Voiceover: The Junior Historians from West, Texas.
They are going to dance some Czech dances
for us this morning.
I'm so excited.
I hope y'all will enjoy it as much as I enjoy
seeing them dance.
They were formed in 1975 by one of our beloved members
of the community
and the education community as well.
We all knew him as Poon Morgan.
Unfortunately, Poon
has passed away
but I know he's watching these kids dance,
because he took great pride in them.
They have traveled to the Czech Republic representing
West and the United States
and Texas.
They've traveled all over Texas representing West
and West ISD just promoting the culture of the Czech people
across the whole State of Texas.
So without further adeiu, I give to you,
the Junior Historian Czech dancers from West, Texas.
(speaking in foreign language)
Voiceover: That's Czech for good morning,
How are you?
We are the West High School Junior Historian
Performing Dancers
representing Czech culture for over 40 years
for the community of West,
a small town almost two hours north.
Our community of West is proud of its
Czech descendants
and heritage.
The Junior Historians,
through its performances,
seek to share part of this culture with you.
Here's our first dance performance to an old favorite polka,
"Apples, Peaches, Pumpkin Pie."
(uptempo music)
♫ I am here,
I am there,
I'm everywhere.
I'm over here
and I'm over there.
I am here,
I am there,
I'm everywhere.
Let's all play hide and seek.
Apples, Peaches,
Pumpkin Pie,
who's not ready,
holler I.
Let's all play hide and seek.
Apple, Peaches,
Pumpkin Pie,
who's not ready, holler I.
Let's all play hide and seek. ♫
(uptempo music)
♫ I am here,
I am there,
I'm everywhere.
I'm over here,
then I'm over there.
I am here,
I am there.
I'm everywhere.
Let's all play hide and seek.
Apples, peaches, pumpkin pie,
who's not ready, holler I.
Let's all play hide and seek.
Apples, peaches, pumpkin pie,
who's not ready holler, I.
Let's all play hide and seek. ♫
(uptempo music)
(applause)
Voiceover: As the dancers get ready
for the Garden Waltz,
note that the costumes of our dancers are similar
to those worn by the early Czech settlers.
Our performances feature Goya,
folk costumes from the Czech Republic
and Slovakia.
These costumes blend bold colors,
fine fabrics,
and detailed designs in the works of wearable art.
The next dance is a variation of Furient that was performed
during rural festivals in what is now the Czech Republic.
Here is the Garden Waltz,
also known as the Flying Dutchmen
or the Troika.
(uptempo music)
(applause)
Voiceover: The next dance,
the 7-Step Polka,
is an example of a dance of Czech origin
it was a favorite dance style of society
for more than 50 years.
This style was first performed in a small Bohemian village
back in 1830.
After its performance in Paris in 1844,
it became the most popular dance in the capitals of Europe.
The group will now perform the 7-Step Polka.
(uptempo music)
(applause)
Voiceover: Next,
our dancer will perform Maraska Besida,
the Bravidant Besida,
the Czech national dance.
Each of the parts of this routine tells a separate story.
For example,
one part tells a group of young people
who are out having fun
and the girls decide to look around to see if they can find
new partners who are more to their liking or suiting.
Now the dancers will perform the Maraska Besida.
(low-tempo music)
(applause)
Voiceover: Before they perform their final routine,
I want to recognize a special member of our group.
We have with us Ms. Czech Texas, Czech Slovak Queen,
Ms. Allison Sexton.
(applause)
Here's our final performance to Henry Mancini's waltz,
the "Summer in Gstaad"
or, "the Gstaad Waltz."
Although "the Summer in Gstaad" refers to Gstaad, Switzerland,
the world, 'waltz,' is derived from the old German word 'walzen,'
meaning to roll, turn
or to glide.
Here's "The Summer in Gstaad Waltz."
(uptempo music)
(applause)
Voiceover: We hope you've enjoyed our performances
as we've shared a small part of our Czech heritage with you.
Thank you.
(applause)
-: Let's give them another round of applause.
Thank you so much Czech dancers for coming today
and sharing part of your morning with us
and you got out of school for a little while.
(laughter)
I'm proud to say I taught a couple of these kiddos
that are dancing today.
I'm very, very proud of them.
We have something for you.
We have a certificate.
State Board of Education special recognition
presented to West High School Junior Historians,
Aaron Wernet, sponsor
in appreciation for outstanding performance
at the State Board of Education general meeting,
January 29, 2016,
Austin, Texas,
Sue Melton-Malone,
this State Board of Education, District 14.
This is their director, Aaron Wernet.
(applause)
The superintendent for West ISD
is Dr. David Truett
and the principal of the high school
is Don Snook.
Unfortunately, they were
not able to be with us this morning,
but we're sending greetings back from us to them.
Thank you again Czech dancers so very much
that you represent West ISD and West
so, so wonderfully
and we are so proud of you.
We thank you so much for being here with us today.
(applause)
Voiceover: Dr. Dominguez,
if you'll give our invocation and pledges.
-: Father, Gracious God,
thank you for the gift of today.
We thank you for the opportunity to begin this new year.
You have made human beings in such a way that all education
is most important for our welfare.
We ask that you bless the students,
faculty,
student families,
superintendents,
local school boards commissioner of education,
governor,
and this board.
We ask for your guidance
and that this board's actions
make our schools lively centers for sound learning,
new discovery
and the pursuit of wisdom for each student.
Therefore, teach us
when to speak
and when to listen.
In moments of challenge,
and decision,
attune our hearts to the whispering of your wisdom.
We pray that you will guide us in all ways
so that we will seek your will in everything that we do.
We ask this in thy name, amen.
I pledge allegiance
if you could rise please,
I pledge allegiance
to the flag,
of the United States of America.
And to the republic,
for which it stands,
one nation,
under God,
indivisible with liberty
and justice for all.
The Texas pledge.
Honor the Texas flag,
I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas,
One state under God,
one and indivisible.
Voiceover: Thank you Dr. Dominguez.
-: You're welcome.
-: Members we're about to do the roll call.
If there's some folks in the back.
Voiceover: Mr. Allen.
Mrs. Bahorich.
-: Here.
-: Ms. Beltran.
Mr. Bradley.
Mrs. Cargill.
Mr. Cortez.
Dr. Dominguez.
Voiceover: Here.
Voiceover: Ms. Hardy.
Voiceover: Here.
Voiceover: Mr. Maynard.
Voiceover: Here.
Voiceover: Mrs. Malton-Malone.
Voiceover: Here.
Voiceover: Mr. Mercer.
Voiceover: District Five is present.
Voiceover: Mrs. Miller.
Ms. Perez.
Mr. Ratliff.
Mr. Rowley.
Voiceover: Here.
-: Members we are very honored to have
the Texas Superintendent of the Year,
Texas Teacher of the Year,
as well as the Secondary Teacher of the Year
here with us this morning.
I'm going to ask Mary Ann Whitaker,
who is the Texas Superintendent of the Year,
to come forward
and give us some remarks.
Welcome, Mary Ann.
(applause)
Voiceover: Yeah, you gotta
push that button.
Chairwoman Bahorich,
thank you so very much for this invitation today.
To the other board members,
I'm thrilled to be here
and share some insights on how I feel
and what we need to be doing for students to be successful.
I'm going to tweak my assignment just a tad.
What I would like to share with you
is probably more of my philosophy right now
and actually what we are doing in my district
and I can assure you it is bringing tremendous success.
The first driver that I'm going to mention today
is probably not politically correct at this time,
but oh well.
After 43 years,
what are they going to do to me?
(laughter)
The first thing I'm going to say is that at Hudson ISD
we are no longer playing the testing game
or the accountability game.
God forgive me for what I have done to students
and teachers over banners on a wall
and plaques in the offices.
That was wrong.
I'm ashamed of that
and I have spent the last four years trying to undo
that mistake.
You say is it working?
Yes, I'm a
mid-sized school in East Texas
with over 50% of my students poverty.
We are a property-poor school district
with very limited resources,
and in a few moments I will share
some of the success we are having.
Most importantly,
my children love to come to school
and that is truly exciting.
The next thing I want to share with you is,
ok, I gave up the testing game
so what did I go to?
This document right here.
It's a new vision for 21st century education.
Oh my gosh.
This was created by 35 very courageous superintendents
along with TASA.
They spent two years developing this document
and for months I thought it was going to be just
for the urban, rich schools.
Until finally my friends convinced me to read this document.
I read it,
read it again
and started highlighting.
I realized,
my gosh, this is for all students in the state of Texas.
It's not just about the rich
and the wealthy,
and the big urban areas.
It is about all students.
The beauty of this document is it is not a how.
it doesn't tell you how to go out
and what programs to buy
and what to do.
It's very similar to the Declaration of Independence
and I am calling this my Declaration for Education.
It's based on priciples of what quality education
should be for the 21st century.
There are five basic principles that are driving my school
at this time with tremendous success.
Very briefly, I would kind of like to give you an idea of how
that is a little different from what maybe we
have been doing.
First of all,
let's talk about learning standards.
I have here two grade levels of learning standards TEKS.
For first grade,
35 pages of standards for a six year old.
35 pages.
If you're in the third grade,
I have 45 pages of standards.
Our children go to school 180 days
or now 75,600 minutes.
This is too much.
So what we have done
is we have decided that we need to look at broader concepts,
we need to narrow what we are teaching.
At this time while we're awaiting
with your wisdom to begin reviewing the TEKS
and recognizing that we've had too much,
we're focusing on the readiness standards.
The beauty is when you focus on readiness standards,
you're going to hit the supporting.
But stay with standards long enough
to master those standards.
Another thing I discovered in this process,
for too long when you're playing the testing game,
you're focusing on the testing grade levels
or the subject.
When we stepped back from this,
I realized my elementary scores had not been
where they needed to be,
not because I had a problem at elementary school,
I had a problem at primary school.
My children couldn't read when they left the second grade.
I began to look at what we were using,
where we were going
and I realized phonics had been thrown out the window
years and years ago.
Our students did not have skills to attack reading.
I was able to work with the Blue Bird Clinic of Houston and
Neuhaus.
I now have all my primary teachers Pre-K through third grade
trained in Neuhaus.
We have a 45-minute lesson every day in phonics
giving kids the tools to sound words.
The amazing thing is after that first year,
with only my second grade students being exposed to phonics,
do you know it reduced the number of students going
into my RtI program in third grade by 50%?
That was pretty astounding.
We also have begun looking at a lot of the foundation skills
that our students don't have
and creating programs where we're going back
and teaching students the math facts,
we're teaching them operations.
Those things they've skimmed over,
but they no longer have the foundations
and it was killing our kids in middle school.
Multiple assessments,
yes, I believe in assessments.
Very, very strongly.
However, we
no longer talk about the STAAR and EOC.
I gave an administrative directive in my district three
years ago no teacher could mention.
STAAR or EOC to a child all year long.
It better not go on a worksheet that went home.
We don't give benchmark testing.
Imagine, we have gone
back to nine-week assessments testing students
based on what we instructed that nine weeks.
However, the caveat is
a certain percent have to be level two questions,
a certain percent have to be level three.
It is consistent across the grade level
or across the subject area in high school.
It is amazing what is happening,
because you see our teachers truly learning
what higher level thinking is.
They're having to develop those test
and teach to those test that they are developing.
We use authentic assessment
and diagnostic test.
The next item,
digital learning.
Integrating digital learning in our classrooms.
So powerful.
It doesn't replace the teacher,
however, it has
brought the world into our classrooms
and is so individualized to where students
can continue to work on what they need to work on
and do it independently.
We also have spent a great deal of time teaching
our teachers how to integrate.
You can't integrate digital learning if your teachers
don't know how.
We've developed competencies,
showcase training,
all sorts of things to help them.
Next, transformation.
We no longer have improvement plans.
In TEA,
I still meet all the requirements that are in law.
We do not call them improvement plans,
we call them 21st Century learning plans
designed around the concepts in this document.
We have identified the standards that our students
have gaps.
All of our strategies focus on standards
and we're using these different areas to address
those standards.
It is working like a charm.
I don't know if you've looked at all the requirements
for our campus improvement plan,
but it would choke a horse.
We developed an appendix
and we meet all the requirements,
I can send them to TEA if you need to look at it
and check it off.
It has truly made a difference
because we have the same goals
and the same objectives for all the campuses
and the district.
The strategies are different,
depending on the campus.
Finally, accountability.
I believe in accountability, strongly.
However, more than
just a test.
The community engagement piece has brought
our parents alive.
As a matter of fact,
when we began working on the rating this year,
our parents wanted to give us much higher scores than
we felt we needed to give ourselves.
That has been tremendous.
Student portfolios.
We do a lot of community service.
Every organization has to adopt something
within the community to work with to enhance our community.
Of course,
extra curricular.
Look what we just witnessed today.
I will end by one short, revised personal story that has
affirmed what I do.
My husband has decided after 43 years,
Mary Ann you need a plan for when you retire.
He decided that I needed to learn to play golf.
Now, I am a fine arts person.
I played music,
I twirled,
I did the piano,
I did the organ,
I did all that stuff.
I'm not an athlete.
I never did any of that.
I ask you all,
the little white ball sits on the ground,
how hard could that be?
(laughter)
I said, "okay, I can do that."
It just sits there.
All I you do is swing.
I want you to know I have played the most beautiful game
of croquet you have ever seen in your entire life.
My husband very gently said,
Mary Ann, I think
maybe you need lessons.
Yeah, you think.
He got me lessons with a golf pro.
I went out there,
I had my lessons.
Of course, the first
thing he tells me is, "you gotta balance, like when you're
on the basketball court."
I never played basketball
so that went right over my head.
He tried to relate to playing softball,
well, I had never done that,
so that didn't help me at all.
Well, I took lessons.
I practiced
and I practiced.
Weekends, I practiced,
I mean when it was 100 degrees outside late in the afternoon
I would be out there practicing.
We're talking months of practice
and lessons.
This one beautiful day my husband says let's go out
on the course.
Fairway Three,
I shall never forget.
He tees off the most beautiful shot you have seen in your
entire life.
I thought, 'ok,
I can do this.'
I got up to my little red tee,
I had everything ready,
everything lined up,
I stood behind like I'm supposed to.
I got all lined up and ready to go
and I swung.
It was abysmal.
I walked out to the cart,
I sat down
and burst into tears.
Grown woman,
Fairway Three,
in the cart, crying.
I looked at my husband
and said
do you know,
I can cook,
I can play the piano,
I can play the organ,
I was a fabulous first grade teacher
and I'm a pretty good superintendent.
Why do I keep doing something that makes me feel so badly
about myself?
Wow. It hit me.
I then knew I was on the right path.
I thought how many kids have I destroyed,
because they couldn't do one test.
I'm here to beg you,
and that's my message with whoever will listen to me,
we have to stop this craziness.
This is wrong.
It's wrong for kids
and it's wrong for education,
and it's wrong for Texas.
Our businesses say they aren't prepared for business.
Our colleges say they aren't prepared for colleges.
We need to stop what we're doing; it's not working.
There is something better.
I can tell you TASA has so many people working to try
to move us in a new direction
and I'm so thrilled to hear that you are so open to realize
it's the 21st century.
It's time for us to move to something new
and better.
I'm sorry there's not a little red light there that tells me
to be quiet.
Once again,
thank you so very much for this opportunity.
(applause)
Thank you.
I will leave you with a couple of handouts.
I have learned a long time ago don't hand it out
before you talk
or everyone looks at your handout.
The first one's just the notes that I covered.
I wrote some articles over the last three years
and I wrote them in layman's terms
so grandmothers could understand
and people next door could understand
what we're dealing with.
I'm going to leave these here
and they can be distributed whenever.
Voiceover: Thank you, Mary Ann.
Really appreciate your time this morning
and sharing your thoughts
and words of wisdom.
We really appreciate it.
Voiceover: Thank you.
-: Congratulations for being superintendent of the year.
That's very impressive.
Very impressive.
Thank you for serving our children so well.
(applause)
Absolutely.
Yes, Mr. Ratliff.
-: I just want y'all to know,
Mary Ann lives in my district
and for the last six years, has been
one of my shoulder angels
to help me understand the role I play here on the board
and some of the granularity
of the details.
House Bill Five would not have been possible for me
without people like Mary Ann.
There are a lot of deserving superintendants
around the state,
but I assure you,
there is no one more deserving than Mary Ann Whitaker
to get that award.
Thank you for coming.
-: Absolutely, thank you.
Now we have Texas Teacher of the Year.
I'm hoping I say this correctly,
I'm going to do my best.
Revathi Balakrishnan.
Did I get close?
I did, yes, wonderful.
Congratulations,
and we're so happy to have you.
Voiceover: Thank you, thank you.
(applause)
Voiceover: Do I push something?
-: No, you're
ready to go.
-: Well, Ms. Whitaker,
you took my speech.
I had to recalibrate while she was talking.
I'd like to thank the State Board of Education for inviting
me here.
I will probably be the only Texas Teacher of the Year
without a Texan accent.
You're going to have to put up with me for a year.
I am a talented
and gifted specialist at Patsy Sommer Elementary
in Round Rock ISD.
I teach the top five percent of students in my school.
I was going to talk to you about standardized testing
because it creates havoc in my classroom.
My students are perfectionist
and if they don't get 49 out of 50 questions right,
I need the counselor in my classroom.
If this can happen in a gifted classroom,
I can only imagine what happening in the regular classrooms.
I'm not here to talk to you about the perils
of standardized testing,
because you've heard enough about it,
except for the fact that it stresses teachers out.
The stress it stresses students out
and the stress levels in all the schools is much more than
the California earthquake fault line.
I am going to talk to you about what we can not do
as teachers because of standardized testing.
Teachers can not, for example, talk to students about the new biggest
prime number that was discovered yesterday.
That is 2 raised to 78 million, 504 thousand something
minus one.
We can not have the time to discuss why minus one
or students don't have the time to ask, "why not plus one?'"
There is no time for critical thinking,
because we are jumping from TEK to TEK trying to make sure
that we are covering everything
and getting ready for March and April.
As she pointed out,
35, 45 pages of TEKS does not give time
for the classroom teacher to expand the world of learning
for the students outside the classroom.
Ten years, nine years ago,
I approached my principal,
because I wanted to teach Shakespeare to my 4th
and 5th grade students.
She told me I want to know what TEKS this covers.
That was easy.
I printed out the 5th grade TEKS,
highlighted everything on the ELA TEKS
and said, "here you go."
With a $5 copy of Macbeth,
I can teach the entire English Language Arts TEKS
from third grade to twelfth grade.
I do not need anything else.
She granted
and said, "just make sure they pass the TAKS."
Wouldn't it be great if our students can actually
listen to the State of the Union address
and compare the President's speech
to the speech made by Mark Anthony in Julius Caesar?
Wouldn't it be great if they could savor the language
of Shakespeare,
and Wordsworth,
and Longfellow?
Wouldn't it be great if they can compare China
and the Chairman Mao to the Israeli Palestinian Conflict
to Apartheid in South Africa
and learn about the negative affects of racial prejudices
in history
and apply it to the real world so that we do not have
the current racial prejudices?
Well, guess what?
All of this happens in my classroom.
We discuss all of this in my classroom,
because I do not teach to the STAAR.
There's a certain amount of stress in me,
because I'm just waiting for that one year
when one of my students does not get a level 3.
It has never happened so far in the past nine years
all of my students,
if they have not aced that TAKS or the STAAR,
they've come very close to it.
You know what I tell my students?
Just get this over with so that we can get
on to better things.
What I want for this to happen is for every student
in Texas to get that excitement of learning.
I want every child in every hallway
and every school in Texas to say, "I can not wait to go
to school today.
I can not wait to learn from authentic text.
I can not wait to learn what is going on in the real world
and I can not wait to see how my learning is applied
to the real world."
With standardized testing,
our hands are tied.
I'm not saying that standardized testing should be
eliminated completely,
but it should be reduced definitely.
So that teachers in every school district have the time
to create that excitement in learning.
Remember what Sir Ken Robinson said about 16 billion
going into testing at the Tulsa Mid-Winter Conference?
Let's take that that 16 billion
and put it towards teacher training
and put it towards teacher mentoring, so that we can grow
good teachers, so that we can grow good students.
That is where I think we will be really successful
in growing good students,
successful students so that Texas will become,
like in our school district, we call it the
Destination District,
So that Texas will become the destination state for students
and for businesses.
Thank you very much.
(applause)
-: We have one more teacher with us,
Martha Saucedo.
She's the Secondary Teacher of the Year.
(applause)
-: Good morning.
Those are two amazing speeches to follow, so I'm going to try
to do my very best here.
Good morning to the State Board of Education.
My name is Martha Saucedo,
and I'm the 2016 secondary teacher of the year.
I'd like to begin by telling you how grateful I am
to be here today
and honored to have the opportunity to represent
Texas teachers.
I am an English teacher, a math teacher,
a science teacher,
and a history teacher.
Although my official title
is a family consumer science teacher.
(applause)
I teach Principles of Human Services
Sports and Marketing Entertainment,
Fashion Design,
and Counseling in Mental Health,
which my students like to refer to as their
'psychology class.'
I'm one of those hands-on teachers.
Elective classes; that's easy for us.
I'm a real world
and I want to connect my students to the real world.
In my Human Services class,
it's about getting out into the community.
Meeting members of the community
and finding out what the community members want.
What business want from my students.
It's about connecting them to centers in town
and learning about relationships
and helping out their community.
In my Fashion Design class,
it's their newspaper design dresses that we make.
We combine with Bealls,
the department store,
and they display the girls' and boys'
outfits out in the front window,
and they love that.
It's in my mental-
in my psychology class
and it's the connection we have
with the West Texas Rehab Center
and how we do a little Q&A with them
and how my students get to meet all these different types
of therapist.
They get to ask questions
and get to learn about those jobs.
They learn about children that might have autism.
They get to go through all of these experiments
and it's exciting for them.
In my Sports and Entertainment class,
it's about the connection we have with the San Antonio Spurs
and we get to come up here to San Antonio
and we meet the team,
and we do a Q&A with them,
and my students get real life situations
and they love that.
I'm also an FCCLA advisor,
all the red jackets that you see over there.
(applause)
FCCLA is a national career and technical
student-led organization.
We're about promoting personal growth
and teaching them to be leaders.
Developing career preparation for these students.
For the last eight years as a FCCLA advisor,
I have seen that.
Four years ago,
I took seven freshman
and said I think you guys would be really good
at something called "parliamentary procedure."
They had no idea what I was talking about.
Mr. Overby does now.
Voiceover: I could use that.
-: I took these freshman
and I convinced them that with this they would
learn so many things that would be so beneficial to them.
Despite a liver transplant in one of them,
despite an adoption,
despite low income,
those seven students are now seven seniors
that Mr. Overby has now worked with as well.
I connect the real world to my students all the way
in Brady, Texas
and I took him there.
Those students have competed at the regional level,
they've competed at the state level
and just this last summer,
they competed at the national level in Washington, D.C.
where they represented Texas
with a gold metal and a silver metal.
(applause)
I will tell you this,
despite all of the adversities
that those kids have grown up in,
seven seniors
and elective classes,
doing CTE classes.
Those seven seniors have all been accepted to college.
Four of them are headed here to the University of Texas.
One to Texas State
and one to the University of Texas San Antonio
and the last to Angelo State University
where she will become a family consumer science teacher.
(applause)
As I came in today,
I walked the hallways
and saw the artwork by the amazing students
from around here.
As I walked in,
my heart fluttered when I saw the red jackets come by
and I saw FCCLA
Then I got to see FFA here as well.
To be graced by this beautiful dancing here today.
State Board of Education,
elective classes are important.
We do teach Math, Science, English and History.
Please consider us when you talk about funding.
Please consider us when you talk about cutting classes.
We are connected to the real world for them.
And, I want to leave you with this,
if we tell our students who they have to be,
we'll never know who they were meant to be.
Thank you.
(applause)
-: That was wonderful,
really, really appreciate.
You've really honored us with your speeches today.
We really appreciate your being here with us.
Thank you so much for coming.
It was really an honor to listen to all three presentations.
It was wonderful.
Alright, members, we're going to go to approval of the minutes.
First item of business is the approval of the minutes for September 11, 2015
for the November meeting, 2015.
Are there any corrections to the minutes?
Hearing none the minutes are approved as presented.
Now, it's time for our resolutions
and presentation.
I believe Mr. Cortez,
our Board Secretary will read those.
First stop is the Presidential Awards for Excellence
in Mathematics
and Science Teaching.
Members, you have resolutions on your desk.
-: Yes, good morning.
If we can get members Allen,
Chair Bahorich,
member Cargill,
member Mercer
and member Miller to the circle.
If all of our Presidential Award for Excellence
in Mathematics and Science Teaching recipients
can join your member in our circle.
As they're getting situated,
are there any administrators
or special guest accompanying our recipients today?
If you're in the room, please stand to be recognized.
Thank you all for being here with them today.
(applause)
(laughter)
Alright.
Good morning.
I'm going to go ahead
and read this resolution.
Looks like everybody's situated.
Whereas the Presidential Awards for Excellence
in Mathematics and Science Teaching programs
identifies outstanding science and mathematics teachers
in each state
and in the four U.S. jurisdictions.
Whereas through state selection committees,
five mathematics finalists,
five science finalists
were nominated as Texas finalists.
Whereas these teachers become candidates
for the Presidential Awards
for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching.
Now, therefore, be it resolved that the
State Board of Education
does hereby extend its congratulations
to Johnathan Clayton,
Northbrook Senior High School,
Spring Branch Independent School District,
Houston, Texas.
Darla Emerson, Lovejoy High School,
Lovejoy Independent School District,
Lucas, Texas.
Rebecca Grant,
Haggard Middle School,
Plano Independent School District,
Plano, Texas.
(applause)
Patty Hill,
Kealing Middle School,
Austin Independent School District,
Austin, Texas.
(applause)
Penny Smeltzer,
Westwood High School,
Round Rock Independent School District,
Austin, Texas.
For being named state finalist
in Mathematics category in the 2015 Presidential Awards
be it further resolved that the State Board of Education
does hereby extend its congratulations
to Carol Brown,
Saint Mary's Hall,
San Antonio, Texas.
Sherry Cole,
Seabrook Intermediate School,
Clear Creek Independent School District,
Seabrook, Texas.
Cara Johnson,
Allen High School,
Allen Independent School District,
Allen, Texas.
Mark Massage,
Westlake High School,
Ennis Independent School District,
Austin, Texas.
Paula Shay-Starkes.
Phillis Wheatley High School,
Houston Independent School district,
Houston, Texas
for being named the state finalist in the science category
for the 2015 Presidential Awards.
Be it further resolved that this resolution
be presented to the aforementioned teachers
for being identified as state
and national finalist for the 2015 Presidential Awards
for Excellence in Mathematics
and Science Teaching Programs
and that a copy be included in the permanent records
of the State Board of Education.
Witness our signatures this 29th day of January 2016
in Austin, Texas.
Donna Bahorich, chair,
Ruben Cortez Junior, Secretary.
(applause)
Congratulations.
(applause)
Madam Chair,
I'd like to move that we adopt the resolution as presented.
(applause)
Did everybody get photographs already?
I'm going to pass the mic over to Mr. Maynard.
who will be presenting our CTE month resolution.
Voiceover: Madam Chair,
I'm going to defer to Ms. Kendall Stone,
the state FCCLA president from Silsbee, Texas
to present this resolution.
Voiceover: Thank you, Mr. Maynard.
Whereas February 1st through 29th 2016
has been designated
National Career and Technical Education month
and whereas more than 1.2 million Texas secondary students
are enrolled in one or more career and technical education
CTE courses in 1,219 school districts
and charter schools throughout the state.
Whereas career and technical
education offers students the opportunity to gain academic,
technical
and employee ability skills necessary
for true career readiness.
Whereas students in career
and technical education programs participate
in authentic, meaningful experiences
which improve the quality of their education
by offering meaningful opportunities to apply
academic knowledge
and skills from across the curriculum.
Whereas career and technical
education is a vital
and integral part of the foundation high school program
offering students pathways to earn recognized endorsements,
performance acknowledgements
and industry-validated credentials.
Whereas the state's nine career and technical
educational student organizations BPA,
DECA,
Educators Rising or TAFE,
FBLA,
FCCLA,
FFA,
HOSA,
Skills USA
and TSA
instills in their members the values,
knowledge,
and skills to be patriotic citizens prepared to fully engage
as effective leaders in the formidable
and noble task of self government
and our constitutional republic.
Whereas career and technical education
provides students with career exploration opportunities
early on in their educational experience
which enables them to make informed
and beneficial decisions about their academic coursework
as well as pursuit of established programs of study
and career pathways.
Whereas leaders from business
and industry nationwide report increasing challenges
related to the skills gap
and connecting qualified professionals with available
careers in critical ingrown CTE-related fields.
Whereas career and technical education
prepare students for fulfilling careers by offering
integrated programs of study that link secondary
and postsecondary education
and significantly contributes to college readiness
and whereas insuring that employers have access to qualified
workforce is a crucial step in insuring productivity
among the business and
industry communities as well as continued
American economic growth
and global competitiveness.
Now, therefore,
be it resolved that the State Board of Education,
which has been designated by the Texas Legislature
as the State Board for Career and Technical Education,
does hereby proclaim February 1-29, 2016,
as Career and Technical Education
Month in Texas.
Does hereby urge all Texans to become familiar
with outstanding curriculum delivered by exceptional
career and technical education teachers
in communities across the state.
Support and participate
in these programs to enhance their individual skills
and productivity.
Voiceover: Thank you, Ms. Stone.
Head of Chair, I move adoption.
-: [Voiceover All those in favor say I.
Voiceover: I.
-: Congratulations,
thank you so much.
We really appreciate it.
I would like just one by one,
Mr. Maynard,
would you mention the name and the organization
then have each group stand up.
That's FCCLA.
Wonderful, thank you.
Please say the name of the organization,
that woud be great.
(applause)
You guys are distinctive in your red jackets.
We really appreciate it.
(applause)
Did I get everyone?
Terrific.
Again, students,
we so appreciate
we had a wonderful dinner with you guys last night.
Just a terrific time together
and so impressive as we said last night.
We were all talking about the future's in good hands
with students like you coming through our system.
We're very proud of each
and everyone of you.
Thank you so much for sharing an evening with us
and for coming here this morning.
to accept our congratulations
and resolutions.
Yes, Mr. Mercer.
Voiceover: I just want to thank Mr. Maynard.
This is the second year.
When I speak throughout Texas I get a lot of concerns
about the future of America
and the future of Texas.
The last two years with y'all at our table,
I have no fear whatsoever.
We have a great future thanks to y'all.
God bless you.
Thank you.
(applause)
-: Moving on with the agenda,
members,
no one signed up for public testimony today
so we don't have anyone registered to speak.
It has been requested that the remarks of the superintendent
and teachers of the years be attached to the minutes
of the meeting.
Is there any objection to that?
Hearing none, so ordered.
Members,
we're going to go ahead
and move into the approval of the consent agenda.
Please turn to IX in your agenda books
which lists the items on the consent agenda
there were no additional items.
I'm gonna just read these,
going through again it's Roman Numeral nine.
Proposed Amendment Number One,
proposed amendment to 19 TAC Chapter 74
Curriculum Requirements, Subchapter A: Required Curriculum,
74.5 - Academic Achievement Record Transcript
and High School Diploma.
Number Two,
Proposed new 19 TAC
Chapter 126
Texas Essential Knowledge
and Skills
for Technology Applications, Subchapter D
Other Technology Applications Courses,
126.65: Advanced Placement Computer Science Principles,
adopted 2016.
Number Three,
Recommendations Regarding Renewal of Instructional
Materials Contracts.
Number Four,
Ratifications of the Purchases
and Sales of the Investment Portfolio of the Permanent
School Fund
for the months of October and November 2015.
There were no real estate items considered
so, there's nothing on that agenda,
and Ms. Miller you don't need to recuse yourself.
This is for Number Five.
Number Six,
Decision on Absolute Return Investments.
Number Seven,
Recommendation for Appointments to the Boys Ranch
Independent School District
Board of Trustees.
Number Eight,
Recommendation for Appointments to the Randolph Field
Independent School District Board of Trustees.
Are members clear as to what we'll be approving of
in the consent agenda?
If there's no objection,
the consent agenda is approved.
Alright members,
I'm going to turn this over to Mr. Ratliff.
to go through our minutes.
-: Ok, members,
you have two handouts that say
Court of the State Board of Education Committee
of the Full Board.
The one we'll be working from is
the one at the bottom that says 127 2016.
The other one is just the public testimony day.
The first item for consideration
on behalf of the Committee the Full Board,
I move that the State Board of Education adopt the review
of 19 TAC Chapter 66:
State Adoption
and Distribution of Instructional Materials.
Subchapter A: General Provisions,
Subchapter B: State Adoption of Instructional Materials
and Subchapter C: Local Operations.
Voiceover: Are you ready for the question?
All those in favor say I.
-: I.
Those opposed say no.
I's have it.
The review of 19 TAC Chapter 66: State Adoption
Distribution of Instructional Materials.
Subchapter A: General Provisions,
Subchapter B state adoption of instructional materials
and Subchapter C: Local Adoptions
Operations is adopted.
Item Number Four.
Voiceover: Actually,
we're going to turn it over to page two.
Sorry you're right,
Agenda Item Number Four.
-: I'm sorry,
Agenda Item Number Four.
-: It's on the top of page two in your minutes.
-: On behalf of the Committee the Full Board,
I move that the State Board of Education
by affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members
of the board approve for second reading
and final adoption
proposed revisions 19 TAC Chapter 66:
State Adoption
and Distribution of Instructional Materials, Subchapter A:
General Provisions.
Subchapter B: State Adoption
and Instructional Materials.
Subchapter C: Local Operations
with an effective date of 20 days after filing
as adopted with the Texas Register.
Voiceover: Madam Chair.
Voiceover: Yes, Ms. Martinez.
-: Before you take the final vote,
staff does have one final amendment for your consideration.
This is something that we discovered recently
that you might want to consider with respect to
66.28
and you can find that in your agenda book.
Voiceover: What page is that?
-: I'm getting that. I apologize.
66.28 is on Roman Numeral 1-50.
This language would clarify
what the expectations are to ensure that
all instructional materials are accessible
for students with disabilities.
This is specific to electronic instructional materials
and would indicate that, while further detail
would be included in each proclamation as appropriate,
This includes in your rule
the expectation that that will be addressed.
Voiceover: Yes, Mr. Ratliff.
-: Madam Chair,
I'm going to make the motion of the language in red
to amend 66.28A, Section 2,
to insert the words,
"the report must be prepared by an independent third party
and be based on an audit testing the accessibility
of a random sampling of pages as outlined
in each proclamation.
The number of pages to be audited to meet the requirements
in the proclamation shall be determined by the publisher."
Insert a new Section 3
that would read,
"a publisher who provides access to materials to students
with disabilities
through an alternate format
shall include a link to that material on the entrance page
of main product."
I'd like to move the previous question
on all outstanding motions on this item.
Voiceover: Oh yeah,
the location in the agenda.
Voiceover: Mrs. Miller,
in your agenda book, it's Roman Numeral 1-50
66.28A.
This would add language to Number Two,
would add a new Number Three
and renumber accordingly.
Voiceover: Second on the previous question.
-: It's been moved and seconded to order
the previous question
on all pending items.
There's a vote
on moving forward to go ahead
and not only add this amendment
but to approve
the rules as we worked on them the other day
when we sent them through.
If that's adopted than we're finished
with changes to the rules
and this Chapter 66 will be adopted.
All those in favor.
Right, so
if you vote in favor of this, then there's no discussion.
Is it a point of order?
It's not a debatable motion.
Kurt's telling me that you can ask that after
we vote on the previous question.
Correct.
Let him explain.
Voiceover: The previous question means
we're going to vote now.
No debate,
no further motions to amend
or anything like that.
The pending question is to do that.
If members have questions about that procedure,
they can ask a question.
However, I think
a question of information might be allowed
as long as it doesn't go into debate.
The chair could possibly allow that after we vote
on the previous question.
-: So you had a question for Monica to answer?
So it's not a debate of what's being presented.
It's not debatable,
we have to take care of the vote first, right?
Procedurally, we have to take care of the vote first.
All those in favor say, I.
Voiceover: I.
-: All those opposed say nay.
I think we have to have hands up.
We have to have our hands up for this vote.
(laughter)
Sorry.
Have the two-thirds, ok.
Members, in order
to make this the early effective date requires a vote
of the two-thirds of the members.
I think we better hold up our hands to be sure that we had
two-thirds vote
to move the previous question
and vote right away.
To shut off previous question
and vote right away.
Let's hold up our hands just to be sure we've got the
two-thirds needed.
All those in favor of moving the previous question,
raise your hand.
All those opposed, raise your hand.
Ok, so
that's two-thirds.
Now, ask your question
for clarification.
Voiceover: The language proposed
obviously I was back there, I heard.
I'm glad that you guys want to fix this, right?
-: What's your question?
because you can't debate.
-: I don't want to debate it.
It's leading up to the question
but the language on here says,
"the number of pages to be audited must meet the requirements
in the proclamation
and shall be determined by the publisher."
Why are we catering to the publisher, still?
Wouldn't that be something that would meet the requirements
of the agency so we won't have the problem that we were
exposed to on Wednesday.
-: Mr. Cortez,
the idea here is that there would be an audit
of a random sampling of pages.
Because the number of pages is going to vary widely,
we believe we will be able to make appropriate determination
with certain types of pages.
We would bring language back to you
and the proclamation that would outline the types of pages.
If a publisher chooses to provide many more
of those different varieties than that
would be perfectly acceptable.
We would be able to indicate what the minimum amount would
be in order for us to make the appropriate determination.
Voiceover: We set the parameters is what you're saying.
-: The board will set the parameters in the proclamation.
-: This item becomes final because it's second reading?
This language would end all that
and we are basically at the mercy of whatever
comes in that random sampling.
You all won't have an opportunity beyond that.
Voiceover: No that's not correct.
-: After that random sampling.
I just want to know the process.
-: This rule is indicating is that you're going
to expect a random audit of all the materials
and as we get to each proclamation,
you're going to set the parameters at that time.
Every proclamation is going to be different
we didn't want to be so specific in the rule that
you then don't have the opportunity to set those parameters
with each proclamation.
That will be the next step in this process.
Voiceover: That would happen when?
-: When you vote to approve each proclamation.
Voicover: So we'll have the opportunity
at the proclamation to set our parameters however we would
like to set the parameters.
-: Yes, ma'am.
Voiceover: Yes, make sure
there's a question Mr. Ratliff.
-: Monica, the reason
you're leaving it flexible,
as I understand it,
staff says the kind of samples we would need
will vary by subject so you my want charts for one type,
language for another type, etc.
So it gives y'all the ability to have those samples
relavent to the content being looked at.
Voiceover: That's correct.
-: Thank you.
-: Members the previous question has been ordered
and we will now vote on the amendment
and this is a majority vote.
All those in favor of the amendment to chapter 66.28A
to include, at the end of 66.28A 2, the report must be
prepared by an independent third party
and be based on an audit testing the accessibility
of a random sample of pages as outlined
in each proclamation number of pages to be audited
to meet the requirements in the proclamation shall be
determined by the publisher.
Number Three, a publisher who provides access to materials
to students with disabilities through an alternate format
shall include a link to that material on the entrance page
of the main product.
All those in favor say I.
Voiceover: I.
-: All those opposed, nay.
I's have it.
Members, we're taking a vote on the main motion as amended.
This is where the motion before us is to
approve for second reading
and final adoption.
Proposed revisions to 19 TAC Chapter 66: State Adoption
and Distribution of Instructional Material,
Subchapter A: General Provisions
and Subchapter B:
State Adoption of Instructional Materials
and Subchapter C: Local Operations
with an effective date of 20 days after filing
as adopted with the Texas register, if there is a two-thirds
vote in the affirmative.
As amended, because we did just amend it.
Are you ready for the question?
No debate on this.
Is there a question that you had?
Voiceover: I'm pretty sure I'm caught up
with the amendments that have been made,
but do we have a clean version in front of us?
-: That's what's in the notes that you got, right?
In the minutes.
-: We don't have time to provide a clean version
from meeting to meeting.
You've got the changes in your minutes.
Voiceover: The changes are in the minutes.
Voiceover: Right.
Voiceover: They'll be getting us a clean version.
Voiceover: Oaky, no problem.
Thank you.
Voiceover: All those in favor raise your hand.
All those opposed raise your hand.
The I's have it.
Yes, because
we had over two-thirds,
we will be adopting effective day 20 days after filing
as adopted with the Texas register.
Thank you, members.
Now members,
if there's no objection,
I'm going to move Item Number Eight forward
because one of our members has to leave early.
I'd like to move item number eight forward.
Is there any objection?
-: Madame Chair,
I've failed to state one part of the last motion
that we also instruct staff to file the resolution
issued by the State Board of Education in the miscellaneous
section of the Texas Register.
Voiceover: Oh, that's right, yes.
That was part of the committee recommendation,
do we need to talk about that again?
-: I didn't know it needed to be part of the motion.
Voiceover: The board does have to be approve it, correct?
-: I don't think there was an objection on Wednesday.
Voiceover: Is there any objection to so moving?
-: Ok, so ordered.
Item number eight on your agenda.
If you'll skip over to that, Mr. Ratliff.
Did you have a question, Ms. Perez?
Voiceover: No, Madam Chair.
Prior to starting that item,
I just need to recuse myself.
-: Oh, yes.
Thank you, so noted.
Ms. Perez is recusing herself from this discussion
on item number eight.
It's on your agenda,
but which item is it on the minutes, Mr. Ratliff?
I'm going to make sure we get to the right one
in the minutes.
[Voiceover] In the Committee of the Full Board Minutes,
it's on page nine.
-: Item Seven.
Voiceover: Item Seven. Yes, ma'am.
-: Thank you.
Voiceover: Official Agenda Item Number Eight
on page I-163.
Got nine different ways to refer to this thing.
Members, on behalf of the committee of the full board,
I move that the State Board of Education approve all
three vendors as test providers for the Texas Certification
of High School Equivalency.
-: There were no amendments.
The vote will be on the recommendation to approve.
You're going to talk about afterwards,
Ms. Martinez has some things to talk about
next steps.
Before we vote,
I was just wanting to make sure members were clear
on what happens now regardless of the vote taken.
I'd think it be important to know that
if, members, you don't mind.
Yes, Mr. Cortez.
-: What we intend to do is place another item
on your April agenda so that we can discuss next steps.
What we anticipate,
and we did mention this with the committee on instruction
is that there will be a need to amend you chapter 89 rules
to insure they are consistent with the expectation
that there will be more than one test available
in both computer and paper format.
We'll need to make some adjustments.
We also anticipate that we are going to need to increase
the state fee that is a portion of this
in order to be able to make the appropriate adjustments
so the agency is prepared to manage this new system.
For example,
our data system will have to be reworked
in order for us to be prepared to address multiple tests.
In addition to that,
when you initially set out the RFP,
that RFP did indicate your intent to have
an equivalency study done.
That was something that you ask that the agency complete.
Upon a final decision,
we will need to figure out what the timeline will be
for completing that equating study,
I guess I used the wrong term earlier,
that will be something that we need to do.
We think we're in a position where we'll probably need
to come back in April with all of the next steps
and likely need that to be an action item
so that you can make any additional decisions
with respect to implementation moving forward.
Voiceover: Mr. Ratliff.
Voiceover: Monica, there
was also some confusion in the board about
the representation that we had three vendors
in the alignment to the TEKS.
After further research,
one of the vendors used a different scale for alignment
we didn't convert over to a percentage,
so it looked like all three vendors were much closer
with regards to alignment to the TEKS.
Is there anybody here that can just touch on that?
We didn't name any names,
I just want to make sure that members of the board
and of the public understand that all three vendors
were closer than what we previously thought in terms
of alignment to the TEKS,
because of the conversion of their third party verification.
-: Staff didn't actually look at that.
I know that we did ask someone from research
and analysis to provide some additional feedback.
My understanding was that because there were different
parties who actually did that review,
that we're comparing apples to oranges
and we can't really make a comparison
with the information we have available to us.
-: I believe Madam Chair,
Kurt will probably tell us to do this in the form
of a motion,
I think that we may have some discussion
about a contingency to say we need everybody to use the same
third-party verifier
and use the same rubric
so we truly do have an apples to apples comparison.
Otherwise even the two vendors that use the same
third-party verifier used a different rubric.
So we really don't have a comparison of all three on
the same scale
and as it pertains to the five specific courses
that we specified in the RFP.
Some went above
and beyond which is great,
but we need to understand how they meet the
specific terms of the RFP.
After we have some discussion,
we can offer that contingency if members are so inclined.
-: I think what's important for us to do is kind of
help staff figure out
because you are going to be coming to us, I assume,
with some terms or contract
or who knows what's going to happen.
It'll be an action item of some sort,
an update of some sort by April
depending on what you are able to get done
and how long you take to.
Voiceover: There will be a need to negotiate the terms
of the contract.
-: Right.
-: We believe we will need to further
conversation with you about broader implementations.
I'm not just talking about the contract terms,
I'm talking about how the agency prepares to implement
a different system.
Not knowing what your decisions were going to be today
we're not prepared to lay out all of the decisions
related to implementations.
We anticipate that we will do that in April.
Voiceover: Yes, Mr. Rowley.
Voiceover: Monica, the fee that you're talking about looking at
and adjusting, is that an agency decision
or a board decision?
-: The fee is in board rule so that would be an amendment.
You may recall when we first discussed the second RFP,
we did let you know that there would be some additional
cost to the agency
because we don't have the budget to absorb those costs
and because this is a fee based program,
that we anticipated the need to increase that fee.
That was information that we wanted to make sure you were
aware of at the very beginning of this process
that in order for us to be able to do this,
there are going to be some costs involved
and we have to identify the funding to address
those costs.
We had that converstation with the committee
on instruction yesterday
and that item will be presented for first reading
and filing authorization in April.
Voiceover: Yes, Mr. Cortez.
-: I have one for Monica,
but let me ask legal first.
It was mentioned of possibly considering the motion
to offer contingencies
to have everybody use the same firm
for the alignment study.
How does that fall within the scope
of our current proposal?
Are we falling out of the scope by now
changing the rules at this point
or are we still within the header of the law?
If that contingency were to be presented?
Wouldn't it not just be easier to rebid
and ask clearly what we need?
-: While they're discussing that,
what I wanted to say was, Monica,
one of the things I've already spoken to you about
as you're thinking about putting together whatever terms
for the contract.
That we have some way of looking at outcomes when it comes
to the three providers that, five years out,
six years out, whatever is an appropriate time to look
to see if there is any variance between any of the
three providers as information we can provide to consumers
if there are more successful programs
than other programs.
Of course, we have no idea if all of them
are equally successful
and that will be terrific if that's what's voted on
by the members.
But we want to make sure we have some way of accessing outcomes
based on successful passing
of the high school equivalency exams.
-: We'll certainly look at that to see what options might
be available.
The challenge is that you're talking about test takers
who would have to agree to allow
information to be collected.
We would only be able to collect data to the extent
that individuals were willing to allow us to collect
that data
and be able to track that information.
We'll certainly have some conversations between now
and April to see what if anything we might be able to do
or test providers might be able to do.
I do think it's important to point out that we do have
that major barrier in place.
-: Yeah, absolutely.
As long as you guys are looking at that as fact,
I think that is the important thing.
Yes, Ms. Malone.
Voiceover: Monica, do we
have an idea what would be the earliest date that people
could start taking, as things are right now,
The earliest that students can begin taking the test?
-: No, ma'am we don't have an idea of that today.
We really need to sit down
and figure that out.
Voiceover: Thank you.
Dr. Dominguez.
-: Thank you.
Now that we're not sure about the alignment to the TEKS,
would it be part of the contract for us to request that they
be aligned at a certain percentage to the TEKS?
Is this a time to go ahead
and talk about that
because I would like to see them.
I would not want to only be aligned 40%
and the other ones 80%
I think that it would be responsible of us to make sure
that they're aligned to the TEKS
at a certain percentage.
-: I'm going to see if Christine can help
with what can be done.
One thing I do want to say
is if you determine a percentage,
you need to do that with the recognition
that you may have no tests that meets that percentage.
We're not in a position to provide you with a percentage
to say this is where they need to meet.
We had this conversation before, you didn't set a percentage
in the RFP for that reason.
That certainly would be a decision that the board
would make.
We wouldn't be able to assist you with determining
what that percentage would be.
Voiceover: Would we know by April
kind of where we were with the providers
on percentage alignment?
-: We only have the information that was provide to us
in the responses.
Voiceover: You're saying the responses won't tell us?
-: The responses are not uniformed.
Voiceover: I thought staff had looked at this, too.
The reviewers internal
and external looked at the information that was provided.
Voiceover: Okay.
Yes, Mr. Bradley.
-: Monica, my experience with RFPs and contracts
go back to the PSF so I think I can ask this question,
is there a termination date on these contracts?
What's the lifespan?
-: I think that's a decision that still needs to be made.
-: That's why I was asking the question.
Certainly we're not going to go 70 years.
Voiceover: I don't know what you would decide to do.
Voiceover: That's something we can talk about next time
in April.
This is the answer to Mr. Cortez's question.
-: I want to make sure I have the question set
before us correctly.
The board is at this point willing to explore it
moving forward
with all three respondents.
You want to have another level of information
which is how aligned are each of the vendor's test
to the TEKS.
You want that information based off of one uniform
third-party vendor
to assess all three
based on one uniform assessment.
Is that correct?
Ok, one
(inaudible)
It would be all three moving forward,
but then the next level is this is the information
we want to discuss at the next open meeting.
Is that correct?
How I see that in the procurement world, it sounds like
you're furthering negotiations
and you are offering them the opportunity to do this.
All the vendors have the opportunity to accept it
and move forward with this
or not.
If all three agree to this next level
and provide this information using one uniformed vendor,
that I assume the board will have to decide
on who that vendor is
so they can have clear direction of where you want to go
and have all that information discussed at an open meeting.
They can accept it
and we can move forward.
If there is someone who doesn't want to accept
that next level,
how I see it is you have to make a determination today
on the information that is brought forth already.
-: Yes, Mr. Cortez.
-: This is a follow up on my original question.
I need to pose a question to Monica then back to counsel.
Two of them did with the same firm.
It's been represented by a member of our board
that they used a different rubric
Can you tell me what the difference is
and the way they've done their analysis for each of those?
Voiceover: I can't tell you that
with any level of detail.
-: How long have you worked in your department?
I'm just trying to highlight if you're going to have
a difficult time answering that question,
I don't think any member of this board.
Voiceover: May I explain why I will have
a difficult time.
-: Please.
-: I was not on the review committee.
As I mentioned before there were eight individuals
who were on the review committee.
I can not stand here
and tell you with any level of detail
because I did not review personally
and score the applications.
Voiceover: Fair enough.
-: In subsequent review,
individuals who took a look at those proposals determined
that the way that information was laid out was different
even though it was completed by the same firm.
-: Ok, before I ask legal the next question,
let me ask you,
on you having to come back to us
on possibly increasing the fees,
that would only be in the instance that we bring in
more than one vendor?
If this body decided today only one,
regardless of who,
would we have a need for a price increase or not?
Or only if it's multiple.
I just want clarification on that.
-: I'm not 100% certain.
I do know that the system is currently set up
for one battery of tests
and that would look different if we had multiple tests
multiple batteries that had varying numbers of tests.
I would be hesitant to say that there absolute would be
no increase in that state fee.
That is something that we intend to have a more definitive
answer for you in April.
Voiceover: It would be more likely that if
we had multiple vendors
that it would assume that we're going to have
a price increase?
It might not necessarily be the case if we selected
one of the three.
-: That's possible.
-: Back to legal.
What you're saying is if we select all three,
we're basically going into negotiations with them
and saying okay we're adding an extra layer of step
that wasn't in this RFP
we want to negotiate that point.
If you're interested
you can move forward,
if you're not than you won't.
I just don't want it to seem as if though we're catering
to one because
they've been discussed as not being a superior product.
I kind of have a level of concern with that.
I'm ok with multiple vendors.
From what I've seen,
I'm okay with two of what has been presented.
I'm just concerned that it's going to appear
as if though we're catering to one specific one
to bring them up to par, because they're not there.
I just want make sure we're not crossing
any shady areas here, you know?
-: My concern is not catering to one vendor,
my concern is that we have a level-playing field
for all vendors.
That all the same rules apply to everyone.
If they knew that a certain alignment
and a percentage was required
and a certain vendor to do the alignment test.
I don't think that was stated in the RFP.
The RFP asks for alignment to certain topics.
I think Algebra One and etc, etc.
Monica had laid out on Wednesday.
If we want to further the negotiations
and have all of the vendors continue to compete
and ask for additional information,
I think we ask it of all three not to cater to one person
but to be fair to all three with an equal request
asking for an equal opportunity to access them
with one uniform vendor.
If we don't want to do that,
and don't give them the opportunity to have that,
then you can use the information that is available already.
-: I'm not saying that we don't want to
I just want to be sure that we can.
There's a lot of information.
There's information about different rubrics with one
different company with another.
If we're going to ask all of them to move forward
and then we're going to tell them
and you're going to use X, Y, Z company
that the agency has a comfort level with
or whomever to do this
equating study
or this analysis on their alignment,
Are we also able to ask them,
I just trying to get to where I'm comfortable with my vote.
I want to be sure to ask this question.
Are we able to ask for a specific percentage
of the TEKS be met.
As they move forward all three of them.
-: You can ask,
you can ask,
but again,
when you offer something,
the other side has to accept.
Also when you ask,
you also need to be prepared
whether or not you're asking for something
that will result in a contract.
If you're asking for 100% alignment,
90% alignment
or you're just asking for the results of a uniform
alignment test,
that's something that a board will have to decide.
I can not tell you what that decision will be.
-: I do have a question, Monica
that I'm not understanding.
On the equating study that we're doing,
that was part of the contract,
what's the scope of that, then?
To me that's what we're talking about here.
-: The RFP included language
about an equating study
and what this gets at is,
I think you heard this during the presentations,
the state of Texas issues the certificate
of high school equivalency.
Voiceover: Right.
-: These are the tests that an individual would take
so that a determination could be made
regarding whether or not
that individual has earned that certificate.
If you've got a variety of batteries of tests
what we've been using that has multiple parts,
an English part, a Math, Science, Social Studies,
those may be used in combination in different ways
on different tests to determine passing
then part of what the state is going to have to
figure out is what constitutes passing with respect
to all of the different potential variations,
which is not anything that we've had to do before
because there was one test
there was one understanding of what would be passing
to the equating study would attempt to identify
what would constitute passing
for each one of those different scenarios.
-: That's strictly about the passing thing, I got you.
I just wanted to make sure I understood what that was.
Ms. Hardy.
-: Yes, Monica,
I would say that it's unfortunate, but the problem rests
with the board
for not being more specific in what we meant
by the word, 'equating.'
I don't want you to feel like
you've let us down in any way
because we did not make that particularly clear to you
if we wanted percentages or scores
or anything like that.
It was hard when you were doing it to come up with this.
Voiceover: If I may, I think we may be talking
about equating differently.
The equating study was something that we indicated
we couldn't do until you made a decision.
-: Equating to the test.
Voiceover: Equating of the scores.
The other issue is alignment to the essential knowledge
and skills.
That was a conversation where, I would say, is even difficult
for the board to make a decision
about a percentage when you didn't know what you
were going to get.
If you had said 100% of the text,
then you may have automatically
disqualified any tests that ever existed.
They are two separate issues I believe.
-: I'm sorry.
I should have used the word, 'alignment,' thank you.
We didn't make ourselves clear.
As we're not really making ourselves clear at this moment.
One of the things that I would like to point out,
there are vendors right here in town,
I honestly think in a good faith negotiations,
all three of these companies would agree to use
the same vendor.
They've all made the claim that they are close in alignment
it's just a peculiar rating of how the rubric is done
and everything.
I personally feel like such things as the price change
shouldn't be such a big issue
because two of the tests are so much less expensive
than the other one anyway
even if there were a price change
it wouldn't be enough to offset the savings we would get
if you chose to use a less expensive test.
That's not a deal breaker for me.
Voiceover: May I clarify?
-: Yeah.
-: Just to make sure that we're very clear,
there's a fee that comes to the state,
there's the potential for a fee that goes
to the testing center
and there's the cost of the test
that goes to the test provider.
The state portion of the fee is what comes to us regardless.
Voiceover: That's the $13 right now?
-: $15.
Voiceover: $15, right.
-: Then there's, I believe,
currently $40 goes to the test center.
Then there's the cost of the test itself.
-: The fact is,
and it's understandable that you would have to do some
changes here to accept three different tests
and one a paper, pencil test
as opposed to online.
Voiceover: Test centers will need to prepare as well.
I should probably mention that we're going to
have to talk to them about
what preparation they won't need to make in order
to be able to offer whatever options you decide.
-: Exactly, and some of them may chose to do one thing or another
or neither.
It's going to be their call.
In the balance right now are a lot of students
have been waiting for the possibility of a new test.
There a lot of people on hold,
you heard those people that came
from my district last September.
I think that it would be advantageous if we really need
to see this alignment thing to the TEKS,
I personally am an old, old school teacher,
and I trust these people that they're not going to be trying
to test kids or students
over things that they wouldn't have taught
and what they teach is basically the basic
Math, Science, Social Studies
and English that we're teaching in the schools.
In other words,
they're not going to go out in another area to try
and teach the students
and then test them on something
that's not what we basically teach
in the areas of the standards.
Voiceover: May I make one distinction at the end?
-: Yes.
You may be saying what I think you're saying,
but I just want to be clear
I think you're talking about what's being tested,
not what's being taught.
Adult Basic Ed providers who do the teaching only teach,
we believe,
less than half of the individuals that actually go
and take a test.
I think what you're talking about is what is being tested,
not what's being taught in an ABE program
because that also is a separate issue.
Voiceover: Yes, I am talking about what's being tested.
I would prefer that we just go ahead
and approve the three vendors
and if we still need to negotiate
some sort of uniform check for our own knowledge,
I think that the three vendors would find that this business
would be lucrative enough to pay for that review
and the board would feel happier about
its alignment with our standards.
-: I want to go back because we had a big discussion
during this whole thing about the lexile level of the test
that kind of equating.
Did that end up in a term
because I guess I'm a little confused
how did we lose that
in not giving clear direction
if that wasn't required to have some understanding
that these tests are at the same level they're at.
Did we do anything with that,
or not really?
-: I apologize.
I don't remember a discussion about lexile levels
specifically that's one specific thing.
We had a lot of conversation about an equating study
both in the decision-making phase
and the approval of the RFP phase.
We did make it clear
that would be a step that we would undertake
once you made a decision about what you wanted.
Voiceover: I think it was probably my fault
for not understanding the term, 'equating,'
I didn't realize we were talking about equating of scores
to make sure the scores had some equating across.
I think that was probably my fault.
Yes, Ms. Cargill.
-: The only thing that I was going to say is
I would personally not be comfortable
saying we require that you meet 80% of the TEKS
or 90%, because I would have to do that based on research.
We just let the three vendors turn in how they align
with the TEKS,
and then make judgement after that.
That's the only comment I was going to make.
It would be a non-research based decision if we just said
we think you should cover 80% of the TEKS
and like Monica said earlier,
that could knock out all of the tests, all of the vendors.
-: Specifically we were told, but I think all of them are using the
National College and Career Readiness Standards
as their basis.
This is a national test.
It's not a Texas-specific test.
If I'm saying this right, correct?
Voiceover: You're correct that those are not
Texas-based standards.
-: Mr. Cortez.
Mr. Ratliff,
have you spoken?
Ok, Mr. Ratliff first.
-: I would like to add a contingency to the motion.
After talking with staff,
the important thing is for us to have a common rubric
that lays out the percentage of TEKS coverage
for those five courses.
They're not as concerned about having the same vendor
as they are with having the same rubric
that addresses percentage of TEKS
covered for those five courses only,
not that subject matter generally.
The motion is to approve all three,
I would like to add the contingency
that all three vendors provide the same rubric
that details the percentage of
TEKS alignment for those five specific courses.
-: Hold on just a minute.
You would like to say in addition to the recommendation
would be to recommend that the State Board of Education
prove all three vendors as test providers
of Texas Certification
of High School Equivalency, with the contingency
and that
Voiceover: The vendors provide a percentage of TEKS
covered for the
five specific courses listed in the RFP
Just one second.
Hold on just a minute.
The vendors provide
a percentage of TEKS covered.
What was the other, Thomas?
Percentage of TEKS covered.
Voiceover: For the five courses.
-: For each of the five.
Voiceover: And only the five.
-: Of the five courses.
Voiceover: Specified in the RFP.
-: Now, Christine did you want to address that?
Voiceover: I just wanted to clarify that when
you say, "approve,"
it's approving then moving forward to be considered
and it's not approving that we will enter into a contract.
It's approval that all three are still in the running.
I wanted to see what was the board's understanding.
-: That's a very different vote.
The recommendation was to approve.
Voiceover: Right, can I
speak to my motion?
-: Yes.
-: To that point,
they would be approved once they provided this contingency.
Once they've satisfied this contingency,
we would not be setting a threshold number
it's just we want to know what your number is for these
five courses and only these five courses.
That's the piece that we're missing from all three vendors
essentially is just tell me what your alignment
is with these five course that we specified.
Voiceover: You won't have a decision after that
that will change.
One that information is presented.
-: The public is aware
and the board is aware of what their coverage is.
-: So, you're not changing the approval
or the recommendation,
it's just that this is part of the
final thing.
Mr. Cortez.
Voiceover: That it meet a minimum of 85% of TEKS coverage
on those five specific courses.
-: Is there a second?
-: I think that's still being generous at 85%.
The expectations should be set high.
Just the other day I read an article Texas ranks 43rd
in the nation.
I'm sorry I can't,
just like one of my colleagues mentioned,
trust that they're going to do the right thing.
I think it needs to be verified.
I think we need to hold everybody to that high level standard.
I think 85 is still low,
but I think it's palpable for some of the members
on this board.
-: Yes, Mr. Ratliff.
-: I want to stand in opposition to the amendment.
I think we need to be careful here
because while 85 sounds like a good number,
I think nobody on this board opposes, or doesn't want these vendors
to meet 100%.
That would be the goal.
We also have to keep in mind,
these companies have a brand name.
They're not going to go out there
and put a garbage test in front of these students
that's meaningless.
When that student takes it to an employer
or to an institution of higher education
or whatever their purpose of taking this test,
if it becomes publicly aware that that test is meaningless,
that company wil not be around very long.
We are dealing with three companies that have broad exposure
around the country,
multiple states under contract.
I don't think we need to follow up on what my colleague
said earlier.
We're just picking a number out of thin air.
We have no scientific
or research basis of is 85 the right number,
is 65,
is 95?
I think we need to trust these folks that have
multiple states under contract to protect
their brand name
or to protect the integrity of the test.
Voiceover: Are you addressing the 85% as well,
Mr. Rowley?
Voiceover: I'll address the 85%.
I'm opposed to it.
(laughter)
-: Ok, ok.
I'd like to go ahead
and either pass on the 85%.
Are you ready for the question?
The amendment would be the original amendment
to the amendment we would add the phrase,
"The minimum shall be 85% alignment with Texas standards."
Right, we say for each, ok.
So, all those in favor of the amendment stating 85%
minimum alignment with Texas standards raise your hand.
All those opposed to adding that.
Ok, motion fails.
Now we're back to the original amendment that we're talking
about which is to recommend the State Board of Education
to approve all three vendors as test providers
for the Texas Certification of High School Equivalency
and that the vendors provide a percentage of TEKS covered
for each of the five courses specified in the RFP.
To add these words.
Yes, Mr. Rowley.
Voiceover: Ok, so my
understanding is we're now discussing
and about to vote just the amendment.
-: Just his amendment.
Voiceover: That they provide that contingency, okay.
My question to legal, Ms. Wong,
is so let's say we pass the main motion,
three vendors are approved
and then this additional information comes forth
that we're talking about in the amendment.
What are we at liberty to do at that point
with regard to the approval.
Voiceover: I think also for clearer guidance
if you want to offer
this to the vendors is who is setting the rubric
and who do they go to to have this assessment?
How are you choosing that uniform vendor?
I think some of those details need to be clarified as well.
Voiceover: Aside from that,
my question is, if we add this additional requirement,
yet we've already approved three vendors,
what is the effect of that?
Voiceover: It more sounds like to me that this
is a further negotiation.
It's a counteroffer
or it's an offer where they can accept it
or reject it.
The next level is we want to move forward
with all three of you
and we want you to provide this information.
They can agree
or they can not agree.
Voiceover: If I'm understanding correctly
and please respond to this,
so if we pass the amendment that Mr. Ratliff has proposed,
then by our vote today we are not approving
and accepting all three vendors.
We are essential saying that all three vendors are still
in the running.
Once you provide the additional information,
we'll have another vote to decide if all three of them meet
the requirements
and are approved.
Is that correct?
Voiceover: I don't want to put words in
Mr. Ratliff's mouth.
-: What I'm asking legal the effect of passing
this amendment by adding an additional contingency
that wasn't in the RFP.
Is that correct?
-: Mr. Rowley,
I'm not legal,
I think our understanding is you make a determination
about who you want us to move forward with.
I think what Ms. Wong is trying to explain
is that we can go back and say you're approved
with this contingency
and they can say I don't agree to that.
They would pull themselves out of the running.
Not that we're going to do this extra work
and then come back to you
and say, "is that ok?"
-: My question is our vote today a conditional approval
if we add an additional contingency?
-: I think the board needs to be clear
in the motions that they're making
about what you want staff to do with this.
We need to know is the intent of the board
and on this motion is to approve the subject to them
supplying a rubric then it doesn't matter
what the results of the rubric is.
Or are we entering into a second round of negotiations
and coming back in April with the results of that
for the board to make a decision.
We don't know from the wording of
Voiceover: The amendment.
-: The motion what your direction is.
Voiceover: I understand that.
i think we all have that question
and it's one I continue to pose.
-: Ok.
-: I'll try it one more time.
I'll use different words to try to convey the same meaning.
Voiceover: Do you want me to speak to the intent
on the motion?
-: What I heard in both of Von's responses
is it's either a new negotiation
or it's an additional contingency.
Beyond that.
However we clarify it.
Am I hearing that correctly?
-: The clarification is this is our final offer.
We will accept all three, if all three provide us
with this information
and that's it.
Then you have no other discussion about
what that information means.
That seems like what Mr. Ratliff is proposing,
and he's nodding his head.
The other one is, we want you to move forward
with further discusssions,
provide us with more information
and once we get that information,
we then can make another decision.
Voiceover: Got ya.
Voiceover: Mr. Ratliff,
that seems to be a clarification
of what you were trying to talk about.
-: As the maker of the motion,
the main motion is worded as,
"The State Board of Education approve all three vendors
as test providers."
So, I'm adding, "contingent on them supplying this,
they are approved."
There would be no need for another vote.
You are hereby approved once you turn in this last piece
of information.
What we need is an apples to apples comparison for public
to be aware of the percentage of TEKS covered for these
five subjects.
Voiceover: So in this case,
if I can say,
you want an FYI, he's saying well what if I don't like
what I see
and now I have no recourse
because we've just approved all the vendors
and all they have to do is provide the grid.
Voiceover: Madam Chair.
Voiceover: Ms. Beltran's first
and then you Mr. Bradley
and that's what I've got right now.
Voiceover: Thank you Madam Chair.
I had very similar questions
so thank you for asking.
It seems as though if we're going to make that motion
and approve that motion,
I also don't see any value
in having that information if we're not going to do
anything with it.
I would like to have that information
and then have the option
of saying, "okay, if one of these providers falls below
50% alignment with TEKS,
then they shouldn't even be in the mix."
I think it's fine to have options,
but I also don't want to water down
what options we have.
It's kind of, if we talk about charter schools
and we want to give people a choice,
but we don't want to give people a choice of a poor option.
I don't think that's good policy,
I don't think that's a good step for our community
and our state.
Voiceover: Mr. Bradley,
you were next.
Then, Ms. Hardy.
I want to state the amendment again.
I just want to make sure that we're understanding.
"The recommendation is that State Board of Education
approve all three vendors as test providers
for the Texas Certification of High School Equivalency
contigent upon the vendors providing a percentage of TEKS
covered for each of the five courses specified in the RFP."
We're voting on just the addition of that information.
It's an FYI,
because we've already approved it once they provide it.
-: Madam Chair,
I think I may have a solution.
Voiceover: Ok, Mr. Bradley.
-: It's something we've used on the PSF.
After staff having listened to all the input,
we do have the authority to authorize the Commissioner
to move forward
and negotiate the contract.
It doesn't have to come back to us.
I would like to add to the end of the motion the words,
"and authorize the Commissioner to negotiate
acceptable contracts."
Voiceover: Acceptable contracts?
-: Appropriate.
Voiceover: Okay, what's
'appropriate' mean?
Voiceover: I'm giving it to the Commissioner.
-: Ok, but then
we're not approving it,
he's approving it
because he's going to set the percentage of what he feels.
Ok, I just
want to make sure I'm understanding.
Voiceover: We're authorizing these are the three guys
we want to do business with,
we put a contingency that they have to provide
the information
and it will be published for FYI information
for the community
and with that contingency,
we're authorizing the Commissioner to move forward
and execute contracts.
And we're done.
-: Ok, because my
understanding,
and, Monica, please clear this up for me,
is that we are the ones who decide some of the terms
of the contract as part of it.
of what we're going to talk about in April.
If we do this,
it takes it out of our hands
as I'm understanding it.
Is this correct?
Voiceover: I think Christine needs to answer that
particular question,
I'm sorry.
-: He wanted to ask a question to the maker of the motion.
Did you want to, too, Pat?
Voiceover: Mine's on the motion.
-: Ok, actually,
we need a second.
Voiceover: We got one.
-: Oh, you
did get a second.
I missed it.
Did you want to go back to it
or did you want to ask him a question?
(muffled speech)
To that question, okay.
Voiceover: Seriously, we've
gone through interviews,
and interviews,
and interviews.
-: Ok, that's
not a question.
Voiceover: You want to hand it over to the Commissioner?
Voiceover: We're going to poll the board to see if they
want to dispose of this once
and for all.
We can move on.
Voiceover: I just speak against the motion.
-: Speak against the motion.
-: Ok, Ms. Hardy.
-: It's my understanding by the motion as it is right now,
we would vote on all three vendors
and they simply have to provide this alignment.
We would be in a position, then, to let the public know
what that alignment is.
If one of them came out with a 20% alignment
to the standards
and they chose to do that,
then that would show poor judgment on their part to do it.
No, because
we would have put those out there.
They all claim that they're up there in the 80 percentile.
I think we need to go back to the original thing.
Let's just go ahead
and approve all three of them
and go forth.
Voiceover: Mr. Rowley.
-: I agree with Ms. Hardy in that regard
because here's the problem,
we're setting up a contingency upon which
we can't take action thereafter.
If my understanding is they come back,
one's 20%,
one's 40%
and one's 100%,
we've proved all three.
What I believe is,
they're all aligned with the TEKS,
ot they wouldn't have passed the RFP.
They would not have qualified.
They all did their test,
did it on different rubrics perhaps,
but they all did it
and said yes we're aligned with the TEKS,
we all meet your requirements.
I'm ready to vote today on all three of them.
If we set up this additional contingency
and we don't know any contingency,
we don't know the result,
we don't know what that's going to look like.
Why set a trap for either them or us,
that we don't have to set.
We can decide today.
The whole purpose in this multi-vendor approach,
in my opinion,
is to let the market set the tone.
The market gets to decide who's the best provider
either on price,
quality, alignment,
whatever it may be.
They've met the requirements,
we shouldn't set up a contingency that can only bring
doubt as to the decision we're making today to approve
all three.
-: Right now, we are debating.
The motion before us is to add
and authorize the commissioner to move forward
and execute the contract.
Then we'll go back to.
I think we have to do his first
and then yours.
Yes, Mr. Bradley.
Voiceover: I think my motion may have been in error
because we had not disposed of his amendment to require the
I need to withdraw mine
and we need to dispose of his first amendment.
Voiceover: Which I would like to withdraw.
That would dispose of it.
-: If there is no objection,
we will withdraw Mr. Bradley's.
Voiceover: Can we call for the vote?
-: If there is no objection,
we will withdraw Mr. Ratliff's.
Voiceover: After the statement of Mr. Ratliff,
I withdraw my amendment.
(laughter)
-: Ok, so
now we're back to the main motion,
but I think I had Ms. Beltran on here.
Did you want to speak, Ms. Beltran?
-: I'm a little concerned.
I actually appreciated having an opportunity to
see the alignment,
because I think it gives us transparency.
Now we're moving towards allowing all three of them
to be approved without knowing what their alignment
is for certain
or at least comparing apples to apples,
which still I believe leaves us in a bad position.
Maybe they do come back with a 20% alignment,
but now we're just turning a blind eye,
and saying never mind
we're not even going to ask the question.
Voiceover: Yes, Ms. Hardy.
Voiceover: Have we ever, in the past, concerned ourselves
with the alignment with this adult literacy test?
The answer to that is no I can tell you we haven't.
Voiceover: Yes, Dr. Dominguez.
-: Two wrongs don't make a right.
It worked for years.
The GED we all know is not at the caliber
of a high school diploma.
Instead of raising that bar,
we're saying we don't care.
We, as educators, should care.
Voiceover: Yes, Mr. Rowley.
-: I think most of us availed ourselves of the opportunity
to look at the results of the alignment studies
that were made available to us confidential,
I did.
What I saw was two of the three vendors,
I have to be real careful here,
two of the three vendors used one particular
testing service
or one particular alignment.
Vendor, there you go.
Alignment study person.
The other one used a different one.
But I saw the results of all three
and all three,
even though they were different scales,
showed a very high percentage of alignment.
Not only to just the five courses,
by the way that we designated in the RFP,
but to all the TEKS.
I am comfortable
and just to the extent that anyone out there listening
has a question as to whether or not we're comfortable
with the level of alignment
based upon confidential information that we saw
after signing non-disclosure agreements,
I'm very comfortable that all three of them
would exceed in 80% alignment.
Just because we're not able to talk about it publicly,
let's don't leave the impression that we don't know
that they are aligned,
because they are.
The first place it was a requirement in our RFP
and they met that requirement.
In the second place,
we've seen the confidential information
and it more than satisfies even an 80% alignment question.
There's no need to place an additional contingency.
We should let the market determine who is the best
test provider.
Move all three for approval.
Voiceover: Yes, Mr. Cortez.
Voiceover: So, the original motions
have all been withdrawn, right?
Voiceover: No, no.
Voiceover: We're at the main motion.
Voiceover: We're back at the main motion
because everything's been pulled down.
-: Which is what came out of committee, right?
The recommendation of three?
For a little while I thought it was going
in the right direction.
I heard one of my colleagues speak
and he had me kind of convinced
going one way.
I don't know,
something happened
and the dialogue changed.
I would like to offer up a motion.
I'm not convinced that we should just trust all the vendors
and having heard legal
and the phrasing of the original motion,
was left vague enough that we weren't sure
if okay, we pick three,
we say do this,
we notify the public,
but we have no more say in it.
That one didn't sit well with me.
The other option that Von talked about
where we pick the three,
we set the requirement,
we come back.
If we're comfortable with the requirement,
we move all three forward to a contract phase.
If were not comfortable with the three,
then this body still has the discretion
to eliminate one
or more.
-: Your original motion was defeated.
The one about the 85% alignment.
-: I'm not talking about the 85% alignment
at this point.
I'm just saying,
if we're going to go forward with all three,
I don't know what staff would recommend
in terms of what my colleague mentioned
about having one uniform rubric.
So that we can get an apple to apple study,
because it's true.
Voiceover: Ok, you
need to make an amendment.
-: I move that all three of them move forward
in the process
and that the agency help us identify the rubric.
Voiceover: That's not a motion.
Give me your motion.
Here's where we are right now.
-: This is what I'm trying to do.
I want them to move forward.
Voiceover: Recommending that the
State Board of Education approve all three vendors
as test providers for the Texas Certification
of High School Equivalency.
That's where we are right now.
Now do you have an amendment to offer?
-: Yes, I would
like them to move forward,
I don't know how I would word this maybe someone
could help me,
I'd like them to move forward,
i'd like them to be able to present additional information
that we've discussed throughout this circle
for the last hour.
Then when we had an opportunity to review it,
if we felt that they all still met that bar,
then we could pick all three of them.
If they did not,
then we could eliminate one
or more.
Voiceover: Okay, members,
if it's okay,
since it's already at this time,
do you mind if we take a 10-minute break?
So we can see if we can work this out
and then we come back for the vote?
Voiceover: Madam Chair?
Voiceover: Yes, Mr. Rowley.
-: If the member has a specific amendment
and maybe it's written out
we could consider it,
but I'd like to call for the question.
Voiceover: Second.
-: Okay.
Voiceover: She just asked for a break so I could
put the amendment together.
(whispers)
-: Ok, so,
you can vote no on this now
and he could come back with another
recommendation
and then we could vote on that recommendation.
Voiceover: Ok.
-: Ok.
Right now,
the only thing before us is to,
I would like to say one thing.
If we can have,
which we've already discussed,
the issue with the outcomes measure
that will answer to me a lot of the questions
that we're having each one of them serve
the students equally well.
If we have a measure of the outcomes.
In other words,
what happens to the kids after they take it,
pass the exam five
and six years out?
Are they employed,
have they gotten a certification,
have they gone on to college?
That sort of thing.
Each of the tests that we're giving
are they equally handled with what happens to the students?
Yes.
Voiceover: To be clear.
Voiceover: Parliamentary inquiry,
I'm sorry.
-: Oh, yeah,
you called for the question.
Voiceover: I'm calling for the question,
it is not debatable
and we're not going to have discussion.
We need to poll the board and see if we're going
to move forward.
-: Was there a second to call for the question?
You did? Ok.
Move and seconded
to recommend to order the previous question.
We need two-thirds to move the previous question.
All in favor,
raise your hand.
To move the previous question.
Two-thirds is needed.
All opposed,
raise your hand.
The motion carries. 8 to 4.
Now the main motion before us
is to recommend that the State Board of Education
approve all three vendors as test providers
for the Texas Certification of High School Equivalency.
All in favor,
raise your hand.
All opposed,
raise your hand.
Motion carries.
Alright, members,
can we take just a 10-minute break?
Then, we'll be back.
Thank you.
-: I shouldn't say that, should I?
I did say that.
I did,
I completely messed that up.
I'm so sorry.
(laughter)
Voiceover: She just jinxed it, members.
-: I'm sorry members,
I will not do that again.
Number Five on the agenda
and then on the notes
it's what number, Mr. Ratliff?
Voiceover: Ok, members,
in the Committee of the Full Board Minutes
is on page 7 in the corresponding Board book page
is I-75.
I'm going to move to postpone consideration of this item.
I move that the State Board of Education postpone
and not approve.
-: I think you can amend it,
but I think you have to give what came
out of the committee recommendation.
We have to do that.
Voiceover: On behalf of the Committee of the Full Board,
I move that The State Board of Education approve
the second reading
and final adoption proposed amendments
to 19 TAC Chapter 74: Curriculum Requirements,
Subchapter B: Graduation Requirements.
The actual motion is on page eight in the Board Minutes,
members.
The top of page eight.
-: It's been moved to approve the second reading
and final adoption proposed amendments
to 19 TAC Chapter 74: Curriculum Requirements.
Subchapter B: Graduation Requirements.
Yes, Mr. Ratliff.
-: I would like to move to postpone this item
to the April agenda.
Members, staff
and some members have been talking about the issue
that was raised by the charter schools
on the AP sequencing for the APE English classes.
Rather than trying to do it at the eleventh hour,
we want to be more deliberate
and make sure we do this correctly
so we're going to postpone to April.
Voiceover: Is there a second?
Voiceover: Second.
Voiceover: Are you ready for the question?
-: Madam Chair.
I just wanted to make you aware of one other issue
that we hope we'll be able to resolve
with this postponement
and that's the scores on the SAT are changing.
We've got reference to scores
in the performance acknowledgements in this part
of the rule.
We have been in conversations with the college board
and we don't have the ability to make a recommendation
on what the new score should be right now,
but they anticipate that they will be able to provide us
with information after the March administration.
That's a second amendment that we would likely bring forward
in April for this particular set of rules.
So, there are really two issues that we can get to some resolution
between now and April.
Voiceover: Ok, yes,
Ms. Hardy.
-: I thought we were hamstrung by legislation on this one.
-: We do think there are some ways
that the AP issue can be addressed.
As we discuss some potential solutions,
we want to make sure that there aren't any
unintended consequences.
This is still in line with your statutory requirements.
We want to make sure that anything that we suggest
for your consideration doesn't create
unintended consequences.
If we could just have a little bit of time to work
through the two issues we believe
we can bring forward a proposal in April.
These rules wouldn't be affective until the start
of the next school year anyway.
There's not any impact
because none of this would become affective
upon this vote to begin with.
Voiceover: Yes, Mr. Ratliff.
-: Monica, if I
could ask y'all, as we're looking
at the SAT score realignment,
I don't know if it's in the current rule
or not,
but many colleges do what's called, 'superscoring,'
on SAT scores.
That if a student take the SAT twice,
they'll take the best Math
and the best English
and pair them for that student's SAT entrance score.
With regards to the performance acknowledgement,
whether or not
we either have the authority to
or whether it's a good idea to superscore those for purposes
of that as well.
Voiceover: We can take a look at that.
Voiceover: That's all.
Just if we can.
Voiceover: Ok, Ms. Beltran.
-: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just want to thank
and acknowledge the testifiers who were here yesterday.
Some of them are here today again.
I just want to thank them for their advocacy on behalf
of their students
because I know that they're really interested in providing
college and career
readiness for their kids.
One of the other things that was flagged to me
because when I was having these conversations
and learning more about this,
I started wondering if maybe there are other sections
where more courses can be added.
One of the things that was flagged
was in Arts and Humanities that potentially
Can we also look at that
and see if there's room for AP English Language.
It's I-97.
Just in general to have another opportunity to
look through this
and make sure that we're giving the school districts
enough flexibility to make sure there kids are.
Voiceover: Monica, do
you know what's she's saying there?
-: Yes, I think
we would take a look at any references
to these specific courses in the rule
and make a recommendation accordingly.
I think that's another example of where
if you make a decision to take action right now,
we don't always have the opportunity to look
at corresponding section of the rule.
We'll take a look at all of it
and try to bring forward consistent recommendations
in April.
Voiceover: I just also want to thank the staff.
Thank you, Monica,
for taking the time to think about this more carefully.
-: Any other questions?
So, the motion before us is the motion to postpone.
All those in favor,
say I.
Voiceover: I.
-: All opposed,
say no.
I's have it.
-: Ok, members.
Staying on page eight in your Committee
of the Full Board Minutes.
The board agenda page is I-101.
On behalf of the Committee of the Full Board,
I move that the State Board of Education
approve for second reading
and final adoption proposed new 19 TAC
Chapter 113:
Texas Essential Knowledge
and Skills for Social Studies.
Subchapter C: High School
Section 113.49: Personal Financial Literacy,
one half credit,
Adopted 2016.
-: Let's move to approve for second reading
and final adoption
and propose new 19 TAC Chapter 113
Texas Essential Knowledge
and Skills for Social Studies.
Subchapter C: High School,
113.49: Personal Financial Literacy
one half credit, adopted 2016.
Are you ready for the question?
All those in favor say I.
Voiceover: I.
-: All those opposed say no.
I's have it
and the motions adopted.
-: Members staying on page eight,
in the minutes
and this corresponds to page I-113
in your board book.
The actual motion is on page nine in your Committee Minutes.
On behalf of the Committee of the Full Board,
I move that the State Board of Education
approve for second reading
and final adoption propose new 19 TAC chapter 74
Curriculum Requirements,
Subchapter A:
Required Curriculum,
Section 74.6: College and
Career Readiness,
and Texas Essential Knowledge
and Skills alignment
with an effective date of 20 days after filing
as adopted with the Texas Register.
Voiceover: It's moved to approve for second reading
and final adoption.
Propose new 19 TAC Chapter 74
Curriculum Requirements, Subchapter A:
Required Curriculum, 74.6.
College and Career
Readiness
and Texas Essential Knowledge
and Skills alignment
with an effective date
of 20 days after filing, as adopted
with the Texas Register.
To set that early effective date, we need a vote
of two-thirds.
Are you ready for the question?
All those in favor,
raise your hand.
All those opposed,
raise your hand.
There are 12 in the affirmative.
The motion carries.
-: Ok, members.
On page ten in your minutes,
which correspondes to page I-167
in the Board book.
The actual motion is on page 11.
On behalf of the Committee of the Full Board,
I move that the State Board of Education
approve the process for streamlining
of the TEKS as amended.
Voiceover: I'm sorry, Ms. Hardy.
Did you have a question?
Voiceover: Yes.
I think this would want to be at this point that
Ms. Cargill wanted me to announce that she has communicated
with science folks,
and they suggest streamlining the four main science subjects,
not the electives.
Is that where this would be talked about?
Voiceover: I think we already gave that instruction.
We agreed upon that on Wednesday.
Voiceover: She just wanted me to make sure
that was reiterated.
That was the way we went with it.
Voiceover: Members, the thing
that I had asked about
was the counts for the
how many students are taking the courses.
It indeed shows those are overwhelming the four
Biology, Chemistry,
Integrated Physics, and Chemistry
and Physics are the courses that kids,
by and large,
are taking.
The number are much, much
lower for the other courses.
It makes sense just to concentrate
and get those right for the four courses.
Thank you very much.
The recommendation is that the Board
of Education approve the process for streamlining
of the TEKS, as admitted.
All those in favor say I.
Voiceover: I.
-: All those opposed say nay.
I's have it.
Thank you very much.
Is that it?
Okay, tremendous.
That was Committee of the Full Board.
Now we're on Committee of Instruction.
If you'll point us,
if you will,
Ms. Melton-Malone,
to the right page on your minutes.
-: On our minutes,
it's the only one that we have for today
is on page two.
It is the official item
of agenda in your notebook.
Roman Numeral 2-21.
It's agenda item number 11.
I'm sorry,
let me back up.
It's 2-13 item agenda number 10.
Number 10?
Did I have it wrong?
Voiceover: In your Board book.
-: Got it.
One behalf of the committee on instruction,
I move that the State Board of Education approve
for first reading
and filing authorization propose new 19 TAC,
chapter 127,
Texas Essential knowledge
and Skill for Career Development,
Subchapter B: High School,
Section 127.16: Extended Career Preparation,
one credit, adopted 2016.
Voiceover: Are you ready for the question?
All those in favor say I.
Voiceover: I.
-: All those opposed say nay.
The I's have it,
and motion is adopted.
-: Our only other thing that was an action item,
did not need to come to play
was withdrawn, because the agency had not received
any applications for any innovative courses that needed
the board's approval.
-: Terrific.
So we're moving on past 11.
Item 11 on your agenda, Proposed Approval
of Innovative Courses.
We can go ahead
and skip.
Now we're on Committee on School Finance,
Permanent School Fund. There were no action items
as I recall, correct?
Terrific.
Committee on School Initiatives, Mr. Rowley.
-: Thank you Madam Chair.
This is on page two of the report
on the Committee of School Initiatives minutes.
It's Agenda Item Three,
on page two.
It's also Roman Numeral 4-45, I guess
in the Board book.
Everybody there?
The committee recommended that the
State Board of Education take no action
on the proposed amendment to 19 TAC Chapter 242
Superintendent Certificate,
Section 242.20.
Requirements for the Issuance of the Standard
Superintendent Certificate.
Voiceover: Is there a motion to reject?
Hearing none.
-: He's got a question.
Voiceover: I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, yes, Mr. Ratliff.
-: I have a question just for those that may not
have watched the committee hearing,
this was the two different pathways
to the Superintendent Certificate that we
rejected last time
and said we wanted one,
but not the other.
They've dropped the one that we did not like
and only brought forward the one we did like.
Voiceover: That's exactly right.
-: Thank you.
Voiceover: Now this is Subpart A
and not Subpart B.
-: Thank you.
-: Ok, terrific.
Ok, hearing none.
No action is taken,
and the proposed amendment to 19 TAC
Chapter 242:
Superintendent Certificate, 242.20:
Requirements for the Issuance of Standard
Superintendent Certificate
will take affect on February
Do we have a date?
Mr. Regal?
Is there date?
I understood there was a specific date.
February 28, 2016.
Ok, thank you
very much.
-: The next action item is on page three
of the same minutes.
It's Agenda Item Four.
In which the committee recommended
the State Board of Education take no action
on the proposed for business 19 TAC Chapter 227: Provisions
for Educator Preparation Candidates.
-: Is there a motion to reject?
-: We might expound on this one as well
for just a moment.
This was the item that came to our attention
sometime back about raising the admission GPA requirement
from 2.5 to 2.75.
There was an ambiguity that was contained
in the statute.
The legislature took up that issue,
cured the ambiguity,
left it at 2.5,
but then required that the admitting class
of each of the preparation programs
have an average GPA of 3.0.
There you go.
Voiceover: Ms. Hardy,
did you want to speak?
Voiceover: I'd like some clarification.
How did that happen, that the legislature could do that
when they're not in session?
Voiceover: This was previous.
-: This was sometime back.
Voiceover: It was brought to us in a confused state?
-: May I respond?
Voiceover: Yes, Mr. Rowley.
-: It came to us.
There was some ambiguity
that was contained in the original rule.
SBEC made the determination that
it should be 2.5.
Clarified that,
sent that to us,
SBOE.
We came back at 2.75.
Actually rejected the rule,
sent back to SBEC.
In the meantime,
there was a legislative session that took place,
so this was a year or more ago.
They came back
and said, "no, 2.5 is the minimum standard,
but the cohort average has to be 3.0."
-: I'm not sure that you would be privy to know what would
have caused the legislature to come up with such an idea
that the group grade is the way we're going to go.
Do you have any idea what their thinking,
or lack thereof, was?
-: I have no idea, but there are staff
(laughter)
There are staff members here.
Dr. Miller and Mr. Regal.
If either one would like to speak to that?
-: It kind of smacks of everyone getting a trophy,
if you ask me.
Voiceover: There were some other provisions too
about the 10%
and all of that.
Make sure, Dr. Miller.
Voiceover: Yes, ma'am.
In terms of the legislative intent of the 3.0,
I don't have those materials with me.
So I wouldn't want to speculate on that
without reviewing anything they may have put forth
as to why they went with the 3.0 cohort average.
-: I think it means everybody got a trophy.
-: Ok, is there
a motion to reject?
Hearing none,
no action is taken.
Proposed amendment to 19 TAC Chapter 227: Provisions
for the Educator Preparations Candidates
will take affect on February 28, 2016.
And, that's it.
Members, I look forward to going to some of your districts
before the next meeting
and having our community conversations.
I really look forward to that.
Also, I wanted
to make an announcement.
Barbara Cargill
and Pat Hardy are receiving
the Texas Education Leadership and Literacy Award
from the Texas Association for Literacy Education.
Saturday, February 13 in San Antonio.
Recognizing them for their efforts of promoting literacy
for all students.
Thank you very much.
I believe Barbara Cargill
and Thomas Ratliff, right?
Are receiving an award from the Texas Music
Educators Association, correct?
Friday, February 12 in San Antonio.
(applause)
(laughter)
Absolutely.
Is there any other - ?
Oh, we
have an engagement, yes.
Erica Beltran is engaged.
We're excited about that.
(applause)
Congratulations.
We should have a little bundle of joy
almost next time.
(laughter)
(applause)
Alright, members.
If we have no other
Voiceover: Madam Chair.
-: Oh yes,
I'm sorry.
Ms. Monica.
-: I was asked if we could just make a plug.
We are still looking for instructional materials reviewers
for Proclamation 2017.
That's CTE
and the Special Topics in Social Studies
and languages other than English.
If you would please get the word out
that we're still looking for reviewers, that would
be really helpful.
Voiceover: So, we need reviewers.
Would you mind sending us a reminder?
Voiceover: We'll ask Renee to send a reminder
with the link to the application again.
CTE,
languages other than English,
Special Topics in Social Studies,
and Algebraic Reasoning.
We have enough for the Math.
We need CTE,
languages other than English, primarily.
Voiceover: Oh, ok, ok, great.
Members, if there's
no other business,
the meeting is adjourned.
Thank you very much.
(gavel bang)