uh those will be eliminated, but our growth assessments that we were doing in the fall, winter, and the SOL in the spring also used the vertical scale there to to show that uh measure growth throughout. And so that that's the explanation there and sort of how that was used. The proposal that you see here is set in tiers. Again, previously, you know, looking at it, it was if you moved a range, you earned a point. As we work through those groups I mentioned in GUC feedback, they really want to see, like we've done with our framework, the mastery index,

008you know, uh providing students with opportunities for partial growth, exceeding growth, meeting growth. Uh and so really thinking through, you could argue more complicated system, but really wanted to to value sort of that that measured growth approach. And so advancing one range, we did keep it to one point. You know, that's the expectation to show growth as you would move from one range to the next. If you're advancing two or more ranges at any point, uh the example I have here is going from uh you know from the performance level I'm looking but uh moving two or more ranges would give you 1.25 points. And then if you do move uh between the performance levels, so if I move from basic, which is not passing, to proficient, we're awarding a 1.25 value. And similarly, if

009you move from proficient to advanced, uh that's been you know a priority of the board to really move students towards advanced excelling, uh then we also are awarding a 1.25 value. And so even though they're only moving a range, the idea was that they're moving these performance levels similar to our mastery index. And so they were earning a 1.25 value as well. But again, even if they're not showing proficiency, uh if they do move uh two or more ranges at any point, uh there was a 1.25 value. Then we talk about students who are staying uh or could be regressing. If they're not showing growth, they're regressing back uh and they're not proficient, then there were zero point value. Uh if they're moving back one or more range, uh but they were still uh still

010proficient, there was a 0.75 value. Uh and then this is some feedback that we received through public comment and talking to those different associations. Initially, we had proposed to you a 0.75 for students who stayed low proficient. Uh they passed the test but really didn't show any sort of growth. And from our feedback through public comment and and sharing with these groups, um there was a strong consensus that that should be a one point value. And that's what you're seeing displayed here. And so what you see in the revised uh point system is staying in the same range from range five to range uh seven is there's a one point value now. So that point 75 was removed and it's now a one point value and that's based on feedback we received since April. And

011then you see if the students at the highest end of the range there's nowhere else to go then it's a 1.25 value as well to honor those students who are still staying but there again there's there's no other range beyond that. So again as we talked through this and heard from different stakeholders it is more complicated than how we've done value tables in the past but the feedback again was based on their thought around partial growth meeting growth exceeding growth and really trying to differentiate as much as we could for where student performance lies year over year. I did want to share with you this was done by one of our consultants who helped us with the framework I'd referenced him previously and so this is a correlation here looking at the value added model

012we used before and looking at where modeling the data using the value tables there was a point 96 correlation looking at those schools and how they would score using the prior system to using the value tables here. So as I shared 97% of our respondents did support the use of value tables some of the feedback we received is consistent expectations help educators focus on instruction rather than shifting accountability rules and then we provided some quotes here some of the standout you know sort of that that through line between the practices of assessment well instruction assessment accountability school improvement the biggest asset of this approach is the transparent targets that allow schools teachers and students to set and celebrate individual goals. If the accountability system emphasizes growth for all students educators will respond by focusing on

013growth for all students. Teachers will work toward the expectations that are clearly established for them. And so again, from our our representation, these quotes were pulled from educators, division leaders, community members who were very felt very strongly about the value tables. I'll pause there and see if there's any questions before I move into the alternate access. >> Mr. Robinson. >> First of all, thank you for all the work on this and the stakeholder feedback. Certainly the um the analysis of the uh comparing value tables to value added and the strong correlation uh you know, helps make me strong strongly supportive of the value tables because we're you know, I think it helps address the uh concerns about you know, whether um >> [clears throat] >> we're uh valuing simplicity too much. >> back. Thank you.

014>> There was a question done. >> Yes. Um uh it my understanding is just to clarify first before asking why if if you move from three to four, you're advancing one range level and you get one point. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> And if you move from six to six, you're staying at the same level and you get one point. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Um why would that be? If this is a growth measure, in the first example, you're growing, right? And the the second example, you're you're staying at the same level. And so I've I'm trying to understand given that we have a separate measure that already rewards proficiency, why in the growth measure is moving from six to six scored the same as moving from three to four? >> Excellent

015question. So, given I mean, obviously feedback was very positive in that. Given historically that the expectation was if students were proficient or advanced in the assessment, they earned a point. That's just I'm just sharing historically that's how the the tables were used. Given the rigor of our assessments and the ideas, yes, you should move up a range, but also given year-over-year and part of the linking study was with the new standards from '23 in mathematics and reading 2024 was if you did stay in the same range that the items the test became more difficult given the new standards. And so, that was another reason in the thinking to say you you did stay in the same range. You were proficient, but given the new assessments, it was worth a point versus a lower value. >>

016Right. And then another quick question for comment, it on the if we move forward as is the current voted on plan to move to higher um cut scores in this next year and essentially there's we might move in many categories over half of our students into the low basic category. Um you would uh this plan would still remain the same. So, like currently, if I'm range one below basic and I move to you range two below basic, I I get a point. Uh but in the new world, it would essentially take me moving from range one to to a much much higher, like a range four, uh depending on the test to get it'd be harder to get a point in that below basic range with the higher cut off is is what I'm assuming.

017>> Excellent. And I did mention it but it's a great segue. So, based on your feedback in the appendix we did provide for you, which kind of gets to a point of looking at value tables differently. Um and I'll do it cuz I know some of you are looking at the slide. So, excuse me a moment, I'll slide all the way through. But, we did provide to you in the appendix looking at value tables with three sub levels and four sub levels based on your feedback. And so, we had talked sort about this cliff, the bubble. Um and so, the appendix you have are are tables that we would use if adopted by the board with the two um you can call them the two ranges or two sub levels per performance level. Then, we

018had our psychometrician develop three. Um and so, we talked through the pros and cons of this, but having three and I think to your point, if you uh more students are scoring at the lower end, uh we could differentiate more, provide more room for growth. And so, that's something we could look at. We would have to amend the business rules. The business rules could not stay the same based on the design of the two levels. They would have to be adjusted. I will share with you as we talked through and we've started sharing this with some advisory groups to get their feedback. Um the concern I would give you the four um I'm on that slide now with mathematics and having the four ranges for each sub level. Uh what you get into there is

019now talking with our our statisticians and psychometricians was around the error of measurement. Is if you we've made it so discreet and so specific sort of do we really know the student is growing or is it more just based on the error of measurement? And so, that was a flag they had for us. I would say our groups preferred the four because they said the business will be very simple. It's a quarter of a point maybe to move between each one, but also we have to take the feedback we received. Uh we want to hear from you. This is not for 25-26. Want to lay that out there. But, if we did continue with the value tables and wanted to honor what the board asked, we did want to think through could we uh you

020know, look at them differently? And and so, that is you know, we had our psychometricians, but we did want to flag for you with the four ranges uh the concern that we had. So, we were thinking through maybe the three, you know, and then we'd have to come back and say what are the business rules around that. >> Um well, then uh so, I'm personally fully supportive of of, you know, I know this is a final review. We need to get this out for immediate growth measure. So, as exactly as you proposed, as we look to the future, I would uh ask us to look at the two things I named. One is um I I understand why stakeholders may want uh to a a word a five-to-five or six-to-six and the same, but I

021think that's completely against the both uh purpose of a growth as well as our value of wanting to uh ensure that our uh system is uh amplifying attention to the students furthest from opportunity. Again, I love a system that also rewards students moving from level six to seven and seven to eight and so that we're also ensuring we're paying attention to every single student, which is another purpose, uh but it just it feels um wrong to uh uh in the growth measure uh have uh tremendously less opportunity for points for students who are starting so far below. Um that's what the proficient measure it provides us. And so, it it it feels like we're stacking the deck against schools uh with with more students far from opportunity, number one. And number two, uh if we

022do move uh as is the plan now to the uh higher cut scores, uh this may be too complicated, but I would encourage at least the looking as you've already named at that that four level or three level, particularly at the below basic. Again, we want to ensure students are growing, but I fear if the growth range from the lowest below basic to the high below basic is from a 300 to a 400, it may uh disincentivize attention to the students who are who are furthest from opportunity. >> Thank you. >> Superintendent Conway and then Dr. >> Yeah. Wonderful. Thank you, Mr. Robinson. So, yeah, want to be clear that again for the proposal in front of you, it is with the 25-26 uh uh levels of the 400, right? And so, to to do

023that I think the other only important piece I would note and again I think it is is useful as as we think about next year and additional data on you potential implications of of of of cut scores and then how to kind of think about how that works with this, right? And there is urgency in here around im- improvement. is just thinking through and just this idea of higher expectations each year, right? And so, that there is some growth there and again so, I would not want us to remove entirely sort of incentive for staying proficient, particularly if that bar increases, um but thinking about kind of the assignment of those those points um and thinking through again uh how would we get noting that for 25-26 that that uh to Mark's point and as

024we discussed yesterday that represents for math like the full implementation of the more rigorous standards and so, that's a good base of data to bring to you all this summer to think about the go forward um and to be able to look with the model with the data both on uh implications of the cut scores and on uh what it might look like for 26-27, but for 25-26 it is uh you know, uh the the agreed-upon practice year for the cut scores. >> Okay. >> Dr. Northern or is it Dr. Wilson? Okay. So, um just to sort of layer on here, um, I think what is going on is we're thinking that the values table is that growth measure, and it's not. We need to separate two things. Like, the value measure is that continuous

025scale, right? And then the reporting measure are these value tables. Behind the scenes, we've looked at that continuous scale and decided if you move from 400, I'm just making this up, to 480, and we decide how much growth that counts for in terms of this other thing that we're using for the public, right? Right? So, behind the scenes, like, we shouldn't There's the calculation of the growth, which is on the continuous scale. Cuz if we treat this table like the measure instead of just a presentation of the measure, it begins to look like we're losing all of this growth to the point Ms. Robbins is making, right? Like, you're losing You're cramming all of this continuous growth on the scale that goes zero to 100 into these little ranges on the table. And I appreciate

026it, cuz it looks like you went back and asked someone to see what three or four ranges would look like so we catch more of the growth within the band. >> Right, absolutely. >> But then to your point, you lose stability. Measure gets noisy. You start get >> Absolutely. >> So, what we need to really think about is, okay, continue to do testing, honestly, with ODU or whoever you're doing it, cuz every state wrestles with this, and figure out how we want to translate what we're doing behind the scenes relative to the growth on the continuous scale that catches all the growth and not just this little growth in the band. >> Absolutely. >> And then try to then portray that for the public easily through the values table, but don't pretend like the values

027table is the measure itself. It's just a way to present the more nuanced measure that we have on this continuous scale, Asia. >> Absolutely. Great points. >> Thank you, Dr. Wilson. >> Thank you. Um so, my only comment is piggybacking on Mr. Robinson's uh observation about uh the consistent growth the one point whether you stay within, right? And your observation or comment about recognizing that we are introducing more rigorous standards, and so wanting to acknowledge that staying the course is valuable. So, does it make sense to even contemplate um that recognition for a period of time, and then the expectation is that app So, once the standards settle and we settle into our our understanding of them and the teaching of them, then we undo that kind of stagnation, if you will. Something to consider

028may introduce uh more complexity and potential for confusion, um but I I see both sides of the coin recognizing the staying power, but then also the expectation that can that we continue to move forward in terms of growth. >> And I think to your comments and and and Dr. Northern's around that reporting mechanism. I mean, we want this to be we hear from the stakeholders, they love to analyze their data quickly, they like to model their schools and see how they're performing in the accountability system, but ultimately too for our parents, are their students growing? And so, we're thinking through with our vendors sort of how we report again to Dr. Northern's comments around what we're translating, uh sharing, sort of understanding as as discreetly as we can. Where are they growing? You know, which

029areas are they growing? Where are their areas of support? Where can our instructional offices come in? Because my child may have passed the test, but did Where are they still needing support? And so, we want to get down versus just pass fail. When I grew, grew where? Where could I have grown more? And so, we're working with our reporting system to get better at that. Um we want clarity, we want transparency, but also in that simplicity not to lose some of the definitive sort of specific information. >> Board members, are there any additional questions? Um Mr. Robinson. >> Real quick, one thing I loved about Jay Lark's report yesterday was the analysis they did to show the correlation between you know, the the economic situation of the students in a school and the proficiency or

030growth measures. As you consider the different options going forward, it might be useful to see that same analysis to see if the growth measures going forward have a have a similar correlation or if we're we're increasing the correlation to the the actual economic situation of the students in a school, which I think we should try not to do, but that might help provide nuance to the decisions. >> What? >> Excellent. >> Okay, if there are no other question, is there a motion to approve the revisions to the ESSA consolidated state education >> I need sorry. >> Oh, sorry. >> Sorry, I threw you off. I broke in the middle cuz I wanted to keep the conversation going and I'm going to do the second part. Sorry. >> Oh, sorry. >> Well, if you want to

031vote on point part one, that's good, but >> Vote it all together. >> So, part two is very specific to a population. It's around the WIDA Alternate Access test. As I shared before, 3,200 students took this assessment 24-25. It's around 2% of our English learners. These are students again who have severe cognitive disabilities. This is a newer assessment and Virginia previously did not have an exit criteria, and so federal requirement we need one. We also need to have a progress level. And so we had a committee meet. Their recommendation, they really were between three and four given again the population and the population and all students can complete all the domains. Uh they weighed those factors. What does this mean? These are dually identified students. And so, given all those factors, looking at the data,

032uh and these students take the the Virginia alternate assessment program, uh the the committee wanted to go higher. They said, "Let let's go for a four as a proficiency level versus three." Uh and so, from the you see the results using that from 24-25 data, uh 14% of the students uh would have exited. Obviously, level three, they saw this 26% would have exited, uh but they they felt very strongly and recommended here to the board that the level four would be what we use. Uh and so, the overall, we shared the the progress levels. Uh we would use a scale score here. Uh this again, this assessment's different than typical English learner assessments. Uh students typically with English language learners uh do better at the lower end. They're they're new uh to the to the

033country, to the language. They actually accelerate, grow faster. Uh with this assessment, it's the opposite. That students at proficiency level one, uh we see more stagnation. We're not seeing as much growth. And that's why we're only looking for one-point uh scale score, uh which is very actually is very comparable to other states. We we researched what other states had done with this. And then proficiency levels two through four, uh we're expecting to see more growth. And so, we have a two-point minimum there uh for a point. And I will share with you this is something that we now will have a third year of data uh that'll be coming in over the next few weeks, and we want to have a committee this fall to analyze this again and see with three years of data

034is this still on trend. Uh but based on what we saw in our analysis and looking at uh the VAP assessment, uh this is what the committee recommended. And so, overall, very positive feedback from our we had number of multilingual educators really speak out on this, and we shared with those groups. Uh you see some language here about finally seeing a pathway for these students to exit cuz currently they cannot exit. Um, you see a quote there. The updated exit criteria acknowledges that students who participate uh, in these assessments are working towards language development and are aligned to alternate achievement standards. So, 89% uh, rep- support the recommendation for level four. Uh, those who did not thought level three would be appropriate. Uh, it was between, like I said, the three and four and so,

035but the 89% did agree with the level four. Uh, and so, we wanted to share that feedback with you. And then the 74% who uh, agreed, strongly agreed, agreed with the proposed progress levels. It was interesting to read why the 26% did not. Uh, there's was some confusion around this assessment in particular. It's different than the ACCESS where we really do score it based on how many domains they can complete. So, there was some misunderstanding there, which was good feedback for us uh, because some of the feedback was, you know, a student can't complete the whole test. How are you going to measure growth? Well, that's already factored into this. We we base it on the pieces that they can complete given this population. Uh, some respondents disagreed because they thought all proficiency levels one

036through four should be treated the same. And we share again that students at the lower end uh, can't uh, are not showing as much growth as students at the higher end and that's why we differentiated uh, between one to two on the scale score. And then finally, some respondents felt very strongly with this population that they should not be measured for progress at all. That's sort of just taking the assessment should be, you know, progress enough. Uh, again, federal law requires us to have a measure of progress, but that was why they disagreed uh, with what we were proposing there. Um, and and the 26%. Uh, and so, next steps is uh, if the board does adopt this, we would submit this to the United States Department of Education. Uh, if the board does adopt

037it, they've seen a preview of this. Uh, you know, just to sort of see what what that way we can accelerate. They know this is being used for the 25-26 year. And so there have been no major flags from them. But if the board adopts this, we'd send this back to them for official approval. And then once it's adopted, we we publish that and make it clear to the public that this is our latest approved plan. >> Board members, any questions? Quick one. Okay. Okay. Now. Look at this page here. Okay. >> have a quick question. >> Sure. Um so on page 14 one point is really in the margin of error. Like it could mean nothing. So I realize that we need a score, but I'm a little nervous that we're actually not measuring

038anything but potential measurement error. >> Great feedback. This was something with the committee we worked with and one of our TAC members, this was prior to her joining our technical advisory council, Dr. Molly Faulkner Bond, who's now with the Center for Assessment, led this work. And we had done a number of statistical analysis. For this assessment of this population, a scale score in the proficiency level one is uh we did factor in the standard error of measurement. Many of these students were grass or they say stagnant. And so it was considered to be, you know, sufficient, uh significantly statistically significant for the one scale score. I would say to you that's something we also said as a committee, we want to see another year of data for that because we also thought sort of are

039we setting the bar too low there in factoring in the error of measurement. So I do I do bring that to you as something that we also had that as a concern keeping at the one scale score. And so our thought was, you know, for 25-26, the first year to do this, we are going to have a committee this fall and then reanalyze and then bring that back and say, "Hey, now with another year of data, we also revised some pieces with our VAP. We wanted to look and see more of the correlation. Maybe it does need to adjust and be higher. >> [laughter] >> Um just my final question. When I look at the actual plan we're submitting to Ed, I'm on page um 100. And it says um these are reading targets and

040long-term goals >> Yes. >> race for students by year. >> Yes. >> Page 100. >> Yes. >> And it says it's our accountability from 22-23 to 28-29. >> Yes. >> Yet the text says that we're just using it I think for like what year? So I guess obviously when we start getting into doing growth by race, I guess you know, because we don't want to do that, right? We want to we want to control by prior test score. We don't want to set growth targets by race. So I I'm just I guess I'm trying to figure out like what what do we really take from this page 100 um and other page 101, all these that are setting growth targets uh by racial categories. >> Excellent question. So this is a carryover from No Child

041Left Behind. Long-term goals and our measures of progress is a requirement of ESSA that we have these tables. Uh these are set through the department and the board uh calculating what they think. It's not like the old days of AMO, AYP, but this was a uh a reporting mechanism we have to do. So the state gets to decide where these targets are. You may see a note on there as well uh that for some of these we were planning to redo these based on the cut scores. Um and so they they do need to be redone uh because they were based off of our old assessment and the old cut scores. Uh and so there's you know, in the department we still have that note that we need to redo those. Um we did in

042our old accountability system, we used the all students group, only the all students group is part of our uh target of support mechanism. We only now use them with our new cohesive system, we only use them for reporting. And so we do provide it on the school on the school quality profiles, our state report card, we do show how the school is doing in basically against those benchmarks cuz that's what they are. But they're the state determined benchmarks not federal set benchmarks. But it is something that based on the cut scores, the new assessments, we do need to revise. And so again, but the purpose is just for reporting. >> I'm actually surprised that this current federal administration still wanting this. >> It's it's under ESSA. It's required under federal law. It's it's required. Yeah,

043but only for reporting. Great question. >> Any questions? Questions? Are we sure? >> Yes. >> [laughter] >> All right. Now, is there a motion to approve the revisions to the ESSA consolidated state plan as described in the item? >> So >> Second. >> Okay. Roll call Dr. Bridges. >> Aye. >> Mrs. McPherson. >> Aye. >> Mr. Hanson. Dr. Northern. Dr. Wilson. >> Aye. >> Mr. Robinson. >> Aye. >> Mrs. Kilgore. And chair votes aye. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Jennings. Okay. So Deputy Superintendent. Oh, there she goes. For now under item I. Deputy Superintendent. >> Thank you, President Ashton, members of the board. It's great to be back today to discuss the um, conversation yesterday to continue that about our road map for a measurement. I do want to first say though that in response

044to the request yesterday for greater clarity around the difference between the measurement road map that we are bringing forward today for consideration for first review and the prior votes of the this board in last fall through December. There is a new attachment that has been updated to the I should be in your materials for this item I that walks through in detail what the currently approved proficiency implementation plan looks like for every grade, every subject level, every year, and every performance level as compared to what we first discussed yesterday. So, just wanted to bring that forward, especially cuz I think as we are discussing this item, it's useful to have um, complete clarity and sort of be on this be singing from the same hymn book, you might say, as far as um, what was

045voted on previously and so that we can start to at least be sure that all of our stakeholders as well also have that clarity. So, it's clarity for y'all here at the board level but also for the stakeholders out in the field. So, just wanted to flag that. We will go through a few materials before first before getting to to that particular item but I did want to let you know that we followed through with that. So, it is there for your perusal. >> It may just be me. I've done anyone else? Okay. It's on SharePoint. Is it on SharePoint? Okay, but obviously somebody's on top Okay. More than that one but obviously I would see that. >> Right. Um, because it's we're going to take a Sorry, it's okay. Thank you for raising, Dr.

046Bridges. We're going to take a quick 5-minute break just to see if we can reconcile this. Thank you. Okay, that's good. >> We have confirmed that the website is uh back up and running and the additional item is available for the public to review. Uh Dr. Bridget, did you have a question as well or is that what you were raising? Okay. Great. Thank you. >> Thank you, Ms. President. Thank you, President Ashton. I'm happy that the documents are now working on the web as well as in our SharePoint. So, just to round the conversation again, I think in sort of the the why what we're presenting here is sort of as an option in addition to you know, the great discussion we had yesterday is that you know, we are really trying to think about

047everything that's in our measurement system as a cohesive whole and how it supports not just effective instruction, teaching and learning in our schools, but also ultimately student outcomes. And so we wanted to bring forward an item here that considered assessment, accountability, school improvement all together with a number of specific actions that are taking place now, but this is really you know, we had the great presentation from JLARC yesterday. How do we think about implementing a bunch of different changes, some coming from the General Assembly, some coming from sort of our own analysis of these systems moving forward over the next several years to really build from those strengths of the last five years, whether that is the tremendous work to adopt more rigorous standards in reading and mathematics in 2023 and 24, the work that

048you heard from Dr. Wallace earlier around HQIM and being sure that our teachers and instructors are equipped with instructional materials that are aligned to those standards. And then with the important work that we will complete this year to ensure our assessments are also aligned to those standards. That's really important work that we don't want to to discount. We want to build on, reinforce and strengthen just as we want to build on, reinforce and strengthen the new accountability system which JLARC found was more effective and useful than the prior system. We did want to bring forth the idea of this one transition again because of how interconnected all of these elements are. We need to think about how they're sequenced together and how they build from one another, how they could be reinforcing one another toward

049that North Star of high expectations for all kids. Um, and found that the 2028-2029 school year would be the best year that we saw in which all of those different timelines could converge. We do want to be continually signaling high expectations for our students because we know they are capable. We know that it when we set the bar high, they will meet it. And we want to also signal that to our parents, our families, everyone who supports students in the classroom, whether that is the bus driver, the teacher, the school principal, the assistant principal. Uh, that needs to be a through line throughout the measurement system. We also have a through line here around our, um, you know, students who, uh, how how do we think about communicating with families, with parents, with the public

050about what's changing and why and when. This is really complicated, so we were trying to present all of those pieces, um, ultimately again, so that we can help the adults that work with our students know what they need to do to help our students meet those high expectations so that we can, you know, highlight bright spots, but also identify areas that need improvement where additional action can be taken. We heard that great presentation this morning from Dr. Ballard about the work in Danville and Greenville and Prince Edward, but we also want to see similar actions happening in our comprehensive support schools, our targeted support schools. So, that is sort of the the idea here was that we could think about this cohesive system that is building the vision for our what we want all to

051be true for all kids. Knowing it's going to take maybe take some time to sequence everything together, but this is what this is possible. This is achievable. This is attainable. So, here are the five actions that we are bringing forward for first review today. Again, I will likely be in front of this board many, many, many more times as we go through the full suite of those Taylor recommendations. And more, you know, uh, Assistant Superintendent Jennings was just talking about growth and I think you know, Mr. Robinson and others brought up a really good point around you know, this is what we're doing this year. What do we want this to look like in the future? So, that may be a that's likely going to be an item that will come back to this board

052even though it's not a JLARC recommendation. There's no JLARC recommendation about the growth indicator. But, these were the five pieces that we wanted to bring forward today for first review. And I'll walk through them each in turn. So, the first is adopting one change to increase our expectations for proficiency on state tests synchronized with the other changes. And this is what that new attachment is really trying to clarify and address what that would look like especially in comparison to what this board voted on previously. A lot of things are the same like that we're still having same high expectations for students. We are not raising the question here about whether we should raise cut scores to a nationally competitive level. That is true in both proposals that have been brought forward. We are also not

053changing the commitment of this board to providing insight to parents, to families, to educators, to divisions, to school leaders along the way about that delta between what's true now and where that North Star is. That is a common feature of both proposals. We are also not going back and reconsidering the consideration around how we think about our verified credits for students who have to pass an assessment to graduate. We are sticking with this proposal in both that the cut scores that are in place when a student first takes the assessment for verified credit is what holds. That's what this board voted on in December. The big pieces that are different here is that under this proposal we would get to that North Star in 2028-2029 rather than 2029-2030. That we were trying to sequence things

054in a way where the focus would be more on that North Star final destination rather than on maybe moving kids around a bubble each year of wherever the approaching slash passing level was. Um and really trying to focus more on where we would be getting in 2028-2029 um as a as a goal here. And I think another key piece is is again that approaching level was unique to the plan this board voted on um throughout the fall. That level is not part of the road map in part because we felt it was confusing to have this shifting new level only in place for 3 years and then it goes away with at the same time that we're trying to communicate to parents about a whole other lots of changes that are happening to assessments. So

055that was you know part of the goals here and hopefully the attachment clarifies exactly what the key differences are and shows you we tried to highlight in every year what the level what would be the cut score for proficiency. That's within what is in bold whether it's on the left hand side or the right hand side every year. And you can see where so if we get to the final destination in 2028-2029 versus 2029-2030. Um and I think this will be regardless of the conversation today very helpful for stakeholders to have this in full and laid out in this manner. I I wish that we had brought this forward yesterday cuz I think it would have been helpful for the conversation. Um but it is here now so I really appreciate the push from Ms.

056Fierce and others on this board to bring this forward. I think that was exactly the right call today. Um so that is the first action that we have for the first review. The second through fifth are more just focused on the accountability system portion of the measurement road map than kind of the big picture. This action would be to update the SPSF school rating names this fall. So, this relates to the JLARC recommendation number one and one of the most common concerns that we heard on our Commonwealth listening tour. In particular, we would be updating the off-track category to approaching expectations and the on-track to meets expectations. That could take effect immediately. It does not have this ripple effect on other elements of the system. It is something that is just a reported label. So,

057it's something that can be done quickly and I think that quote from the JLARC report here on the slide illustrates why that is true. Um we also wanted to note that this does not preclude future board action on this question. It may be at the end of the day once we consider how we want to update the three readiness indicator and maybe we want to talk about the weight of growth and proficiency and we adjust so that we have a different cut point to be distinguished for high schools than for elementary and middle schools. We may look at that data as part of the preview and decide We Yeah, I think you heard from Deputy Superintendent Carroll this morning about the QB5. They had the same thing where they said we've been using three levels

058and now we want to use five. So, we may have a similar situation in a few years, but we wanted to take this information right now based on what we know from JLARC, based on what we know from the Commonwealth listening tour. Um we do think that this is um more intuitive and aligned with the QB5 actually. These are two terms that they use. So, that would be a really nice tie-in between our early childhood accountability system as well as our K-12 accountability system. The third action here is what we talked about yesterday around using more timely data to measure high school mastery. Right now we um look at the mastery index based on the 12th grade cohort. So, that means students in grade 12 whether they took the EOC reading test in grade 12,

059in grade 11, in grade 10, or in grade nine. Um, so that data can be several years old by the time it is actually fed into the accountability system. Um, this is uh most of the high school indicators we use are just looking at the 12th grade cohort. 3E looks at the 12th grade cohort, graduation rate looks at the 12th grade cohort, and mastery is a really highly weighted portion of our high school SBSF system. And we thought this would be a good change is based on feedback we have heard from the field, even though it is not in J-LARP, because it would ensure we are focusing on all students in the school, not just those in 12th grade. We would be thinking about our ninth graders and our 10th graders and our 11th graders,

060not waiting until they're a 12th grader to find out if they've met those high expectations. And would help us drive more meaningful, timely intervention in high schools that need it. This is a change that if implemented would not take effect for fall 26 ratings. It is one that we would implement for the ratings that come out next school year. So we would use 26-27 data and calculate mastery in using this more annual measure. And we use annual data in elementary school and middle school. So it's also more similar with how mastery is treated in the other grade spans as well. The fourth and the final action that we are considering here for first review are related to English learners. This is the J-LARP recommendation around how we reallocate the weight of the English language progress

061indicator. So that's based on the WIDA assessment that Assistant Superintendent Jennings was just talking about. Um, when a school doesn't have enough English learners in the school. Um, currently we reallocate that weight solely to the growth indicator. As Joe talked about yesterday, this results in a system that's fundamentally unfair because it means that the relative weight of growth and proficiency is quite different in schools just based on whether you have English learners or not. So, if this board would like to consider how we weight growth relative to proficiency, a more fair way to do that is to change the weight of growth for all schools, not just schools that happen to have fewer English learners. Um so, this would be accomplished um again sort of like the prior action. We would implement it using data

062from the upcoming school year and would first be seen in the SPF ratings that come out next fall. >> [snorts] >> But, um this is also how we treat the ELP, the English language progress indicator, in high school. This is only a practice right now that happens in middle school and in elementary school. Finally, our fifth action for first review is how we consider our recently arrived English learners. So, the past action was thinking about all English learners. Recently arrived English learners are defined in federal law as any student who has not been enrolled in US schools for a year. So, these are students who are in their first year in schools in the US. So, kindergartners, they're not all they're not all recently arrived English learners because many of them, you know, were born

063here, have been in US schools more than This is really specific to students who are have only been arrived in US schools for a year. Um right now, we use what's called exception A. And what we are proposing is to maintain exception A for the upcoming school year. Exception A allows students who are recently arrived to not take reading tests in English in their first year in US schools. In their second year in US schools, they do take reading tests. They also take math tests every year. They're That is consistent across the board. This is only really about when a student takes that reading assessment. Uh under exception A, the student takes the reading test in their second year, and they're only included in the mastery component because they don't have that prior year score

064to calculate growth. So, a student under exception A is included for mastery and growth in their third year. Under exception B, the biggest difference here are twofold. One, all recently arrived English learners must be tested in reading in English in their first year in US schools. In the second year, instead of being included in mastery, they would be included in growth. And in the third year, everything's the same. So, it's really this What does accountability look like in year two? And do we test students in their first year in US schools in reading in English? And this was a piece where it gave us pause. Again, you know, we talked a lot about yesterday about the instructional practices that we want to see. And we were concerned about maybe overtesting EL students instead of focusing

065on them attaining English language proficiency, which is really really critical, especially for students when they're newly arrived. You know, the faster you can get a student to attain language proficiency, the better off they will be in the long term. We were interested, however, especially cuz this was a policy option, one of those that, you know, as Joe talked about yesterday, like, not quite strong enough to make a recommendation, but an option to consider, that we thought maybe there's a way that we could pilot this. Give some divisions a chance to see what would happen if they tested their recently arrived English learners in reading in year one. See, get feedback from those teachers, get feedback from those divisions, see what happens to their SPSF results. We would need to be sure that this is um

066permissible under federal law. I always would like to have that caveat, but we thought that could be a really great way for us to to test it out and sort of do that type of preview it before maybe considering bringing back this item as a change statewide. I know that is wonky and complicated, but that was the intention here is that let's stick with the current practice for this year, maintain that focus really on teaching and learning for our recently arrived English learners, but if there are some divisions that may be interested in this approach, perhaps we could give find a way for them to pilot it. And with that, I am going to pause and take questions. >> Lots of questions. Okay, Ms. McPherson then Dr. Bridges. >> Okay, so I just want to

067make sure we are clear about your proposal and recommendation on moving forward versus what we previously as a board had voted. So, I'm looking at your chart. >> Which talks about prepared students 2026-2027 comments. So, our proficiency cut scores changes, you say there would be no change in 2026-2027. That's for all grade levels, whereas the board had voted that the change that we would take into consideration would be the exemption for high school seniors, so we wouldn't impact them. And then instead what you would do is you would put a what if data preview of new cut scores. So, you would basically tell principals and superintendents, this is what if the new cut scores were in place. So, basically you would be eliminating all about approaching category and the testing scores of students or cut

068scores under the proficiency levels that we had adopted under the approaching. And the same thing in 2027, you were proposing that there be no change in the cut scores, and you would do the same thing again. You would tell principals, parents, this is a what if the new cut scores were in place, this is where you would be. And then at 28-29, you would finally say, "Guess what? We're going to implement the new cut scores." So, I just want to make sure that we're clear that the board said we would implement the new cut scores, we would exempt the students. We would begin telling parents, principals, superintendents, everybody would have all the information. And that approaching would be the passing because we're trying to get them to the proficiency level, so that we would be

069proficient at 28-29. So, that's that's a big diff- 29-30. Okay. That's a big difference, even if they move it up a year, that's a big difference. Okay? And as we go back and we look at the November 2025 materials, we actually said that our goal was to get 28-29 anyway, that we would phase in. But I just it needs to be clear to the public that these two plans are not close at all. They're very, very different. One is what if we implemented cut scores, and this is what you would look like. And the other one is we're implementing cut scores, and we're measuring you according to those cut scores, and we're moving you incrementally towards proficiency based on the national level. Those are two very different plans. >> So, I think that when I

070say the similarities here, the similarities, the three similarities that are summarized on the first page, are the at the end of the day, where we are in 28-29 under this new option, and where we are in 2030 under the prior option is exactly the same. In every grade level, in every subject. So, that is That is true. And then, the idea of I think under the uh previously approved plan that you all voted on, there was a different way of I would say previewing or preparing divisions. That was through the approaching level because approaching was considered passing. So, it is accurate to say that in 2026, 2027 under the prior vote that you all this board spent many months deliberating carefully on, that the uh cut scores of performance levels change. They do change. They

071just don't go all the way to that North Star. Yeah, you can see that um whether on pages three and four of the handout that we provided, the attachment, that the fail below basic level is is a different score, the fail basic level is a different score, the fail pass approaching is a different score that is different between 2026, 2027 and 2025, 2026. And then, the uh third piece that was the commonality was the way that we are treating students who need to pass for verified credit. So, we were just trying to lay out and it's by showing this level of detail all in one place, which I think this document you know, was created last night, has not existed before today and this This level of detail has never been shared even with our

072divisions, that I think just wanted to have crystal clarity between the two. And where they are different and where they are the same. That was our goal so that we could ground this conversation, this discussion for first review um with a common set of information. >> Great. Thank you, Dr. Bridges, and then Mr. Henson. >> Comment that I promise is leading to a question. Um the question is how you created the the left-hand charts. And let me share why asking that question. So, um we all talked yesterday about the previous vote and then I was able to go back last night and review those meetings again as as someone who wasn't part of the board at that point. And it was really clear to me that when y'all approved the new cut scores and that

073this board is not altering that that vote at all. But the December meeting when there was approval of this four-year phase in with a temporary performance category, there was nothing like this document and so my biggest concern about policy making is public clarity. And I myself, who was taking a lot of time to try to make sense of it, had three example tables and then there's some conflicting language between the actual superintendent's recommendation then and and the four years that were laid out in that executive summary. So, it was really hard to understand and I was really concerned that there was no publicly available cut scores per SOL subject at that time. So, you've created them, but how did you determine what the cut scores were because there was no way to see it. It

074was there something that you could use from the previous? >> So, yes, I was not at the department, so I was a This is the VDOE, but we did I will say there's sort of arrived you pieced this together. You had to take what was passed in September, what was then maybe went out to stakeholders, which did not have the 25-26 year as a NA nothing happens year. And then piece together the examples from the board, which were just for a few three subject areas. That was what was voted on in December. And then the specifics of this, my understanding from talking with the team is that we did work with our TAC, maybe not the full TAC, but a key advisor to the TAC to try and determine what exactly each of the cut

075scores should be. But, you are correct in stating that the table that is on the left-hand has only been an internal document up to this point. >> Okay. So, this is the first time the public can see this can see what this would look like because the language from December was again, depending on where you look in that executive summary. There's I could make an argument that year one 26-27 doesn't even ask for a a phase increase cuz it the the the I'm quoting directly from the from the that summary, "Introduce a temporary new performance level." That's all it says. It doesn't say that you need to adjust those cut scores in introducing that new temporary performance level. Then in year two it says, "Modest." Again, I'm quoting from the summary, "A modest increase in

076the cut score." And then in year three it says, "Interim increase." Again, as a as a member of the public who wasn't there, I was like, "What's modest and what's interim?" So, for the first time we're seeing how we're thinking about modest and interim and you are including an adjustment in 26-27 that wasn't necessarily in the language that was approved, right? >> Yeah, I would say there were the document maybe that was one of the more detailed documents in terms of sharing the data for multiple grade levels, multiple subjects was a document that went out to stakeholders during those focus groups, the the tour that the team led, and they presented a four-year approach and a five-year approach. So, it doesn't say sort of which of the options were there. And in particular, it shows

077what some of these approaching levels would be. It doesn't talk about the changes though to fail below basic or fail basic. So, that So, even a stakeholder that went to that may have seen the approaching level, but they might not have seen sort of the shifts in those two lower levels based on my review of you know what I've got from the team and what I've seen publicly as well. So, I do think there is part of what I do really appreciate about the push from so many members of this board yesterday was in urging us to bring this forward so that there was crystal clear, we are crystal clear on the path ahead of us. And that we can start use the next two months >> [snorts] >> to really disseminate this widely, broadly

078with as many folks as possible who would be impacted by that. You know, our our families, our parents, our educators. To really lay it out in a very this this dark and this clear way as clear as we possibly can be. So, that they can make the shifts in instruction that we need. >> I just have one more clarifying question for Herb and then wondering to the board, but Madam Chair, I'm happy to alternate if I could just ask the one clarifying. >> Ask the question, please. >> Thank you. >> And again, this is all for public clarity. I want to make sure we're being really clear to to the audience that hopefully is able to to view this as well. The rating change, the second um item that you're presenting today would not lose

079categories. It would still be there would be four categories for the for the school performance uh framework support framework. Needs intensive support, approaching expectations, meets expectations, and distinguished. >> That is correct. Yes, action two does not impact our sort of two the highest and the lowest or the number of categories. Um you know, as I teased, you know, we may want to come back in the future if if we look at the data after making number numerous J Lark changes, but yes, this fall and then fall 2027 the four I should say this fall. This fall the four categories would be needs intensive support, approaching expectations, meets expectations, and distinguished. >> Thank you. It's I just wanted to make sure because you didn't discuss those and I >> Yes. Yeah, it is only those two

080categories that would be changing. >> Thank you, and I'll reserve my next comment for so others can >> Sure, let's make sure we uh have have other board members comment. Uh Mr. Henson. >> Um I just think that there's some really mixed information going on here. Somebody who's been here for 4 years who's been at this accountability framework discussion for 3 of those years. >> Yes. >> The actions that took place last summer, last fall, last winter um public record um we were all here. We had outside experts come in and show where we stood with our cut scores in all these categories. Lowest in the country in most of them, and the fact that we made a conscientious decision unanimously to move forward in a tiered structure so that we don't have a cliff

081that coming up on it so that we also get some um exercise with the participants in this to build towards this, to get a culture changing towards accountability, transparency and so it's also not rocket science, frankly, to figure out if we're in our fifth-grade reading at uh 400 and we want to get to 500 that over 3 or 4 years, there's going to be an incremental approach. And I would also ask, where's the department been for the last 8 months to help us put this together? Rhetorical question right now. And I would also say that the presentation you just walked through, especially for number one, um had nothing said about our children. And I went back just to the very first conversation we had about this in 2000 in 2022, and we had Dr. Schneider

082here, um and this is when we were coming out of COVID. It's after 5 years from 2017 to 2022 that we had the largest learning loss in the entire country. And it was by far. Um and there were half the states that didn't have learning loss. Ours was 14% across the board. Um and a lot of that also coincided with the Board of Education uh 2017 dropping the math and the reading standards. And so, you know, the way in which we uh handled or didn't handle uh the COVID situation as well as uh making a conscientious decision to lower our standards uh were direct correlating events to Anybody wants to go back and look at the slides um uh that were presented um Dr. Schneider in 2022. And and I also say that we have

083sat here through hours and hours and hours of our expert consultants walking us through these cut scores the last year. So, this whole conversation, and again, I'm going to just throw out another organizational issue for the department, there was no discussion about this. None of us I didn't know this is coming. Um and this is not um best practice in uh management and in conversation. You know, last summer and fall we had 17 listening sessions. Um all all the information, 1,500 comments uh online. Uh and very transparent um system. Um I just think, you know, in our true north right now, it needs to be um how do we close the massive MAP score gaps for our black children, our Hispanic children, for our disadvantaged children across the board, where again we have made dramatic

084improvements these last 4 years to where we maybe you know, got back uh to where we were when we dropped very far in 2021. And I just think that, you know, for kicking this can down the road for another 3 years, you know, not getting the culture changing in our school system, with our leaders, with our families, with our expectations, even what's coming out of Richmond to be able to explain why this is important. And by making this type of recommendation, we're saying this isn't important. And there's a lot of mumbo jumbo in here about communication and about that the best way to communicate is to do something. And you know, this I heard a lot yesterday about plans. We need action. Um and I'm repeating myself from yesterday, but um this old notion about,

085you know, having one big change, you know, the way things have gone uh these last 8 years, this is kicking the can down the road and giving you an opportunity when all of a sudden people's hair's going to be on fire because we've got the one big change coming in 2028, 2029. It's much more thoughtful, much more respectful, much more meaningful, much more plausible and possible if we go with this phased-in approach that we spent years working on with outside experts. And again, we're trying to get Virginia out of the ditch of being um um the lowest cut scores in most cases in the country. >> Ms. McFee, um I'm going to go Dr. Wilson, and then I'll go back to Ms. McFee. >> Thank you. Um I have a [clears throat] question about the

086name change as it relates to the question of number one and what the and the path. So, in the name change, the recommendation will be um approaching proficiency? >> Yes, that was what was voted on by the board. >> And so, how how is that >> [clears throat] >> Excuse me. How is that defined? Right? So, thinking about um how the two pieces may fit together. I'm not I'm sorry that I don't understand how those things speak to one another. Um if there's no approaching score, then how will we define approaching proficiency as we're as we're identifying goals? >> When you say there's no approaching, are you talking about the the one and two together? I just want to be sure I understand the question, Dr. Wilson. >> Yes, so how do um recommendations one

087and two speak to each other, fit together? >> Yes. >> So, Thank you. >> Yes. Um I mean, I think we were thinking of this as a package. So, I think this speaks a little bit to the confusion around approaching proficiency and what that would mean and that we would need to do a lot of of work with our stakeholders to explain that that was, you know, it's approaching proficiency but it is considered passing for all intents and purposes and then we would, you know, be implementing that the approaching proficiency level for purposes of calculating mastery, for example, would be treated the same in the accountability system as a proficient. So, when it comes to the the school accountability system, there wouldn't be we use a mastery index where you get it, you know, as

088Joe walked through yesterday was, you know, 0.25 points if you're below basic, 0.75 if you're basic, mastery for the mastery index, proficiency and approaching proficiency would be one point. >> Okay, and then >> And then and then, yes, we do our we're suggesting having this approaching expectations label replacing off track for the reasons here that, you know, it would be more intuitive, more aligned with VQB5 and was trying to address stake holder holder feedback. So, we would have, you know, if if the board were not to move forward ultimately in August with action one, we could have approaching proficiency on parent report cards and things like that and we could have approaching expectations for SPSF purposes. The hope would of course be that approaching expectations is a term that sticks around for a while. Approaching

089proficiency is only applicable for the three school years as shown on the left hand side of that attachment. So, that that that label would go away after those three years and then when the plan would be fully implemented in 2090 30. But you were correct, Dr. Wilson, in noting that approaching would be used in two different contexts within the cut scores and then with the the expectations of course you know we were bringing this forward together is that you know we're all of these are five items together so under our scenario of having the one switch there would be no approaching proficiency level. >> But but but if the board may I but if the decision is that this item two the name change goes forward I'm sorry let me make sure I'm looking at

090this in the right way and we change the performance category to approaching expectations. >> Yes. >> That would remain. Correct? >> That would remain until we brought it forward for the board you know unless we got additional information that told us we may need to change >> asking my question as clearly as I should but if we say that a school is approaching expectations in their performance my question is how [clears throat] is that defined as it relates to the first item. Right and so so if there's no cut score there's if there's if there's no metric against which we can define approaching expect that's what I'm trying to clarify. >> No I love this conversation because I think ultimately it's getting to probably one of the single biggest things we are going to need

091to do to improve the accountability system and that is the second J Lark recommendation that Joe talked about yesterday which is how we set the cut points between each of those performance categories. What's the difference between distinguished and what we have right now on track meeting expectations potentially what we have between you know each level. When those cut points were defined originally the numbers were just like let's make it 90 and above 80 and above It I would love for us to have a conversation as a board when we get to that point around let's say we want distinguished mean. It is true that most of the students in your school are meeting our new proficiency cut point. That is what we want. We that and I think we can have an opportunity in the

092future to do that. It's not true right now. We had a conversation yesterday about you know, why 60% of our high schools are distinguished and that's not the case for elementary schools, but as we go forward with these J Lark recommendations, we can make it a much more explicit link potentially between where we are setting proficiency expectations for kids and what we are doing for schools. And that is something that this board will be able to do in the next several years. It's just a little bit further down the pipeline because first we have to consider other J Lark recommendations like that 3E readiness indicator, but I think that would be really helpful to actually define in data, not just in labels, but like define in what does it mean for student outcomes in a

093school to be distinguished. What does it mean for student outcomes in a school to be meets expectations and to have that rooted in the SBSF data itself. >> Thank you, Mr. Henson. >> Yeah, I appreciate this conversation and I and I can think what J Lark recommended yesterday was actually cleaner and a better approach. I like the commonality of the word standard whether it's excelling the standard or meeting the standard or um partially um meeting the standard and I think partially is a much better word than approaching. Approaching has a lot of implications to it that you're moving in one direction when you might be moving in four different directions and um and I think our conversation with J Lark yesterday a variation on the West Virginia example of uh still needing intensive support because

094that's the goal here is to help these schools. It's not to be punitive, it's to be helpful and to help throw our resources to them, but I I did find the word approaching confusing and not consistent, but you know, good conversation to be had, but um the word approaches has a lot of different connotations. >> Appreciate that feedback. That's exactly why That's what first review is for, you know, we want to get feedback from everyone about this cuz we know I mean, we heard this from Jalark yesterday. There's nothing that folks can go round and round on as you know, with those those category names, and we heard a lot of that the first time that we did this as a board, and I expect we will hear more of that to come in the

095next several months. >> Dr. Bridges. >> Thank you. I want to make so clear that um my comments are specifically about the what the December board action. I think yesterday, I hope y'all heard from me that you built a strong foundation, and and we are talking about some some tweaks. And so, uh please know that this is not re-litigating or even questioning the cut scores themselves or all of the the actions that took place up in up until December. Um and in fact, when you talked about bringing in national experts, the first time I ever saw Ann Hyslip was because I was watching a board meeting and y'all brought in her as a national expert, and I was like sold on that expertise. So, I really appreciate all of those things. I want to I

096want to get to the real particular part of of the policy itself that was approved in December because not having seen those numbers, um if I'm confused and I've got a degree and I spend a lot of my work life looking at policy, I fear that the public is confused. And when they don't have access to something, we're not meeting our own stated standard of transparency. But now we've got transparency, so that's that's the other piece I want to make sure this clear to to the public. As you just said, this is a first read, which means you put things out there, we respond, things get adjusted, and we come up with what we ultimately vote on. We are not voting today. We're we're we're we're smithing and policy making right now. And so what

097I heard from board members yesterday, um when you think about policy intent and what the goals are for where we head next, I heard three big things. Don't lose urgency and momentum. Uh be transparent. And then the third one is the one where really I think it's the meat of where we might have some um productive discussion. That that that step the board took in December was an effort to make the gaps between current reality and aspiration really visible. You'll wanted to be able to show the gaps in um by by doing that phased-in four-year plan and incentivize instructional adjustments. Um and you just mentioned another one, Mr. Hanson, which is avoid that cliff that's going to startle everyone. And so that's where I'd like to spend some of our board time today in really

098talking about uh are there other ways where we might get to those goals? Cuz I think we all share those goals of wanting to be able everybody to be really clear on how much work kids and teachers and leaders have to do to get to where we're trying to get them to go. How do we incentivize those instructional adjustments is huge. These two years between now and when the cut scores do become final, whichever way we go, um if we're not spending time on instructional adjustments and teaching and learning, then all we're doing is setting all these kids up for even worse failure, right? And so I'd love to hear more from folks about that particular policy impetus in how we're thinking about these two options um that we would be voting on in August.

099>> No. Right, I want to make sure that I am There is confusion, but I also want to make >> They made a decision if we were going to implement cut scores. We were going to implement them, and that we would have a category that dealt with approaching. So, you could see where you were, but we were going to implement the test. We won't implement the cut scores, and everybody you would be passing [clears throat] if you reached the approaching category. What the proposal is is that we would not be implementing these cut scores until we get down in the '28-'29. So, what I'm saying is that's a The two plans are not the same. So, let me go back and say this. We brought in 237 experts. We spent millions of dollars in developing

100this. In fact, the TAC Council told us that even using a graduated implementation was not the best way to go. We needed to implement the cut scores right away. But, after listening to thousands of individuals and having the staff run all over the state of Virginia, talk to all the superintendents, talk to teachers, we set up panels to to realign the textbooks and the materials to the new cut scores, take all of that into consideration, and the board voted that we were going to implement it, and we were going to exclude seniors so that they would not be caught by surprise and be impacted for their college education. So, these two plans are not close and I think this board is prepared to move forward today and take item one off of first review, final

101review, and go back and reiterate to the public that we are committed to all the work that's been done over the past 3 years. Let me say something. It's not about race. It's about every student, but it impacts It impacts black students. I looked at some numbers last night. Let me just find cuz this is important. 50% of the African American students live in Portland. That's Senator Lucas's district. 38% live in Hampton. That's Senator Lucas's area. Approximately 40% are in Suffolk. All of these are Region 2. I come out of Region 2. We're talking a significant portion of population that is sitting in socioeconomically deprived areas. I have been. And you're telling me you want to wait until 2028-2029? Let me tell you the problem with that. Yesterday I told you that Amazon put $1.2

102billion in raising its workforce from just being people who are packaging materials to making them skilled workers. Elon Musk told the nation that some of what they learn at medical school is not even going to be necessary. They probably ought to just drop out. We're making public education obsolete. We don't have time to wait anymore. Martin Luther King said, "We can't wait. For the lack of knowledge, people will perish." We're talking about a generation of people who need us to act immediately and tell them the truth about where we are. I'm not prepared to wait until 2028-2029. I'm telling the public right now, "Here's what we need to do. Figure out where instruction is going on and where students are succeeding, send our teachers over there to be trained by those teachers and those principals,

103do all these things these young people told us that we need to do to be ready for the next century. If not, guess what? Public education is gone. Industry is preparing to teach students what they need because they don't believe that the public education system is doing it. If you think that Nvidia, Amazon, and all these big companies are going to wait for us to continue to teach students and they're reading at less than a fourth-grade level at this point, I mean, what are we talking about? We don't have any more time. That thing is over. So, what they decided to do is teach students for what they need to be ready for in the job market because they don't see us doing it. So, you're pricing all your school teachers out of business. We

104got to get going. I'm prepared for us to vote and reaffirm to the public what we voted on before in December. And you're going to have to go back and read August, September, October, November, December. You also got to go all the way back to 2022 cuz it was a building path. It wasn't just one meeting where maybe we summarized what we've been doing. It goes back to 2022. >> Yep. Um Mr. Robinson and then Dr. Northern. Thank you. >> I appreciate the comments about our students are graduating at and uh and there have been there's been a lot of analysis with AI and the shifting job market. Um you know, increased um uh challenges with students having access to meaningful employment that can disrupt generational poverty. That that's all right. We already see our

105inequities growing in many ways in this country. Uh and that that may uh that that access to the true American dream is harder is will require more skills more proficiency higher Lexile levels all all those type of things. So I and that's ultimately the purpose of education is is so students have those options to shape their lives and the lives of those that that they love and so I share the urgency on uh no longer having the lowest cut scores in the country and starting the work of further not just through saying here's where we're going to go but through the actual hard work of trying to get there experiencing those higher cut scores and experiencing helping teachers experience the misalignments that need to be addressed to improve instructional rigor and help us as a

106as a board as a body improve our supports to schools improve the resources schools to help them do that and and I fundamentally believe that raising cut scores now will only benefit students. What I would separate is you know on the the big things I think that's the only one that I'm hearing disagreement and I'm not mean my it's a big disagreement whether to change cut scores now um I'm hearing alignment on the final destination that Virginia will have one of the highest bars in the country. That the bar is currently set too low and that's no longer acceptable to anyone on this stage. I'm hearing alignment that we have to improve parental communication and communication to educators uh with stakeholder previews and time to prepare. No one is saying go to final destination next

107year. Um and uh and alignment of a lot of other things that won't won't go through. Uh but I think the big alignment that we shouldn't misalign that we shouldn't dance around is whether we start to raise cut scores um now. Um I personally think it's more minor issues regarding do we do a four-step process or two or three-step process? Uh do we use an approaching designation as a signal for as a mechanism for how we get there? I I respect that the board put a lot of ton of energy and thought into those two things. Um and it is a new administration that's being tasked with implementing this massive change alongside the massive change of assessments and the framework and uh um you know, other changes that we've been discussing. And so for me

108personally, I have some desire for deference in options on those implementation specifics that you know, I think you can you can keep our urgency for changing things for students now and not have to have the exact particulars voted on in a first and final review in December. Um uh but I think where the biggest disagreement is it is again in whether we uh start raising cut scores significantly um now and and I'm in strong favor of of raising those scores. >> Well, for us to talk about these one at a time. Now, I know you guys saw some usefulness in presenting them as a package, but I'm not I'm not useful. You're like I'm kind of having a hard time. But I do feel like there's a lot of agreement around many of the J

109Lark I think there's a lot of agreement about raising cut scores and like my colleague said, we can dabble about whether it's going to be three or four or whatever years. Um but yeah, it'd be helpful to go one by one. Um I only I don't want to repeat too much of what I already said yesterday, but I will say that the approaching idea came from the field. Like there were many of us. I was on that team at one point. Rip the band-aid off and then I'm like, we can't band-aid off. It's not fair. I remember what it was like to be a teacher. It feels like it was coming out of nowhere. So, by all means, like look into it. Like my understanding was there were many conversations with districts. The idea of

110approaching came from them. The last team worked with them. Pearson was involved. The company Pearson, who was our vendor, was involved. Our TAC was involved. And our own team here, because you guys have the data. So, I'm assuming some of our own members of the team had that data in a spreadsheet somewhere. Whether or not it all, you know, I thought, as you guys know, some of these conversations you have with districts behind the scenes because they want it behind the scenes, right? I don't know to the extent that the last team sat down with district by district and shared these numbers with them. No. Um but I do know that sometimes it doesn't always happen out in the public because our our division superintendents ask us not to. Um so, that said, um I

111do think that um we have the information. This is not coming out of left field. This is the approach they wanted. Um and I do I'll just repeat again, I think this one, like when you are expecting them to go, I'm just looking at grade four reading, um from 400 to 451 in one year, it's almost almost impossible for kids to make 51 points of improvement in one year when they haven't been told, like here's what you're supposed to be getting to get you up for that place. And to me, like this is exactly what they told us they didn't want. They didn't want to rip the band-aid off. And so, those intervening years, there needs to be a purpose to them. What I hear is that the purpose is to preview and show them.

112And I feel like, because I've been here longer than everybody else, and not everybody else will have this feeling, but my feeling is we've done the preview, we've done the talking, we've done the listening tours. And I get it, new people come in and they feel like, oh, we need to start afresh. But, no. Like, let's let's like, put your own stamp on it, right? Because I I actually agree that the J-LARK stuff is hugely helpful. Hey, I'm for tinkering on the labels, too. Let's have that discussion and figure out where we are. Find all our places of similarity. Cuz we all are very similar on a lot of these issues, except this one. I'd love for us to just start rowing together on where we agree, and not feel like there's more division on

113this on this stage than there really is. >> Superintendent Conway. >> Thank you all. I just want to clarify how we got here, to be very explicit, the ways in which the department and the department staff were simply following the law. J-LARK put out recommendations on the school performance and support framework. In those recommendations, including one of the sides that Joe showed yesterday, showed that these cut scores would have a significant impact on the thresholds, on the ratings, and the sequence how you did this is why this is being reevaluated. That was then turned into a law that was signed in that was passed by the General Assembly and signed by our governor. So, the reason we are here today is not because somebody wants to put a stamp on anything, or because the department

114and all of the staff that it represents have been doing nothing for the last 6 months. The reason And are here today, and the reason we are presenting these items in concert with each other is that we are following the law. Our actions and the actions that, you know, support the school divisions of Virginia are guided in part by the Board of Education, guided in part by the governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and guided by the laws that the General Assembly passes. So, I just want to take that piece of this conversation off the table out of the respect for the many, many people who both supported and participated. The thousands of folks who participated with learning heroes and in those uh focus groups last year and made the recommendations Dr. Northern uh sort

115of noted about approaching, as well as the 2,300 people who came out for the listening tour, and the many, many folks in between, and all of the folks who came this morning and spoke to us, right? I just I really want that to be sort of radically transparent on how we got here. This is not an option uh uh of anybody that once a law is passed and said a bipartisan legislative commission has said you need to reevaluate this thing. We had to do that. So, that's that's a that's a a piece to note. Um with that, I'm comfortable however the board president wants to go through there. I just want to make that crystal clear in terms of this was not intended to be at the last minute, but really was, you know, you

116all made a vote December 11th. I think JLARC came out literally the next week. The General Assembly convened on the 13th. It finished though, was passed, and that's how we got to where we are today. >> You I want to chime in just on a couple of things that you said. Um I'm going to be so um personal. I I'm sitting here thinking about Wilson, Carmen, Sophia, Kyla, and Olivia who we heard from earlier today, and I think they are the best and the brightest of what Virginia has to offer, and I am sitting here thinking how do we ensure that every student in Virginia has the experience that they talked about?" Um the issues that they raised. They talked about STEM education. They talked about engagement. They talked about literacy. Everything that we I

117think believe in. And I think um yeah, what I I I want to acknowledge exactly what you just said, um Superintendent Conway, which is I I I had chat GPT. It's been 163 days since you were um selected as our state superintendent. And I want to thank you and the team for working very hard to make sense of a lot of things. And as you've said to me, um the context has changed. Um and so what you said is the General Assembly has come here, JLAR has come here. And then there is the last 3 years, which we have all been working so diligently to try to um and there's there is a lot of consensus. And I want to just name the consensus. No Everyone wants the cut scores to be higher. And there's

118no disagreement. There is no confusion about that. And I think we should rest on that. We do disagree on the how to get there. Um having been on this board for 3 years, I it is it is my belief, firm belief, that this board did want to um move towards implementing and changing and not just recommending. But it is important to acknowledge the brutal facts that there has never been and no one has ever seen the public chart that you developed last night until the wee hours of the night. So, let's just acknowledge that brutal fact. That has not been out there. And if that had been out there in January or February or March, then we might say that there isn't confusion or there's there's more clarity. And I think to your point, um,

119Superintendent Conway, uh, this is where they're again, coming out of Jail Arc, I believe there is a lot of consensus and belief on many of the recommendations that came out of Jail Arc right after the December vote. And so, there's alignment. I think we are we are not aligned on point number one. And I go back to Wilson, Carmen, Sophia, Kyla, and Olivia, and I think we have to raise the bar for all of our kids as soon as possible. And the last point that, um, and uh, Dr. Northern mentioned is that this did directly come from the field around a phased-in approach. They wanted the feedback. They did not want the cliff. And I think it would be, um, a complete reversal to say now that we we are going to, uh, delay it

120for another 2 years, given what we heard and how the board operated for the last 3 years. So, what I would, um, entertain and would love for us to consider is, uh, if you look at the four recommendations, I think 2, 3, 4, and 5 there is a general consensus. Now, again, want to acknowledge that you all, um, are living this work day-to-day. And for you all, there's no way to separate them out. Um, but I I think that if we don't separate them out, there will be more confusion than is needed. And so, my proposal would be that we actually consider 2, 3, 4, 5 separate than 1, and that we come back to one and decide how to best move forward for the students and families of Virginia. Is that an amendable approach

121to how to get where we're going to go today? >> Could you s- >> Sure. >> So as I understand it then we we will recommit to number one. We will recommit to the voice position. And we can adopt two, three, four, and five be like recommendations. Staff can go back and modify and bring back some proposed language, but that we recommit to the implementation of the cut scores um keeping in place our approaching category for what we have voted on before. So I >> That's actually not what I'm proposing. So let me try to >> amend it. >> Um what I am uh I'm going to need legal counsel on this. Um what I what what is before this board right now is a first review with five recommendations. I am saying can we

122move forward with a first review of items two, three, four, and five? >> That's I'm I'm saying can we dis- discuss and do a first review of that? >> So moved. Is there a second? >> Okay, well do you want to know the second part though? >> [laughter] >> And then let's have a discussion around how um address number one separately. And I'm That's actually asking to I'm just asking I am asking to separate them out. separate items. Can I do that? >> It's an item for the first review. Right? Typically the board simply receives the report. There's no action to be taken at this time. If the purposes of your conversation, you want to agree that we're done talking about this. We're now going to I I I don't think you need to vote.

123>> So, question. Why can't we You would have to Okay, like you brought the staff right in for first review. We just don't have to deal with We can decide that we want to stay with what we have and that we don't bring that back for a second review. That would probably >> Mr. Pearson, you can make a a motion to remove item one from first from further review. >> Because we We already did our first review. We We would just remove it from any further review. As it as it is currently. Does it then come back? >> Dr. Wilson, you have some thoughts. >> I I I do have I have So, in terms of process, I tend to agree that we are already we are in the middle of a first review of

124all five items. So, it doesn't seem to me that we can now remove item one from first review. So, procedurally, I'm not the lawyer, but what would typically happen after today's meeting when we have had time to discuss, um typically, then the item goes to the public where there is this opportunity for other board, staff, the public to weigh in, provide information, all of those kinds of things. And the way the agenda looks for August items, uh and I believe I I imagine that this at the August meeting, it could be that uh the board and staff may decide that they do we do not want to move forward with any action on item one. And so, for the purpose of the agenda next time, it would show final review of items. If we have

125to take the slate, we take the slate, and we can vote on them item by item, or we could take the block two through five, leaving one off. >> Also asking questions, having additional information staff provide providing direction to superintendent staff about changes you'd like to see or options like whatever it is. Provide feedback to staff before it comes back. And then then we can vote. You choose. >> And what that also means is staff is currently under the requirement to move forward on what the board has voted on. So, what we voted on in December needs to be in implementation phase. So, we come back in August and we start talking about, "Oh, well, no, we going to change this." The students is getting ready to go back to school again, and you want

126to talk about confusion. Cuz right now the the the staff is under requirement to implement the plan that the board has previously voted on. So, regardless of how many times you try to review this right now, they they need to be implementing what we have already approved. >> If there's some action then the staff and board are bound by >> Absolutely. >> the by the action of >> Absolutely. And the and the principals and the superintendents are all waiting for information, implementation, education to the parents. All of that needs to be going. >> Thank you, legal counsel. >> Oh, if if the board votes to work on ahead east, right? You're headed east, but the board can say, you know, we're going to change our mind. We're going to head northeast. So, I don't know.

127I'm not sure what the the question is that I I answered. The board provided direction in the past, then that's the direction we're on until the board should like to change direction. >> Mr. Hanson. >> If we have a fundamental uh disagreement with what's been put before us for first review, we have the ability as the board to not proceed with it. We can reject it. Put it to bed. Cuz it just if anything can be put before this board, and it makes it automatic that it goes to the public if the board disagrees with what the department is coming up with, I'd like an explanation of how the board can exercise its authority to not proceed with something that we disagree with for first review. We've done it before. We did it on the

128chronic absenteeism 4 years ago. Superintendent made a recommendation for first review that we were going to um uh continue to waive the chronic absenteeism uh requirements. It's a lot of kunama tada continue, and the board said no. Explain to me how and it did not go for public comment. It did not go for um public review. >> Madam Chair, uh in my the in my parliamentary experience, then we should that should have been stricken from the agenda. It's on the agenda now, and certainly the board can vote and express its will when when you take action, which is not today. We've just received it, and the one good one of the good things about receiving it is now that the public has access to seeing the phased-in approach that was voted on in December. I

129mean >> The authority is with the school. >> I'm not >> I believe the board is prepared to vote to take this first review and put it to bed, not proceed any further with that, and not further confuse the public. >> I'd make a motion that we remove this from the agenda. >> Second. >> Okay. There has been a Could you clarify your motion? >> We remove this whole thing from the agenda. These other four items are not critical. They can be brought up first review again in proper format at the August meeting. >> Yeah, the JLI recommendations can be brought to the >> Okay, so there has been >> I recommend that we remove this first review from the agenda. It's the entire item and hopefully we raise the other stuff in August. >>

130There has been a motion to remove first review of >> [snorts] >> the assessment accountability roadmap, um proficiency implementation and school performance and school support frame for framework for the 26-27 update. The motion has been moved and it has been seconded. >> Yes. >> Okay, I will Comments? Sure. >> So, um I I understand the desire to remove this and agree that there is sufficient there is a lot of confusion and a lot of um still I think remaining questions, and so the information that the department provided, thank you for you all for scrambling and putting this together. I mean, that I know that that was no small feat. And um having time to ensure that one, we all understand the history. Two, that we have the opportunity to hear from the public in various

131ways. I do believe that having further input from the public in addition to the input that was provided in 2025 into 2026 is very important and will be helpful to the board as we contemplate further. >> Dr. Wilson, can you uh is can you say more about what input you or would it hope or expect? >> Uh yeah, so um what we have discovered today is that the charts, the side-by-side comparisons, which include the uh specific cut scores. I believe we discovered today that that specific information was not provided to the public uh prior to now. Um as a ca- as a a tag on to that, uh if you recall from Mr. Brayband's comments in public during public comment, he said that he that Bess, not he, Bess supported uh the approaching uh uh

132uh naming or or that with specific scores. So, there is an indication that more information to the public will be helpful. Though, as a general matter, their support. So, that's the kind of response impa- or input that I would imagine would be helpful for all of us to take into consideration. >> Thank you for clarifying. Mr. Robinson. >> Uh point of clarity on separating out one versus what I think was just proposed, which is to do all five. Um Deputy Superintendent Haislip, on two through five, are there any major repercussions to not to waiting for a first review on two through five until August, which would be one of the implications of this? I'm obviously curious if there's a way to consider the proposal from Vice Chairman Henson about number one and separate two through

133five. But I don't know I'm assuming there might be repercussions, but maybe there's not. >> Um so, under that, if we were to come back with for first review in August with items two through five, that would then put us at soonest for a final review in September on those items. That will be particularly challenging for number two, and that is because that is something we were hoping to do for this fall. We are currently working right now on all the communications materials for the release of the SPSAT. Because SPSAT results came out in December last year, and we are committed to having them come out earlier in the fall this year. And so, that is a piece of, you know, how we would just need That one in particular, I think the other three

134are things that, you know, generally best practice for accountability systems is to tell who is being held accountable prior to the start of the school year, what they're being held accountable for. >> Yep. So, deferred to I think it was his proposal, so deferred to Vice Chairman Henson, but I would respectfully request at least number two, if possibly I would recommend all of two through five um not be removed and be allowed to move forward with a a first review um in the in the proposed amendment. I think that'd be better for everyone and for urgency. >> Mr. Henson, there has been a >> gladly accept the Mr. Henson, there has been a recommendation that you modify your proposal. >> We um remove item four pieces of item I exception of number two >> And

135there has been a an amendment to the motion on the table, which is to remove for first review um there's items one through five. However, Mr. Henson has allowed for first review for item two. >> Yeah, but if I can just make a suggestion >> Okay. >> Um we have two months between now and August, and I think items two, three, four, and five somewhat straightforward. Uh we had a good conversation with JLRK yesterday about the names. I would go with the conversation we had yesterday. Um I think this could be done in a manner with superintendent's office and the board who have some conversations about this and come back in the August meeting for first and final review for items so that department can go and not have allowances in September. Um that's they

136pardon >> [clears throat] >> department work together back with first and final review on items >> Speak to the motion. I'm really concerned about the parliamentary um process here. Um I'm not I've never been a part and I've been a lot part of a lot of bodies where you strike an item that you've already considered on an agenda. I completely understand the potential of striking an item in the next meeting that you don't want to consider. And that that I would be willing to entertain that. But I I think we're getting into really odd territory to strike something that we've already had first review on. >> I think I think he's saying something a little different. I think what he's saying is it's You're right. We we reviewed it. We reviewed it. >> We reviewed

137it. We've done first review. >> And then we just move along. If you don't want to consider it, that's what he's saying is >> Hold on. Hold on. >> final vote to first and final review at the next meeting. They bring it they can bring it for first and final review cuz they can work on it. Item one, we're saying we're putting that one to bed. We're going to vote on that. >> There's all kinds of parliamentary ways you can do that. Tabling an item, etc. We're not I've just I'm not used to this and I don't feel good about about using procedures that are sort of unorthodox. I'm fine, again, having votes on things or striking things prior to consideration. Today we're just receiving the info. I thought interesting discussion to weigh options. >>

138Yeah, but here's what happened. The board didn't bring it to us ahead of time and say, "Do you want to put this on the agenda?" We didn't have any choice with that. They put it on the agenda. The staff, I'm sorry. Not the the staff did. They didn't contact the board and say, "Do you want us to put it on the agenda?" It just doesn't work that way. It ends up on the agenda. So now we get to decide what we want to do with it. >> But that's what we The time to do that is when we voted to approve the agenda. >> So chair takes prerogative to move this conversation forward. Mr. Henson, could you restate Dr. Bridges appreciate your concern about parliamentary procedures and in the spirit of over communication and clarity

139which I appreciate Dr. Wilson saying that where we are sitting right now there is sufficient confusion and questions to to the field and we want to make sure that we are taking action that is clear and that communicates clearly to all the field where this board stands in context of J Lark and the assembly. With that, Mr. Henson, will you please clarify your motion so that I can we can take action if there is Yeah, go ahead. Let's do that. >> Motion is to remove item I agenda. Commentary standpoint urge department and the board to work in their next two months to come up with first and final review of topics two, three, four, and five. Second commentary would be if we need to get the advice of our counsel and to take three minute

140break if there's another parliamentary way of doing this. Advisable welcome it. >> Counsel would appreciate the opportunity to consider this. >> Appreciate that. >> We're just trying to make it really clear that we >> You want to break now? >> Yeah, I want to follow my >> Okay. We are going to take a brief five minute break to consult with counsel. Thank you. >> Mhm. >> are going to come back in session. Thank you. Are we good over there? Awesome. All right. Thank you. Um there was a motion. I'm going to turn to Mr. Henson. >> Um I'm going to withdraw the motion I made previously and replace it with a new motion to propose that we adopt items two, three, four, and five first and final review. And I would make a recommendation on

141number two that the this [clears throat] is conversation or discussion this but we use conversation we had with J Lark yesterday to exceeds standards, meets standards partially, meets standards, and needs intensive support as the four categories. First and final reviews of what the department can go forward with these four items immediately. >> There's been a motion. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Any discussion? >> Just to let you know, I'll be opposing the motion because um of the condensing of first and final and the the fact that it limits the opportunity to get public comment and feedback on the the doesn't mean that I don't support the items. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any further discussion? Dr. Northern. >> I had another um feedback about the labels. So, um yeah, I'm also not going

142to vote for the motion just because I also think there needs to be more discussion on the labels. >> Any further discussion? >> Um >> Mr. Robinson. >> Thank you. Um I don't think I went commented yet on number three. We discussed four and five yesterday. I just wanted to in concept uh name strong support for number three and deep appreciation for the attention to ensuring we're paying attention to high school mastery across every single grade level and based on the current year. Um so I have the next 20 seconds to figure out how I'll vote. So I'm not sure about that yet, but I the concept I think that's a great concept and I also support getting stakeholder feedback on two through five even as I'm in strong support of two through five. >>

143Any further discussion? Okay, there has been a motion that has been made and is seconded. I will now do roll call. Dr. Bridges. >> No. >> Ms. McPherson. >> Yes. >> Mr. Henson. >> Yes. >> Dr. Northern. Dr. Wilson. >> No. >> Mr. Robinson. >> No. >> Mrs. Kilgore. >> Yes. >> The chair votes yes. Does that mean? >> I've never had that before. >> Motion does not pass. Okay, so now where are we? We need a new motion. >> Is it possible to >> Sorry. >> Go ahead, Mr. Robinson. >> to amend by chairman's motion to exact his exact same language except first move forward first review today for final review in August of items two through five. >> Mr. Henson, there's been a >> I will >> a new motion. >> I will

144make a new motion. Um to approve items 2 3 4 and 5 or save for final review at the August meeting. And remove item number one. >> Second. >> Remove it. >> So, removing number one. So, >> Second. >> First Is that was for final review for 2 3 4 and 5 and removing number one? >> I'm sorry. Say that again. >> It's removing item number one and moving [clears throat] 2 3 4 and 5 to final review in August. >> Yes. Okay, there has been a motion to have first review for 2 3 4 and 5 and to remove item one. It's been made and it has been second. >> Second. >> Just change this. Final review in August. That means today will be first. Final will be August. No? Uh Mr. Henson, would

145you please restate the motion? >> We approve item I. >> I've taken a pause. >> So, as I understand it, we are we're we're making a motion to remove item one from agenda item I and moving items two, three, four, and five to final review in August. >> I would phrase it a different way that we are recommending first review of items two, three, four, and five final review in August. Period. >> Second. Sure. Tell me how to do that. Mr. Henson has a motion. >> I move that the board Virginia Board of Education convene in a closed meeting for the following purposes: consultation with legal counsel employed by or retained by a public body regarding specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice by such counsel pursuant to section 2.2-3711A8 of the Code

146of Virginia and the legal counsel to Virginia Board of Education and staff whose presence will aid in the board's consideration of this matter to participate in the closed meeting. >> There's a motion has been made. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Roll call. Dr. Bridges. Mrs. Macferson. >> Aye. >> Mr. Hansen. Dr. Northern. Dr. Wilson. >> Aye. >> Mr. Robinson. >> Aye. >> Mrs. Kilgore. >> Aye. >> And Chair Rhodes, aye. Okay, we will now go into closed session.