-: All right, I wanna welcome everyone
to the first September meeting
of the Texas State Board of Education
for September 2nd of 2020.
I want to thank everyone for being here today.
And again, like I mentioned yesterday,
for putting this into your schedule,
and part of this unscheduled Board meeting
so that we can work towards our other items
that we have to do next week.
I am to begin the meeting,
I'm gonna ask Marty Rowley to bring the invocation
and lead us to the pledges.
-: Okay, very good.
So this is out of the book of Psalms, Psalm 91,
and it has ministered to us in our family
quite a bit over the last months
of the situation that we've all been dealing with.
So I'm just gonna read that.
And Psalm 91 says, "He who dwells in the secret place
of the most high shall abide
under the shadow of the almighty.
I will say of the Lord, he is my refuge and my fortress,
my God, in him I will trust.
Surely he shall deliver you from the snare of the fowler
and from the perilous pestilence.
He shall cover you with his feathers.
and under his wings you shall take refuge.
His truth shall be your shield and buckler.
You shall not be afraid of the terror by night,
nor of the arrow that flies by day,
nor of the pestilence that walks in the darkness,
nor of the destruction that lays waste at noon day.
A thousand may fall at your side
and 10,000 at your right hand,
but it shall not come near you.
Only with your eyes shall you look
and see the reward of the wicked.
Because you have made the Lord who is my refuge,
even the most high, your dwelling place,
no evil shall befall you,
nor shall any plague come near your dwelling.
For he shall give his angels charge over you
to keep you in all your ways.
In their hands, they shall bear you up
as you dash your foot against a stone.
You shall tread upon the lion and the cobra.
The young lion and the serpent you shall trample underfoot.
Because he has set his love upon me,
therefore, I will deliver him.
I will set him on high because he has known my name.
He shall call upon me and I will answer him.
I will be with him in trouble.
I will deliver him and honor him.
With long life I will satisfy him
and show him my salvation."
So if you'd joined me as we pray.
Father, we come to you,
and I thank you so much for this group, Lord,
of dedicated men and women who set aside their time
and their energy, their talents, Lord,
to serve the public education system in the State of Texas.
I thank you that you give us all wisdom.
And we ask that you and instruct us and guide us
and counsel us to make the kind of decisions
that you would have us to make.
Let us be unselfish in our approach.
Let us be understanding of one another's views
and perceptions,
and Lord help us to do everything in accordance
with your will.
We ask these things in your Son's name.
Amen.
Okay.
So, where do we pledge to?
Ah, there we go.
All right.
If you'll join me in the pledge.
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.
And to the Texas flag.
I pledge allegiance to the Texas,
one state under God.
Indivisible, and the rest of it (laughs).
Amen.
Board Member: We got it.
-: Sorry (laughs).
Remember, I didn't grow up in Texas,
so I don't remember the Texas flag.
-: Well, in your defense, I gave you about a 30 second
heads up that you were gonna be doing the pledges.
-: Yeah, you know, I dropped the ball on the Texas flag.
Sorry. -: That's all right.
We'll make it up next week.
-: Thanks, Joe.
-: All right, I will have now staff, please call the roll.
-: Perez?
Ms. Perez?
-: Here.
-: Mr. Cortez.
-: Ms. Perez-Diaz?
-: Here.
-: Mr. Allen?
-: Present.
-: Mr. Mercer?
-: Present.
-: Mrs. Bahorich?
-: Here.
-: Dr. Robinson?
-: Here.
-: Mrs. Cargill?
-: Here.
-: Dr. Ellis?
-: Here.
-: Mr. Maynard?
-: Here.
-: Thank you.
-: Ms. Hardy?
-: Here.
-: Mrs. Little?
-: Here.
-: Ms. Davis?
-: Here.
-: Mrs. Melton-Malone?
-: Here.
-: And Mr. Rowley.
-: Here.
-: All present.
-: Thank you, Ms. Martinez.
We will move to item number one on our agenda,
which is the approval of the Consent Agenda.
This begins on page 22 of your agenda.
We'll ask you to take a moment to review the items
on the Consent Agenda, which include,
one, ratification of purchases and sales on the investment
portfolio of the PSF for the month of May and June, 2020.
Number two, determination as to whether transfers may be
made from the permanent school fund
to the available school fund.
Three, proposed amendments to the
investment procedures manual.
Four, review of the permanent school fund real estate policy
and tactical plan.
Five, authorization to issue a request for proposals
for emerging manager, investment management
in the private equity and real estate classes
for the permanent school fund.
Six, recommendation for appointment to the Randolph Field
Independent School District Board of Trustees.
And seven, recommendation for appointment
to the Boys Ranch School
Independent School Board of Trustees.
So I would ask members,
are there any items to be removed from the Consent Agenda
for separate consideration?
All right, hearing none the Consent Agenda is adopted.
So we will now move to the Committee of the Full Board,
which is item number two today
and proposed new 19 TAC Chapter 61,
School District, Subchapter B,
Special Purpose School District 61.101,
applicability of state law
for special purpose school districts.
And I will call on Vice Chair Rowley.
-: Okay, Mr. Chair, it was recommended
by the Committee of the Full Board
to suspend the Board operating procedures
in accordance with section 2.13 to allow consideration
for second reading and final adoption
and approve for second reading and final adoption
proposed new 19 TAC Chapter 61,
School District Subchapter B,
special purpose school district section 61.101,
applicability of state law
for special purpose school district
and making a firm defining that immediate adoption
of 19 TAC Chapter 61 School Districts, Subchapter B,
special purpose school district section 61.101,
applicability of state law
for special purpose school districts is necessary,
shall have an effective date of 20 days
after filing as adopted with the Texas Register.
-: Members, is there any discussion on this?
Hearing none, is there any objection?
Hearing none, the motion is adopted.
Okay thank you, item two?
-: Yes.
Okay item two to Board agenda page I-9
official agenda item number three,
it's proclamation 2022 questions and answers,
recommended by the Committee of the Full Board
that the State Board of Education
approve proclamation 2022 questions and answers.
-: All right members, this was when it came up yesterday.
I think we received this document at a late notice.
So not everyone had time to fully digest that.
I wanted to make sure staff was here today
to answer any questions that might have come up
after you had time to look at that.
I see that Amy is here and Melissa is also here.
And are there any questions before we
pick up this item and we vote on this item
about the proclamation 2022 questions and answers?
All right, looks like we got everything answered yesterday.
Thank you, Melissa and thank you, Amy.
Is there any objection to the motion as presented?
Hearing none, the motion is adopted.
-: Hey Mr. Chair, that's all the items from the committee,
the full Board.
-: Thank you, Mr. Rowley.
We will move on now to the committee of instruction
and proposed amendments to 19 TAC Chapter 74
Curriculum Requirements, Subchapter A,
Required Curriculum 74.1, Essential Knowledge And Skills,
and 74.3, Description Of A Required Secondary Curriculum.
This is for second reading and final adoption,
is on your agenda on page 2-1,
and I'm gonna call on Ms. Melton-Malone.
-: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
On behalf of the committee on instruction,
I move that the State Board of Education
approve for second reading and filing final adoption,
the proposed amendments to 19 TAC Chapter 74
Curriculum Requirements, Subchapter A, Required Curriculum,
74.1 Essential Knowledge and Skills
and 74.3, Description Of A Required Secondary Curriculum
and, make an affirmative finding that immediate adoption
of 19 TAC Chapter 74 Curriculum Requirements,
Subchapter A, Required Curriculum,
74.1, Essential Knowledge and Skills
and 74.3, Description Of A Required Secondary Curriculum,
is necessary and shall have an effective date
of 20 days after filing as adopted with the Texas Register.
-: All right members, you've heard the motion.
Is there any further questions or discussions or debate
on this motion?
Hearing none, is there any objection?
Hearing none, the motion is adopted.
All right, next item is proposed new 19 TAC Chapter 120,
Other Essential Knowledge And Skills,
Subchapter A, Character Traits.
And that is on page 2-9 of your agenda.
Ms. Melton-Malone.
-: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
On behalf of the committee on instruction,
I move that the State Board of Education approve
for second reading and file final adoption
proposed new 19 TAC Chapter 120,
Other Essential Knowledge And Skills,
Subchapter A, Character Traits,
and make an affirmative finding that immediate adoption
of 19 TAC Chapter 120, Other Essential Knowledge And Skills,
Subchapter A, Character Traits, is necessary
and shall have an effective date of August 1st, 2021.
Dr. Ellis: Thank you, is there any questions
or debate on this motion?
Ms. Cargill?
-: I just have a quick question.
Could you explain, these curriculum standards can be
incorporated into any of the core courses,
is that how it works?
-: Yes, Monica, am I correct?
They can be incorporated into any courses.
It doesn't even have to be the core.
It could be integrated into any course.
-: Okay, and so that will be communicated to districts,
and then it's up to them
as to where they incorporate it into their...
So is it throughout K-12, or is it just a certain,
they can incorporate it anywhere
just at least one time in K-12.
-: So the statutory requirement is in K-12.
The way that we structure
these essential knowledge and skills is grade bands.
So they couldn't just do it in kindergarten and be done.
But they will need to do it
within like K-2, 3, 5, 6, 8, high school.
-: Okay, all right, thank you.
-: Ms. Martinez, I know this has come up before,
but can you a couple of comments,
number one, explain this is response
to the legislative bill that was passed.
And two, I think there was an idea of having this,
as it ended up I believe, in a separate section
versus spread out throughout the curriculum.
Can you just touch on those two points?
-: Yes sir, so this is a statutory requirement
that you need to comply with
to ensure that these positive character traits
are in the essential knowledge and skills.
When we looked at where they might be represented,
many of them are very clearly
already addressed in the standards.
Some I think there's some interpretation,
it might be a little bit more of a stretch.
And so the idea is by having this as a separate section,
then you'll give districts maximum flexibility
to incorporate them as they see most appropriate.
So I think the best analogy here is if you think about
your English language proficiency standards,
that's a separate set of standards
in the administrative rule that gets incorporated
and embedded with the content standards.
So it's not in addition to it,
it's really that incorporation.
The last thing that I will say,
and I know that Mrs. Lola and I have had
several conversations about this, we do anticipate
that what we will do to help districts is
as we continue to develop those TEKS guides,
that we will identify where these character trait standards
are covered, whether it's in social studies
or health or other subject areas.
So that we can identify that for districts
and they're aware as they do their planning.
But the idea really was that this
seemed like the best approach
to create maximum flexibility for districts.
-: Okay, is there any further questions
or debate on the motion?
All right, is there any objection to the motion?
Hearing none, the motion is adopted.
All right, and that brings us to the next item,
which is the report from the Commissioner of Education
regarding updated TEKS alignments
for adopted instruction materials.
This is on page 2-18 of your agenda.
And back to Ms. Melton-Malone.
-: Thank you.
Mr. Chair, on behalf of the Committee on Instruction,
I move that the State Board of Education approve
changes and corrections submitted in response
to written comments and public testimony,
and update the official TEKS percentage
of instructional materials reviewed for TEKS.
Excuse me.
Updates on the instructional materials
current adoption list.
I'm sorry.
Instruction materials current adoption bulletin, thank you.
-: All right, is there any questions
or comments on this item?
Seeing and hearing none,
is there any objection to the motion?
Hearing none, the motion is adopted.
Will take us to the next item,
which is approval of update
to the instruction materials for Learning A-Z.
This is on page 2-21 of your agenda.
Back to Ms. Melton-Malone.
-: Thank you.
Mr. Chair, on behalf of the Committee on Instruction,
I move that the State Board of Education
approve the request from Learning A-Z
to update content in three of its adopted products,
Raz-Plus ELL Texas Edition Kindergarten,
Raz-Plus ELL Texas Edition Grade One,
and Raz-Plus ELL Texas Edition Grade Two.
-: Members, is there any comments
or questions on this motion?
Seeing and hearing none, is there any objection?
Hearing none, the motion is adopted.
That will bring us to the next item,
which is proposed amendment to 19 TAC Chapter 66,
State Adoption And Distribution Of Instructional Materials,
Subchapter A, General Provisions,
66.15, Administrative Penalty.
This is for first reading and filing authorization.
It is on page 2-22 of your agenda.
Ms. Melton-Malone.
-: Thank you.
On behalf of the committee of instruction,
I move that the State Board of Education approve
for first reading and filing authorization
the proposed amendment to 19 TAC Chapter 66,
State Adoption And Distribution Of Instructional Materials,
Subchapter A, General Provision,
66.15, Administrative Penalty.
Mr. Chair, may I make a comment?
Dr.Ellis: Absolutely.
-: We wanna thank our legal department
for helping us come up with this wording,
and this gives us some teeth
so that should we ever have a problem again,
like we had with Argo this last time,
this gives us some discretion as to
what kind of penalty to assess
and how much of the penalty
should be based on a lot of the different information
that we get as to maybe,
has he gone out into the schools?
Or how long has this been going on
that we were not notified?
And so Legal helped us with this so that we would have
enough discretion to be able to, should this happen again,
level a penalty that we think would be appropriate
for whatever the infraction happens to be.
-: Good deal.
Any other comments on that or any questions?
Seeing none, is there any objection to the motion?
Hearing none, the motion is adopted.
-: That concludes our report, Mr. Chair.
-: All right, thank you, Ms. Melton-Malone.
We will now move to the Committee on School Finance,
Permanent School Fund.
I believe they have no recommendations.
Mr. Maynard, any comments you wanna make
about your proceedings yesterday?
-: Ah sure, yes, Mr. Chairman, yes.
Everything that we have is on the Consent Agenda.
A couple of things that I would just point out
is that we did get an opportunity to do a review
of the study of the PSF distribution.
Of course that is result of House Bill 4388.
If you have an opportunity to go back and listen to that.
Just a couple things that really jumped out at me
is that the study found
that there is not a actually clear definition
of what intergenerational equity actually is.
There appears to be sort of two different definitions.
And then really trying to satisfy both of those things
is a little bit difficult.
And there were some discussion in there a little bit
about maybe is that, you know, at some point,
would our distribution process be more rule-based?
And currently the Board has a fair amount of discretion
related to that, when compared to other funds,
other similar funds.
Other funds tend to be more rule-based
in terms of their distribution.
But the study also noted that there's none of those funds
that they compare this two, that are as complex as ours.
And so that's worth noting.
Secondly, I would tell you that we did approve
the RFP, and of course that was on the Consent Agenda,
for the emerging manager.
The emerging manager.
So in other words, we're gonna be engaged with...
We're looking for an external manager
to manage external emerging managers.
I think that there's been some question
about whether or not State Board of Education members
would have an opportunity to reach out
to the people in their district.
And I have sent a memo through our SPOE support email
about that,
and Mr. Maska can correct me
if I'm stating this improperly,
but once we've approved that RFP,
the members of the other Board really are prohibited
from having contact with a potential vendor
or a provisional potential vendor.
And so I did send that out.
Mr. Maska, did I characterize that correctly?
-: Yes, you did.
-: Okay.
Thirdly, I just wanna make a note
of the amendments to the investment procedures manual.
And for many, many, many years,
we have had to report on a quarterly basis,
meetings that we may have had with potential vendors
and such like that and we had these meeting reports.
We eliminated that provision in our investments manual.
And I wanna just make a note of this,
is that because anytime that you eliminate something
that would appear to diminish transparency,
I think everybody needs to be clear
what it is that we're actually doing.
When that particular provision was adopted,
the State Board of Education was a lot more hands on
in terms of procurement process.
And the procurement procedures of the state
were not quite as robust as they were,
given the fact that that tends to be
the actual nuts and bolts,
that process tends to be more managed by staff,
and the fact that the state over time,
has really beefed up their procedures,
it was determined that that particular provision
was no longer necessary, it was duplicative,
and so we did eliminate that.
And the fourth thing I would just mention is
is that the Permanent School Fund is,
after the big downturn back in March,
is that we are making a nice recovery.
Worth noting their
liquid account, liquid fund
has enabled us to put about $70 million
for investment into the corpus.
Mr. Chairman, that's all I have.
-: Well, Thank you Mr. Maynard.
We will move on to the Committee of School Initiatives.
I'm gonna call on Ms. Barbara Cargill
for item number nine- -: Chairman, chairman,
I'm sorry, it looks like you've got
Ms. Perez has her hand up.
-: Oh, I'm sorry Ms. Perez, question?
-: Yes, I would like to ask a question
of the chair of the Permanent School Fund,
just for information purposes.
-: Absolutely. -: Go ahead.
-: Mr. Maynard if you would please explain to me
what happened yesterday.
I was listening in on the meeting
and I got a little confused there towards the end
because I wanted
to find out the process for RFPs and RFQs,
and if those things could be maybe a bit easier to find,
and every time we issue an RFP and an RFQ,
every time it goes out for request,
or individuals are invited that every member
of the State Board of Education receive that information
and then have the opportunity to share that information
with their constituents and their respective districts.
And I didn't quite understand
the answer that was given yesterday.
-: I think the answer to that is is that we can...
I think that you can do that.
There's a fairly robust process.
Certainly, our people do that.
And actually, our fiduciary consultants
actually do that for us.
I don't think that there's any,
and Mr. Maska you keep me out of the weeds here,
I don't think that there's necessarily any prohibition for,
in other words, if a member of the State Board of Education
wanted to refer people to the website,
where those RFPs exist, you can certainly do that.
And we can provide that information.
I think the concern is,
is that would not be appropriate
for a member of the State Board of Education
to directly contact a potential vendor regarding that.
But if you just put out the information
and refer people to that website, I think that's complete.
I think that is allowable.
Mr. Maska, would that be correct?
-: That is correct.
-: So that means that the State Board of Education members
can each receive some kind of newsletter or update
or email or something saying there is a new RFP?
There's a new RFQ?
And then we can in turn, share that information
with our constituents via a newsletter as well.
It goes to a mass number of people
it's not a specific direct invitation
or solicitation to X entity.
Correct? -: Yes.
I will, and Ms. Perez, I will ask the staff
to provide that information to the members of the Board.
-: Any other questions, Ms. Perez?
Okay, all right, any other questions for Mr. Maynard
before we move on from the Permanent School Fund Committee?
All right, so that will bring us back
to the committee on school initiatives.
And next item is the ad hoc committee recommendations
related to trustee team building.
This is on page 5-25 of your agenda.
I'm gonna call Ms. Cargill.
-: Okay, yes, thank you.
We had a few items on consent, but this was our action item.
And you did get a copy of the draft
of the framework from yesterday.
So it was recommended by the committee on school initiatives
that the State Board of Education
postpone consideration of the recommended revisions
to school Board member training,
framework for school Board development,
until November, 2020.
-: Okay, and I think we may have some discussion on this,
but before we do, I wanna first of all,
thank the ad hoc committee.
I think this is the third ad hoc committee
that's been appointed since I've been on the Board
for about four years now.
The first was a long range plan,
which came up with a great document
that was passed by the Board a couple of years back.
And a lot of hard work was put into that.
The second one, if my recollection is correct,
is the ad hoc committee
that worked on the special purpose districts,
which as you noted on today's agenda item and last month,
went very smoothly, and that is only because a lot of work
that went on with our ad hoc committee
to make sure that those items were fully vetted through
and ready to be presented to the Board.
And then the third one is this ad hoc committee
on trustee training with team building.
And we had some great people on that.
We had some agency staff that participated from the agency.
It was Jeff Cottrill, Morris Lonan,
I think Chris helped quite a bit on that also.
Going off the top of my head here, the SPOE members,
where it was chaired by Ms. Cargill, Mr. Cortez,
Ms. Perez-Diaz, Dr. Robinson, Ms. Bahorich,
and then we had some trainers in the field,
who do the training from Region 4,
Robby McGowen and from CRSS, Cathy Mincberg.
And then our representation from TASA and TASB,
Dr. Kevin Brown and Dr. Phil Gore.
So, I want to personally thank each and every one of them
for the hours and hours and hours.
I think they met four times for a couple of hours
at each meeting and came up with
a really good document to present to us,
which is what is happening in today's meeting.
And I'll let Ms. Cargill explain the process
of where we're at now.
And the fact of it being postponed to November
was kind of anticipated for additional stakeholder input,
but I'll turn it over to Ms. Cargill.
-: Sure.
So our chairman had charged the ad hoc committee,
and I've gotta say,
this was really an enjoyable process.
We met, I think, four times by Zoom,
and just a great group of people.
I was pretty humbled to be part of that group
and especially to lead it up.
So we were charged with three things
to make appropriate revisions to the framework
for school Board development.
We were also asked to review 61.14
to determine if there needed to be a change
to the expectations for the team building training.
And then the third charge was to create a path for a trainer
to become an authorized trainer in team building.
And so, we took those charges very, very seriously.
We decided as a group to leave the word registered trainer
in the language of 61.14, so not gonna touch that.
But we did update the framework for school Board development
because it was over 20 years old.
And so it needed some of the current language
that we worked so hard on.
And you have a draft of that that was sent to you,
and you might wanna open that,
because I believe we might have some
suggested amendments by Board members.
-: And if I may just clarify what you received last night,
we wanted... So there were some staff recommended changes
that we wanted to capture in the minutes.
So the attachment to your minutes are the changes
that were recommended by staff
and approved by the committee.
And then there was a separate document
that included those changes,
plus the amended language from the committee.
So you have two versions of that,
just so that you could see that distinction
of where those changes came from.
And those were both in your email,
with the minutes last night.
-: I think it'd be easier if they
opened the attachment, right?
And then they can see the changes
that were recommended yesterday
by Committee on School Initiatives members, plus staff.
-: Yes ma'am.
-: Okay, great.
Thank you.
-: So the separate document, not the one that is included
in the minutes? -: Right.
-: And the title of it was "Framework As Amended."
That's the document you wanna look at.
(computer bell notification)
-: All right, I am...
Let me cut in for just a second.
I spoke with Ms. Cargill about this earlier
about this item coming up.
I'm just getting a message from our parliamentarian
about the motion on the floor.
Why don't we have Ms. Kay come in and explain
where we're at here.
-: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The pending motion on the floor as I understand it
is a motion to postpone further consideration
of this to the November meeting.
And as such, amendments to the underlying document
are not in order while that motion is pending.
If there is a desire for the state Board
to make amendments to that document at this time,
then perhaps the correct option forward
would be to
bring forward the document itself
for adoption, amended on the floor,
and then after you've made the amendments that you wish
for the entire Board to make,
then the Board could take up postpone again at that point.
But you've gone a direction I didn't expect
you were going to go based on my prior conversation
with Ms. Cargill.
Ms. Cargill: Okay, again sorry about that.
-: That's okay.
-: I'd like to make a motion to do what you just said.
'Cause I can't repeat what you just said. (laughs)
-: That's all right, I'll walk you through it.
-: Okay.
-: Mr. Chairman, if there's no objection,
I would like to withdraw my pending motion.
-: All right, Mr. Chairman, if there's no objection,
I would like to withdraw the pending motion.
-: Is there any objection?
Hearing none, the motion passes.
And I just want... Let me point out too,
just a little bit of, I think it is a little confusing
about why this was postponed and so forth.
The framework itself is not a rule
in administrative code or in the education code.
It is just a document.
So it did not require a normal first reading
and second reading.
The potential changes we had,
the 61.1 was an actual rule change.
If we decided to change that
it would have taken a first reading and second reading.
The recommendations from the committee
was to not change the rule,
but we had anticipated this would take a September meeting
and a November meeting for that two-step process.
Now that there is no proposed change to the rule
for the trainer part, that leaves just the framework,
which does not require two meetings,
but we all feel that it was portrayed to the stakeholders
that this would be a November kind of final adoption.
So that's why this is in this postpone process,
just to give all the stakeholders enough time
to look at the recommended changes now,
which is essentially what we had conveyed
to them throughout this process.
So it's simply that we don't rush
through a process quicker than what
we had told the field was going to be the case.
Ms. Cargill, did I explain that correctly.
-: Yeah, thank you for explaining that.
I wasn't sure how into the weeds you wanted me to go.
But yeah, that's a great explanation,
and this would give stakeholders...
And we had a lot of great testifiers yesterday, by the way,
but this will give stakeholders a chance for more input.
So I have a question for Ms. Kay.
Do I need to put another motion on the floor?
And if so, what is that language?
-: Yes ma'am, you would move the adoption of the document,
name it by title please, as amended,
by the Committee on School Initiatives.
-: Okay, I move that the State Board of Education
adopt the document as amended,
the document is The Framework for School Board Development.
And then what was the rest, or is that it?
-: By the committee on- -: Okay.
As amended by the Committee on School Initiatives.
There.
-: Do we have a second?
-: Second.
-: We have a second, and is there any objection?
Ms. Perez-Diaz.
-: Sorry, so a really quick question.
I just wanna be very clear,
by voting in favor of this,
this just opens up conversation for, I guess,
amendments that are wanting to be proposed today,
but we are still going to postpone fine...
This doesn't prohibit us
from postponing through November, right?
'Cause what I don't wanna do,
is adopt without letting people see
(crackling drowns out speaker).
-: I think that is everyone's intention.
-: Perfect.
-: Chairman, Mr. Rowley has had his hand up
for a little while.
-: Mr. Rowley.
-: Yeah, and so I have a question about,
and maybe this is for Ms. Kay, whether this is in order,
but an issue that's been brought to my attention
with regard to the entire governing structure,
is who authorizes or certifies the trainers,
whether that's solely
within the authority of the Commissioner,
or local districts or how that might work?
I don't know if that's a proper subject of this.
Are we only looking at the framework here and not the rule?
So that's my question, I'm not sure about that.
-: I think I can answer that.
Yeah, there are no proposed changes
from the ad hoc committee or out of CSI
yesterday for any changes on the trainer portion of that,
which is a 61.1.
So essentially that is proposed to keep the same
as it's been two years ago, five years ago on bank.
So there were no changes to that specific process
that you asked about there.
-: Thank you.
Is that a topic that can properly
come before the Board at some point?
Or because the ad hoc committee determined
that no changes should be made,
then that's not an area that we can look,
or I don't understand that fully.
-: No, I think he can ask about it.
And Jeff Cottrill is on the call
if he wanted to move into that a little bit further.
That is part of what the ad hoc committee looked at.
-: Okay.
Well, I would at least like to have
maybe an explanation about that, how it currently works,
'cause I understand there was some discussion,
movement, whatever to visit
whether that right to certify trainers remained
exclusively with the Commissioner or was broadened
to either the local districts or someone else.
-: Yeah, that's a great question,
if Jeff wants to come on,
but while he's coming in, I see his name on the call.
We did, the ad hoc committee did decide
to leave the language as is,
and the language is registered provider
as opposed to an authorized provider.
But Jeff can probably go into a little bit more detail.
-: And before he does that,
I just want to add, if the Board would like for us
to put the rule on a future agenda,
we could bring that rule to you for consideration
either in November or at a future point in time
if you felt like you wanted to make any amendments
to that rule, you just need to let us know.
-: Okay and just before Jeff answers.
So then is that then our authority?
Within our province to make to that particular rule?
-: There is an SBOE rule.
Yes, that you can amend. -: Okay,
okay.
Thank you.
-: Mr. Cottrill?
-: Well good morning, I just appreciate
the opportunity to join you again this morning.
I will share with you I'm having some connectivity issues.
I'm out here at deep East Texas visiting a school district
and a series of superintendents this morning.
So I apologize if my connectivity is a little choppy,
but to
Mr. Rowley's point.
Yes, there is a rule and we can revise that.
At this point in time, based on the convening
of the ad hoc committee,
there was not revisions to that standing rule.
And so we weren't going to bring that back to review
in November and then further ahead.
But, what I will say is that
we are more than happy to revisit that
at a later point in time
should there be a desire of the state Board
to take that up for consideration
and make additional revisions.
But specific to the
framework for school Board development,
there was a great deal of work that Dr. Ellis,
chair Ellis, had made mention of over the course
of the last six weeks through a series of convenings.
And so I'm certainly here to answer any questions
and then also provide assistance
as we kinda work through that.
-: And, Mr. Chair.
-: Yes.
-: Before we get started, while we have Jeff on the line,
if he could comment about some things maybe that were taken
out of the framework yesterday that are in the statute,
I don't know if he wants to address that now,
while he's connected in.
-: Yeah.
-: Yeah, before we get into the details of the framework,
Jeff, do you anticipate you're gonna be at a place
where you'll be able to stay connected to us?
-: That is my hope.
I've dropped off once so far, but if this persists,
then what I will do is I will find a different location
to be able to pipe back in.
-: So before we go into the details of the framework
document itself, I've got two other questions.
Let's see, I've got Mr. Rowley and then Ms. Perez-Diaz.
-: Yeah, so what I've heard from Mr. Cottrill,
and thank you for that, Jeff,
that there is a mechanism by which
the Board could consider the rule itself in November,
and if that's the case, I would like to have
that item placed on the agenda for that.
And by the way, the framework looks great.
I appreciate all the work you all did.
I have no hesitancy to approve and adopt that.
But just that one aspect of the rule,
I would like to at least have a discussion about that.
-: Very good.
-: And I would ask either Ms. Martinez, or maybe Kay,
does our agenda item, as posted today,
allow us to have a discussion on Rule 61.1?
-: Yes, sir, I believe that we added language
in the items so that you could discuss that,
if you wanted to.
We weren't quite sure what you would
be looking to discuss.
I'm double checking the item,
but I'm pretty sure that we posted it in that way.
-: Then if that's the case then, essentially Mr. Rowley,
this would be like our discussion item,
and if it is determined that it's appropriate,
then it can be added for first reading in November,
if that was something that we wanted to move forward with.
-: Yes.
So, Chairman, the summary of your item does say
that the item provides the opportunity for the Board
to discuss recommendations and proposed amendments
to Chapter 61 and then 61.1. continuing education.
So you are posted to have that discussion.
-: I would propose that we work through the framework,
and then when we finish the framework document
we can have a discussion about 61.1.
Is that appropriate Mr. Allen?
Okay, I got Ms. Perez-Diaz?
-: Well, thank you for the question, chair.
I think then I'll just wait until our conversation
on 61.1, and my question was for member Rowley,
but I'll wait until we're at that point in the conversation.
-: Okay.
Well I will give it back to Ms. Cargill
to walk us through the proposed framework document.
-: Okay, so just to make sure
that everyone has it pulled up,
the correct one pulled up
the one that says framework as amended
that was the separate PDF.
So if I could ask Mr. Cottrill to go ahead and tell us
maybe some things that were pulled out yesterday
that are actually in statute.
-: Absolutely, so the first item that comes to mind,
it relates to what is Chapter 11.185 and 186.
So new legislation as a result of House Bill 3,
relating to the adoption of annual goals by school Boards.
And so those annual goals, very, very specifically calls out
that there is a need for those goals
to be specific and measurable.
I think it's quantifiable, maybe quantifiable
is the term that's used in statute.
And that is also, talks about it being
a five year frame.
And so that kind of measures up with what is framework.
So your Roman numeral one under framework,
under vision and goals.
It is bullet number, it looks like four.
And so it lays out the, adopts a reasonable number
of specific and measurable attainable research-based
and time-bound goals that aligns to the vision.
And so that language was actually stricken
as a result of some good discussion
and some perspectives that were shared during the committee
on school initiatives yesterday.
And I certainly understand why
there were that that recommendation came
and that occurred, but I do believe
that if we're going to stay consistent
with Chapter 11.185 and 186,
as it relates to the early childhood literacy
and mathematics goals as well as the college career
and mathematic goals that are required to be adopted
by Boards, providing that definition
as to what those goals look like here
within the school Board framework makes a lot of sense.
-: Okay. Was there anything else, Jeff?
-: There was, yes.
And so, if we continue to scroll down,
I believe it is right there under roman numeral two,
Systems And Processes, the seventh bullet down
it talks about, and what happens here
is I wanna make sure that we see this.
The seventh bullet down and the eighth bullet down,
by and large, were grouped together by the committee,
and it now stands as bullet number six.
Bullet number five, rather.
And so bullet five...
What is lost in bullet five that is contained
in bullet number six is the statement provides
oversight of management.
And so that content right there is pulled
from statute as a role of the School Board
and independent school districts across Texas.
And so it would be our recommendation
that providing oversight of management is retained
within the School Board development framework here.
And so, simply retaining that would actually be,
in many ways, restoring bullet six and seven,
and then returning back without bullet five.
-: Okay, anything else?
-: Those are the primary statutorily driven
recommendations that we have,
but I know that there is a great deal of work that,
again, I'll share with you that the ad hoc committee,
comprised of former superintendents, former Board members.
I think that we had, at any given time,
anywhere from four to six State Board of Education members
joining and providing a great deal of guidance
and crafting of this language.
We've got current Board trainers that work
with school Boards across the state
and identify different things that they've witnessed
over the course of their tenure
and serving as a school Board trainer
that they felt was necessary for inclusion.
And so that is one of the reasons why that draft language
coming out of the ad hoc committee was reflective
of what the sentiments and the rich dialogue brought about
over the course of those six weeks and, I would say,
roughly about 15 hours of discussion
on the framework of School Board development.
-: Okay, thank you for going over that.
And I wanna thank Jeff and Morris and the rest of staff.
Y'all were awesome.
And Chris Lucas wins the award for fastest typist
on, you know, keeping up with the language
that we were spitting out on Zoom here.
So with that, I'll yield the floor back to you, Mr. Chair,
in case there are amendments that people want to offer.
-: Okay, and
Ms. Kay, maybe help me out here.
Is it proper for me to work through the amendment process,
or does Ms. Cargill work through the amendment process?
Ms. Kay: You should do it, sir; you're still the chair.
-: Okay.
(Ms. Cargill speaks indistinctly)
(Ms. Cargill laughing)
And I actually,
and Ms. Kay, again, tell me if this is proper,
I actually have some changes
that I think are important to make too.
We've had this come up before.
Is it proper for me to hand over the gavel
to Mr. Rowley in that circumstance?
Ms. Kay: Yes, sir, that would be fine.
-: Mr. Rowley, are you available?
Mr. Rowley: I am available.
-: All right, I'm gonna hand the gavel
to you for any amendments.
-: Okay, and so Dr. Ellis,
do you have some amendments you'd like to make?
-: Yeah, let me start with what Jeff Cottrill
just mentioned on the first one,
so I'm gonna go to section number one,
a vision and goals, and the fourth bullet point
that he adopted, not adopted that he mentioned there.
And specifically, it was a strike of the words;
specific, measurable, attainable,
research-based and time-bound.
And as just a little background,
we had quite a few members from the TASB
legislative committee that came and testified
to some of these items and why some of these changes
should be made, as well as Mr. Gore from TASB.
This specific one, the actual phrase,
that I mentioned there, was pointed out
that it seemed to be like buzzwords and faddish.
But the question I want to ask Mr. Cottrill,
you talked about 11.185, 11.186,
you're not implying at all that statute
mentioned specific measurable,
attainable, research-based and time-bound in the statute?
You're just saying that those are words that would describe
the goals that are in 11.185 and 186, is that correct?
-: That is correct.
What I will share is the language directly from statute
is set specific annual, so they're specific
annual goals for the following five school years,
so we're talking about time-bound,
to reach quantifiable goals.
Which to me, quantifiable's measurable.
For student performance in reading mathematics,
and then what is 186A,
it talks about college, career, military.
So that language is reflective of what is included
in statute 11.185 and 186.
-: In your mind reflective but again,
not specifically mentioned in those sections.
-: I would say that it's not a plug and play,
that it's not like a cut and paste from statute into here,
but it very much stays with the spirit of statute.
-: Okay, to me the most important thing
in that fourth bullet point is that the goals
align to the vision.
I think that's a lot of what
the ad hoc committee talked about.
That it is when a district is setting their goals,
that it's very, very important
that the goals align to the vision.
I think what might be appropriate to what Mr. Cottrill
is speaking to is the fact that we might,
in our iteration that comes back in November,
specifically talk about setting goals that are consistent
with the goals that are in HB 3, however we outlined those.
Like you say, in CCMR and early childhood reading,
I know that those are the specific things,
but if we wanna be specific on what goals
instead of using, again, what was pointed out as jargon,
or maybe buzzwords, let's talk about specifically
what goals are to be expected.
So goals align to the vision, including CCMR goals,
early college goals that are mentioned in HB 3.
But that was the reason that the testifiers recommended
we take out those
that phrase of specific, measurable,
tangible, research and time-bound is that it seemed to be
kind of a buzzword type process.
So I guess what I'm saying is that I would recommend that we
keep that strike as is and consider adding language in
November specific to the goals in HB 3.
-: Anything else, Dr.Ellis?
-: That's all on that one.
-: Okay
Ms. Cargill.
-: I have a question.
Was that a... That wasn't a motion
that was just a comment, Dr.Ellis.
-: Yeah I don't think there's- (Ms. Cargill mumbles)
I think what Mr. Cottrill had pointed out was that
that should be put back in.
So- -: Okay.
-: There's been a motion to type to strike it
I was just speaking to Mr.- -: You were agreeing with that,
but if anyone had a motion
to change that wording now
is the time to speak kind of a thing.
Is that what the pro... I'm just trying to figure out
the process we're using right now.
-: I think that is what we're doing-
-: Okay. -: right now
but I see hands from Ms. Bahorich
and Ms. (mumbles).
So lets go, Ms. Bahorich first.
-: Just to kind of address the point.
You know, I'd... There isn't...
There was a lot of discussion during the ad hoc about
and not using the acronyms smart.
The acronym smart,
you know, view that had been in business and elsewhere.
The acronym is only to kind of help people remember. Right?
And so,
what these specific adjectives are for
is not a cliched set of adjectives.
These are things that just define what a goal is,
so that
trustees will be as part of their training,
'cause we're saying the skeleton, the framework, right?
As part of their training, they will make sure
that the training is aligned to a clear and simple framework
that defines on what is a goal.
And that way, there's a consistency across the state
with all trainers on what is a goal
and a goal's gotta be specific, measurable, attainable,
and in this case, research-based and time-bound.
And we even talked about the research-based because the R
for many organizations is something like realistic,
or relevant or whatever.
People adapt it when they come up with their own
adjectives for these goals and what they mean by goals
based on the situation, and in this case,
the committee felt research-based,
and that was a recommendation from Phil Gore
from TASB at the time.
That the RB, research-based,
which makes sense for school Boards.
So, I think by eliminating these
adjectives to describe what we mean
when we are talking about goals
is something that I think the Board
should not do because we want all Boards consistently,
across the state, to put specific, measurable,
attainable, research-based, and time-bound goals
in place for their students.
-: So is that in the form of a motion, Ms. Bahorich?
-: Yes, exactly.
So what I would suggest is that there...
To not strike the language, let this go out
for folks to look at that and see
if there's any of those adjectives that they don't like
as part of the goal's description.
And then we can decide in November
whether to strike this or not.
But at this point I would prefer,
I'm suggesting that we unstrike it
and leave these in place for consideration.
-: Okay, is there a second?
Ms. Cargill, was that a second?
You're waving.
Okay.
So I have a motion and a second
that we reinserted
a discussion about that point.
Ms. Perez, do you wanna address that point?
I saw Dr. Robinson's hand go up also.
So Ms. Perez, do you want to speak to that point
or are we to yield to Dr. Robinson?
Ms. Perez: I do want to talk about smart goals.
-: Okay.
-: So I'm just wondering if the issue
is that smart goals, and this acronym sounds cliche.
One, I would say, this is something
that we require high school students,
particularly when they're applying to college.
But if it's already in House Bill 3,
then why don't we use the same language
from House Bill 3?
Doesn't that kinda give us a two for one
and make a trustee's life a bit easier?
-: Okay.
Anything further, Ms. Perez?
Are you asking that question rhetorically?
-: No, it's not a rhetorical question.
I'm asking it quite seriously.
-: No, but I mean who-
-: We do require-
-: But of who are you addressing the question?
Was what I was saying.
-: So I'm presuming
that this is a question going to
the ad hoc committee, right?
Because these are recommendations from the committee, right?
So, if it sounds a bit too cliche-ish,
then why don't we just use the exact language
from House Bill 3 as it's required in statute?
-: Okay. Ms. Cargill.
-: All right, so Ms. Perez, would you say the words
that are exactly in House Bill 3,
or maybe Mr. Cottrill could say the exact words
from House Bill 3.
-: I'll defer to Mr. Cottrill for the exact language please.
Thank you.
-: Yeah, I don't have it pulled up in front of me.
-: And what I'm gonna do is to make it work within this,
it would be set specific annual goals to reach, quantify,
set specific goals to reach quantifiable student outcomes,
it was a bit of a paraphrasing to
make that work within that language.
So I would say, "Adopts a reasonable number
of specific quantifiable goals
that are aligned with the vision
to improve student outcomes."
So adopt a reasonable number.
So, let me, apologize for this.
It would be, adopts a reasonable number of, and that's the,
I guess the front stem and then specific goals,
specific quantifiable goals that align with
the vision to improve student outcomes.
-: Okay.
So, Ms. Bahorich, it's your motion.
Do you- -: Yeah, I, oops.
I wouldn't have any problem.
I would just say, specific and quantifiable
is definitely keeping in the spirit here regarding
what we mean by a really quality goal here.
And that's the aim of this particular framework suggestion
is that what is a good goal,
and it's gotta be these things, right?
That we're trying to describe what makes a good goal.
And we want that consistent training throughout.
So I wouldn't have any problems
going specific, quantifiable.
I hate getting rid of the word research-based
because Boards ought to be focused on that.
But time-bound is definitely, as part of the statute,
it doesn't say time-bound,
it says by annual goals and it says five years
and that sort of thing.
But time-bound is pretty standard for good goal setting.
I would suggest maybe specific, quantifiable
and time-bound again,
but I hate to get rid of research-based,
but it's up to the Board. -: (laughs) Okay.
It's your motion.
And so we need the language to vote on.
Mr. Cottrill as much as we appreciate his contribution,
he's certainly not able to make a motion.
So it's, do you want to withdraw your motion,
and reword it in accordance with what we see on the screen?
Or add to it? Or what do you wanna do?
-: Okay. Yeah, that's a good question.
Hold on, just,
I'm not seeing the screen for some reason.
-: All right.
I can read it to you. -: I don't see,
okay, yeah.
So what we would do is specific comma,
quantifiable comma.
-: Well, do you see, well, hang on, I'm sorry to interrupt.
But look at, see the pink line,
or the pink there. -: Oh yeah yeah.
-: "Adopts a reasonable number of specific,
quantifiable goals that align with the vision
to improve student outcomes."
That was Mr. Cottrill's reading of the statute.
Okay? -: Gotcha.
-: Your motion that's currently on the floor
is to reinsert specific, measurable, attainable,
research-based, and time-bound goals that align with that.
-: Right.
And so what I would agree with Mr. Cottrill
on specific and quantifiable,
but I'd like to make sure that,
to keep research-based and time-bound.
So it would say, specific comma, quantifiable comma,
research-based comma, and time-bound.
-: Okay.
Okay. Is there any objection to Ms. Bahorich
withdrawing her previous motion and inserting this one?
If, I can't see everybody because we're sharing a screen,
so if you have an objection to it,
unmute your mic and say, "I object."
-: I have a question.
-: Okay.
Well, okay, go- I guess your question is in order
because we need to decide what the motion is.
-: Yes, sir.
So the term reasonable, can you explain that to me please?
Because it's just, it feels ambiguous,
which leads to inconsistency.
So,
why reasonable?
What I think is reasonable may not be
what Lufkin thinks is reasonable.
So how do we eliminate the ambiguity?
-: Okay. Well, Kay, help me with this.
But do we need to first decide on the language
of the motion that's before us?
Ms. Kay: Yes, sir.
So, here's where we are, right?
Y'all have kind of gotten off
of the parliamentary reservation just a little bit.
-: I led us off the reservation,
so I'll take responsibility for that.
Ms. Kay: That's okay. You're doing great.
So the motion was,
to reinsert some specific language.
And then it was suggested that the stem to get
into that specific language should also be addressed.
But quite frankly,
reasonable is not part of what I believe
the pending motion is,
that does not mean that it could not be subject
to a future amendment of the same item.
-: Very good, okay. -: But for right now,
that's kind of where we are.
-: Okay.
So then, Ms. Bahorich,
this is up to you, at your pleasure,
but it could read, "Adopts a number of specific,
quantifiable, research-based and time-bound goals
that align with the vision to improve student outcomes."
Is that your motion?
-: I would like to keep the reasonable there
and then have a discussion on that later.
But for right now, if we could just tackle this part of the
adjectives describing what is a good solid goal,
I would rather have a vote up or down on adding,
keeping some specifics on what is a good quality goal.
And then we can go back to the reasonable.
-: Alright, so then Ms. Perez, with your permission,
Ms. Bahorich can withdraw her original motion
and this becomes the motion that we'll discuss.
And if you don't like reasonable,
then we can talk about that.
But for now, I think Ms. Bahorich's pleasure
or desire is to, is for this to be the motion.
Is that right, Ms. Bahorich?
-: Yes.
-: Okay.
So is there a second to that motion?
-: I was thinking that for purposes of discussion-
-: Mr. Robinson had already seconded.
-: Okay. I can't see, I can't see everybody because...
Yeah, because we've got this, we're sharing the screen,
so that's fine.
Okay.
All right, so that's the motion now before the Board,
Dr. Robinson, you've been very patient, you can go ahead.
-: Okay.
I'm trying to be relatively brief.
It's interesting that
me as a physician,
medicine and education actually have a lot in common.
And then when you talk about research-based,
clearly that's implying that the science aspect
of education, and I think that's
fairly what that's implying and,
education's like medicine in that
science is a big part of both,
but actually there's...
It's probably only about half.
It's not the whole picture.
And so teachers as well as physicians,
a lot of times will make decisions on how to teach
or curriculum to use that are not research-based.
They're based on their personal experience
or the experience of the English department
at the high school on what their specific kids need.
So, I think we're putting an...
In my opinion,
an unnecessary maybe an inappropriately high influence
of the science part, which is research-based emphasis here.
I would support the motion if we could remove
that research-based part,
because I think that it's not,
it's not all science when you're educating kids.
The research-based part is not,
it should not be the dominant part
that guides a teacher or a principal.
So that would be my comment.
-: Okay, is that in the form of a motion
to strike research-based from this amendment?
-: Don't we have to vote on Donna's amendment?
-: I don't know, Ms. Cruz, can he amend this amendment?
Ms Cruz: Yes he can, so he can amend it by striking out
research-based if that is his desire.
-: Okay. -: That would be my amendment
to the amendment to strike that out then.
-: Okay.
Is there a second to that?
And again, I can't see you because we're sharing the screen,
so you'll need to unmute and say second
if anyone- -: Second.
-: Okay, thank you.
Alright, so now the motion before us
is to strike research-based from the proposed amendment.
Is there discussion about that?
-: Mr Chair. -: Yes.
-: I actually had Ms. Kay help us out here.
As we try to get back on the reservation here.
Further amendments that go to that same phrase.
Is it proper to vote on Dr. Robinson's
that may add some? Or?
-: Yeah.
Yeah, I think we have to vote on his right now
and then you can make further amendments
to Ms. Bahorich's motion, right Kay?
-: Yes, sir, that is correct.
-: Okay, so is there any further discussion
on Dr. Robinson's
motion that we strike research-based?
And just unmute your mic and say,
get my attention 'cause I can't see.
-: All right. Marty, this is Barbara.
I see several hands raised in the,
so I'm sure what order I'm in, but-
-: Those hands had been up for a while,
and right now we're just talking about researched-based.
-: Well, I have a comment.
I want to remind the Board that this document
is actually for local ISD Board members,
it's not for teachers or students.
And so I think research-based is very appropriate
because this is a framework for school Board members.
-: Okay.
-: And I would also state- -: I have a comment.
-: that teachers should teach in a way
that is very research-based.
I mean, that's part of their training as professionals,
and so I would beg to disagree
with my colleague's statement.
-: Okay, anyone else that wants to-
-: Pat Hardy, Pat Hardy. -: Yeah, Ms. Hardy.
-: Pat Hardy would like to say she agrees
with Barbara Cargill and does think
researched-based is very important.
I'll give you a real simple example
of when we were debating the handwriting
and cursive writing head people that just automatically
threw that out and said, no one needs cursive writing,
but the research was in-depth
and it proved to be totally different
than what we were saying and hearing.
So I like the idea of research-based staying in here.
Thank you.
-: Okay, Ms. Perez-Diaz, your hand has been up for a while.
Is it on the issue of researched-based,
or on the other part of the motion?
-: So it was on the other part of the motion,
but I do have a comment now on the research-based piece.
-: Okay, you can go ahead. (laughs)
-: Thank you, vice chair.
So I will say, let's remember that education
there's a lot of social science,
and research is a social science.
And so I believe in terms of teaching
that's really appropriate, but I also wanna remind
this body that we heard from a lot of
practicing, sitting Board members about what this looks like
and the fact that they do get a lot of guidance
from individuals who work within the school district
to help support how they're crafting their goals
and those sorts of things.
And so, you know, for me,
I don't necessarily know that research-based
is necessary for this conversation,
nor do I think time-bound is.
But in terms of the research-based piece,
I thought our previous goal was to align
this to House Bill 3, which I agree with,
and it doesn't seem like research-based is in that language.
And so I would ask that the Board,
as we make this decision, consider the testimony
from sitting school Board members who were
representing different parts of this state
that spoke to this item.
-: Okay.
Mr. Allen, do you have a comment
on the research-based proposed amendment?
-: Yes sir. -: Okay.
-: I wanted to speak on leaving it in
because in all the conversations that I've had
in educational leadership,
it's the foundation to everything that educators do,
especially as it pertains to student outcomes,
and remembering that we need to make sure
that everything we implement with students
have been vetted out properly.
So when something is research-based,
it simply means to the educator,
that has been looked at thoroughly,
it's been vetted in other areas and that it gives
a credence to the why we're doing it.
And not necessarily that it's the actual formula,
but why we're actually implementing these things
because we know that they affect students
in a positive manner.
-: Okay, thank you.
Mr. Cortez are you speaking to the research-based amendment?
-: Yes, Mr. Chair.
-: Okay.
-: Yeah. I just wanna, I guess, just to add that,
I do agree with the striking of it.
I think this is just another example of language
that trustees, as a former trustee,
that they're just not going to appreciate us
micro managing again, through this,
this process that we're taking on.
It's just gonna seem like another,
I guess, big brother kind of stepping in
and telling you exactly how you have to do it right
when you're saying you didn't have specific,
quantifiable, time-bound, and all these other things.
And so striking the language, I'm in support of it.
I like the original language that we amended yesterday.
The motion was made by Chair Ellis.
I'm in favor of going back to that original language.
So, striking research-based, I'm in favor of.
-: Okay.
Ms. Bahorich, do you have a comment on the research-based?
-: Yes.
I just, what I wanted to say is that,
the only point of keeping that in,
is got to be more along the lines
of what member Allen discussed,
which is, we expect
goals set of teachers for their students
to be based on what's making a difference for students.
Like, what is really improving their outcomes.
We expect them to be focused on using data as part of that.
And I just don't think we should require less
of our Boards of trustees when they're setting goals
for the entire district.
We want goals that are really
gonna make a difference in student outcomes.
And so that needs research.
And so I just don't, I think it would be a step back,
and too, any expectation and consistency across the state,
if we don't include research-based.
-: Okay. Thank you.
Any further comments? -: Mr.Chairman?
-: Mr. Cortez.
I'm sorry, Mr. Maynard?
Yes. -: Yes, yes.
Yeah, I was, I'm just kind of,
thinking through this thing.
And I appreciate what Dr. Robinson to say about that,
that a lot of times is that there's a lot of those,
the goal setting is based on,
that, what maybe say, the English department
has experienced and that perhaps that
the data that they put together, but that's still research.
And we didn't say it was peer reviewed research
that came out of a university, necessarily.
We should research.
And if the English department has compiled data
that guides their decision making,
it's still research.
And so, I don't think that that necessarily
works against us there because we've not specifically stated
the source of that research.
And so, I think that the language is still appropriate,
and so I will not support striking it.
-: Okay.
Okay, how about if we- <v Ms. Perez>Mr. Chair.
-: Yes. Is that Ms. Perez?
-: Yes sir.
I have a question going back to House Bill 3.
And again, just in an effort of doing a two-for-one,
which I think makes trustees' lives a bit easier.
Don't our goals, or I guess the trustees' goals,
have to be anchored in early childhood literacy,
math, and CCMR?
Those things are already researched.
Those goals already have to be attained
by school Boards, it's already in statute.
So, doesn't this do another two-for-one?
-: Okay.
Okay.
All right.
How about, would you all do me a favor
and go ahead and lower your hands
if you're speaking to something other than
the researched-based amendment.
So I'm gonna see what's left.
Okay.
I see Ms. Bahorich.
Okay, well there you go.
Ms. Bahorich, your hand is still up.
-: I'm so sorry.
Guys, my power literally just went out,
and so, I'm barely on.
I don't know, I hope I can stay on.
But we just got a note from CenterPoint
that the power is going out.
So, I didn't print out the document
that I'm hoping to address some of these things,
so hopefully, I can stay on and- -: Okay.
-: Anyway, I'm sorry.
-: You're with us, you're with us so far.
So, we and see and hear you.
So, so far, you're okay.
-: Ms. Bahorich, why don't you check with staff
and find out if you can call in on your phone
if you lose your internet from power.
I think you should be able to still call in.
-: Yeah.
-: So check with staff.
-: Problem is I can't,
I didn't print any of these document.
They're all on my computer.
But yeah, I can do that.
-: Okay.
All right.
So is there any further discussion on the amendment,
to the amendment to strike researched-based?
Okay, hearing none.
Okay, Ms. Cruz?
Probably, it'd be good if you stopped
sharing your screen for just a minute.
-: Okay.
-: While we do the vote.
That okay? All right.
Is that okay, Monica?
All right.
Okay, so all in favor of striking research-based
from the proposed amendment,
signify by raising your hand, please.
-: Oh, I'm sorry, what was the motion, Mr. Chair?
-: It's to strike research-based proposed amendment.
Raise your hand where we can see 'em please everyone.
-: I see three in favor.
-: Okay.
All opposed same sign.
-: 10 opposed.
-: Okay, so the motion fails.
Three for, 10 against.
Oh Ms. Davis, you were for, I guess?
-: 11. -: 11, there you go.
Okay, so now.
-: And Ms. Davis, if you can maybe turn on your camera
just when we do the vote, that would be helpful.
-: Okay, so now we're back to the main amendment.
And Ms. Cruz, if you'd like,
you can put the screen back up and we'll see that.
-: Mr. Chair, I can't raise my Zoom hand,
because I'm a cohost.
Just to let you know I've got my hand raised.
-: Okay, well, Dr. Ellis, go ahead.
I will call on you to address into the amendment
that's now before us, right?
-: Yeah, so I'd like to make another amendment,
a request to make an amendment to the amendment,
with what we just decided there to keep research-based.
I think those phrases are important.
I think my original point was just the buzz words
and the jargon of that specific phrase there.
But I think to everyone's point,
there are specific things, specifically word specific,
that they need to be research-based.
And then to Mr. Cottrill's point earlier
about pointing them back to HB 3.
So my amendment would read,
adopts a reasonable number of specific goals
that align to the vision to improve student outcomes,
including the quantifiable goals required in HB 3.
Now, that last little phrase we can work on,
if we wanna specifically talk about the CCMR
and early childhood reading or literacy.
But I think that might be a placeholder
just to say the goals required in HB 3.
Go ahead.
-: Chairman, I'm sorry,
It would not be appropriate for you to reference HB 3,
because there have been previous HB 3s,
and there will be one in the next session.
So you'd actually have to reference the statute.
-: Okay.
-: If you wanted to do that
would be Chapter 11.185 and
Chapter 11.186.
-: 185 and 186. Right.
-: Okay, all right, so would you go ahead, Dr. Ellis,
provide the language one more time,
so Ms. Cruz can get that on the screen, please?
-: Sure, adopts a reasonable number of specific
goals that align to the vision.
I'm sorry. Specific research-based goals.
So we're gonna scratch quantifiable
and time-bound.
Scratch measurable, attainable and time-bound.
-: Okay.
-: Reasonable number of specific, research-based
goals that align to the vision.
-: Okay. Well, so far measurable,
attainable and time-bound are not-
Oh wait, yes they are, I'm sorry.
Time bound is, but...
Adopt a reasonable number of specific, research-based goals
that align with the vision in accordance with Chapter.
Do you want that in there?
-: The line to the vision to improve student outcomes.
-: All right.
-: Including the quantifiable goals,
in 11.185 and 186.
-: Okay.
-: We can clean that up later.
If we wanna say that specifically,
CCMR and early childhood literacy.
I think the point is that,
those are the goals were talking about.
-: Okay. So I have a question for Ms. Cruz on this,
this doesn't appear to be an amendment
particularly of the amendment.
It appears to be a substitute amendment.
-: That is exactly it.
You have been studying so hard.
That's so good.
-: Yes!
Thank you, thank you.
I wanna get us back on the reservation and in good graces.
So that's my, that's my intent.
So do we need to vote on the first amendment
and then take Dr. Ellis' amendment
if he so chooses?
-: Okay. So the appropriate way to handle this
(indistinct) is a motion
to strike out the existing language,
which is on your screen.
So those of you who can see it,
this red language on the top
and insert it with this red language on the bottom.
And so that's the way that I would handle that
because the red language on the top
is already a substitute.
Dr. Ellis' proposed language
is not amendable at this point.
You'll have to decide basically,
do you prefer bullet number five
or bullet number six on your list.
And then that would become amendable at that point.
-: Okay.
So what I'm hearing you say then do we
(crackling drowns out speaker).
So we need to vote... When you're saying bullet number five,
you're talking about, "Adopts a reasonable number
of specific, quantifiable, research-based,
and time-bound goals
that align with the vision to improve student outcomes."
Is that what you're talking about?
So do we need to vote on that now?
-: What you vote on is, shall the language proposed
in bullet number six, adopt a reasonable number
of specific, research-based goals
that align with the vision to improve student outcomes,
including the quantifiable goals in 11.185 and 11.186.
Replace the language adopts a reasonable number
of specific, quantifiable, research-based
and time-bound goals.
-: Gotcha.
So everybody understand what we're voting on then?
We're voting on,
we're gonna call it Dr. Ellis' amendment.
It replaces Ms. Bahorich's amendment.
-: I just have a quick question.
-: Okay, Ms. Diaz. Yes please.
-: Thank you, so just that we're clear, if we vote to replace
Ms. Bahorich's language with Chair Ellis' language,
then when we come, and if that passes,
then we are not able to amend Chair Ellis' language,
is that correct?
-: No, you can.
Yeah, you can still amend his
once that determination is made between the two of them.
Right, Ms. Cruz?
-: Yes, sir.
-: Okay, yes.
-: And then I have- -: So, okay.
-: Sorry, I have one other question.
And this will cover the question
I've kind of been waiting to ask.
We had a really robust conversation
about using the language student outcomes,
and there were some really poi... I think,
points that were made regarding the use of that language.
And so I'm wondering if that, if student outcomes
is specifically used in statute.
'Cause that I'm not sure of, but I just want clarification,
is student outcomes specifically stated in statute?
-: Okay. Mr. Cottrill, can you speak to that?
-: Yes sir, I can.
No, student outcomes is not specifically stated in statute.
As I shared yesterday during the committee,
the reason that we use the language student outcomes
is because oftentimes what's found in statute
is going to be performance, it's going to be achievement.
And many times those two terms
are very quickly tied to, standardized testing.
And so, by utilizing language around student outcomes,
it gives a greater latitude in terms of our interpretation
of what student outcomes is, that it can be something
beyond that of a standardized test,
but instead can be reflective of certifications
that were obtained through college
career and technology education at the high school level.
It could be on life outcomes that students
are able to obtain an associates degree
as they're graduating, things like that,
that aren't specific to achievement and performance
on what are so closely aligned with standardized tests.
And so, the use of student outcomes is predicated on trying
to give greater latitude and flexibility to the field
to understand that we're not specifically talking
about STAAR test.
-: Does that answer your question Ms. Perez-Diaz?
-: It does, thank you. -: Okay, Ms. Bahorich
I see your hand.
Are you speaking to the proposed substitution?
-: Yes, the reason that I think,
one of the concerns that we had,
and we did talk about this a lot,
and member Cortez already brought this up,
we don't wanna get too far into the weeds
on any specific recommendations.
The previous that we approved adopts a reasonable
number of specific, quantifiable research
and time-bound goals.
It's general instruction.
It's not specific instruction related to a specific law
which may or may not change over time.
And so, I'd hate to see us members getting
into the weeds on
pulling specifically out of statute.
When we know that they want to set locally adopted goals,
as we previously have in this document,
that may have nothing to do
with something that's in statute,
but need to be specific, quantifiable,
research-based and time-bound.
So, I would suggest that we give back local control here
as to what those are.
We want them to set a high-quality goal,
but we're not interested in a goal
tied to a specific statute.
-: Okay.
Any further discussion on the motion
before us with just a substitute, the language found
in the substitute for amendment number one.
Or to replace that language with amendment number one.
And remember we will then vote on and discuss
amendment number one, once we get this decision made.
-: Only if you defeat the substitute, sir.
-: Oh, right, good point. -: If you defeat
the substitute, then amendment number one is not adopted.
-: Right, yeah. That's what I meant to say.
-: I do have a question, I do have a question.
-: Okay, Ms. Bahorich.
-: Could Dr. Ellis address the including language here?
Like I said, I don't mind including what's in there,
but those statutes change and stuff happens over time.
Is there a way that we could get at what you're including
is talking about as part of this
without naming the statutes?
Is there a way we could get there?
-: Mr. Chair. -: Yes, Dr. Ellis,
and Ms. Perez-Diaz I see your hand, you'll be in line.
-: Yeah, so in response to that now is really from what
Mr. Cottrill said, that these phrases
was all based around 11.185 and 11.186.
That's the reason that I proposed those should be there,
and it is including and not to the fact
of that it's all that they can do,
or there's not others that they can do.
But I do agree with your point,
that statute changes over time,
requirements change over time.
And that's why I kinda said a little bit of a placeholder
over what's neither HB 3 or these statutory,
or whether it's specifically about CCMR
or early childhood literacy.
I think that that was in response to Mr. Cottrill
saying that this bullet point and especially those phrases,
were pulling in the requirements of 11.185 and 186.
-: Okay.
Actually, Ms. Cargill's hand was up first I think,
and then Ms. Perez-Diaz.
-: Okay, yeah, thank you.
Yeah, I'm gonna speak in favor of Ms. Bahorich's amendment,
which I think is called amendment number one
on Kay's document.
To me, it's a lot more simple, it's straightforward,
and I think it addresses what we're wanting to address
in 11.185 and 186 anyway.
So I would speak in favor of keeping the amendment as is.
-: Okay, Ms. Perez-Diaz.
-: Thank you, Vice Chair.
So I would say I really appreciate member Bahorich's
comment on respecting local control.
We're talking about a framework, again, remember a framework
is basically just a skeleton to build from
for peer elected officials.
And so I think that we have to remember that
as we're making these decisions.
And what I might say is, so I appreciate
the local control piece, and so maybe
to even better support that positioning,
I have perhaps a proposal for alternative language.
I'm not sure if I should do that now,
or if that should happen after this vote.
So I need some assistance 'cause either way
the language I want to add to whichever...
-: I think that comes probably after this vote.
-: Okay. -: Yes sir.
-: Is that right Ms. Cruz?
Ms. Cruz: Yes, sir.
-: Okay, yeah, that's after this vote.
-: Okay, got it. Thank you.
-: So any further discussion on the motion before us,
which is to substitute the language,
which is, "Adopt a reasonable number
of specific, research-based goals that align with the vision
to improve student outcomes,
including the quantifiable goals in the 11.185 and 11.186."
Substitute that language with amendment number one.
Mr. Maynard. Yeah there you go.
"Adopts a reasonable number of specific, quantifiable,
research-based and time-bound goals
that align with the vision to improve student outcomes."
Mr. Mercer.
-: Yes, sir.
Marty, Mr. Chairman.
I just speak in favor of the substitute.
I like... Both things I look for
when I do research-based and quantifiable,
but the substitute is very specific,
it says quantifiable as in 11-185 and 11-186.
I speak in favor of the substitute motion.
-: Okay. Thank you, sir.
Any further discussion on the motion before us?
Okay, so Ms. Cruz, if you don't mind,
removing this sharing screen for just a moment, we'll-
-: All right.
And Mr. Chairman, if I can just help you,
and if I can help everyone with a quick shortcut,
if you're in favor of the language marked substitute,
you would vote, yes. -: There you go.
Ms. Cruz: And if you're in favor of the language
marked amendment one, you would vote, no.
And whichever one you adopt would be amendable.
And Ms. Bahorich is about to have a hernia,
she's waiting so hard.
-: Oh, okay.
-: All right. All right.
Just a point of clarification, members, on the substitute,
what's been taken out are the adjectives
on what is a good goal.
We're taking out quantifiable.
Member Ken Mercer, just pointed to the importance of that,
but that's been taken out of the substitute amendment.
Quantifiable's no longer in there.
It just says specific, research-based goals.
It took out quantifiable, and it took out time-bound.
I just wanna make sure that members understand
what's been removed there as well.
-: No, quantifiable is there.
-: Yeah.
-: Specific, research-based.
-: Well, there's the quantifiable there.
-: Oh, the quantifiable at the bottom.
Well, yeah, but quantifiable is only
in relations to two statutes, right?
-: Okay.
Any further discussion on the amendment before us?
Okay, as Ms. Cruz pointed out, a vote yes, essentially is,
it means you're in favor of the substitute language.
A vote no means you prefer the amendment number one.
But then we still have the opportunity
to amend amendment number one.
Are you with me?
So all in favor of the motion signify by raising your hand.
-: I see six in favor. You may lower your hands.
-: All opposed, raise your hand, please?
-: Eight opposed.
-: Eight, so the motion fails, six to eight.
So now, what's currently before us is the amendment
that we've been calling amendment number one.
And it'll come up on your screen in just a moment.
Okay, there it is.
Okay, so the motion is to amend the ad hoc committee's
recommendation actually.
"To adopt a reasonable number of specific, quantifiable,
research-based and time-bound goals
that align with the vision
to improve student outcomes."
And that's to substitute for the original that you see
before you.
Adopts a reasonable number of goals that aligned
to the vision to improve student outcomes.
So Ms. Perez-Diaz,
did you have an amendment to that?
Let me bring up my participant.
-: Thank you. Vice Chair, thank you.
All right.
So when looking at the amendment, I would propose,
and I'll preface this proposal by saying,
I hope that this... What I'm trying to do is,
is respect a member before just point regarding
local control I really value that.
And I think that that's important.
I also really want to be cognizant
of member Ellis' goal in looking at House Bill 3.
And then finally, again,
listen to the voices of people who are actually sitting
in office right now,
who we're working this for.
So, I would strike,
give me just a second
let me look at my language, so I would...
My proposal would read,
adopt a reasonable number of specific strike,
quantifiable, research-based.
And, actually I'm sorry.
Oh yes.
Strike quantifiable, research-based and time-bound.
And then include
measurable goals.
-: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry.
-: Yes, Ma'am.
-: You have already voted that you will retain research-based
and a motion to strike that would not be in for her.
-: Aah good point. That was Dr. Robinson's.
-: That they want to keep that language.
-: Yeah, that's true.
Remember that was Dr. Robinson's
motion to strike research-based.
-: Got it, okay
-: So, yeah.
-: That's been voted in.
-: Research based.
I can strike... I'll strike quantifiable.
-: Yeah.
-: In time-bound.
-: Right.
-: And then I'll replace
and time-bound with measurable.
-: Okay.
-: And then,
goals that align.
So after with,
I would strike the vision to improve student outcomes
and insert,
let's see, goals that align with early childhood literacy,
mathematics and CCMR
goals.
Let me make sure because I'm like,
I'm trying to read through all of the changes,
what it should read is,
"Adopt a reasonable number of specific
and measurable goals that aligned to goals
for early childhood literacy, mathematics, and CCMR."
This way we're not being prescriptive
of our Board members,
but they understand what our intent is, right?
We want those deep goals aligned to all of the other work
that's happening,
but again we're respecting that local control,
we're acknowledging House Bill 3,
and we're also respecting the roles
of the school Board members.
-: Okay, just one second.
Oh, all right.
So I think your language
was a little bit different in that
you had goals that align with
the goals of early childhood literacy, mathematics and CCMR.
-: I'm sorry, let me look.
It's hard to follow. -: We have goals at the end.
-: So,- -: Chairman I'm not...
So I think there's a requirement in the TEC
resulting from House Bill 3.
I don't think that there,
there are goals in the statute and it also,
I think sounds a little odd to say
you're gonna adopt goals that align with goals.
-: With goals.
Yeah, well I know, but I'm just trying to get the language.
-: Yeah.
that the member is proposing.
-: Yeah. Well, so I think there are two additional,
there are two extra, the word goals
is in there two times
that it probably shouldn't be.
-: Right, well, okay.
-: "Reasonable number of specific,
research-based, and measurable goals
that align with early childhood literacy,
mathematics, and CCMR requirements."
Okay, that's what it, that's what it already.
Okay, thank you Monica and Vice Chair.
So, adopt a reasonable number of specific,
research-based, and measurable goals
that align with early childhood literacy,
mathematics, and CCMR requirements.
-: Okay. -: That would be my proposal.
-: All right.
So is there a second to that motion?
-: I second that.
-: Okay, that was Dr. Robinson.
Okay, and so I think Ms. Perez-Diaz,
you've already spoken to your motion, right?
-: Yes, sir.
-: Okay, so I'm seeing hands, Ms. Cargill.
-: Yeah, and I appreciate member Perez-Diaz's
attempts to satisfy all the different stakeholders
and Dr. Ellison, everyone, I'm not gonna be able
to support the amendment.
We don't want to limit school Boards
just to early childhood literacy,
mathematics and CCMR requirements.
We want them to have more flexibility
with that based on what their goals
need to be in their specific districts.
So I'm not going to be able to agree with that.
And also the word "quantifiable"
was from statute, which is why
Mr. Cottrill had mentioned it.
So I'm not sure why we would take that out
since that is the exact term that is in statute
as opposed to measurable.
-: Okay, Ms. Bahorich, I see your hand.
Was that for this measure?
-: Yeah, again, I certainly appreciate,
and I do think, what we've gotten in current statute
is pretty important and they very well may adopt that
as part of their reasonable number of goals
in a particular district.
But again, I don't wanna see local control.
The only thing that I'm hoping we can do when we get
finished with this process is give some framework,
a skeleton, if you will, for what is a quality goal.
And so I'd like to keep this just as simple as we possibly
can and go back to more of what we approved
before we made this amendment.
-: Okay, Ms. Cruz, could we go ahead
and this may take you a moment,
but let's put up what the original amendment was.
And by that, I mean, Ms. Bahorich's
original amendment as we're currently situated,
and I think it would be, adopts a reasonable number of
specific, quantifiable, researched and time-bound goals that
align with the vision to improve student outcomes.
Is that right?
-: Yes sir, that is.
Give me just a second.
I'll take my screen down and I'll
put it back up when I'm ready.
-: Perfect, okay, all right.
So in the meantime, Ms. Hardy,
do you wanna speak to the proposed amendment,
Pat, you just muted.
-: Oh sorry
-: There you go
-: The opposed amendment for (indistinct)
or what Ms. Cargill said that it's too narrow to say early
childhood math and reading.
We have a lot broader goals, I think,
for the local school Boards in those three areas,
so that is very (indistinct)
-: Okay.
Thank you.
Any other discussion on the proposed amendment?
You can just kind of wave at me.
I don't see any.
Okay, so we're ready for a vote.
Let's wait just a minute.
Let Ms. Cruz put it back on the screen.
So we'll see the language we're voting on.
And then actually I'll ask her to take it back down.
So we can see the vote, but I think it's good
that we all see the language one more time.
And we might just comment on the wonders of technology
that we're able to do this, so that's very,
along with the talent and skills of Ms. Cruz.
Just take a moment and visit among yourselves.
Oh, wait a minute.
You can't do that, can you?
-: Did she put it back on the screen yet? I can't see it.
-: No, it's not there yet, it's-
-: Just checking.
-: Okay.
-: And there it is.
Okay.
-: What I've done, Mr. Chairman, is amendment number one
is the amendment that was proposed by Ms. Bahorich.
-: Okay.
-: And then 1b is the secondary amendment
proposed by Ms. Perez-Diaz.
-: Perfect, okay.
-: So, 1b is what we are currently voting on.
-: Okay.
There you go, okay, everybody see that?
And then, so 1b, the motion is
that the framework point reads,
"Adopts a reasonable number of specific,
research-based, and measurable goals
that align with childhood literacy,
mathematics, and CCMR requirements."
Everybody understand?
Okay, so thank you, Ms. Cruz.
If you'll take your screen down for a minute,
we'll take the vote.
Okay, all in favor of the-
-: I just had a...
I'm sorry to interrupt.
I just had a technical question.
The new language left out early childhood literacy.
I don't know if that's gonna...
I just want to make sure
that didn't cause any kind of issue,
but early should be a part of that.
-: Okay.
All right, early childhood-
-: I was going too fast.
Sorry about that.
-: That's sure okay.
But I think we all understand the language, right?
Okay, thank you, Ms. Perez-Diaz.
All in favor of that proposed amendment
signify by raising your hand, please.
-: I see five in favor.
You can put your hands down.
-: All opposed, raise your hands, please.
-: I see seven opposed.
-: Seven, Ms. Davis, did you intend to vote?
-: I didn't vote.
-: No, you didn't.
Okay, all right.
So the motion fails five to seven, I think,
or something like that. Ms. Martinez?
-: Yes sir, that's correct.
-: Okay, all right.
So Ms. Cruz, if you'll once again bring up
the amendment that's before us.
Okay, there it is.
And so what we're voting on now
or what's currently before us for discussion and vote
is that amendment number one
that says adopts a reasonable number
of specific quantifiable research-based
and time-bound goals that align with the vision
to improve student outcomes.
Discussion about that.
Let's see, and I lost my...
I see Ms. Perez-Diaz and Ms. Bahorich's hand up.
Is that on this matter?
-: Sorry, I forgot to take it off.
-: Okay, I thought so.
Dr. Robinson, how about you and then Ms. Bahorich.
-: Yeah, I made this point yesterday.
And just so I'll just make it again
for people that didn't hear it,
but we had a lot of discussion yesterday about definitions,
the word outcomes, achievement, and performance,
and there were different opinions on the definitions.
So I had looked up in the online Webster dictionary
the definition and outcomes
is defined as something that follows
as a result or consequence.
Achievement is a result gained by effort,
and performance is the execution of an action.
So right now in statute
are the words achievement and performance
and it was the opinion of all
the school Board testifiers yesterday.
My opinion hadn't been on a school Board for 10 years,
is that outcomes
especially when you consider the definitions there,
really are the opposite of what Mr. Cottrill
was trying to tell us.
That it really implies more emphasis
and they were people in the ad hoc committee
that wanted to put the word primarily in there
to even further emphasize
using a standardized testing star scores
to evaluate the superintendent.
So that's why the words outcomes
is something I have objection to.
And I think it's important to at least
everybody should keep in mind what
that definition means compared
to achievement or performance,
and then just vote accordingly.
-: Okay.
I'm taking that as a comment
and not necessarily a proposed amendment.
-: That's correct?
Yes, that's correct.
-: Okay.
Thank you.
Ms. Bahorich your hand is still up.
I've been reminded that technically there is a rule
that a member can't speak more than twice-
-: Okay. -: to any one measure.
But you know, we'll grant some leniency
if you have something just absolutely compelling.
-: Well, all I was gonna address was a question
that was asked earlier about the reasonable part of this,
as a point of information.
Yeah, the research shows that if you have
20 goals, you have no goals.
So if you have too many goals,
then you don't get those goals accomplished.
It's just the way that it works.
We didn't wanna be prescriptive about what reasonable meant.
That's up to the local school Board to make that decision.
So that's why the word reasonable is in there.
And as far as outcomes go,
the Board's main focus, in my opinion,
would be to focus on the impact of the programs
and the strategies that they use
as it relates to what is achieved for students,
and so that's why that word is appropriate here,
may not be appropriate in statute,
but is very appropriate for school Board.
Because they make choices, they make strategies.
And so they want to evaluate those choices
and strategies and the impact of that,
and that's what outcomes is focused on.
-: Okay, thank you, Ms. Bahorich.
Ms. Perez?
-: Thank you.
I'm gonna sound a bit like a reading teacher here,
but I think perhaps we should call on Mr. Cottrill
to give us definitions of student outcomes.
And so maybe that helps people understand
the terminology here a bit better.
-: Okay, Mr. Cottrill?
-: Yes, so I certainly understand that Webster
provides a general definition of what an outcome is.
It doesn't quite align with student outcomes,
which is what we're actually talking about.
And so the definition of a student outcome
is a measure of a school system results
that are student results, rather than adult results,
outcomes that are a measure
of what students know or are able to do.
And so an example of that is a sum of an assessment,
but it also, again, as I shared earlier,
provides opportunities to go beyond standardized assessments
and can be certifications or degree attainments
or college-readiness indicators and things like that.
And so, I don't want to allow for a painting
of student outcomes to be something
that is strictly aligned to consequential or
(radio interference drowns out speaker)
for that matter because, I think that we've done
made some great headway in establishing
an understanding that student outcomes are simply that.
It's locally developed and can be determined
by a local school Board to be reflective
of a wide variety of measures
that are able to be determined by the local school Boards.
-: Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Cottrill.
Okay, Monica, I think, are you able to remove hands?
I'm not able to do that as a host or because I-
-: Yes, I can also make you a cohost.
-: Oh, well that's okay.
All right, but Dr. Robinson,
I think his hand was up from earlier,
but probably not again, I don't see him in the screen.
Okay, all right, so any further discussion
with regard to the proposed amendment number one
that you see on your screen?
And this is about to be the final vote on this one point.
So speak now or forever hold your peace,
except for Ms. Bahorich,
who's not allowed to speak any more, no I'm kidding.
(Mr. Chair laughs)
Okay.
All right.
So Ms. Cruz, if you will,
take your screen down, and we'll take a vote.
Okay, all right, so then all in favor of that amendment,
as it appeared on your screen a moment ago,
signify by raising your hand, please.
This is all in favor of the amendment, Dr. Robinson.
-: I'm sorry, my nurse pulled me away,
can you say that again?
-: Yeah, we're voting on the amendment on the main amendment.
So I think you're fine.
Yeah, we're voting either for or against the main amendment.
-: I'll just abstain.
-: 10 in favor.
-: Okay, 10 in favor.
All opposed?
-: I see two opposed.
-: Okay, so the motion passes 10 to two,
and we have disposed of that matter.
And we're back on the reservation, I think, now.
Okay, do we need to take a short break before we move on?
I certainly do.
Okay, good.
Let's take about 10 minutes.
Let's come back, it's 11:03 right now.
Let's come back at about 11:15.
How about that?
Ms. Davis, are you with us as well?
There's Mr. Maynard?
Yup, okay, very good.
Okay, so I think Dr. Robinson
and Ms. Hardy are all we're lacking.
But we'll go ahead and move forward with the next item,
Dr. Ellis, did you have some amendments?
Ms. Cruz, would you mind bringing the...
Yeah, there you go, bring the screen back up.
-: And what I've done, Mr. Chairman,
to make it clear, is I have boxed the language
that you have already adopted,
so that we can tell what you have struck
and what you have replaced it with.
-: Okay.
-: And took out all the extraneous stuff.
-: Very good.
Thank you very much.
Well, Dr. Ellis, did you have additional amendments or?
-: No, Mr. Chair.
I think that actually the one that we just spent
a good bit of time talking about
was really in response to Mr. Cottrill's
opening comments about that specific one.
-: Okay. -: I'm still in favor
of the document that we've been working of off.
So I don't no, I don't have any specific amendments
that I would like to add.
-: Okay.
Do you want me to continue as chair,
or do you want to take it or what do you want to do?
-: No, I think in case there are some other ones
that I might still be interested in discussing,
but I'll let you continue on this high paying job.
-: (chuckling) Okay.
Thank you so much.
IOUa big one.
Yeah, thanks.
Okay, so members, any other amendments
to the framework that has been
proposed out of the ad hoc committee?
Let me bring up my participant screen, Ms. Perez?
-: Thank you, if Kay could scroll down to the
very beginning of the preamble, please?
Right there.
It says, "The Board of trustees
of an independent school district
or a governing Board of a charter school
is the governing body for Texas public schools."
I wanna know just why was governing Board
of a charter school stricken?
-: Okay, Ms. Cargill, do you wanna speak to that?
-: Okay, can you point me to where we are?
-: In the preamble there, we're sharing the screen,
so it should be, yeah, right there.
it was just highlighted.
-: Okay, and to, I'm sorry to, I didn't hear, quite hear.
-: I might be able to help.
This was the conversation around
the state Board's authority over charter schools.
-: Okay, yeah.
-: So this bit is just by way of explanation,
since I was in the meeting yesterday,
your authority is related to Chapter 11
in the education code.
Charter schools are in Chapter 12
and so we did have legal staff with this yesterday
to explain the distinction and the authority
that you have regarding this matter based on
where charter schools versus public school districts
fall in the education code.
-: And I will say that Ms. Perez-Diaz
did offer encouragement to the Commissioner
to consider this framework which we think will end up
being really, really great and to consider using it
for charter schools as well.
You know, of course, change to any language
that need to be changed based on statute for charters.
-: Mr. Chairman- -: I think I represented that.
Mr. Cottrill might want to add more
but I think that covers it.
-: Hey, Dr. Ellis?
-: Yeah, I'll just point out too
that staff did talk about how the framework
that we're working with is in Chapter 11
and as I said, charters are in Chapter 12
but we didn't wanna give any implication
that we had these expectations only for ISD's
and not for charters, but the idea that this is something
that's important for school Boards and so therefore,
I think we took out any reference
to either one of those, ISD's or charters and just said,
the Board of trustees is a governing body
for Texas public schools and just left it
that this is a document of good practice for school Boards
and just really left it generic.
Not to charters, not to ISD's, but just to school Boards.
-: Okay.
-: If that helps Ms. Perez. -: Okay.
-: Anything further Ms. Perez, or Perez, are you?
-: So I will say this, looking at the statute
where we're required to write these rules,
does not specifically state that we cannot align
the expectations for trustees
and the governing Board of charters.
So since the statute doesn't specifically say
that we cannot, then I think it behooves us
to put these two governing bodies in alignment.
-: So Ms. Perez, legal and Chris is with us today,
the lawyers who work on this are not with us today
and my understanding from what they said yesterday is,
you can put it in here,
but it's not gonna have any effect on charter schools,
From a legal perspective.
-: So, just so I'm clear, please Monica, or the attorneys.
When this entire framework is complete in November,
it's voted on and it's set, it only applies to ISDs
and then charters continue to work on
a different set of rules, a different set of standards?
Is that what I'm understanding?
-: That is correct, that is correct.
And so what they indicated was that,
the Commissioner can adopt a similar framework
for charter schools but that is his authority,
not your authority.
-: Okay.
Ms. Bahorich, your hand is up.
-: I think she said no.
So,- -: Oh, I can't see her.
Okay.
Ms. Perez-Diaz.
-: Ms. Davis also has her hand.
It's not her zoom hand it's her clapping,
but I think that means it's very important.
-: Okay (chuckles).
Ms. Davis after Ms. Perez-Diaz.
Go ahead.
-: Thank you, Vice Chair.
Member Perez, thank you for pointing that out.
That actually was a long conversation
and a point I was trying to make
as well during the conversation.
I think what...
I mean, essentially the language you see in front of you
is a compromise but
what I do wanna reiterate is the fact
that I made very clear and I'll say it again,
that I am strongly, strongly encouraged
that the Commissioner of education
not necessarily...
I don't want him to create a separate framework.
I want him to include charters
in language as part of this framework
that we are both working off of the same document.
We don't wanna further divide two institutions.
I think that our expectations
for traditional public school districts needs
to be the same as it is for public charter schools.
And so that was the point that I was trying to make.
I know the staff was really trying
to keep us in line with statute
but I also wanna remind the Board that
this is separate from the...
I think we had conversation
and member Ellis, I think, or even member Cargill,
if you can kind of chime in if you'd like
regarding the delineation between
what this framework is and what statute is
because from my understanding
this is a roadmap on what we hope Board members will do
but we aren't in a position to...
Quite frankly we aren't in a position
to dictate what even traditional public school districts
specifically have to do.
You know?
And so this is just a framework
and I don't think it's a lot to ask
for governing Boards of charter schools
to be in line with our traditional public schools.
-: Ms. Davis.
Ms. Davis: Thank you.
I just was gonna ask for that specific statute
that you're referring to
that gives a Commissioner permission
for the framework for the charters.
-: So Ms. Davis it's actually the opposite.
Your authority to even adopt this document
is in Chapter 11 of the education code.
Chapter 11 applies to public school districts.
It does not apply to charter schools.
So because Chapter 11 isn't applicable to charter schools,
anything you do under your authority given in Chapter 11
would not apply to charter schools.
Charter schools are authorized in Chapter 12.
Ms. Davis: Okay. Thank you.
-: Yes ma'am.
-: Okay, any further discussion, amendments,
with regard to the framework,
because I think our next item,
if there are no more amendments,
is to adopt the framework as proposed.
-: I think Mrs. Bahorich may have had her hand up.
Yes, she's got her hand up.
-: Mr. Chairman? -: Okay.
-: You'd also previously agreed you were probably
going to want to postpone this to November
rather than to adopt it.
-: Oh, I forgot.
Okay. That's exactly right.
Yeah, Ms. Bahorich and then Ms. Perez-Diaz.
-: Yes.
I would suggest, or would like to have the Board revisit,
we just finished talking about setting some understandings
about what a good quality goal is.
As part of that, if you scroll down to the section
that has progress and accountability, that's section three,
and I think it's bullet point one, two, three, four, five,
that also helps to clarify
the whole discussion about outcomes.
And so I would suggest that we put that back.
And here's what's important and again,
you have to recognize that, so I suggest putting that back,
and then I'll speak to it or I can continue, Mr. Rowley.
-: Is that a motion, Ms. Bahorich?
-: Do what, Ms. Cruz?
-: I asked if that was motion from Ms. Bahorich?
-: Exactly.
-: Okay. -: That's my motion.
-: Yeah. So would you restate that?
There you go, okay. Did you get it Ms. Cruz?
-: Yeah, to restore.
-: To restore that entire bullet point there.
Okay. Is there a second for that?
-: I'll second.
-: Okay. Thank you, Ms. Cargill.
So, the proposed amendment is to restore,
quote, "differentiates among inputs, outputs, and outcomes,
especially when focusing on student outcomes."
Any discussion on that?
-: Should I speak to my motion?
-: You sure can I thought you kinda did, but go ahead.
-: No. -: I'm sorry.
And just, Chair, so Dr. Ellis
and I believe Mr. Maynard both had raised their hands.
-: Oh okay, I see that. -: Dr. Ellis first
and then Mr. Maynard.
-: Okay, let's let Ms. Bahorich speak to her motion,
and then Dr. Ellis and then Mr. Maynard.
-: Okay, on this one, again,
this is trying to help put a framework
around an important discussion that talks
about what really are student outcomes.
And there are a lot of things that meet the definition
of what the goal is that we just set, like a quality goal.
But they also need an understanding of what an outcome is
versus some of these other things.
For example, if you have a program where you are
putting some career and technical courses in place
that you think are gonna really benefit your students,
you don't want to just have a goal
that says how many kids signed up for those courses.
That would help you get to an outcome.
But the outcome that the Board should be thinking about
in this case, if that was an initiative that you had,
is how many kids got a certification or something
of recognition that might benefit them for a career.
So often, and this happens just in general life,
we stop at the, well, let's put this program in place
that we think is a success
because we had a lot of signups for something,
but really we should be looking at
yeah, but did we have the right resources
to make sure that those kids were successful?
As evidenced by how many certifications
and other things that they can take on.
And I'll say just one more example,
AP courses is a great example of this.
We have an initiative that we're gonna have
increased more kids in AP classes.
That's terrific.
But the real student outcome that is for students
is how many kids who you signed up to take those courses
actually got college credit for all the work that was done.
Did you have the right resources in place, teachers?
And did you have the right supports to make sure those kids
do get college credit when you put a program in place
that leads toward an outcome?
So what we don't want is for stopping short
of a real student goal and student outcome,
which is what did the student benefit from,
from all the programs that we put in place?
I hope that clarifies it.
-: Okay.
Dr. Ellis, and then Mr. Maynard.
-: Thanks Chair, yeah I think where this conversation
going around yesterday,
was when TASB brought this to us,
it's not important that inputs and outputs
and outcomes are considered.
But the Boards do that.
Inputs are things that are knowable at the beginning
of the process.
Outputs are something known in the middle of the process.
And outcomes things that are determined or measured
at the end of the process.
But that's a phrase or term it's used
a lot in Lone Star Governance.
Part of a specific program.
So I think this term inputs, outputs and outcome,
took them back to Lone Star Governance.
It's things that they are doing throughout the process.
But that was, I think the point there.
-: Mr. Maynard.
-: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I would just want to know
from the ad hoc committee,
why that was stricken to begin with.
We can get some rationale
why the strike was on that.
(Ms. Bahorich speaking indistinctly)
-: Someone in the ad hoc committee wants to speak to that?
Ms. Cargill. -: I can speak to it.
It's what Dr. Ellis just said
I think the terminology,
inputs, outputs, and outcomes
they felt that came straight from Lone Star Governance.
I'm not sure if that's,
I haven't checked on that or not,
but that was part of the thinking.
I personally think this is an important standard to keep in.
So I will be voting to put it back in.
-: So the concern was not the concept,
but the origin of language?
-: That was part of the discussion.
Yes.
-: If I may add a little bit of context to that.
I don't know that it's really the origin.
I would argue that inputs, outputs and outcomes is predated
Lone Star Governance and much of
the language around best practices with governance.
But it is something that has been incorporated
into that governance model.
But Lone Star Governance doesn't own that language.
It's not something that is mutually exclusive
to Lone Star Governance.
It is something that even we had another Board trainer
during the ad hoc committee,
who trains Boards across the State of Texas,
made comments about how she felt like this really clarifies
for trustees, when she's training them.
We could certainly have Kathy Mintzberg
join and provide some additional context
to her thoughts on that,
that she shared during the course of the six weeks
that we worked on this as an ad hoc committee.
-: Thank you Mr. Cottrill.
-: Is that it Mr. Maynard?
-: Yes.
-: Okay.
Dr. Robinson, did I see your hand?
-: Yeah, I was trying to answer Mr. Maynard's question.
Everyone who was answering
was in agreement with striking it.
Maybe I'll just say this for the last time.
I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot.
But as school Board members,
at least in our opinion
as a former school Board member,
the phrase outcomes is reflective
of putting more emphasis
on standardized testing and star scores.
So, you know, whether we're completely wrong on that
that was the answer to your question, Tom.
That again goes to why
that we were opposed to that.
That were as opposed to student achievement
which has been
in the statute or has been in the wording previously.
-: Okay.
Thank you, Dr. Robinson.
I saw Ms. Perez and Ms. Perez-Diaz' hands.
Are they...
Yeah they are.
Okay Ms. Perez-Diaz.
-: Thank you, vice chair.
I think I'll make two points.
I think number one
we did go back and forth and had
a lot of conversation about this.
And at the end of the day I think
the point was that this
that inputs, outputs, outcomes
to Mr. Cottrill's point
is very much associated with training.
And again I want to remind this body
that this document isn't specifically
a training document, this is a framework.
That is why we have, you know,
trainers out in the community
that can speak specifically
to inputs, outputs, and outcomes.
I can tell you personally
I've been through Board training
and if it wasn't for Board training,
I wouldn't have known what those three terms mean.
And so we also have to keep in mind
that for new Board members that are coming in
to read something like this may not, I mean,
they may just gloss over it because
they don't even understand what that language means.
So I think it's a little nebulous
for somebody who might be coming in
as a green Board member.
And I also wanted to mention that differentiates
is vague in terms of
what the meaning behind it is.
So I think that
there was some struggle with understanding what
differentiate intends to do.
So, you know, for that reason
I still believe that the stricken language
should remain stricken.
-: Okay.
Ms. Perez.
-: I wanna make sure that I understand.
So if somebody from either your committee of instruction,
I'm sorry, school initiatives,
or the ad hoc committee could answer this for me.
As a reading teacher
again, and I'm coming to this from a perspective
as a classroom teacher who has trustees controlling
their pay raises and insurance payments
and et cetera, right?
So from a classroom teacher's perspective,
particularly a reading teacher,
I never tell my students,
"You guys don't understand what those words mean,
so let's not use them."
Right?
We find ways to not only make it easier,
we tell them, "Okay, this is what it means,
this is how you use it,
let's use it in a conversation,
this is why it's relevant,
this is why it's important," right?
So I'm a little confused as to
why we don't want adults to focus on outcomes
for students.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't this training
so that adults focus more on students?
Or did I miss the boat?
-: Okay.
Ms. Perez-Diaz, is your hand up for this?
-: Sir, (indistinct). -: Has her hand up also.
-: Who? -: Ms. Hardy.
-: Oh, okay.
Well, let Ms. Hardy go next,
Ms. Perez-Diaz, since she hasn't spoken yet.
-: Thank you, I would say that as I'm looking at it,
what the amendment does, and I will support
the amendment being restored, I guess is the point there,
the example of the AP program
is the perfect example of having one thing
that looks really good and we feel very good about it,
but when you get down to the nitty-gritty,
it can be totally off base.
It could all be just all bells and whistles
and nothing really to it,
if the kids aren't passing the test.
(faintly speaking)
And that is just one of many examples of things
in my years of being in education
that I have seen school Boards get real excited about,
"Oh boy, we have all these kids signed up for this."
But in the reality, at the end of the day,
it's not making any difference.
So, the outcomes need to be studied and looked at,
and I don't think it's just only on testing.
I think it's everything that we do
within the school district in the school system
has a place, not just testing.
So, as I look at that, it seems very clear to me
that the scored amendment is pretty much in line
with what I would think should be
the expectation of the school Board, thank you.
-: Okay, thank you, Ms. Hardy.
Ms. Perez-Diaz.
-: Thank you, Chairman.
I guess first of all,
I don't want my words to be misinterpreted,
or my intention to be misinterpreted.
I absolutely believe that Boards have a responsibility
to looking at inputs, outputs, outcomes.
I also very much believe that Boards,
once they go through training,
understand that that's a part of their responsibility.
But again, I wanna remind this body
this is not a training document, this is a framework.
And for anybody who's ever created a framework,
frameworks are just that, a skeleton.
This is not specific.
This gives an idea of what we hope to see.
That is what training exists for.
And I'll say that in our SBOE rule,
pertaining to SB 1566's training and this specific
like requirement is already outlined there.
So I just wanted to put that out there
so we understand that this is not lost in requirement.
It's just, it's in a different document because there,
because this is a framework,
this is not the specific training rule.
-: Okay, any further discussion on this proposed amendment?
Okay Monica, any other hands? I can't see everyone.
-: I don't see any others.
-: Okay, we're ready to vote then.
Okay, so the proposed amendment you see before you
on the screen is to reinsert the language
differentiates among inputs, outputs, and outcomes,
especially when focusing on student outcomes.
Ms. Cruz, if you don't mind, there.
Thank you for putting this back up.
Okay, we're ready to vote.
All those in favor of that amendment
signify by raising your hand, please.
One, two, three, four, five, six.
I like the thumbs up Ms. Davis, thank you.
-: I see nine in favor.
-: Okay, all opposed?
-: I see six opposed.
-: Well, I didn't vote, so that, you'd be right. (laughs)
-: Let's try that one more time.
-: Yeah, let's do it again.
Sorry, all in favor, signify by raising your hand please.
One, two, (computer bell chimes) three, four,
five. -: Seven, seven?
-: Six.
Okay.
One, two, three, four.
-: One, two, three, four. -: Seven, eight, nine.
-: Six, seven, eight, nine, nine in favor.
-: Okay, and all opposed, raise your hand please.
-: One, two, three.
-: Five. (computer bell chimes)
-: Five.
-: Nine and five would be right, okay.
So the motion passes, nine to five.
Nine in favor, five against.
Okay, any questions?
-: We appreciate elementary teachers.
-: Yes, okay. (laughs)
Okay, so then, any further amendments to the framework
before we have a final vote on it, I guess,
in November, right?
Is that the idea, Ms. Cruz?
-: Yes, sir.
What you'll do once you've finished this
is take a motion to postpone further consideration
to the November meeting.
-: Gotcha, okay, all right,
and so let's see when the.
I can't tell whose hand was up.
I think Ms. Perez, did you have your hand up,
and Ms. Bahorich?
-: Yes, I did.
-: Okay, Ms. Perez.
-: Thank you.
I'm scrolling through the document
that we received last night
from Monica and team.
And I just wanted to maybe some clarification
please from either the committee
or the ad hoc committee.
Under systems and processes,
the word refrains changes to restricts
as it pertains to trust the involvement
in daily operations and management.
And so I'm just wondering. -: Hang on.
Hang on one second.
So oh the bullet point right there,
refrains from involvement
in daily operations and management?
-: Right.
If you scroll up a little bit
there's a new wording
in the green text.
Scroll up a little more.
-: Okay.
-: There, you see where it says,
restricts involvement in daily operations
and management versus freight?
So if someone, anybody can explain
because the way I'm reading that
is you're paying superintendents,
six figures to do their job
that you hired them to do.
And instead of refraining from getting involved in their
daily operations and management,
you want trustees somewhat involved in that?
And if that's...
If I'm understanding it correctly,
if someone can explain why?
-: Okay, Ms. Cargill.
Can you speak to that?
-: Well I didn't make this motion yesterday
and I'm trying to remember who did.
And so I think the maker of
the motion should probably address it.
-: Okay.
Do you know who that is?
Do we know who that is?
-: I can't remember.
-: Chris had his hand up.
-: Dr. Ellis.
Did you?
-: Dr. Robinson. -: I did it.
-: Okay, Matt.
-: I did (chuckles).
-: All right, Dr. Robinson.
-: Yeah it was combining that the...
Let's see.
We had taken two that refrains
from involvement in daily operations management
and the one above it
that provides oversight and management
and combined, merged them into one,
in which was the focuses his actions.
I mean, focus his actions on district-wide policymaking,
planning, goal, setting, process monitoring,
and evaluation and restricts its involvement
in daily operations and management.
I don't know.
Yeah, that was... Are you wondering Georgina if
you would prefer refrain versus restricts?
-: Yes.
Very specifically re-frames versus restricts.
-: I'd be fine with that.
Replacing those two words.
-: Is that a motion, Ms. Perez?
-: Yeah.
If the ad hoc committee...
If that's the entire explanation behind it, then yes.
Because I can't...
I don't see the need to pay superintendents this money
if the trustees are gonna do the job.
Right?
So if the superintendent is gonna do the job,
then let them do the job.
So if that's the explanation behind it, then yeah.
Our trustees should refrain from it.
-: Dr. Ellis.
Well okay.
So there's a proposed amendment.
Let's...
-: Can I speak to that?
-: We need a second first.
-: Also I can do it for debate.
-: Okay.
Dr. Ellis then you can speak.
-: Yeah and the whole process
I think it was designed to start with
a positive instead of refraining.
It started with focuses its action.
So it changed it to begin with a positive
but the fact that
(faintly speaking) they restrict or refrain
I really don't think there's a difference
in what those two words are telling
it to do that school Board members
are not to be involved in daily operations management.
The task we recommended was restricts instead of refrains.
But I think that's essentially saying the exact same thing.
They're not to do it.
They're restricted from doing it
or they should refrain from doing it.
But I don't see there's a key difference
between using restricts or refrains.
-: Well, is there...
Let me put it this way.
Is there any objection to Ms. Perez's amendment?
Okay.
I can't see everyone.
So is there anyone Monica
that you can see indicating that?
-: I don't see anyone.
No.
-: Okay.
So I'm hearing no objection then it's agreed that
that amendment will be implemented.
So it will now say refrains from
instead of restricts it's.
Okay?
Okay.
And Ms. Bahorich.
-: Yeah.
Along that same item
it was brought up earlier with Jeff
that we did strike the one above it,
two points above it says provides oversight of management.
And that's really a pretty important first thing
in my opinion.
So I would want to add that
to focuses its action on.
And then the amendment would be providing oversight
of management, comma... Sorry.
Providing oversight of management on district-wide policy
blah, blah, blah.
You know presiding oversight and management, comma,
district-wide policymaking comma, et cetera.
So we would insert focuses its action
on an insert providing oversight
of management at the beginning of that list.
-: Okay.
-: So we don't lose that thought.
-: Okay, comma, okay,
there you go.
So is that... Can you see the screen there?
Ms. Bahorich? -: Yeah.
-: All right, is there a second
to that proposed amendment?
Dr. Ellis do you second that?
Yes, Okay.
And do you have a comment on it as well?
No?
Okay.
Any further discussion?
Is there any objection to inserting that language?
-: Yeah, I object.
I mean, that really seems
to imply micro-managing of the superintendent
and that was the impression
that was actually the impression
of Board members in TASB yesterday too, so.
-: Okay.
That's fine, so we won't do it by acclimation.
So it's open for discussion.
Any further discussion on providing oversight
of management being reinserted
or inserted into that bullet point?
Any hands Monica?
-: No, sir.
-: Okay.
All right, we ready for a vote then?
-: Ms. Hardy's got her hand up now.
-: Yeah, Ms. Hardy.
-: I'm a bit confused.
I thought it was the goal
of the Board to provide oversight of the management.
Not to get into the weeds beyond the...
That's where they're supposed to stop.
Is right there with the superintendent.
The superintendent.
That's how the Board
interacts with the superintendent.
Not beyond that, not to get into
the buildings or anything like that.
But it just seems like
that is what they should be doing of their goal.
-: Okay.
Any further discussion on that proposed amendment?
I can see everybody now.
So if you do just wave.
No?
Okay, hearing none, we're ready to vote then.
All those in favor of that amendment signify
by raising your hand please.
Six, seven, eight.
-: I see 10 in favor.
-: I think so.
All those opposed, please.
-: I see four opposed.
-: Right.
Okay.
I think the motion passes 10 to four.
Okay.
Any further amendments to the framework?
Ms. Bahorich, and then Ms. Perez-Diaz.
-: Okay.
This I promise members I'm not gonna belabor this.
I only want one more for your consideration.
If you go to the number one section, Vision and Goals,
what we had there previously
that was recommended by the ad hoc committee was,
"The Board ensures creation of a shared vision
and measurable goals that improve student outcomes."
Yesterday, opportunities and experiences ended up
being added to the overall Vision and Goals statement.
We had this discussion in the ad hoc committee
because at one point,
the document did contain experiences
in the vision statement.
The main vision statement.
But decided as an ad hoc to move it down,
and if you look down
one, two, three, four, five bullet points, we put it there
instead of in the vision statement, and here's what it says.
"Embraces, supports, and fulfills the vision
that all students receive what they need
to learn, thrive, and grow,
including resources, opportunities, and experiences."
And the reason we decided to highlight it
in the body of the Vision and Goals
is because opportunities and experiences, absolutely.
We want as many opportunities and experiences
for our kids as possible,
and so we want to support that idea,
but what we are not trying to do is say the mere fact
that a student had an opportunity
or an experience is not the same
as an outcome from that opportunity and experience,
and by moving it to the vision statement at the top,
it makes outcomes, opportunities, and experiences
as if they're the same thing.
And again, it's back to this conversation
about what's an input, an output, and an outcome.
And we wanna help Boards stay focused on
really identifying those measurable student outcomes,
and then opportunities and experiences
will help them get there, hopefully.
But they should not appear as equivalent
to a student outcome.
-: Okay, so is your motion
to strike opportunities and experiences?
-: Just from there, right.
-: Okay, from there, you mean under the Visions and Goals?
-: Yeah, just at the very top, right.
-: Heading, okay, is there a second to that?
Okay, I can't see- -: I'll second.
-: Okay, thank you, Ms. Cargill.
Okay, discussion on striking,
opportunities and experiences,
from the Roman numeral I Visions and Goal heading.
-: Ms. Perez-Diaz and Dr. Ellis have their hand's up.
-: Okay, Ms. Perez-Diaz, and then Dr. Ellis.
-: Thank you, vice chair.
So I have to speak against this motion specifically
because I think member Bahorich
made a really great point.
I think that opportunities and experiences rises
from my perspective, above student outcomes
in this because opportunities
and experiences result in outcomes.
I asked that the Board consider
our populations of students,
our districts that have less resource,
that have less access.
And when we look at strictly outcomes,
a lot of that is driven
by opening up opportunity and experience for our youth.
I've seen it personally myself.
And so I think it's really, really important
to keep that as part of
the vision and goals statement that launches
into the work that we hope that they see.
So I am thinking about
our districts and our students
who have less resource,
who have less access and opportunity
when I'm thinking about why it's so important
to keep this language here.
-: Okay.
Dr. Ellis.
-: Yeah and this is the one I feel pretty strongly about
and you won't find a bigger supporter
of the fact that we have student outcomes in there
than how I feel with this in the fact
that there's recommendations to really strike student
outcomes throughout the entire document.
Literally every time it was up
and I worked yesterday to make sure that
we kept student outcomes in the preamble.
We have student outcomes in section one.
We have it multiple times
in section three words that defined exactly
what we want them to do with student outcomes.
Now in this heading of section number one,
it does talk about student outcomes
in the fourth bullet points.
And it also talks about opportunities and experiences
in the fifth bullet points.
So I think in that kind of visionary first statement,
you're talking about all the things
about students' outcomes, opportunities,
and experiences that are detailed below
on what we wanna see out of those three words.
I think if you're not watering down
the importance of student outcomes specifically by itself
because that's clearly documented multiple places
that we kept in that I worked to keep
in throughout the document
but I think this opportunities
and experiences fits nicely
in additional student outcomes
because it's listed in those bullets below there.
-: Okay.
Any further discussion?
Monica, do you see any more hands?
-: Dr. Robinson.
I think, yeah.
Dr. Robinson has his hand up.
-: Okay, Dr. Robinson.
Yeah if you guys can use- -: (faintly speaking)
-: Oh, okay.
-: Yeah, I didn't hear any objective reason really
from Donna why she wanted to strike that.
I mean (chuckles) I think it's pretty benign
and I think the point that...
Why that was put in is what Marisa was talking about
and what Kevin Brown specifically, matter of fact,
it was his language and we agreed with it on the ad hoc,
is that it gives more meat to, that there was emphasis
that outcomes is important, but it just gives more,
it expands if you will, (voice echoing)
what, (voice echoing again) yeah, okay.
-: Okay, all right, Ms. Davis.
-: Thank you, let me unmute myself.
I wanna better understand experiences,
especially experiences that the Board can discuss.
So can you give me like a specific example
of a student experience that we're talking about here?
And that can go to any of the members
who are in the committee
and they have anything specific to share,
maybe Kevin Brown share some specific examples
of student experiences and those types of things
that we would like for Boards to discuss.
-: Okay, Dr. Robinson, and then Dr. Ellis.
-: Yeah, experiences would be like participating
in extracurricular activities.
And that would be probably a key example.
Basically student events or things that they're doing
that go beyond just standardized test scores,
opportunities would be things that they get exposed to,
like getting to take out dual credit in high school.
So those are examples of opportunities and experiences.
Something that goes beyond just
what the star scores reflect on a school.
-: Okay, Dr. Ellis.
-: Mr. Davis, I think some of the things
that were specifically talked about in the ad hoc committee
was when you talk about experiences, improving food service,
maybe an experience that you're (indistinct)
that's not necessarily an outcome,
making sure that the transportation department,
how the transport to school is an experience,
but that's not necessarily an outcome.
Those were two examples that were brought up
in the ad hoc committee, in a sense it was stated that,
if you want education (faintly speaking),
that's an experience more than just a specific goal
of an outcome.
So that's what the term was used in experience for.
-: Thank you so much for that clarification, thank you.
-: Ms. Cargill, and then Ms. Perez-Diaz.
-: Yeah, I just wanted to correct, I think Dr. Robinson
inadvertently said that the ad hoc committee agreed on this,
and they did not,
this was a TASB recommendation from yesterday.
So I just wanted to clarify that.
-: Okay, Ms. Perez-Diaz.
-: Thank you, and so I will say
I though do you remember that Dr. Kevin Brown
did specifically mention this and offer this
as an addition to this
particular line, and I was only going to add another example
as it pertains specifically to Board members.
Board members are responsible for budgetary decisions
in this school district, so before them sometimes comes
after-school programming that requires those decisions.
And so, after-school programming is another example
of what those opportunities and experiences could be,
as opposed to specifically outcomes;
not necessarily outcomes but, bringing in great partners
for after-school programming is another example.
-: Okay.
Anything further?
Let's see, I lost my participants' screen.
-: Yes Mr. Rowley.
If somebody from the school initiatives can explain to me:
when we're talking about an extracurricular activity
or transportation service,
and I'm just pulling stuff that was just mentioned,
not for any particular reason, just because those were
the examples mentioned.
Are we saying that student outcomes are the equivalent
of an extracurricular activity?
I think that's were there's some objection, right?
I mean, we do believe that student outcomes
are more important, right?
Or because it's all on this line, are we saying that
they're equivalent?
-: Dr. Ellis?
-: I think really what happened in the
ad-hoc committee, and in the committee
when we discussed this yesterday, and really from all the
stakeholders I've talked to, all feel that student outcomes
is most important.
And in fact, when that proposal was originally made
in the ad hoc committee, the transcriber just happened
to put it last, and they specifically put it to the front
of the list because it was most important.
I don't think that just because the three of them
are in a list of three things, that it necessarily
equates them as equals, and the fact that student outcomes
was specifically moved to the front
shows the importance there, but I think that, to your point,
just because the things are listed to together does not
put them all as equals.
But they're all important things under the vision and goals.
-: Anything further?
Monica, do you see anymore hands?
Ah, Ms. Bahorich.
Ms. Bahorich: And really, this is just a...
I was hoping that Mr. Cottrill might be able to kinda
weigh in on this particular thing.
If he had any comments. Mr. Cottrill: Absolutely!
Yeah, I'll say that I think it was well-represented
that as a result of some rich discussion
at the ad hoc committee,
that there was a desire to retain alignment
around student outcomes
and elevating that in isolation
of opportunities and experiences,
and that was consensus coming out of the ad hoc committee
because, I think,
to the point of transportation services,
and food services, and extracurricular activities,
by putting them here,
in what I would consider right next to student outcomes,
it allows for the conflation of those items
to be placed with the same level of priority and emphasis,
and quite frankly, we absolutely believe
that the most important priority of school systems,
and particularly for Boards and superintendents
is to improve the student outcomes
across the school district.
That it's not about standardized tests,
but much rather, it's about truly creating better outcomes
across the local education agency,
and that promote the fortunes and futures of the students,
and so absolutely looking at student outcomes
as being, I guess, aligned throughout the document,
this framework,
and then, also creating a sense of isolation
that it is the most paramount focus of a school Board
within the vision and goals.
-: Okay, all right.
We're really only supposed to allow
two opportunities to speak per measure,
but we've been pretty lenient about that,
but Ms. Bahorich, and then Dr. Ellis,
and then we're gonna move on.
-: Okay, the only thing I would say is
maybe we could insert something that...
and I believe very strongly
that opportunities and experiences
actually do create better student outcomes,
so that whole discussion around whole child
really resonated with me,
that we had in the ad hoc committee,
and actually, I inserted experiences and opportunities
throughout, in more than one place
because of that rich discussion we had
about the importance of the whole child.
I'm wondering, perhaps, if I could amend
what is being suggested
and say that improved student outcomes
and include opportunities and experiences.
-: Or maybe as well as?
-: Yeah, well, now, I...
Again, it's the opportunities and experiences
that create the student outcomes.
Do you see what I'm saying?
That's the difference.
You're not setting a goal of having an opportunity.
You want a goal of having a kid
because they got the opportunity
to have a particular outcome, so I...
By saying that "improve student outcomes,"
as I was suggesting, putting something in there
and "include opportunities and experiences,"
I think might help to not equivocate those as,
remember Pat was suggesting there, is an issue,
the way we have it right now.
-: Well, I have a question for Ms. Cruz.
Isn't the motion before us is to strike
"opportunities and experiences?"
-: It is.
You can't get there from here.
-: Right, yeah. -: What you could do,
is you could say, "If everyone will agree
to either allow me to withdraw this proposal, Ms. Bahorich,
or defeats it, then I will come back
with another proposal to insert the words before this,
but you can't get there from here parliamentarily.
-: Yeah, you can't have, you can't have a motion to strike
and then also have a motion to include
in the same, -: Okay,
what I'd like to do is withdraw the strike,
but then come back with another motion.
-: Okay.
Is there any objection to the withdrawal
of Ms. Bahorich's motion?
-: I don't see any objection.
-: Don't see any objection, okay.
So that is withdrawn.
Okay, Ms. Bahorich, what is your alternative measure?
-: So I would insert the words after outcomes
"and offers opportunities and experiences."
-: Okay, is there a second?
-: Second.
-: (indistinct), seconded. -: Okay, thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Davis.
All right, okay.
Cumber discussion on this proposed amendment,
which now says, "and offers,"
actually it inserts "and offers"
because "opportunities and experiences,"
I think it was already there, right?
Dr. Ellis?
-: Now, I would speak again
since I think it's very clear
that those are important things,
all three of those, that are outlined, as I said before,
throughout the other bullet point.
I agree that student outcomes is a goal
and those other ones aren't necessarily measurable goals,
but the statement is saying
"shared vision and measurable goals"
and I think those are, the "opportunities and experience"
are part of the shared vision that the Board's gonna create
and when you say "student outcomes and offers,"
the "offering opportunities and experience,"
I really don't think fits in "Vision and Goals,"
that's gonna be something
that would be in "System and Processes."
So I think it's clear that those three things are important,
we're not, just because they're on the list
it doesn't conflate the three of 'em together.
Student outcomes was intentionally put first
in something that is outlined in "Vision and Goals"
before that, or I'm sorry, after that.
-: Okay.
Any further discussion?
-: I can't see hands being waved.
I can only see 'em raised on the-
-: Mr. Chair, can we have a minute to digest it?
-: Sure.
Let me ask in the meantime,
is there any further discussion while you're digesting?
Anything, Monica?
-: I don't see any.
-: Okay, (chuckles) so then we're digesting, digesting.
'Kay, we ready to move forward with the vote now?
Okay, let's do that.
Thank you, Ms. Cruz.
Okay, so the motion before us is
insert the words "and offers."
All in favor, signify by raising your hand, please.
Four? Five?
-: Five.
-: Five in favor.
All opposed.
Oh, Ms. Davis, were you in favor or opposed?
Favor? Okay.
Six, then.
All opposed, please raise your hand.
-: See eight-
-: Eight? Yeah.
I see eight as well,
so the motion fails six to eight.
'Kay, any further amendments to the framework?
-: Ms. Perez-Diaz. -: Ms. Perez-Diaz, mm-hmm?
-: I don't have any amendments.
I just have a question,
and maybe this is for legal,
so it was brought to my attention
that in Roman numeral IV, advocacy and engagement,
our very last bullet point there,
the latter half of that sentence,
I just wanna be really clear
that we're not getting into any electioneering issues.
That was a concern of some of the school Board members
that I had a chance to speak with,
and so I don't know if maybe staff or legal
can help us answer that question.
-: Which particular part of IV are you talking about?
(voice echoing)
-: I'm sorry. It's item IV.
(voice echoing)
the very last bullet, (voice echoing again).
And it's the part of the sentence.
It's the part (indistinct) capacity within the community.
Let's see.
Put the parts of (indistinct) within the community
for potential school Board members.
So I think it says promote school Board service
by educating the community
about the role of a school Board
and building leadership capacity within the community
for potential future school Board members.
Is that the bullet?
-: That's the bullet, mhmm.
-: I don't think that is advocating electioneering
but just simply talking about
encouraging community members to step up.
It could... Certainly someone could violate that
and take the school Board's job
as to putting out a slate or something like that.
That'd be wrong.
You certainly can't do that.
But I don't see a problem with talking about
the importance of the role of the school Board member
and encouraging people to take a role
as opposed to the school Board voting
that this particular person is the one that we want
for seat number five as a school Board.
-: Okay, very good.
That just clears up a question that I had.
-: Okay.
Anything further on this item?
-: Dr. Ellis has his hand up.
-: Okay, Dr. Ellis.
-: I think what that probably goes to
to Ms. Perez-Diaz' point
is the fact that as the framework ties into
what training is required
and actually in six of the seven different trainings
that are required or six of 'em
it specifically says a candidate for the school Board
may complete the training
up to one year before he or she is elected or approved.
And it has that for almost each
and every one of those trainings.
So are scenarios where they can do
the local Board orientation.
They can do the provisions to TEC.
All of those they're allowed
to do it before they're elected.
So I think that's what that's referring to.
-: Okay.
Anything further?
Okay. -: Yes.
-: Okay, who was that?
Ms. Perez?
Ms.Perez: Yes, it was.
Thank you.
I agree with my colleague from converse.
I think that everything in this statement
is great until we get to
the four potential future school Board members.
While we think that this can be innocuous,
I think that this opens the door
for exactly what Ms. Perez-Diaz is saying,
that somebody can easily push that line too far.
If there's a recommendation
or if she's recommending strike
ending the sentence at the word community,
I think I would speak in favor of that.
-: Well, the question is whether or not
that's a proposed amendment.
-: So, yes, let me go ahead and I'd like to
propose striking the language
"for potential future school Board members."
I wanna say,
I don't remember if during the conversation
perhaps I was the one who proposed
this language or something like this.
My intent is basically, you know,
we have a lot of Board members that roll off
and then sometimes we don't have
people in the community
that are prepped or that want to come into these roles.
And so my intent was essentially
how do we build leadership capacity in the community
for individuals who may later on want to run in positions?
And so I say that all to say that perhaps
as people are listening in
they can think about alternative language to offer
if that's, you know, to anybody's...
If that's amenable to people.
-: Well, for now, are you moving to strike that language?
-: Yes. -: Is there a second?
-: Second.
-: Okay.
Further discussion.
Mr. Mercer.
-: I'm confused.
Are we talking here about
local school Boards or state school Board?
'Cause up front we talked about TEA and state Board
so is this bullet point talking
about local school Board communities or state school Board?
And I have a second question from there.
The reason I asked is because local school Boards
are nonpartisan and obviously state Board is.
-: This is all about local school Boards.
This is not about the State Board of Education.
-: Okay, so this is not, again,
am I correct that in the 9,000 ISDs
they're all nonpartisan
or are any of those partisan elections?
-: They're all nonpartisan.
-: Nonpartisan, okay.
That's why I asked about it.
I'll stop there.
Thank you, sir.
-: Okay.
Ms. Bahorich .
Ms. Bahorich ?
-: I wanted to offer some language
that kind of hopefully gets
at Ms. Perez-Diaz and Ms. Perez's concern.
But I don't know if I can or if that's in order or not.
-: Well what is it?
And we'll see.
-: And we'll see okay.
So what we would do
is say promote school Board service by educating
the community about the role of a school Board
and encouraging leadership opportunities within
the community for potential future school Board members.
-: Yeah, I think that's...
Correct Ms. Cruz but I don't think that's in order
because it includes four potential
future school Board-Members,
and the gist of this motion is to strike that,
is that right, Ms.- -: Oh, sorry, I meant,
to strike for potential school Board members.
-: Oh! -: I meant to do that,
but it's all about encouraging leadership opportunities,
that's it, within the community, period.
-: Okay, I think this is probably one of those instances
where you could say, "If this is...
Once we vote on this, that you have a proposed amendment."
Is that right, Ms. Cruz?
-: Yes, sir. Exactly right.
-: Okay- -: Oh, okay, okay.
-: So we're still ready to vote on striking
"for potential future school Board members."
Anyone further?
Ms. Martinez, do you see any hands are waving?
-: I don't see any waving.
-: All right, we're ready to vote.
So the motion is to strike that language
from this bullet point.
All in favor, signify by raising your hand, please.
(speaking under breath) 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
11 or so, what'd you see,
Ms. Martinez? -: I think I see 13.
-: Oh, 13? Okay, I'm- -: But keep your hands up,
one more time- -: Yeah, put 'em up well.
(speaker drowns out Ms. Martinez)
Yeah, just to get it right, let's see.
-: 14 in favor. -: 14, okay.
14 in favor, so it passes unanimously.
Okay, I'm just gonna ask for any further amendments.
-: Oh, sorry.
-: Ms. Bahorich?
-: Yeah, so now we'd like to offer,
because I don't like the "building" language either,
because I think that could be misconstrued,
as Ms. Perez pointed out.
But I do like "encouraging,"
like we're encouraging leadership opportunities,
not leadership capacity.
I think that is a little less...
I think that gets at what both members were concerned about.
-: Okay, so what is your amendment?
-: So the amendment, it would now say,
"promote school Board service by educating community
about the role of the school Board and encouraging
leadership opportunities within the community," period.
-: Okay, so it's number four- -: Second.
-: Okay, there's a second. Thank you.
Ms. Cruz, you wanna share your screen?
"And encouraging..."
And is it "encouraging leadership?"
Is it strike "building" and insert "encouraging?"
-: Exactly, she's got it right.
-: Oh, I didn't see that! Okay, there you go.
All right, and we have a second.
Any discussion, further discussion on that?
You see anything Ms. Martinez?
-: No, sir.
-: Okay, me either.
All right, y'all ready to vote?
Waiting, there you go.
Okay, all in favor of that amendment
signify by raising your hand.
One, two, three, four, five,
six, seven, eight, nine.
-: I think 11.
-: 11 in favor.
All opposed?
-: One. -: One.
Just see one- <v ->One opposed.
-: Yeah, one opposed.
Motion passes 11 to one.
'Kay, any further discussion, amendments?
Going once. Going twice.
Gone, sold, okay, right now.
I'm sorry. What?
Anything further. Don't let me hurry you.
All right, I think we're ready then,
aren't we, Ms. Cruz, for,
oh, Dr. Ellis, you had something?
-: No, I've got a motion to postpone
for further consideration,
but just let me know when that's appropriate.
-: That's what I was hoping was appropriate,
but Ms. Bahorich has her hand up.
-: I don't want to belabor what we've been doing, members,
but I just wanted to point out some,
just a few areas where we've embraced the long-range plan
as part of this,
so I'm very proud of this document.
I think we've done a great job with this,
but I just wanna point out for you,
just for your own edification,
because the long-range plan, I think,
is valuable, and we used it.
If you look under framework,
the next-to-the-last bullet point,
embraces, supports, and fulfills the vision in all children,
all students receive what they need
to learn, thrive, and grow.
That was specifically from our long-range plan,
and if you look down, systems and processes,
when you look, the third bullet point from the bottom,
it says welcomes and values all people and cultures
as important stakeholders.
That was from our long-range plan.
and finally, I just wanted to point out two more.
If you go under progress and accountability,
the one, two, three, fourth bullet point,
ensures equity throughout the system
by regularly identifying inequities.
That was one of the things
that came from our long-range plan,
and finally, if you look under advocacy and engagement,
the third bullet point,
ensures multiple forms of two-way communication
that we use to engage and empower and connect.
That, again, is from our long-range plan,
so I'm very proud
that the ad hoc committee embraced this
and that you have as well.
Thank you, members.
-: 'Kay, thank you, Ms. Bahorich.
Anything further?
Dr. Ellis, you ready to make the motion?
-: I am.
-: 'Kay. -: I move to postpone
further consideration of this item
to the November, 2020 State Board of Education meeting.
-: 'Kay, is there a second?
-: Second.
-: Any objection to that?
Ms. Perez,
are you objecting or you're just- -: No.
-: Just waving. -: I was not objecting.
-: (laughing) Okay, all right. -: I was seconding
in silence. (laughs) -: Okay, yeah.
Well, I think we can do that by acclimation,
if there are no objections.
Seeing none, okay, the motion passes, okay.
Dr. Ellis, I return the helm back to you
with my sincere thanks for the opportunity to engage
in that parliamentary exercise that we just completed.
-: The last time you'll volunteer for that job, right?
-: Exactly, I'm muting my video.
No, no, I'm kidding. -: This is
after he was volunteered to do the invocation
and pledge (indistinct.) -: Yeah, well,
I just hope I redeemed myself
from botching the Texas state pledge. (laughs)
-: Marty used to consider me as friend.
I'm going to have to build that back up, though.
-: (laughing) Yeah, exactly, yeah.
-: All right, so that completes that item, correct?
We're finished with that, so that leads us
to the part of the agenda where we have report
from committees regarding agenda items posted
for discussion or committee agendas,
which I think we went through each of the committees also,
and also the time for reports
of other State Board of Education members,
regarding agenda items
and educational activities and concerns
that are going on within our individual districts.
Of course, we normally take time
to speak about what's going on with our families now.
We normally do that at the end of our regular meeting.
We'll have a chance to do that next week,
but that being said, is there any comments
on those particular items?
I would just say I think there is one exceptional one
that we need to bring up, is that Ms. Cargill is now going
to join the ranks of grandparent.
-: (cheers) And it's a girl!
-: A girl. -: I don't quite know
about girls very much, I'll need advice.
-: I'm sorry- -: You're a girl.
-: Before you wrap up, I just had a note.
There was a question about placing Chapter 61,
Potential Amendments, on the next agenda.
You talked about possibly discussing that
during that last item and then did not have that discussion,
so I just wanted to get clarification
on whether it is the Board's intent
for us to bring that rule
for your consideration at the next meeting.
-: Mr. Rowley brought that up.
Is it proper to have that discussion now,
or is that something that he can discuss with me,
just individually, and then I can make that decision
whether to put it on, or what would the proper?
-: I would prefer that. -: Yeah,
you can discuss it now.
There also can just be a request to add it to the agenda.
I just wanted to make sure we were clear
with our marching orders for- -: Yeah.
And I'll confess, I'm not very well-versed at this point
about that whole issue,
and where it's coming from.
So I'd prefer just to wait
and maybe have a conversation with Dr. Ellis.
-: And if I could add, Mr. Chair,
Marty, another good resource
would be to talk to Jeff Cottrill
because he's all over this and says-
-: Right, okay.
-: I appreciate you asking about it though, yeah.
-: Yeah, that'd be fine.
-: Great, so any other questions or comments
from members before we wrap up?
I wanna thank everyone again, as I said a couple of times,
for all this work that's taking place this week,
and we will have a very busy week next week.
Everybody stay healthy this week.
We will be one of the, I imagine,
one of the first Statewide elected bodies
that will be meeting in person.
And so we will be discussing the process of the procedures
a little more, but the goal of it all
is gonna be sure that we keep everyone's health and safety
at utmost paramount concern.
Alrighty, everyone have a good the rest of the week,
and we will see you next week.
This meeting is adjourned.