Education Committee Senate & House

The. And to you and just or what come on down to the big table. All right. Call this meeting to order. House rules for Sharon and I'm sure to fill in here a little bit. Everybody's got a got a father places or to see anybody so anyway I guess Many of you having okay I need to approve the minutes of the October. Nineteenth and twenty six meeting I have a motion I have a motion and a second okay all in favor say aye. Any oppose. All right motion carries. All right let me see I can't see. Okay now it's. Okay so you guys over and that is hard to see that far with the so. Laughter kind of holding the fort down on that side. All right let's so let's get started we have a lot of people in front of us this morning wow it's as we've been looking for this for a while it is good to have you all with this Justin manta we just glad you all are here so I'm gonna turn it over to you all and let you get started and just have your have your phone. Thank you a German we are. Really excited to be back I just put in a coffee shop and I promise it's because I lose my voice every time I talk not because I have any sort of other coughing going on. We did think about bringing a dog so that you guys can have that background noise of all the parking but I felt a little bit a little bit aggressive so we are here and we just have a separate recommendations for you today and so our goal is to go through each recommendation. Take a stop after each one I answer questions I think that's gonna be the easiest way to digest these and we'll go from there but I did want to start with some framing that you don't have here specifically in the recommendation section or the power point because you don't have the whole report yet which I let me let me love say something real quick today we will just be hearing the recommendations are what we want voting on any of this the December first the correct December first meeting they will be back with this and they will we will get a full copy of the report we will keep it for two weeks to digest that and then they will be back on the fourteenth. I think that's correct two of. The full report and then we will be able to except that report at that time so just callin you know the day is just discussion so they're gonna tell us and you have a you can answer ask questions all day long we're going to we got all afternoon thank you. And so you don't have the contacts and so I do want to start at which is some context we were absolutely to do thirty three different. Pieces of a study you do not see thirty three recommendations we did not try to walk through every line of this and come up with some recommendation to prove out that we've done the work you will have a report that includes all of that information you have had to listen to us on recorded zooms for six months or whatever it's been and listen to all that what will bring you today too today are the seven recommendations we think came out when you look at all the research in an area it pointed towards the seven recommendations so that's what we're to talk about but what we also want to highlight is the fact that we are not making a recommendation on the equity in distribution piece of this we we've looked at the equity of the system and generally you have an equitable system there are pieces of these recommendations that would probably improve that but we're not making that specific piece we want to also remind folks that you are one of the few states less than a handful of states who actually have real meaning behind your formula right which can be a catch twenty two for you all but I can as of. Lay person walk in and know how many teachers are is a school going to get and how many principals and how many of you know you are explicit in what you've done and so that allows folks both to tell you know really come back in and question where those lines are but you are making a a explicit Senate decisions and populating your foundation level based on those decisions and that other states just don't do that I mentioned to someone earlier in Colorado where I live it's been twenty six years since anyone revisited the school finance formula in a meaningful way and at that time it was just an amount of money per kid and it's been inflated for twenty six years there's no meaning behind it so you know you are on the cutting edge of that people can disagree with the levels should be or what the process should be but you are as a state making a concerted effort which is part of the lake view to an and being response a response responding to like you to make these very definitive set of resources available for folks look at and how it builds up your formulas I just want to let you know that is that is unique at some level for your state and there's only two or three other states who do that so that's where we kick off. it will go to the first ledge already up When we yes what we're gonna do today again it's just go through the the recommendations we had a whole bunch of studies but those studies really focused on fiscal and performance data analysis using both department of ads data and be a large data we had the district survey that was talking about the current resource you some practices we had the fifteen case study schools where we were able to talk to successful schools in the state and take a look at how they implement resources we had national literature reviews we looked at current practices in states we focus very heavily on the S. R. E. B. and Massachusetts of the states that we're looking at and we also looked at those three previous studies and all the work that Biel ours done so we we've we've you know there's a lot that went in there when we look at kind of literature review. We had a host of educator panels that included superintendents and CFO's and principals and teachers from around the state and we an online survey which I think was at about half teachers taking that survey thousands of folks took the survey so we had a lot of feedback on what we're doing and then of course we can't help ourselves with some additional research we had to go out and do on both the quantitative and qualitative side so. We are gonna present seven recommendations were will present a recommendation and then we'll really talk about why we got there so that's the context in the evidence. we use context a couple times in here but at little different way but. We want to tell you how we landed on a recommendation let's remember that this study did not ask us to tell you how much you should spend we that that was explicitly not a part of this overall work this was not an adequacy study and that we recognize that it is the legislature's role to determine adequacy and that no state has unlimited resources you know to fund all of its priorities so that was within the context of what we are working with here. So we again where we have all these seven recommendations it was when we look at everything we looked at all the different types of research we just kept coming back to these areas of saying this is what we we would recommend we will have some considerations in other parts of the report so we might say this is something you might want to do or you you could consider this but it didn't get to the level of a recommendation that we want to highlight right up front in its own chapter and its own language. So we're gonna start out with a systems recommendations the first one is very much linked to one of the explicit assets of the R. F. P. which was to come back to you all and talked about how you could do your adequacy review and and what are alternative ways to do an adequacy review. so when we think about this. With you know god we we really think the state should do a hybrid approach using multiple different adequacy approaches and it comes from this idea that would be within lake view there is this need to have a constant study and review and adjustment to the funding system you all clearly already do that BLR does a lot of advocacy work they're doing a lot of work for you every two years you also have the evidence based studies that have been done in three oh six and fourteen so there's been a lot of work that's been done. and you have this two year cycle with BLR what's true is there have been a number of adjustments made to the matrix and supplementation but what is also true is very few of those adjustments have been made to the large FTP pieces of the model effectively those largest you know the the personnel pieces of the ET model have kind of stayed consistent sent the first in the implementation there's been some changes but there haven't been a lot of a change of with those resources over time. So we would recommend that in addition to the two year cycle. You should conduct the larger scale approach utilizing at least two adequacy approaches and that you would do this every six to ten years and we're not saying that should float they build it six years sometimes maybe we do a ten year sometimes we would suggest that you sat in policy that every ten years let's say you do a large scale re look at what's going on you need to still do we think at least in the short term your kind every two year review we think that's part of the president that's been set in meeting lake view so that folks know that you're doing a constant review what we think is good about let's say a ten year window is that test change every within ten years and have probably multiple test changes for your students education will look a little different as we're talking about earlier education public next year's no look a lot different than it did two years ago with everything else that's going on expectations for students change student demographics change you know in a decade they're like you know most kids are through the majority of their education over ten your wind and so having some sort of window where you're doing this bigger review using multiple approaches we think would be useful and we think it's gonna be useful for a couple reasons will highlight you know from the evidence but we want to make sure that it reviews of your you reviews your base or foundation amount that it really focuses on the student characteristic adjustments so E. L. economically disadvantaged and special education and that also has a focus on the differences that districts facing costs due to size or regional cost differences and Sarah talk about why we were highlighting those last two bullets but a lot of our study came out you know showing that there's real needs to to look at the resources in those areas. We spend a little time at the last meeting talking about the four available approaches you all clearly use the evidence based approach. It's a great approach for having that explicit set of resources laid out that folks can review every two years it it's a unit of absent that resource based approach allows you to do that you could also use something like professional judgment approach which would also give you resource base what professional judgment does a little bit better we think is that it can have multiple district sizes and would allow you to start to really think through will are there differences and costs when you have a small district with smaller schools or even a really large district with with different high schools it starts to give you a little bit of sensitivity analysis for the differences in district size which is something that we start through the evidence I will talk about here in a minute. You can also use the cost function approach to look at more of the differences in students and. District characteristics and what's nice about the cost option approach it would be very complimentary to a professional judgment or an evidence based approach in that it's data driven so it's coming at it from a different lands right it's looking at statistical analysis verses building up from up resource base that you would have had the two different types of approaches working together every ten years let's say to give you a sense of what's going on. And then there course there's also the successful schools approach which if you want to kind of a good dipstick at a more frequent basis to say well how much at a per people level are our most successful schools or districts spending that approach gives you that ability what is also good about both cost function and. Successful schools is you can also get some sensitivity analysis to level of performance both of those models provide you with the ability to say well what if we want this level of performance on what if you want a little higher a little lower you can actually take a look at the differences in resource need based on very ation in performance. I've said this a couple times you know keeping the two year review I think we do think is important. Thanks a lot. We do think you know to to actually put into play a cost function or successful schools are probably even a professional judgment approach you are gonna have to have some discussion of what level of reforms are you looking at and that's again why talk about it for using some of the data driven approach is you can actually at multiple levels to have an understanding if there's differences in resource need at those different levels but that will need to be some consideration of what you want your students to do in order to implement most of these other approaches. And then at this last light ordinance are digging into this again is that we want this focus really on student groups and district size or casa living differences across districts. And this is coming from and I'm sure you can really read the slide out with the table but. What came up over and over in our analysis and socially or data analysis that was you know with our partners at west add is that your subpopulations really struggle on performance and this is not unique to your state this is true across the country right that we have explicit needs for your economically disadvantaged your E. L. in your special education students and so for example we're thinking about proficiency levels so and what we said is any students who are at levels three or four. About thirty five percent of your economically disadvantaged students meet that level. Sixty three percent of your non economically disadvantaged students meet that level so that's a nearly thirty percent percentage point gap you have a similar percentage point gap a little higher for ET AL students do you have a me even higher gap for your special education students and this is true if you look both at the law or math and so in the end you know insuring that you have the right adjustments in your system for your economically disadvantaged your English learners in your special that are really important and and we can tell it's really important because of some of what's coming out here with the performance of students. We also know from the stakeholder engagement and BLR data that to us the district really struggling to provide the resources needed especially for these populations a couple things that we heard is that. For special education in the L. districts are generally going into other parts of written of revenue in order to cover the cost of the students one of the pots they often turn to is actually your ESA funding and so in the end as much and there's there's a lot less crowd here's a few less like I'm gonna get something thrown at me when I say certain things but. The administrators I think really like the flexibility yes a I don't want to not mention that they really like the fact that they can use that for things what worried us is the number of other things are using it as a funding for dilutes the money that's actually available FOR ESA funding not if you're going out and saying well we need to use it for acts that isn't perfectly correlated with having higher economically disadvantaged populations that's pulling some of the dollars away from those kids so we you know if that's true of all funding if if you only want you have one dollars only spend it once it turns out and that so just really thinking that peace through. Next what we also heard is that you know the matrix right now doesn't differentiate by district size and there's just some real question about efficiency for your smaller districts so smaller districts Rick you know reported. Difficulties resource saying their schools at the current matrix funding because they often have some of the need for smaller class sizes so they have to take resources from somewhere and house in the matrix to overcome having thirteen or fourteen kids in a classroom versus you know twenty twenty three twenty five whatever those numbers are as you go up. will look in here now It. Yes so that's a I have my slides out of order we had a minute will a bill shall you kind of where that plays out as we go to the next slide. What you'll see here is on the left in each of these sets of columns there are your smallest districts and on the right are your largest districts and the left side of columns are your average student teacher ratios and you'll see years your smallest your district Quinn tile has about half as many kids on average per class as your largest. So that's just an economy the skills you know remember these class size numbers we talked about this last time include everybody in the school I'm all teaching staff so they're not actually you're not gonna walk in your small schools in the state and see seven kids in every classroom whether an indication of just it being more expensive a purpose got a student level to run your small settings. And that also comes out sorry that was student teacher ratios that's a number of teachers in school and it also comes out as your average class size so you have about six less students on average in your small settings versus your big settings and just so that just cost more and so one of the questions is how do they do that right because they're all being funded with the same matrix what we'll see on the next slide. That in part they do that by paying teachers less. If you have to have more of somebody you have to pay the last if you have the same set of resources to do it basically and so what you'll see is in the smallest quintiles teachers are paid on average around forty two thousand dollars in the largest they're paid not nine thousand dollars more now again the legislature has done a lot of work recently in some of the funding that they're putting in trying to you know make some movement on teacher class sizes and we heard about that and and educators are very appreciative of that but when you look at the data. What ends up happening is that you see the split and then you also even see it just looking at rural versus urban your rural communities which tend to be smaller clearly paid about eight thousand seven thousand less per teacher then you're more urban settings and we'll have some other data here in a minute that that will build on that in another recommendation. So in the end we think having a multi approach study so either be too approaches or or even more and most states who are implementing these types of things now are doing multiple will allow you to really get that focus on the special needs populations we just walk through and the differences face by districts one of the things other states do we just want to mention that is they do have a district sides adjustment so you have an isolated adjustment actually couple isolated adjustments in your formula we we recognize this exist we've almost on this long enough to know everything that's going on there still something we won't know I promise but what it doesn't do is just explicitly look at the relationship between size and resource need now that brings up other questions about consolidation of all those other things that that always come up we start talking about that but. Structurally on the fiscal side being a small district tends to have a higher cost needs if you want to be able to provide the same educational opportunity which is and the and the the lands that were really to. All right that's a whole. A recommendation and chairs we are happy to take questions on that if you'd like to. Let's go into that senator Elliott. Thank you Mr chair and my question goes back to the use of the yes a funds are where there being used in all kind of different ways as the as opposed to what we might of originally thought. Anywhere in here do you make any recommendation about that are you give us that information but is there anything on. Dacian lies about it. Senator in the it we we do not have a specific recommendation here about what we often talk about putting guard rails on certain funding I think. as you got to a place as a state where you've maybe more explicitly in our mind kind of thought about those relationships we we actually think putting some Senate guardrails but not super tight guardrails not a A bad policy position I think right now the feedback we received from districts and schools and CFO's is specifically that if you were to restrict IDSA funding right now it would choke off pretty dramatically a lot of what districts are doing to kind of survive in certain areas and so we did not make that recommendation I think you would likely be something you'd want to consider coming out of a of a bigger study that that address these more specifically and and the other I don't know if I'm asking a question just wanna just talk about what it seems to me another way to approach this might be the use of these funds. And I know BLR has given us a list of all the things that were used for. Could that it would make sense that that's not the way we intended the funds to be used if we could somehow sit down and identify the manger waste the money is being used and then let that inform our overall funding formula. With that be a logical thing to do Senator yes that would be logical I have to do with a lot of things I see the grin on your face. We had a recession or you know everything in here we try to make really logical logic and and you know kind of policy on school finance these have a logic sequence behind it yeah your I think an actual recommendations five and six and seven house where there's some tangentially or were read making some recommendations because of what we heard yes a resources being spent on or saw. In the data where we think well if you did acts it might free up resources from yes so we we had we actually have that's built some of all right thank you thank you Mr chair. I look forward to. We're trying to get the volume adjusted were little out. Represent bring her. I believe that you yes thank you Mr chair out of yes Mister servicing I want to go back to the comments that you may be additionally before you got into the recommendations you talked about of Arkansas being explicit would respect his decisions about funding so my question is how does Arkansas compared to the other two states that have expressed explicit decisions about funding regarding their achievement gaps as reflected on page ten of your recommendations. So are they doing better the because is it do you do better because you have explicit decisions or is that just what that's a that's a great question and I can not answer it with the data right now Wyoming has been held out sometimes and this is the state probably most similar to to Arkansas built using evidence based models as having pretty good need scores because that in the end really you're just looking at the nape if you're trying to be compared of and that becomes a little bit more difficult is that that's the only national assessment we can have but I I can't answer that because I haven't looked at the subgroup data but that's something that we could hopefully someone who's up with that I will write it down because I don't think they can hear yet but we could definitely take a look at I think more to the point on the explicit nature is that it allows for. Real discussion about if those resources are at the right level and how they should be allocated right you you have you have to find get not on the spending side districts are allowed to spend these dollars as they see fit fit but you have built a resourcing model that has some real explicit conceptual framework of what a school needs to look like to be you know for students to to be served and that at least allows you to know that you've considered. What you've considered in that model so we're gonna talk in recognition five about two areas that we think are explicitly considered in the model right now you can't do that in other states be able to tell you I don't have enough money to do acts but they can actually tell you within the funding model this just isn't considered and so I think that that provides some power to the model so that folks can have actual informed discussion about what it what is or isn't considered now again districts can spend it as they see fit but you you know we can say explicitly there is an assistant principal in the model it's not the districts are buying ex you know principal assistant principals it's just not currently laid out in the law. Thanks thank you Mr. Absent back your first reaction Lowery your Mike probably hot because the animals so reserve back you're recognized. Thank you Mr chair of what my question is about budget recommendation for the larger review every six to ten years and how that relates to other schools the other states schools in other districts in the state so should say so. Given that we seem to be one of the few states that are spelling this all out in the matrix do some of the other states that are doing the same thing as we are they actually using the the larger looking ten to six years are. Our our would be the exclusive with the offices are going to subgroup I mean I am asking is the other guys are subgroup doing the this ten to six year outlook yes Representative. Wyoming I think it's again the most similar they did they did go every five years that's a part of their Campbell case so they're looking at every five years and and they've actually done it somewhat more frequently sometimes lose every three years but they have an every five year look I think similar to you all they get results they don't always make an adjustment you know in every piece that the study said you could do something differently they they get the information they take a full consideration of that information on the side kind of what adjustments to make to their their study state like Maryland their goal was to do it every ten years they do not have an explicit base like Arkansas or Wyoming does there's was a per pupil amount and so then every ten years they wanted to have a review of kind of where that per pupil amount. That looks like if you did another study so those are the states are doing it most frequently in and actually have it in law to to to review it. And Representative just to add to that Wyoming also in their updating it every five years has tended to use the evidence based approach which there's is built on and then I think it had been about fourteen when they did a a multi approach. There. So. One other question. Correct so then the gross shift gears annual they're talking about the the student to teacher racial and the smaller school districts and how that compares across larger to smaller school district in your opinion would you say that a. Of. The difference in the funding there creates a A non equitable. Situation those school districts. That's I think it it. Absent of it definitely presents more of a challenge for the smaller districts in order to keep the same level of staff as far as let's say master's degrees or qualified second classrooms and we're actually look at that a little bit recommendation to because we we have a more targeted focus there it doesn't come up in our more basic equity analysis just because we don't tend to wait look at size quite in the same way we're looking at overall resource not that teacher resource but it definitely we think has an impact on the the teacher resource when you just look at that that leads. Thank you. Reservoir you're recognized. Thank you Mr chair. When we a as the education make committee first started discussing having. A new adequacy study I'm over here I'm over here behind Representative Beck said That's no comment on your head I just want you to know that The last the last report that we received before we actually took the vote was from superintendents of school districts that were at that three hundred and fifty students size and how they were saying that they they just have been extremely difficult time with the matrix it's establish of five hundred and I apologize if the questions I'm going to ask really such sway from this recommendation of a hybrid approach but just deal with some of the data that you presented their Is there any kind of recommendation that you may that a that a matrix based on. The lowest. Denominator that we allow which is three hundred fifty students district that that would help create obviously it would probably throughout. All the recommendations that we make it would probably mean they would have to allocate more money but is that something that would be a desirable approach in terms of adequacy in equity with smaller school districts and I have a follow up to that as well. I think we would suggest trying to do more of an adjustment for the smaller places because if you set your model at the kind of let's say highest need resource need. No one can ever say anyone education over funded right but you would in theory be providing more than enough resources at the house at that your biggest settings and so to us I think it's more focus of can you identify where the the issues are the small sitting I would say we're probably seeing some disconnect in the overall system of we know it's a five hundred student district my god is that your below a thousand fifteen hundred your district are struggling with size adjustments that even the five hundred isn't quite doing what maybe we think it's going to do because we know when you so in in school finance we call sending the reverse J. it's a J. curve but it's actually reverse J. the cost differences but at a per pupil level in your smallest districts as you get that three fifty or two hundred or for in order fifty they're exponential and many states your smallest districts are funded at twice the level. AS at kind of an average two thousand three thousand student district in order to provide the same opportunity you know the overall cost of the system is actually pretty low when you do that because there's just so few students at the small places but in the end you have the opportunity to ensure and educational opportunity I thank you know can you actually provide that I do want to say if you don't have the whole report what we did find which was great in Arkansas is that your small settings are doing a pretty good job of providing CTE courses are there actually providing that a higher rate per student then your larger districts like they've done a great job of providing good opportunity but they just face some challenges to get that done especially on the teacher's side right and in previous meetings with we've talked about this lower class size at the kindergarten through third grade levels. I would assume that the smaller school districts that are at that three fifty because of your numbers here showing that they have an average class size that is dramatically lower if they're in that Lois Quinn tile and also their student to teacher ratio was lower. In your analysis did you find that that students student performance wise. Better or accelerated in those situations where they had I mean that I guess that would be the most direct evidence that we have this Arkansas centric that lower class sizes a kindergarten through third grade actually do produce of more proficiency by students did did you find that evidence represented but we did not find in controlling for everything else the class size piece. Can regardless of of setting is being it indicator performance we talked a little bit about some of the other noise we think that was in the system there eight I can go back and talk to our partners to see if there was anything on that if we could pull out just at the smallest size is what is also true is a lot of your small settings also have your highest economic have very high economically disadvantaged students population so you're the model would really be out able to be able to tease out those two pieces which is you know I thought you yeah it can be a little bit more difficult at to tease out those two pieces okay Mister two just one last question for may. Okay. All right thank you Yeah I know and and this is good guests at the analogy that I would use of the parallel that it may not bear out to be the trees but I know a lot of people. We. Choose to live in a rural setting because their cost of living is lower okay so things balance out. Ocean I would have is. Does research show that teachers to. Do you have a date they do have a lower teacher salary because that are real school district but the trade off is that they're teaching seven six or seven less students per class. Is that create a a quality a qualitative advantage to the I'm not saying that they wouldn't want more money. But is there some evidence to show that some teachers would say you know I can live with less money considering that really my school day is going to be a little bit easier on me because I am teaching six less students in that class. Absent and I am hoping the the game from a peak in here because I'm gonna ask of mark Fuhrman actor or right to to to see if they can kind of talk a little bit more about that research level but I do want to. One out and again we're gonna look at this little bit more recommendation to is that. The lower salary also tends to see seems to ten to be related to then having teachers who have lower percentages of a master's degree and higher percentages of teachers were not qualified in their position so there becomes some balance in and what we heard from the stakeholder group is that folks can definitely choose to live in a rural setting and and that can be impactful but they are facing lack of other opportunities so it as a as a couple though it might be cheaper to live there there isn't a job perhaps for spouse in those settings so that you know by by having a lower salary that puts pressures in that post truth we can travel a bit so you can be in a rural setting and get your car in thirty minutes later be in a higher paying district but living and so you get the quality of life of the community and so that's part of the the interplay is that we are just connected enough now in many of you in your role places it settings are connected specially in when we think of the north west I think we heard a little bit less about you know in the south west we heard more about just because of lack of opportunities for spouses but in the in the northwest it was more what you know I'm I'm a small district I got four big districts around me within twenty five to thirty minutes that's kind of the poll so it no this is this is again not a new thing in education about how do you attract and retain in certain settings but that that is something that we heard quite a bit about it's just harder to keep those qualified staff so it could be you have smaller class sizes but you have a little less qualified staff so it becomes about okay and I know of marker rife if you guys can hear us and if you guys have some thoughts on the research there. All right represent thank yous speaks from for. House. You are present all Russian learning yes transportation recognize. Thank you Mr chair when the lake view a lawsuit was handed down did did they not done right here sorry about that what didn't they he's hand down that every ten years that this would all be looked at the adequacy would be looked at. I will put that to any lawyers in the room I do know that and what we read it's the constant review and adjustment is a key piece I think of meeting that but which is done in the four ACT in the two thousand four session and so we think that that two year review that the alarm does is a really important piece right now of of keeping up with kind of the lake view decision okay thank you. We have an answer for that refers to it as a a thank you Mr chair Isaac line attorney with the bureau of legislative research lake view didn't mention a ten year interval it was the the as the presenter pointed out they spent a lot of time talking about how you need to be a constant a review and evaluation and in the lake view two thousand seven decision which was the final decision they made a big deal about house of one of the cornerstones of maintaining adequacy is to do this Every by any of the way that ACT fifty seven which is the original adequacy study act a required in in that language. So no there was nothing in there about a ten ten year interval they just they just wanted to make sure that the General Assembly and the state conduct that adequacy review on a regular basis. Thank you. I know we had a revised in a camera what year that was fourteen us when in reverse thirteen or fourteen we did revise of over Bacchus okay Representative reverses speaks all right thank you. That's all the questions we have so you may proceed okay. Okay. We're gonna move on the recommendation to the rest of the recommendations are a little shorter except for recognition five but that's Mendez Baltz will be okay So we've talked a lot in this discussion about mom a teacher quality and kind of the the relationship between the student demographics and the Size and some of the teacher quality issues and so we would recommend looking at creating an incentive structure to increase the number of high call highly qualified teachers serving students at high need schools and small schools we and so that that's kind of the the peace we again we not tell you how much your exactly how to do it but we think that is a direction that the state should consider. And and there are some incentives but it we were looking at that kind of systemic approach so we got our next piece just in general. Access to qualified teachers does very across the state it that's always going to be true but there are some relationships that were yes and especially in the low income at settings and the smaller districts. When we look at that work for state and we're gonna walk through this in a minute there is a pretty direct correlation between the characteristics of the schools or districts and of the teacher quality that we're seeing so if we turn to the. Next slide. Again it's a little hard to see but we did go ahead and we looked just at free lunch or directly certified students so we had some conversations with you all earlier that you know the overall economically disadvantaged percentages pretty high in the state and that includes reduced lunch so we basically took reduced lunch off the table so we we we took that off for this analysis and we look at just the students or either directly certified or qualifying for free lunch thankfully that you're free lunch population they would all qualify for free lunch and when you look at that and you have your lowest levels of. Concentration of economically disadvantaged students at the top and your highest concentrations at the bottom what you'll see is that your highest need populations have about a about two thirds as many teachers with master's degrees as your lowest need so populations and ninety eight percent of teachers in those Lois need in that laws need us I'll have are qualified or fully certified. And that's these pretty consistent pretty far down this list you get to all the way down to that eighth decile and you still have close to two no ninety seven ninety eight percent of the teachers fully qualified and then when you get down to the ninth and tenth you see a pretty big drop and so in the tenth that's all about one out of every ten teachers in that group are not fully qualified and so there's just this relationship between the need of a setting and the quality of the qualities a teaching staff now there are can be arguments made kind of back and forth on it you know is a master's degree the best indicator of of a quality teacher but it is one that is just you know pretty traditionally used as one measure of the quality teacher I think the fully certified as a definitely something we would want to to look at. And then we see a similar relationship not quite as streaking by but a similar relate our relationship with size and so here the smaller settings are at the top in the largest at the bottom so we can reverse the table little bit but you actually see once again. Pretty high little bit up and down percentage of fully certified but at the very bottom in the small settings you get your your really high rates of not being certified some of that you know and just talking to folks like it's hard to find certain types of teachers in really real places it math teachers we heard a lot about special education teachers that that is a general problem but again we also have much lower rates of. Teacher to a percentage of a master's degree in the smaller setting so we would just suggest that this is something that's kind of a focus of the committee's overtime is is how could you try to build some incentives and I think within that there's going to be also just some conversations about teacher prep in it and how are you incentivizing really teacher prep overtime because in the end you need a pipeline of folks a to get that done one area we hear a lot about that is for special ed in the state in finding special teachers are are very difficult so I think that could be a a piece of this whole whole puzzle. And that is the last side on this recommendation. I have a question a little Senator really. Thank you Mr chair. For this recommendation and under discussion I know that there are certain Teachers degreed in certain areas that we traditionally think of as being difficult to to recruit and retain but I'm just remind us and for the first time that I can remember in our last bill or report it was English teachers and social studies teachers and it's SO this to me make this makes this a deeply systemic problem and I really don't want us to get to a position where we Are still thinking about it as to certain teachers although there are degrees of difficulty there's no question about that but I think something for us to consider is that you use to be able to throw a flag. And get a number of people who might apply for social studies and then maybe even true of English language arts that is no longer true and that's a scary scary thing so I think we as legislators have to give this a whole lot more than we can just try to incentivize somebody with money and they're gonna come because that has not worked either and just decided we're gonna paid descriptive jurors more than that group of teachers because that hasn't worked either. And the one time that I can think of that was tried on a larger scale was in Iowa in many many years ago and next thing you knew everybody at qualified part for the money and guess what happened we stopped doing it because we don't have the money so we have to think real deeply about that on but I appreciate your you for before I mean showing us in real time here the correlations I think that's really really important thank you in senator to your to your point in our going back through and put together the whole recommendations of stuff we showed you in March like you know we're kind of revisiting and thinking through and I think make Griffith presented to you all on committee the teacher pipeline and and it just true nationally that we do not have an update we we lose so many teachers right that the conditions of learning that we lose so many teachers we barely have enough each year to fill those slots and it's going the wrong direction I'm in the recent recent past and and those alternative teaching pass what many of us thought could be the the place which are to back fill or only feeling like less than a quarter of the of the open seats it hasn't happened that's what I'm really I'm really I want to applaud you for giving us these recommendations in a systemic way because these are deeply deeper systemic problems that we cannot us up for a job or and say we're going to throw out some money here or try this method or that meant that it it. Just has a work force. Thank you. The Representative all thank you Mr chair so I appreciate your I'm way over here thank you I appreciate your recommendations also I think my problem though is that you don't really give us any resolutions how to fix our problems you give us a recommendation but you haven't really given us any ideas or recommendations on how to fix these problems so in your study and to do not find the any state that was lack hours that could help with. Resolving some of these issues. We we definitely look at other states and and we will have the chapter on this I I don't think there is the the silver bullet from any one state on this piece I think we're also trying to thread the needle as best we can and I will tell you we we will not meet it perfectly every place that we were not asked to talk about levels of funding and so as you start to put in a and amounts for anything that by its very nature is going to drive a level of needed funding so we're trying to to find the balance there as as best we cancer and and I know for us to it sometimes it feels like we're your point go do something else you know go study more and and so we will do our best as we can to put the final back together if there are more specific these examples that to bring this forward and I don't think I'm talking about the funding necessarily just. Something that guides us and not this wire this this works in this state this works in this state maybe you can find some resolution between the two of those that would help your state but not funding lies just I mean I appreciate all the work in the in the recommendation so please don't misunderstand me I just was hoping for a little guidance a this state does it this way and this state does it this way maybe you can figure out something by looking at these two thank you Mr chair. Representative Springer. Thank you Mr chair my question relates to the teacher evaluation system currently in place here in Arkansas I think it's called tennis T. E. S. S. did you will look to see whether or not that evaluation system ahead any type of affect on what they're not of to to be for the not it improves teacher quality within the state of Arkansas. Represent we did not that was not part of the scope of the state all right thank you. I believe Representative. It it it doesn't have your name on there some from look oversee user friendly it. Thank you Mr of my question is this justice what incentive do you recommend that may improve access to quality teachers in high poverty areas in the state of Arkansas. I I'm gonna start a little bit I would love for mark Fuhrman actions on the call and I can hear and or right to to to jump in here to again we'll take a look back at it we're gonna have a whole chapter that reflects on what we found in other states and I do not have them all memorized here but we will we'll have that laid out. I think in part you you're gonna need to start with that. the actual teacher prep and and making sure you're you're you're finding it what we hear a lot and specially in rural settings finding folks from the community and and and ours in our case studies schools with the most successful schools tend to have a lot to it seems it and have a lot of folks who are from their community staying in the community and the higher needs population some of it is actually going to be driven by other adjustments you can make an informed us of working conditions you know it's not all about just your classroom your class size as a teacher but you know the overall working conditions of the school and making sure students have those other supports they need to be successful in the classroom can be a big part of making it a more sustainable working environment for the teacher to. Follow up hi I'm for this house and from time to time of a school district will recruit a teacher and the low performing district but the problem that he or she have when they come into that district there's no place to leave the house and. The. That is not a specific piece we actually heard a lot about in our at least it in there's a little but not but it definitely is having You know the couple things were about your your clearly gonna need a place to live you're gonna need opportunities for your a spouse right to work opportunity we heard a lot of folks who are losing younger teachers just based on that and that's not something that the education funding system can consult right that that is a a systems issue a state economic driver issue Well you would need you would need good housing and and get housing quality to get that done thank. And I actually one point to to build on that was we heard not just about salaries but different ways and incentivizing is not just to provide a salary to them but to include opportunities for training to get the stuff that's already in your building providing the scholarships to get the training they need or student loan forgiveness for going into settings like that so part of that being able to find a place and being able to afford to rent is also how much that are you coming out of your education with so there's some different different approaches that states can take a look at the. And I do want to give an opportunity if mark or anyone else on the call one staff to come in on this question. That's all the questions we held that would you welcome to move on you need to. Let's keep going all right recommendation three It's only seven alone alone it's a make you in okay senator Cheatham want to be down there Senator Clark. Thank you I just wanted to a. To help answer that of. The there are two laws on the books. That of those who choose to be education majors ugh going into their junior years. can of if it were funded. Could get up to ten thousand dollars in forgivable loans and ten thousand dollars in scholarships as a bill that I passed. in two thousand seventeen I think. Of. If they agree to either to certain subjects or go to certain areas so there is an answer already put into place we never funded it so we should look at doing that thank you do we know if anyone is taken that. Opportunity a we have a funded however funded in place so that when the legislature is in and out of all that is needed to be done it would already the vehicles there we Disney put money in it that's over to see column not. Forty on that okay thank you senator cart. Sir recommendation three is that you develop a legislative task force to investigate and address the out of school factors that inhibit performance for high needs students within the state and. Here this was reflected both of the conversations you all had with us throughout this process in a lot of what we heard from That stakeholders and what I want to highlight here's why we're not saying you do with this is that what we think you really need to have need to happen is mapping out the full scope of resources the student needs to come prepared to school and then making some determination of what sits in the K. twelve box what sets and other agencies purview and so you have the full map and you understand whose grabbing it I think what's happening in K. twelve education across the country is that they're getting more more is being pulled in because the accountability system for districts as you when you need to get this level performance and that's they say well we need to have you know medical services are we need to have mental health services because the art the students are getting it somewhere else and so really it's about mapping this out kind of fully of what does it take to get it done and then having a true understanding of where it's it's and then deciding or there's some things that might need to come into the K. twelve pot or somewhere else but it's it's making that full map and so this again builds on what we're seeing with your name your Your your highest need schools are having you know much much lower performance and to those echo highly economic hi eight consideration of economically disadvantaged students are in smaller and more remote settings the graduate your students they have a lower proficiency rates in English and math and they serve significantly fewer white students right they they are you're you're most impacted schools We've talked about this and we said it wrong or I I will take the credit I've said it wrong it was a Sunday this is not a student issue this is not a student ability issue this isn't a student aptitude issue this is a systems issue. And so we have things like generational poverty and racism and classism and all whole set of things that go into this performance that we're saying for students and so you know taking a look at the overall picture an understanding that's going to be really important. when we talk about the feedback we heard from educators is that economically disadvantaged incest socially the the most economically disadvantaged students they come to school needing a whole other set of services and needs to be met before the ready to learn and so that's why we're trying to figure out who really should in meeting those needs and not necessary putting it all in the K. twelve funding bucket and so there's this nexus of agencies that can serve the students and we think that that that legislative study team would get that done now this would not just be if we go to the next slide. You know I can't just rely on just Education Committee members there are a number of other relevant committees where you don't legislators on there you would want representatives from teachers administrators and noncertified staff we would suggest you likely reach out to the membership organizations to get that done you definitely one eighty E. at the table and then you would want these kind of non education groups who provide a lot of these services at the table so that you really get that full mapping of what's needed for kids some of the areas of need that they're both in and out of school factors that we found in the research that might be reviewed and any you know using literature to do that is the access to before and after school enrichment activities and not just academic but in Richmond activities for your low income students the bill by the mental health services for students we're learning more and more about this this year than any other year you need internet internet connectivity and your low income communities and then just disability to have these other services available so would all education for for families healthcare services for families in the committee so those are some of the areas and there are many more that could be looked at but again it's it's trying to get a handle on. Your schools can do so much and they do everything they can but they can't do the whole the whole thing and so you need to map out what what needs to be done. And that is that a recommendation. All right here we go. Senator Clark. The. Appreciate amend everything what you'd save amend that nothing new there that a hard. What I didn't hear the whole of the doesn't surprise me but still disappointed. Is. No we help poor rural schools in our top quartile. And we have rich schools that are not only in our bottom quartile through the bottom of our bond court. And did we do anything to look at why that seems to tell would sink to would tell us more. Does that go against the grain would tell us more about things that we need to change in anything else. Senate we we did it within the fifteen case studies we we picked all schools that were at a higher and of a student needs so what we what we did find clearly is that and this will be part of it the those schools A implement a lot of the best practices that you would see in research so they had a DO collaboration they they really use data there there's a lot of that I'm going on so we we have and will talk about on the active on the educational academic side what's happening Everyone of those case studies also talked about the need for things like mental health services and some of the other supports in the community those tended to be some had really robust partners in the community you could serve them and and other committees they just one as available so some of that becomes a little hit miss on just what else is available in the community because that the schools no control some of those kind of wrap around service availability and in each community. The the Joe looked there was a within your purview to look at leadership. Because that's one of things that we were one person on this committee that didn't surprise me coming from business is that you get strong leaders doesn't matter where they are. It's hard to get strong leaders and poor schools but of your strong leaders their successful wherever they are and they they get did was that within your purview. Senate I wouldn't say there was a a metric on strong leadership I think it it's kind of one of those chicken eggs when you when you find these really successful places almost by definition you know there's gonna be a strong leader there I think more again on the path of A kind of what to successful schools generally have your those leaders have intentional culture you know when when they can talk about their school they can talk about the how and why and what they're doing we didn't have a treatment group to say well all these other fifteen schools who weren't as successful don't do those things I wasn't part of the city because that that would be a little bit of what you need to do there but clearly having strong leadership and and this intentional culture and and known practice I was a big part of those of successful please. And just. To add to that we did here but about not only that that need for the teacher development pipeline but that administrator development pipeline in some challenges folks are seeing with new teachers not wanting to stay in the career long enough so there's some models out there for how do you build kind the career ladder to also be building leadership from within because you tend to see a lot of success of people that have become administrators after being in the classroom or being in that school and raising them up. Also this notion up to her of the. we definitely need that. Of. Pop one of administrators but also we've had to turn around where we have sent. Administrators in who turned around schools and as soon as we put him back into the hands of the local district they got rid of those administrators and went back to what they were doing before and so a lot of these pieces. I'm concerned we we throw money at it again with pieces and we don't really hit with the real problems are and thank you. Like Senator Clark to represent a Springer. Yes thank you Mr chair and thank you all for this a recommendation because this says come to my attention here in recent years and months I guess the question I will make sure that I heard you correctly did I understand you to say that when us economically disadvantaged students come to school with a lot of variety of physical and emotional needs that that is a systems issue is that I heard that correctly. Yeah and now and see if represent I can say it better I think in some of our early reports I think it it sounded like we were we're saying certain students couldn't learn what that just explicitly came off in our recordings we clearly did not do that well what we're trying to say is that there are underlying issues really societally it you to broadly that contribute to not you know not coming to school in the same places perhaps another student which for provides the easier path to get some of the performance level so that we need to think about the conditions that students are in to give them the best ability to when they show up to have the equal opportunity A you know for that success yes and I thought I heard to say that that related to lack of services classism racism and a number of other things as well did add that who you say that as well we did we eat so as thank you and framing this we look at some of the research on on those pieces and the and that's some of what comes out of the research that those are some. Indicators of of why there's struggles thank you very much. Senator Elliot you're recognized. Thank you Mr chair I I just. I think this is so central to what we're doing that I almost wanted to an academic Jan deflect because it's Hi. There are key I want I just remind us that we are here struggling to reach adequacy I just want to think that that's our bar to reach adequacy and as I've said a thousand times I don't think a single parent in this state for the most part and nor would we be okay with I just want my child to have adequacy yet that's in the constitution we're doing so. I think this is so important because it will just if we're if we use this and we reach adequacy windy distill ask ourselves how prepared are our kids so what this recommendation means to me which I know to be the case Cozart traveled all over the state looking at school districts and I can guarantee you is not just race know what did you say that. But clearly I think something that like over twenty nine percent of the people in this state live in poverty. Every one of those has implications for kids and when you start moving up above that you're still not going very far so that's why this is so important to me for all of our kids who don't this is to make things that we have not addressed and our kids could be reaching so much further if we took the time to carry out recommendation number three and figure out how to do it and I feel even more strongly about it because all of us can sit here and say and it's true that year after year we put in more money and we are not getting more for that money so what that tells us senators should we keep repeating that. We we did we figure that out so the things that are important for example for a football team to be successful nobody thinks about Lester throw them a good football and they're going to be great okay ninety has Nike has created some better footballs so much for them a better football they're just gonna be great we keep doing the things that under ten how the team is going to be great even if it means building a mill a multi million dollar stadium dang it we build it don't we. I will put in the infrastructure in place for teens to have a chance to be great whether or not they are this is the same thing here I think and. I I I do want to speak to something that that onset of a court referenced that we have the infrastructure in place for the issue about recruiting teachers in keeping them I remind you and twenty eleven out then of senator John I think he had I got a bill passed that was designed to make sure we were addressing some of those things out of school of issues guess what we've never done we've never built that stadium it's still waiting to be built because we have never funded so I. I don't have a question Mr chair but I think this is so central to what we want to do and FOR we can go if we don't address this we're gonna keep throwing a pitcher of water at a burning house so. I'd imagine you'd like the missile from this and I will be thrilled to work on something like this Mr chair. Sam's correct. I think it's a great idea. Read your backup. Look over like that I've looked over make sure that you. Thank you. What are some of the required instructional support that have proven to make of the. I'm sorry could you repeat the question one more time what are some of the required instructional supports that have proven to make of the. We did a whole presentation on that which I do not have off the top of my head I'm gonna see if mark Fuhrman tech if you could talk a little bit about that I know. You got a couple first. And a couple of the the top of my head that been proven effective is that the extended learning time either via a before and after school programs summer programs such as the opportunity to have a more time with particularly certified staff of a big piece of it will also be that the quality of the teacher Leding the classrooms that's right part by recommendations really been to think about who is serving in those classrooms and then there are other particular kind of having a strong R. T. I. process of response to intervention where you're regularly looking at the data monitoring where students have gaps providing support either via a kind of small groups in the classroom or pull out instruction with the again a certified interventionist and then the other part of the monitoring is then measuring progress over time so it's a very dynamic process and so those are a few off the the top of my head that I can think of. Follow Mr you're recognized a quickly a few minutes ago we were discussed and strong leadership and we all agree that strong leadership with employment with. Strong leadership Mr department you can have a strong leader true or false and not have the resources is there might be successful. Up for example with thank you. They had good leadership over that but maybe have the resources to this is to compete and back to what so the early it was saying that it if you bill statement those stadium or basketball arena and the guys in the basketball arena I have all the time March equipment and they practice three hours a day and the other team practice one hour a day if all these that the teen this practice in three hours a day it's call have individuals over the team that's on the practice one Alan day because not only do they have a the resort to but they have a good facility the play in. And I think it is important as we talk about all these pieces be teachers or or leaders There are there are always examples on one end of the spectrum of the other and I think you have to just make determination as you do study on if they are replicable specially on the the successful and or if they're outliers not to say that and so that's always a piece of when we talk about the successful schools in the first recommendation. You there's a bunch of efficiency work that gets done in that and in part it's to try to think through kind of what's and out liar and what's with in a a replicable framework and so we always want to think about anything to to both your points what's the baseline that of resources social needs so that you could scale the successes right in the end what we're what what is I think education is struggled with overtime is being able to scale known successes it is hard to do and sometimes it's because it's not wire sometimes because people will believe in the success I mean we've seen that to like you you know what to do and you're just not doing it so it's finding that balance as you work on what is truly replicable over time and and so then measuring you know what should people be doing versus what someone doing it but no one else can replicate that. Okay and I do want to apologize I am on my computer a little bit we were emailing back and forth with the folks on here if they have questions or thoughts or so I'm not ignoring you I promise or in any other in. By Representative Beck you're recognized. Thank you Mr Mr. Of my question it needs this might be something that we just wait until your letter report but by the. In terms of the service is what I would call wraparound services of I I guess are you gonna be quantifying those as far as like. This one seemed to have a larger effect and this one did it you know the first one as opposed to the second one A because we do find a lot of our I think in my my experience been with a lot of the school districts that especially from the small rule school districts that when there's a. Someone of a limited to medical. Axis of those of those those programs and to be quite helpful to those families and as far as education so if you're going to cover that letter on to say yeah I'm gonna come that went on its good will go on represented we will make sure we take a look at that on what research can triage is what's the best way in and I think your point in in both the wraparound services in the educational services there's that kind of return on investment you know that some are very high cost and might not have quite you they might have more outcome but the cost is a lot higher to so you're trying to find the balance. Good good okay. Recommendation for. All right Sir next recommendation area is that career readiness definition so we had a presentation where we shared some information about how to other states define college and career readiness how did the stakeholders view this that this is where we're landing on in terms of a recommendation we feel the state should adopt a career readiness definition that includes core academic knowledge and skills capabilities behavioral skills and dispositions and postsecondary preparation and planning I recommendation is that the definition is focused on career readiness for all students as college is just one of several several pathways for career. So thinking that the very specific language that we recommend that we offer the following definition so upon graduation Arkansas students should demonstrate career readiness so each student should leave high school ready to take the next steps towards our career regardless of whether that is college either two or four year institution a technical program military service or an entry level career position more specifically and Arkansas student whose correct he will have gains core academic knowledge in mathematics science and English language arts two of them to successfully complete credit bearing first your courses at a postsecondary institution demonstrate capabilities such as communication skills critical thinking collaborative problem collaboration problem solving and time management as well as information technology skills developed behavioral skills and dispositions such as dependability perseverance working effectively with others adopting and managing stress and develop financial literacy. And then continuing that definition all Arkansans tune should be guided in correct solution planning and decision making throughout their K. through twelve career to allow them to successfully navigate their chosen career path this includes knowledge of careers industries and postsecondary education and training opportunities identification of individual interests and abilities and development of a personalized postsecondary plan with the concrete steps that need to be taken it in order to enter specific career after graduation. For their students should have the opportunities to participate in advance concurrent enrollment CT or other career focused courses internships apprenticeships in order to demonstrate that their career ready. That is the specific language and and how we got there is that within the testing statute there is a limited definition for what it means to be college and career ready and it's it's not really a full career definitions is just the one place that shows up and that students can successfully complete credit bearing first year courses and embarking on a chosen career so you can see that we both incorporated and then expanded upon that definition and what we've put forward a what we're proposing is an action will definition and like the one we've recommended including specific knowledge skills or traits that they're expected to have adopting such definition as well lined with national research and some of the recommendations from organizations such as the C. T. or the federally funded college and career readiness and success center so it's well backed up by the research. it would also adopting is this definition or something similar would place it among the fifteen other states that incorporate not just core knowledge but those capabilities hate your skills and the college preparatory and career preparation and knowledge within the definition so it makes it a much more robust definition it puts it in the in the scope of states that have the most revised and actionable definitions and it's well supported by educators and community members in particular they thought all those elements of included should be in place with a particular emphasis on the soft skills so those skills again that the time management the problem solving the communication that the adaptability that importance no matter what field that students go into what their next upper path as an so there's particular strong supports for including those in the definition. And with that that is the recommendation I'll back up just a bit so you can see a little bit more of the definition what we into question. Representative Cavenaugh. Thank you madam chair. Talking about Kerr reading this do you all have a recommendation about when it really should start appearing in curriculum for the students at what grade level. Representative that's a great question we really think the conversations about career should be having throughout K. through twelve so we had a lot of conversation from the stakeholders and against Port from the research about how important that early exposure is siskins concede that the wealth of opportunities that are in front of them as as they move through their careers you know kids ideas start kind of focusing in a particular area or more focused on the limited set of Examples they might have it within their own lives so really getting that brought the experience and pathways in front of all students in early grades to get them excited about what paths are out there is really important so we would advocate for a addressing career in an earlier greats than just waiting into focusing in on high school earlier grades is really vague what grade are you suggesting I think it depends on the grade so middle school is where you would think about first introducing maybe those career at C. T. take courses even Perkins is now expanded to where you can offer those courses in your middle school grades elementary grades I think about more about that career exploration and again just showing what opportunities or doing visits within the community to see different job so I think it's more of a tiered approach of of how you introduce it earlier thank you. Okay Senator Elliott. Thanks man chair I'm I'm looking at the definition that begins a upon graduation that first page That they should demonstrate career readiness and and where we say each student should leave high school ready to take the next steps toward a career. A I really like the the the fullness of the definition you have or what I'm trying to figure out no one Arkansas's culture and the way we've talked about career readiness that that could mean for a lot of people it means ready for career when you lease high school. House. And at first others in it and FOR other it could mean out that you need to be prepared to further. For sue readiness for of a career beyond back home. I'm not quite sure that is coming across engine that. In that first sentence I'm not prepared to say it's not but it's just not clear to me second part is what I want to be sure we are saying is when I graduate from high school one of the things that should be true for me I'm already to go to work. The second thing that should be true for me I find the preparedness to pursue further study. To go to work after that mmhm whether I choose to four year up to a four year colleges or whatever and I just want that to be clear because I can almost hear the conversations of our people talking about career readiness and not including the college option beyond to your schools generally way we we tend to think about it in our state and you know however we look at it um as somebody else my can clarify even but I can't and might not have a problem with it I'm just expressing that I want that to be really clear if that's making any sense to you at all. Senate and that's what we're discussing and I'm and I'd be prepared to discuss it further and not just take up all the time here but and charges one express that is something I want to be clear thank you I appreciate that the feedback and where you're coming from so I think we can definitely look and I'm sure that language is clear because we do want to make sure students are prepared for whatever that path for whatever it is because we do tend to it because and I think especially when we talk about work force preparedness as I think all of this is about workforce we tend not to include for your college and our definition of workforce I've been fighting with the chamber of commerce about that definition for oil and they know what they're not talking out of turn your anything and I want that kind of thing to get cleared up that all of this is a workforce that we need no matter where we stop okay and I think that's in part why we focused on making your career readiness definition to try to eliminate some of the arbitrary split conversation between kids that are going to college and kids that are going into work for because every every student is working towards a job and a career in the future regardless of if they need to go to a four year college to get there are this that they need to go to medical school to get an aspirin before they start right away every scene is going into a career that is and that's the focus regardless of the fact we one getting it okay thank you thank you madam chair. Eighty three poster for it. Okay Representative Allen thank you manager currently Arkansas three number forty and it makes. This year I'll ACT schools one little. limit for beyond the definition what are all the states doing to a college man and performance. That's a great question at the part of that related to college reading as is it's just overall your standards in your your curriculum in your performance over all of your graduation. Expectations for students So a part of that is a it's a piece of your overall success with your students in terms of what are they doing to prepare students I think some of the initiatives around again exposure of advanced coursework in all schools the option to take. C. T. our career focus courses even a pathway Allows to students to identify what skills and what a path for they need to take to be successful in their careers Sitting there is a number of different approaches that states have taken to do that again it always starts which is the core instructional component is how prepared your students are for for the college piece just and you have something that and. And I think and we we talk a little bit about this T. all before there's this pendulum swing that seem to happen in states and in policy making between college. And kind of career and and probably over the past decade depends on this one very much to every student needs to go to college and everything needs to be and and and go to college not just be prepared if they want to go to college I think what states are also trying to map better right now is that Career path after high school can be a very successful path for folks some might actually even go into that path and then go to college and so trying to to not make everything about the number of students who go to college and you know the one. Peace in the stakeholder engagement adjusted sat with me this whole time and I think I said it to you all before was you know the gentleman who is a principal who mention that a student there school who keep struggling to past Yom tree can't pastor mystery and then goes into welding and does high level geometry as the best Wilder in the school so it's also trying to find differentiated ways to measure ability and not just always the task that measures that student's ability and so I think that's a big part of what Amanda and that team put in this is also having very methods to to measure that knowledge because it doesn't always come out just in the test. My own thought sometimes I think that when when students look at a possibility for after high school and they in their own minds begin to determine that possibly I'm not college ready and then there doesn't seem to be an alternative pathway you know we never know what we're we're all adults in here we never know what our future's going to hold from the time or eighteen until we're twenty five or forty or fifty and I think that the idea that you're expressing is that everybody come out with a set of skills and education that no matter what they do and what their future is today it eighteen not will be the same as fifty but hopefully these things will help people to move ahead through the rest of their lives not just for the next year but for a long term I think that's our I I think that's my goal for education is is to help people be something for the future not just when they're eighteen but for the future down the road and who knows where that might take a. So are there any other questions. Thank you. So our next as set of recommendations are around the the resource matrix and the overall umbrella that they said under is that we think the committee should reconsider current matrix resource lovers in the areas where the body of evidence is most consistent so we're going to offer a handful of recommendations on specific matrix items where there's just a real convergence of the data that we've shared over the past several months so you won't see recommendation for every specific component of the matrix but again the top highlights for us. so again we're not making specific recommendations for each area. In terms of resource level again are ask was not to identify what those resource levels work that is within the purview of a few all the to identify those areas but the most consistent evidence of we're gonna talk about key through three teacher ratios non core teacher percentage at the high school level secretary staffing library media specialist staffing assistant principal soon mental health and school safety and security and instructional materials. And will stop for questions after we presented all all of them under five. So the first area of we think that the committee should reconsider the currency to teacher funding ratios for students in kindergarten through third grade so in the examination of prior evidence based studies or looking at national adequacy studies they tend to recommend a lower class a student to teacher ratio in those earliest grades and it's well supported by the body of research on how important instruction is at that point particularly around reading to get students prepared for for the rest of their K. through twelve career The evidence based another national adequacy studies tend to be around that fifteen to one ratio the the research really support the ratio somewhere between thirteen and seventeen to one. and though this study did not fines particular attack improvement in performance at lower class size ratios there is a number of factors that kind of play into that being that a that classes information we talked a bit about includes all of the teachers in the schools that includes your special education teachers your teachers FOR intervention FOR for targeted population so it's not we're not able to look at just what the impact of core class size instruction was. Then the kind of again the literature really suggest that the impacts of improved performance are under that kind of seventeen to one and it again at Clark class so the impacts me not likely to be seen here when class sizes are above that threshold. So the next recommendation is that the committee should reconsider the non core staffing levels so currently the the matrix funds at twenty percent for your non core above your your class size staffing but when we look at the at evidence from the prior evidence based studies other adequacy studies and stakeholder engagement we see evidence that non core staffing is likely needed for high schools in particular of the most recent evidence based study in national studies tend to focus more around a thirty three percent versus twenty percent above non core staffing. This is one of those areas where that that definition of career readiness that we talked about that exposure to advance coursework to CT offerings having a or bus availability of teachers at your high school allows you to offer a broader range of opportunities for students so that's why we in particular focused on the secondary needs and it also allows for the adequate planning time in collaboration among all of your staff so that's the other pieces both the educational opportunities affords and that time for teachers that it allows for to think that's an area that the committee should consider. The next area is secretary staffing so the matrix currently provides one F. T. E. per five hundred for for secretary staffing When you look at again the body of research other studies and how schools are currently staffed you tend to see at least two F. T. E. in a school of five hundred and the case study schools also about four hundred students generally had at least two staff members that this is just an area where there seems to be disconnect between both the prior studies and house schools are currently staffed. The next area is library media specialist this is one of those areas that has changed over time within the matrix it's is increased a little bit too now at that point eight five of a and F. T. E. but that's a still below the evidence be studies that have been done in the state and other adequacy studies generally you hear more about a full time position in the school of that size this is one area where the level of funding is also a little disconnected from what current accreditation requirements are that would require a full time position in a school of that size And we heard stakeholder feedback in this area and I will also say this is one of the areas where we see a lot of weavers in schools about ten percent of your schools have a waiver prepping that certified librarian position so it's one of the want to take out flexible schedules one of the top three places that schools are getting waivers at the other two would be teacher licensure which plays into what we heard about earlier and then attendance of kind of hobby how their staffing in modeling their high school. Okay. This next area it is more recommendation to separately account for your assistant principal within the matrix right now there is not a line for assistant principal what we know is it's considered a component of that instructional facilitator staffing Because the accreditation requirements allow flexibility you have to have a full time either assistant principal or instructional supervisor curriculum specialist so it fits within that bucket but we think being more intentional an explicit about where that's identified we'll both allow for greater transparency and FOR conversations about what that resource levels should be currently districts are the matrix will provide two and a half F. T. E. per five hundred students registered Sir about one point seven eight on average that their funding less of those positions and redirecting those recess to assistant principal so this would be much more in line with what's happening in practice. And this is just again most places thank you need an assistant principal but when you look at other at the prior evidence based studies adequacy studies house schools are actually stops again this is just bringing it in alignment this is really talking about a resource shift. Okay. So this is one area that we thinks not currently accounted for in the matrix which is mental health and then school security and safety I either through a a fund or particular S. R. O. F. T. E. these are the two areas that came up most strongly in the stakeholder engagement AS concerns that folks have they're also areas were funds are being redirected from those ESA funds Sir conversation earlier about where those dollars are going this is at a gap area that they are being used to fund And again community members in particular were concerned about school safety and security. And then student mental health we saw that both it's a concern and that districts in case a schools are often relying on outside community partners to provide those services in areas that are outside of convey counselors expertise so. That is great that they're leveraging outside of available resources but can create equity issues when the services aren't available in all communities and when the services or say being provided through Medicaid dollars not every family qualifies for Medicaid so it puts up a bind to families that can't afford those services even if they're identified as needed for their students. The can create some barriers to access we also think this is an area if if there is additional resources for specialized positions of psychologists social workers behavior specialist outside of your counselor Anders F. T. E. that if those were addressed separately then schools could better leverage the resources within counselors focus they on guidance and that career development so. and both of those these were recommending within the matrix but they can also be funded as a categorical outside of the matrix we tend to not recommend adding additional categorical so but it's it's a process that you could look at if you want to make sure those resources were being used for that specific purpose. Okay and then the final recommendation in this area is just the funding for instructional materials It's increased for the next biennium but this is an area that started out higher in the initial matrix at the recommendations of those early evidence based studies funding was reduced in this area but the the evidence from that continued evidence based studies have recommended it be higher and the two fifty person is really kind of consistent with what's in other adequacy studies or other evidence based models and districts are currently spending higher than what they're funded in this area. So instructional materials could be used to address both assessment means we heard a lot about the the test dyslexia screeners that require this is an area that could be addressing that I could be used to measure career readiness skills if there's any other assessments that need to be adopted and it's another area that could you allow for more that data driven instruction in the strong are TI processes that we've heard that are really impactful for students. Set those for our recommendations for specific matrix items and of questions. All right Representative Cavenaugh you're recognized. Thank you Mr chair A my question revolves around our matrix model is based on five hundred students but we have many schools schools below that five hundred mark did you look at in your study our our matrix does once based on five hundred for those schools that are below that. That's a great question and that really fed into the earlier recommendation around it's considering developing I districts size adjustment because what we know is. the district struggle to staff below that model in your smaller settings and in particular seeing that play out and not being able to provide the same teacher work force so we do think. Well it's not part of our recommendations for the matrix right now looking at doing a district size adjustment to account for those differences and economies of scale would be important any recommendations on how you would make that adjustment. there are a number of state models that you could look out for for the adjustments they have we would tend to stay you wanna make sure that those fit Arkansas is that might take a little further review to customize one of those two Arkansas but there's some state examples that we could provide in there okay I could do about okay thank you. All right represented to Meeks I believe that you forty five yes Sir you're recognized thank you Mr of right here from here um question I have is a one of the purposes of this study was to determine what the best way for us to to fund public education was an enormous Representative Cavenaugh pointed out the issue with the five hundred prototypical still school that we've been looking at an course we had asked you to look at other states what they're doing and I guess what ultimately what I'm saying based on this your recommendation is that we keep using the matrix that there's not a better method out there that we could could look at. Verses just taken the matrix and making tweaks to it sounds like you're saying that that's. What's best so kind of a high altitude overview here is that a correct statement and what do you think it's best for us to continue with the matrix maybe just making these minor modifications verses going down a path maybe other states have gone down. Percent of I think there's two things that play I think our first recommendation does does actually say. Use other approaches to benchmark and to understand that to study I see you're not saying just stick with your approach to setting the matrix resources but to look at other ways to to to to really measure adequacy it and review adequacy overtime. For us at least until I think one of you know this bigger study and that approach was set in place and and kind of codified to happen over predefined we wouldn't want to in any way and under mine what has been that constant review and adjustment that has worked for the state and so I think that's where we're finding the balance that in the end for sure in the short term you need to keep doing what you're doing because that is really how you have lived up to that kind of lake view need I think once you get the bigger study in place if you were to get the better Biggers any place and how that is a six eight or ten year cycle I think it's open question of if at that point could you switch to something more like another state where it's more just the base and weights and then you you were you those every period of time but again I think that becomes we are not lawyers and there are very few states who run their systems in relationship to a decisions that have been made it within a court case and those that do you tend to can I use this more explicit either idea of when that will happen or actually what's in there and so we we just are trying to find the right balance between those two so so to make sure I'm understanding what you're saying is we've got a foundation of the matrix let's shore up that foundation for now but then long term see about shifting maybe to kinda like we do for our high read what we have a performance model based on all these different factors is that is that a correct reading of armor standing or you're saying long term we stick with the matrix but we just keep modifying it. Senate I I hate. I think in the the near term and and and wins A long term having some sort of explicit resource based design it doesn't have to be this matrix by any means we're not saying this matrix is the moment matrix I think recommendation five saying within this matrix here something's Yushin Johnson recommendation one is really saying there are some other areas of need an interest that you should examine using these other approaches I just want to say we are not recommending kind of performance based funding system and I read as much more all right side so I just wanna make sure we're not but we are saying we think it's important as a state to review adequacy in a different way than what you're doing now keep most of the components of that or some of the components of that but to add some other lenses on in the cycle of you know kind of six to ten years so that you're having a more robust review of the system all right thank you and just to add to that a little bit I think the next two recommendations for re stock start to talk about how you fund your particular is a student group populations to suggest a little different than than what you're currently doing but generally the way of going about getting to a base amount using the resource matrix is something we should think going for it but there's some tweaks on the the other students okay thank you and that was the email I just got from one of our team. Good I read their money perfect. Personnel. Thank you Mr chairman A as you know the number of things that impact of a student's performance Covin nineteen at the end adversely impacted student achievement not this in the state of Arkansas but around the country. Should we consider fund in that may help mitigate this. Impact. And that is a great question but one we attention intentionally put outside the purview of the study knowing that the study was intended to think about on going long term operations of funding in the state so we we tried as best we could to put carpet to the side knowing there's going to be a there's going to be an impact and particularly in the near term but that was outside of our study. I would say that. Many of the types of resources that we're discussing here are going to be the types of things you need to think about but maybe at even a different scale I think all of us in the education community are we're trying to figure out what does one education look like going forward generally because I think folks will pick some different modes because some folks have gotten used to certain amount but also. We're gonna have to see with the gaps are for students in those gaps are probably look different than we used then caps are used to seeing and again it's it's a one it's fees would be a one time thing that happens to us in our lifetime and so the scale of need in the short term window could be is different than what we are talking about which is a long term you know funding system and so we're just trying to separate those a little bit but there definitely will be new an additional needs for students that are are beyond the traditional gaps that we see for kids because it's I think it's gonna be across all socioeconomic all racial don't you all students are going to have some impact from what's happening over the past eight months now I know my kids are not stepped in a school since March sixteenth so it's you know it's just a lot going on. Senator Elliot. Thank you Mr chair of when we decided on the three fifty and and then some propose a five hundred model on that or vice versa there was not any kind of quantifiable or even qualitative data that informed it we we we pick the number same thing probably could be said about the five hundred but they're the ones with the advantage and then that we do the same thing with two sixty you know we barely have something Modifiable slide quantitative and that if they are meeting adequacy I think so my question is is it we stay with the five hundred is there anything of research based or even research Leding that should inform us to look at. For the five hundred the amount of money we're spending Her student and then Take that same information and and and I guess superimposed on the three fifty so we get to a numbered that is more carefully in line with what we are of how we're finding the five hundred. Senator I anything this is back to represent Cavenaugh question to a bit which is it is with that you know when things we have to do most size adjustments would be providing quite a bit more for five hundred and then even more for three fifty when you look at other stains right the five hundred is actually very small setting that's a very small school district so we need to go back and take a look at what that relative position as we can tell you what other states do between five hundred I think what we're seeing more realistically is that in a larger study we would suggest that perhaps five hundred not be the only model you're looking at right you probably think about that three thousand or four thousand kind of the the more traditional efficiency level official level district and then you would just from there so that thousand student district probably getting a little bit more and seven fifty and five hundred you know and you get that curve up so it's we can definitely help you work through between five hundred and three fifty but there's probably the bigger question of is that even the right relationship or should by the kind of model we moved out a little bit I know is that five hundred using is that the right relationships what you're asking yeah I saw okay yeah I know the evidence based model I think usually is built up three thousand student district that's kind of the they're often we started out it was five thousand okay. Three. Then to fifteen hundred. Yeah and then schools are always five hundred within that three huh all under one other clarification then so that I won't be after dealing in misinformation so if we figure out whatever we think there are no warranty is that we can find a way to proportionately rather than just pick a number proportionally fund schools that are that don't need that number that seems to be more fair I don't know if I'm thinking about this correctly and all. Center and that's the the real question You would generally say in. The matrix does get to a a per pupil foundation an amount and then you would basically say it doesn't cost five percent more or ten percent more what you will not you know what you would build is at three fifty you get the student teacher ratios and it might wonder that's not what most eight other states are doing they're just making some sort per to your point proportional just okay alright thank you Mr. All right on to the phone when he SA. Two more. We're we're we're gonna get you out here to be a big out of this year. Okay so our last two are components that are outside. Of the matrix so the first recognition six as the state should smooth that's AS A funding formula through waited adjustment tied to the base foundation amount and focus on providing higher resources per student at lower concentrations of students that's a lot three unpack it we really talking about three things here there are a couple of them that you have heard before I actually think is represented Larry I and our first meeting someone said you will come back with a recommendation to smooth the essay why I write right so no surprise we're coming back with the recommendations move ESA The funding cliff pieces is a real issue and we'll talk about that later I think the bigger piece here for us actually is. Shifting where those resources lie there are a lot of dollars at the highest and the concentration right now our research clearly says being economically disadvantaged is the bigger indicator of of lower performance than being in a higher concentration there is an impact of being in high concentration of poverty but even being a look economically disadvantaged students in a low concentration of poverty school you are you are more likely than your non economically disadvantaged is a non economic it is against in to have low performance so we need to get the resources to the students who are be it we would project to have low performance. And then finally we'll talk a little bit about how do you increases over time because there's been a slower increasing ESA funding that and other components of the matrix so the first piece I know speaking a little bit to the choir but we we love math so we have to have a math example currently if you have sixty nine percent of your students who qualify for free use price meals in a thousand student district you would receive a little over three hundred fifty thousand dollars to fund those tunes if you had one percent more students the next year you're gonna more than double your fund so we didn't talk to. Two hundred districts you've gone up and down through these clips we talked to handle districts and there's you know no one's gonna play with the numbers but especially in a year like this year where in the federal government has allowed free lunch to go through the end of this cycle and what we are end of the school this calendar year and what we know is happening in some districts the students are just not signing up for free or reduced price lunch because they don't have to you you get the meal for free you're also maybe not going to school you could see drops in these counts that two people under these tears and it's not a little bit a loss of funding it's a lot and so just having something smooth we clearly heard about the efforts in the past we know be a large right to you smoothing out is you know is costly right so there there is a cost to that but if we go to the next slide what we think is a more important piece of this recommendation is that. We really need to think about what needs to be funded for all economically disadvantaged students so I'm really focused on the need to their across the board and likely have the concentration of poverty but at your highest levels of school so because that evidence is so clear that at the being economically disadvantaged is more is the better predictor of low performance than being in the higher concentration so we need to move it so that all students are getting the resources they need amend currently you know he really start getting the bump at seventy percent your state that averages over sixty percent so you have a lot of students getting that lower funding amount. So we've got that and then finally in this recommendation if you look at the is a funding which is a per pupil amount it hasn't increased very much in many years and so we would suggest setting what you think needs to to be driven for every student again in kind this restructured approach. Making that a weight off that current foundation level and then allowing that way to stay in place until you re examine what's underneath the funding for yes a sin so that way if the model those up to percent the twenty three as a student goes up to percent because otherwise what were happening and we talked about business right you the the value of the essay funding is diluted every year it costs go up in the funding doesn't go up so we thought that as important a relationship to build. And so that new formula would target more dollars it across all students so they would be similar funding at the lower levels we could again have that concentration was moved out the clips and then we tie it back to a weight over time which again we think is still review bowl because you'll know what's underneath the way you'll know how you got there so it's still review oval and the other thing is we would collapse the current categorical and the AS A matching grants you know if you're gonna have the is a funding put it in kind of one pot of of funding just have one when put their. That is the recommendation. A wrecker locus of the bill so that. Absent Kevin all. Thank you Mr chair someone ASAP to really kind of target where we know we're happy our biggest failures or those students living in poverty because they have so many issues. You're suggesting that we take the current White we do ASA and more fine tune it point that toward those poverty students. But still leave in the matrix the foundation funding the same across the board just put more into it yes I. Reason I'm not sure again we are not saying what level spending you should have. Hey eight at the election where disclaimer on my forehead right but there are judgment second definitely be made in the foundation level and we're gonna actually talk about something next that we think should be pulled out of the matrix but what we really more saying is right now you have the tears were going from kind of five hundred to a thousand to fifteen hundred I think the thought is that having the majority of your economic disadvantage students being funded at the lower end of that spectrum is probably not the right way to target those dollars we would. We would hope to see some you know a study of more similar resources across the board for all economically disadvantaged students and then some adjustment for concentration of the highest levels of concentration it might still be over seventy percent but it it's really more about distributing more funds even at the lower the lower levels now we can we're not gonna say what that is but it clearly. No you have that thirty percentage point. Disconnect between your economic disadvantage in your non economically disadvantaged other there needs to be something happening for those kids. For. Thank you. Senate bill. I I don't know if I day during the miss something in it did did did you say anything about a recommendation for getting back to using these funds for specific things or did you just Ste just leave it alone and did you just gonna like what did you say. Trying to read it real fast I can't you know how we did it we did not specifically as I say it I think you tried to empire by addressing some of those areas that this is a funds are getting redirected to so soon mental health services your SRO school security that if if you somewhat shored up those items rate that you wouldn't be re directed dollars there eight so it was not clearly spelled out at the other two areas we do see transfer your English learners into special education so that we do have a the next recommendation is under it was not not assert line seat and that makes complete sense though the I mean I it's up to us to make these policy decisions I realized there are certain things there we know that are so capital and needed here but it is as you're saying is that the way to think about these other issues like mental health that seems to be across the board you know an issue okay all right then I I reached out but I can read I'm okay now on. And I can listen. All right that is all the questions I have okay we're rounding it to the the last recommendation So last recommendation is that the committees should considering moving special education funding from the resource matrix and provide funding based on actual special education students service so I will put this out loud this is a hundred and eighty degrees from the recommendations you received from evidence based forever on the evidence base if we go to the next slide really thinks of special education as a census based model their support for census based model from the federal government I'm gonna tell you there plenty of people who'll push in the opposite direction from where we're gonna push use I just want to put that on the table But what the census base assumption really means is that you not only have a similar percentage of students in every district who are special education but their level of need also needs to be about the same for the resource needs to be the same that's kind of the underlying philosophy of the census based approach. Part of the senses based approach in some to talk about it is that it takes away any incentive for school districts to over identify students or miss identify students in the higher cost categories. Couple things there. You need based no state anymore I think fully fund special education Wyoming did for awhile but that's even pull back so if if a district identifies set us into a more costly IP they will pick up a share of that read that that is always going to be true and we just don't you know there's a lot of federal law about what an IP looks like so there's push and pull on that but I just want to put that out on the table and we in looking at the data recognize that A liaison Arkansas have different percentages of their students or special education and different cost per special education to me look at it so we think going towards an actual funding system is is more aligned with what the actual was occurring for your Eleazar in the state. And so for example is pointed out to us we we did pull out the handful of Eleazar who have zero special education students under a couple in the eight the eighty E. data that act report no special education since I think those tend to be charter settings but even when you pull that out. In eighteen nineteen year ranging from about five percent to over thirty percent of students special ed within Ellie is the average is a little over three is about thirteen and a half percent but when you think about kind of a standard deviation if there was a normal distribution sixty six percent of those Eleazar range from ten. Right all the way up to over sixty almost seventeen and so that's you know with the sixty to seventy percent difference with in just that nor that just that the one standard deviation so there's a real difference in the number of students are serving we didn't even get under the hood to look at the level of need and we know that will also differ one of the measures of level of need then is the amount of dollars spent per special education student and again there's a high variation were using again eighty E. date us or taking their special education expenditures divided by special education students and eighty nineteen it rains from a little over thirteen hundred two as much as fifteen thousand per student the means right around five thousand but again the standard deviation is from like thirty five hundred. To sixty five hundred I mean it's almost double within that range so there's just real cost differences that are occurring within the school the Eleazar across the state. And so this is one which you know we we have so recommend it this would be a really good recommendation to build off of the first recommendation that that hybrid approach which could dive deeper into identifying relative adjustment await for these students either a single weight or perhaps actually multiple wait some states are looking more at level service needs or hours needed states are getting up more getting away I think a little bit from disability because even within disabilities there isn't there's not an average right the you know within the spectrum of autism there's a huge variation in the number of hours of service that a student might need and so again this would go on the fat you know this to be a weight on top of the foundation likely ideally really a multi waited system and then you you create that distribution based on actual needs and and again you need to make sure the system that is in place that to to understand identification and and and make sure there's no perverse incentives we haven't seen that but we understand the fear and the the eight you know making sure that doesn't happen is it is important so that is our last. Recognition and I just wanna say what one thing related to again the the redirecting of resources special education is so specific on what has to be provided and once that something's provided in one year you there federal maintenance of effort requirements around that so dollars have to be spent in a certain way and special education so it's an area if if the funding is not aligned with that that it really starts support resources from all your other student groups and and from the matrix. All right I have no questions on that I have to occur ready so any anybody have any other questions I will the. We your body out today. Fund. Right I mean at which is so good to see all of the person what a surveillance I know you just really can't. Total six anyway it is good to see you all in person today and look forward to seeing you at two by Senator Elliot just can't she's got to you about today also. This is in your person does wonders for my attention span is one terrific this is here I I just I had a process question for you though for me and our next meeting so this from the west discussion at our next meeting will be the during the voting on what will happen at that meeting the next meeting we will hear. We will I will bring the whole report hold. At that too as we vote on it A we'll be able to digest that for two weeks. For the sum of the fourteen I remember accepted on the fourteenth or rejected which or what you want okay. Rejection surely. That is that is kind of schedule and if the world doesn't fall apart they will be back. So anything else to come before the committee today. Seeing none we do not have a meeting tomorrow so you have the governor given is report tomorrow morning here for budget you can come listen to that and As of now we or Jr.