Advisory Committee on Before and After School Programs
April 25, 2007
CDE Staff Report
After School Network Report
Outcomes and Evaluation Subcommittee Report
Workforce Development Subcommittee Report
Items for Next Agenda
Frank Pisi, California Department of Education (CDE) staff to the Advisory Committee
Sandra McBrayer, Committee Chair convened the April 25, 2007 Advisory Committee meeting at 9:35 a.m.
The Committee reviewed the March minutes. It was decided to table approval pending the addition of Renee Newton’s report on the Outcomes and Evaluation Subcommittee. Frank Pisi stated he would review the tape recording and resubmit the minutes at the next meeting.
Frank Pisi provided the committee with an overview of the packet of documents and materials handed out to the members as follows:
- Letter of support of AB 1685 to Assemblyman Martin Garrick
- Ongoing Program Self-Evaluation Tool (OPSET) for Categorical Program Monitoring (CPM)
- CPM Program Tool
- CPM Process Resources (links to intranet sites).
- After School Network Report
- Form 700
- Overview of Technical Assistance and projects (two questions for the Advisory Committee from CDE on back page)
- Flow Chart of the Technical Assistance delivery system
- Pre- and Post- Proposition 49
- Southwest Education Development Laboratory (SEDL) Project
- Pie charts representing 2006-07 and 2007-08 project money as represents the Technical Assistance (TA) delivery system
- California After School Content Literacy Project (PowerPoint presentation)
Conflict of Interest (CDE Legal Counsel)
Sandra McBrayer asked the members to fill out a Form 700 (Statement of Economic Interests) document and complete the required online ethics training. She noted to the members that CDE staff cannot help them complete this document. It is recommended that members consult their organizations’ counsel to discuss how much is necessary to report. Ms. McBrayer also stated that the ethics training is available on line and recommended that all members complete the training as soon as possible. Upon completion of the training, members are to print out the certificate of completion, sign the certificate, send a copy to Frank Pisi, and keep a copy for their records. Frank added that an email was sent to the committee members reminding them that the Form 700 is required annually and that the ethics training is required every two years. Also included in the email was the link for the online ethics training. Frank added that members could contact Perla Ramos, who is the CDE staff who collects these forms, and will be available to answer basic questions. For other questions, such as should I file, what should I file, etc., Frank noted that members could call the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) easy technical assistance phone number at 1-800-ASK-FPPC.
Louis Fernandez asked for clarification regarding the categories listed in the email. Joanne Low, CDE Legal Counsel stated that Category #2 is appropriate if members have no ties to publishers. Frank Pisi asked Ms. Low about some members who might be a subcontractor to a grantee for services to which Ms. Low replied that Category #2 would still apply.
Ms. McBrayer informed the Committee that Ms. Low was asked to address the issue of conflict of interest during the CDE staff report agenda item. Ms. Low stated that she has a complete presentation on conflicts of interest, but would give a short version to the members at this time. Ms. Low stated that because this is an advisory committee that is set up by legislation, members are subject to the conflict of interest rules, Government Code Section 87100, which bars public officials from participating or in any way attempting to use their position to influence a governmental decision for their own benefit. Members should be mindful that when they are discussing items that may have a direct influence or an effect on the organizations they work for, there is potential for conflict of interest. If it is a direct decision that may affect only the individual or their organization, either favorably or adversely, there may be a conflict of interest. The reason is because even though this is an advisory committee, members have a great deal of influence in making recommendations to the CDE, which implements them. The CDE does take the Committee’s recommendations seriously and often makes decisions consistent with them. Ms. Low noted that there are categories that members might have a financial interest. One category is direct source of income, which is a conflict of interest. Another category is when a member is an officer or employee of an organization that receives funds that this committee is discussing or recommending for funding. If there is a decision that might impact one or more members directly, when it relates to increasing or decreasing a particular service, members must be clear that no conflict is present. Ms. Low reminded the members that they do not lose their First Amendment rights just because they serve on this committee. If members believe that they have a conflict, they should disqualify themselves, meaning that they cannot participate as a committee member for that discussion and decision. Members who disqualify themselves for a discussion/decision can then comment as a member of the public. Ms. Low thanked the members for their participation.
Ms. McBrayer noted that the item of "Conflict of Interest presentation" be added to the agenda for the next meeting so that Ms. Low can make her full presentation. She also added that at the next meeting the full committee would be talking more in detail about the questions from CDE with the technical assistance.
Assembly Bill 1685
The chair reported that Assemblyman Garrick is carrying this bill and it passed out of Assembly Education last week, is now on its way to the Appropriations Committee, and should be heard on or about May 2, 2007. The chair thanked everyone who wrote letters of support. Once the bill is out of the Appropriations committee it will move to the Assembly floor and then on to the Senate side. It was noted that this is a clean bill that only has the before school language in it and it is moving forward with only that language. The chair stated that the committee will be kept posted when the bill moves to Senate Education Committee so that those who wish to can attend to comment or support at that time. The chair added that if anyone wants to send more letters, please address them to Assemblyman Garrick.
Categorical Program Monitoring (CPM) Process and Documents
The chair introduced Bill Waroff and Richard Graham and a printed version of the PowerPoint presentation was handed out to the members. Mr. Waroff thanked the members for the invitation and introduced himself as a retired annuitant with Fiscal and District Accountability and introduced Richard Graham from the Title I Office. Mr. Waroff noted that Mr. Graham is one of the most experienced compliance reviewers on staff at CDE.
Mr. Graham told the members that the presentation can also be accessed on the CDE Web site and the links are noted in the handout. Mr. Graham pointed out that he will be showing about 30 of the 60 slides in a brief overview with members’ questions at the conclusion. Mr. Graham reported that the instruments that are used by CDE are all available online and are refreshed annually by each of the units responsible for oversight of the programs. As the law changes, the instruments are changed to reflect the latest legislative action or State Board action in terms of regulations. CDE provides self-evaluation tools and ongoing program monitoring so that programs that are not in a cycle for review have the opportunity to have the freshest information and current instruments being used. This enables the programs to continue to move forward and stay within the law. Mr. Graham talked about the old CCR (Coordinated Compliance Review) model which required purchase of the instrument each year and how the current format being available at no charge on the Web site makes it easier for programs to keep their programs compliant. Due to the large number of school districts, CDE reviews about one fourth of the school districts each year. CDE has a four-year cycle, which has been approved by the Federal Government as California’s model for monitoring. Mr. Graham talked about site selection criteria, which is determined by the each Program Office within CDE. Each office adheres to the program outcomes listed in law and determine what data demonstrates to CDE that the LEA is compliant and operating programs in a manner consistent with law. If these criteria not met ,a visit is scheduled to determine why those programs are not operating in a compliant manner.
Mr. Graham noted that during a site visit, it will be determined whether the categorical funds are being used for the intended purpose (within framework of the statute and an applicable regulations). Also determined is if the statutory performance goals are being reached by the students. Mr. Graham noted that CDE staff is diligent in making sure that Education Code (EC) and federal regulations are cited in trainings and showed examples of these notations made in the PowerPoint presentation.
The Consolidated Application assurances and LEA plan (a federal requirement) are all reviewed during the CPM. At the site level, the CDE requires that a Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) which takes all the programs operated at the school site that are funded through categorical funds and other grants that the school site council may wish to include in that plan and reference how each of the funding streams and how each of outcomes will effect the student who are not yet proficient. It is primarily focused on students who have not yet met state standards (API or AYP goals) and illustrates how funding streams will assist those children specifically get to proficient as rapidly as possible.
The model for ongoing improvement states that the federal law requires the LEA plan be reviewed and revised annually and submitted to the CDE every five years. The SPSA is a state requirement and requires that schools consolidate all the programs and resources and focus them on the students. The LEA is required to monitor the single plan annually and the site council is allowed, with input from advisory groups and other groups, to amend the plan any time they see the need to improve the program or if something is not working. CDE monitors all district data every year, but only go out to the school site with a team every fourth year. All LEAs participate in the CPM cycle.
Frank Pisi pointed out the program specific instrument for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers was provided in the member packets. Mr. Graham talked about cross program documents, which include common elements of multiple programs for inclusion.
Mr. Graham explained that when an LEA or school is found not to have complied with the law, CDE writes findings of non-compliance which states exactly which law was not met, which specific area of that law was not met, and also how to amend the practice so that the LEA will come into compliance with the law. This is done program by program.
There was discussion regarding CPM training. The Chair asked if there is a strategy for large districts to partner with small districts to attend their trainings. Mr. Graham replied that there are two organizations: California Association of Administrators of State and Federal Programs (CAASFP) and the cooperative organization of the County Offices (COOP) that work with the small districts. CDE provides two statewide trainings with CAASFP and two statewide trainings with COOP directors. For example, at the Sacramento County Office of Education, there is a monthly Regional Categorical Directors meeting which is the mechanism in place to network.
There was a question about the process of notification of a site visit. The process is now data driven by program outcome goals. Mr. Graham then explained that when a site is identified as non-compliant, a time line is set to fix the identified problems. In that time line, it is fixed at the school level, with the understanding that it will be addressed and fixed anywhere else it is occurring in the district. Once the site is selected for a visit, letters are sent to the superintendent and the project director advising of the date(s) of the visit.
Patti Clark-Roehrs commented that training for the CPM process should be embedded within the Technical Assistance plan and it was noted by the chair and confirmed by John Malloy that he would be addressing this issue in his presentation.
Mr. Graham asked if there were any further questions. Frank Pisi commented that there was discussion at the last advisory committee meeting about what may or may not be included in the program specific documents; Can anything outside of statutory mandated items be included in the CPM review? Mr. Graham replied that staff look at the existing law and they take literally a sentence or two out of the law to include in the document, so items without statutory reference cannot be included in the document. Mr. Graham concluded with the statement, "We’re looking at specific items that can be embedded in the instrument. This is a test of law. It is the shall and the may quandary, we can only test for the shall."
The chair thanked Mr. Graham and Mr. Waroff for their time.
Technical Assistance (TA) to After School Education and Safety (ASES) and 21st Century Community Learning Centers (CCLC) grantees – Current and Future Projects
John Malloy, Administrator, After School Policy and Evaluation (ASPE) Office, provided Committee members with the following information:
(Handouts and reference documents were prepared by the After School Programs Office - Jane Ross, Administrator).
The chair stated that the members should note that this is a preliminary discussion and since the conflict of interest training is pending, that there would be no recommendations made at this meeting.
Mr. Malloy referred to the CDE's vision for an after school Statewide Technical Assistance (TA) System:
- Building grantee capacity
- Ensuring that all programs have access to field based TA providers who actually visit the sites
- Provides demonstration sites using research-based strategies
- Address all the diversities of the grantees.
Mr. Malloy stated that CDE staff realizes that the needs of different programs i.e., those operating large programs would be very different than those working with very small programs, so staff is taking into account all of those needs. There is diversity not only in terms of geography, but also the in the kinds of students that programs work. There is also differences in the fact that there are some providers that are just now opening up their doors for the first time and other providers that have had programs for many years. CDE Staff understands that each grantee will have their own specific technical assistance needs.
Mr. Malloy then asked the members to look at the document entitled Flow Chart: Before and After School TA Delivery. He stated that this is the draft of how technical assistance is being or will potentially be delivered.
The documents outlined a system in which there is core of technical assistance resources that support the after school programs on an ongoing basis. Also included are specialized technical assistance resources of which the focus may change over time. This preliminary discussion will be based on these two areas (core resources and specialized TA). CDE staff is a core resource of technical assistance with the consultants and analysts as the primary source of that information. Also, Regional Leads and their work in the County Offices of Education are considered a core resource.
The next document discussed by Mr. Malloy was entitled "Changes in After School Programs" which is a chart that looks at growth in programs over time and described the current program statistics compared to the pre-Proposition 49 levels and stated that this growth is very taxing on the technical assistance system. Capacity issues have been discussed with Regional Leads and CDE staff has discussed a system that includes Regional Leads and some sort of funding that is allocated to County Offices of Education to assist in extending the reach of the system. Mr. Malloy reported that on the last Regional Leads conference call, CDE staff was asked to discuss this idea with the Curriculum and Instruction Steering Committee (CISC). CDE staff is doing just that and is in the process of scheduling a meeting with CISC representatives.
John asked the members to turn their attention to the document entitled “After School Program Update on Work with SEDL” (Southwest Educational Development Laboratory). CDE is working with SEDL on developing and implementing a research and evidence based After School Demonstration Sites program in California. Under the program, SEDL staff with work with CDE to develop quality criteria and a process to select demonstration sites, work with those sites to implement and assess effective operations, create quality self-assessment tools, and finally work with CDE to develop a monitoring process to look at the demonstration sites. This document provides a timeline for when CDE and SEDL anticipate moving forward with the selection with the grant start date beginning January 1, 2008. Also included in this project is the development of a quality self-assessment tool that is closely linked to the rubric that is also being developed by SEDL. CDE staff considers this important work in keeping with the mandates of the law as well as program management to provide places for people can go and see what quality after school programs look like.
Frank Pisi stated that the plan is to have the Self assessment tool available by the first week in June. CDE staff will meet with representatives of the California Afterschool Network’s Quality Committee for input in early June and would like to bring this document to the Advisory Committee for their input. After that, it will be posted on the CDE Web site and made available for public comment for two weeks.
Also included in the core programs are the California After School Program Resource Center (CASRC) and the California Healthy Kids Resource Centers (CHKRC). Members were reminded that there has been discussion regarding both of these resources in past meetings. Both provide centralized locations for comprehensive and quality collections of materials for review that are research based.
The last of the core resources is a Technical Assistance Needs Assessment. Mr. Malloy stated that there is an obvious need to have a systematic and reliable statewide technical assistance needs assessment to best guide the direction of projects. This project has been initiated as a grant through the Monterey County Office of Education, which will provide four online surveys with different groups: regional leads, grant managers, site program managers, and site line staff. It is the intention of CDE staff to sample enough line staff from each program so that there is an acceptable sampling of their needs. Currently the surveys are in design and when the draft surveys are completed, they will be sent to Regional Leads for their input. The results of the first technical needs assessment should be available both on a statewide and regional level in mid-July. This will be one of the first efforts to really look at the statewide comprehensive regional assessment.
Attention was then turned to the topic of Specialized TA Resources that will be funded over a period of one to three years on average, depending upon the program. The goal is to build capacity throughout the state and each specialized TA resource would include as deliverables training materials and training of trainers to provide ongoing support to new grantees and new staff in existing programs. CDE staff understands that there is an incredible amount of turnover in the after school program, not only in line staff, but also in program managers which necessitates the need for continued and ongoing training.
The first specialized program is Content Literacy Training that which will be discussed in detail in a future presentation later in the agenda.
The second specialized program is the Math/Science Paraprofessional Training of State Standards. CDE has engaged the Lawrence Hall of Science (LHS) at U C Berkeley to provide professional development for after school paraprofessional staff in both mathematics and science. This training is going to build on the existing Family Math and hands on materials that are already developed by LHS which will be customized and modified for the after school arena. LHS will train the regional leads, after school site leads, and paraprofessionals on how to use them. Mr. Malloy stated that this is incredibly important in that it supports the State Superintendent's efforts to find ways to close the achievement gap that exists between successful students and struggling students, especially in the mathematics and science areas. This training is meant specifically to help those who work with the after school students and will be designed for paraprofessionals.
Committee members Campos asked about the makeup of the development team: Is there representation of program staff that work with kids every day? Mr. Malloy answered that the Lawrence Hall of Science is the body that is actually developing the program and that they have an advisory group, though it is not known exactly who is on the advisory group. There was discussion that it might be a good idea that there are some after school programs in the geographic area of LHS that might bring to this project some insight in terms of what has already been explored and now to make whatever is developed something that is actually engaging for students particularly in the middle schools.
The third area of specialized technical assistance is Youth Development training which is also a training of trainers project that is designed to provide after school paraprofessionals with an understanding of youth development and specific and research based strategies for both academic and behavioral change goals. The contractor is WestEd and will be based upon work by Bonnie Benard. This work begins with a broad based advisory committee on youth development in after school programs and will develop three interactive workshops as deliverables as well as a training of trainers workshop and online resources.
The chair asked John Malloy to provide the committee with more information about the advisory committees of the various TA projects. CDE staff will compile this information and report on it at the next meeting.
Committee members Christianson added that her concern is about how TA needs of programs emerge over time: In the first year, safety and logistics are of most importance. The second year is focused on defining the core program and academic pieces. In the third year, youth development and how to care for and nurture students are focus areas. Ms. Christianson asked from colleagues if this was their sense of how programs begin. The chair stated that this is calling for a sort "menu approach," depending upon the current needs of a program, a design that will allow programs options depending upon the specific need. John agreed with the chair that this was indeed the intent.
Frank Pisi stated that the members should note that there is uncommitted funding for projects to be developed as described in Item 8 of the document. This would be based on the needs assessment, advisory committee recommendations, regional leads, grantees and others input. Mr. Pisi added that members should be aware that contracts take approximately six months from conception to approval and involves the Department of General Services. This highlights the importance of the Committee’s input and recommendations.
There was general discussion about the need for the CDE to try and limit any duplication of efforts as it moves forward with these projects. Mr. Malloy informed the group that the CDE has taken this into consideration and will continue to do so as the projects are developed.
Committee member Newton stated that the needs assessment is a very good idea and she suggested that in addition to trying to tap into the needs of the school district that community-based organizations (CBOs) also be considered. To get the opinions of CBOs she believes that an online survey would be the most efficient and effective method.
Committee member Amick agreed that everything should start with a needs assessment. No one is able to apply for the after school grants without demonstrating that there is a collaborative process with the community to determine what it is that the community needs. Mr. Amick added that what he would really like to suggest that there be consideration of a Technical Assistance subcommittee as a part of this advisory committee.
Frank Pisi stated that any subcommittee created from the Advisory Committee would also be subject to the Bagley-Keene requirements. Mr. Amick withdrew his suggestion for the formation of a sub committee. The chair stated that there might be some other vehicle to this end such as a workgroup. He further stated that he would like to see some type of structured committee that could come together on a regular basis to offer suggestions for the ongoing development of this technical assistance plan. This would be so that it doesn’t feel to the grantees or to the field in general that TA plans are being developed in a vacuum and that there would be opportunities to comment and potentially revise it after it is developed. The chair stated that there would be a recommendation at the next meeting what that would look like and how it would potentially operate.
Committee members supported the needs assessment and Mr. Amick’s comments and offered that many times a project comes out as if it’s going to help until you start looking at all the forms, documents, time, and the cost of doing everything. Then it becomes cumbersome. Mr. Fernandez added that he appreciates the point that having some support from this committee and understanding about what exactly is going to go into the effort would be very helpful.
Committee member Campos asked about how some of the contractors were selected. Did the CDE ensure that the best organization was selected? Mr. Malloy replied that the state rules that CDE can enter into agreements with other California public agencies that have demonstrated specific knowledge in a given area. For example, the Lawrence Hall of Science has demonstrated their abilities in science and math curriculum and providing training for that curriculum. The CDE looks for demonstrated need and demonstrated experience in each specific area. Some contracts do go through the RFP process, but the CDE does have the discretion to make decisions about who to enter into agreements with. For each of the contracts and projects presented, the CDE has made the determination that the contractor was best to complete the tasks. The important part of the process now is that of developing the advisory committees that will provide critical input to the content of the deliverables.
Mr. Malloy continued his report with Item 4 "Guidelines and Trainings on Nutritious Snacks" stating that this contract is with the Alameda County Office of Education (California Healthy Kids Resource Center – implied??) and required for compliance with SB 12. There was discussion regarding the specific requirements of this item.
Item 5 "Voluntary Physical Activity Guidelines." John reported a new addition to CDE staff, Nancy Gelbard, who is a nutritionist and is helping to lead this contract, which is with the California Healthy Kids Resource Center. CDE staff spoke with Senator Torlakson’s staff to determine some of the outside agencies recommend for this advisory group.
Item 6 "Health Training for After School Programs" provides training statewide on the provisions of health services and is state mandated. This training will specifically look at bullying, skills for prevention of substance abuse, and violence prevention. John added that CDE staff has heard over and over specifically from providers is that we address the whole child, and this contract will help up develop resources for this. This contract is also through the California Healthy Kids Resource Center.
Finally, Item 7 "California After School Network." The CDE supports the network in conducting field research to identify current, new, and emerging after school policy issues. Once identified, the Network will prepare and disseminate briefs of the most current and relevant research.
Mr. Malloy directed members’ attention to the hand out of pie charts, which depicts how the funding available for TA projects is allocated. The chair pointed out that over 50 per cent of funds is allocated to regional leads. Mr. Amick pointed out that ‘regional leads’ includes county offices of education and the whole regional system of field support. Committee member Clark-Roehrs asked for more information about the roles and responsibilities of the regional leads and regional system.
There was general discussion regarding the funding to county offices of education and regional leads.
John Malloy announced that he was closing his presentation and wanted to ask the advisory committee for their opinion (at the next Advisory Committee meeting) on the following questions:
- What topics should be considered for future TA projects? John asked the members to think in two terms when responding to this question: short term projects, what needs to happen now and also in long run projects, for example three to five year planning.
- How can we effectively increase the reach of field based regional support systems?
The chair provided the members with what she sees as agenda items for the next meeting just on this topic alone:
- We will have each effort that’s listed here what way it was developed with practitioner input and/or advisories so that we can get clarity on that for all seven TA areas.
- Have the CDE describe what they see as the rules and responsibilities of the regional system, i.e., both county offices and regional leads.
- Go through the answer of the two questions that John Malloy posed to the committee for recommendations.
The next set of payments will be out of the CDE on Friday, then to the State Controller's Office, after that they go to the county offices. It was announced that a few LEAs have turned down ASES Universal funding. Specifically, some LEAs that applied for funding for 20 schools and only were offered for two have refused funding, as they didn’t think they could effectively run a program. The CDE will be allocating new grants to LEAs for other schools using this money and the money left over from appeals with the understanding that they will not be able to start up until 2007-08. On another note, once AB 1685 is chaptered (as long as it’s chaptered before the end of the fiscal year) as an urgency bill, we can increase the funding for before school.
A question was asked about award letters for charter schools. Mr. Malloy informed that there was a problem with some charter schools and their vendor number. That has been resolved, and all letters for charter school should be in process.
The Chair announced that Julie Song-Rodriguez was in attendance from the Office of the Secretary for Education and thanked her for her help with AB 1685 in writing all the background for the bill. The Chair thanked the Secretary's Office for their help and being part of this with CDE.
Another question as asked about a timeline for official notice for the CDE to clarify the requirement that all sites must open and be able to serve students by June 30, 2007. It was announced that an email will be sent to all grantees in about a week. Mr. Malloy reiterated the issue for the Committee: If you applied for a grant in FY 2006-07, you have to follow the conditions of the law which states you have to operate the after school program on every regularly scheduled school day. Does the program have to be fully operational? If a grantee applied to serve 84 students per day, it is completely understandable that they may not be able to serve 84 from the very first day, and the law gives a program time to grow, but the bottom line is that a grantee must run an after school program at every site by the end of FY 2007
21st Century Community Learning Centers Update
The Reader's Conference ended on April 13 and Mr. Malloy thanked all who were able to participate. The CDE received far more requests for funding than was available. Elementary/ middle schools requested $90 million with $28 million available. High school applicants requested $65 million with $35 million available. The list of successful grantees will be posted by May 15, 2007, which is the statutory deadline for notification.
The Chair thanked John Malloy for his presentation.
The Chair then asked the members to turn their attention to the document entitled "Process for Resolving Conflict Between Grantees and CDE" and asked Frank Pisi to address this topic. Mr. Pisi reviewed this document with the Committee and fielded member questions. A question was asked about what could be considered a reasonable time frame resolution of a conflict. Mr. Pisi stated that the time frame would depend largely upon the nature of the disagreement, but agreed to include discussion of such a time frame for resolution of conflict at the CDE level in the document. It was not known how long it would take if a conflict went to the Victim’s Compensation and Government Claim Board.
Content Literacy Project
John Malloy directed the members to a PowerPoint presentation hand out regarding the Content Literacy Project. The main focus of this project is to foster the use of research based strategies that will help students’ ability to read, write, and think across the curriculum. This is not about English/ Language Arts solely; it’s about the whole curriculum. These strategies also have been designed to meet California state content standards and also to support and coordinate with the regular day school. The focus of this project is to address the competency of after school paraprofessional staff that works with the students. It is hoped that staff development materials will be available online so that a site manager or coordinator can work with paraprofessionals to take advantage of this professional development opportunity. A training of trainers model will be employed for this project. In short, the CDE is looking for the strategies that will increase student engagement, giving them an opportunity to develop their own skills.
This model will include prospective trainers from ASES grantees with multiple sites. Training teams will work within their own sites and include an after school manager/coordinator and a reading/language arts expert. Grantees who commit to this training of trainers also commit to provide sustained in house staff development using the training manual. CDE staff’s goal is to get 200 people trained for this project.
Regional leads will have specific recruitment efforts and will be looking to find people to take on the training roles.
The design team at the state level - San Diego County Office of Education (COE), San Diego State University, and CDE - will continue to work on this project to promote the interest of the state training of trainers. The commitment is to develop state sessions that will provide more training and ensure that everything that comes out of this meets the state standards for learning materials.
Finally, there will be five COE sites for state training sessions are tentatively scheduled for summer of next year (summer 2007-08).
The design team also includes CISC for reading and language arts. The design team will have complete responsibility for registration at each session and determining that training slots are divided around the state so that there is good coverage. The design team will also publish the training of trainers materials and get them online.
Committee member Amick stated that, based on his experience with this, the project is based upon some very basic teaching techniques for use by paraprofessionals. It’s giving people who may have little or no teaching experience some of the basic rudimentary strategies for being more effective with students in an instructional setting.
Committee member Fernandez asked a question about the determination and distribution of 200 statewide trainers: Is there a formula for that? Mr. Malloy replied that the number and distribution of trainers will be based upon need and availability and the design team is working diligently to address this.
Mr. Malloy wanted to conclude the presentation by responding to a question from the committee: Will these trainers replace any English/Language Arts experts already working with a program? This project is not meant to take the place of the language/arts experts currently working in programs, it is meant to make their work easier by providing additional resources and strategies they can use to work with their paraprofessionals.
The Chair thanked John Malloy for his presentation.
Lynn DeLapp, interim Executive Director, noted that the After School Network’s (Outside Source) new Web site will be available tomorrow. There is a place to sign up for the listserv and to join Network committees via the Web site. The geographical information system (GIS) mapping is operational viewers can now find all of the ASES and current CCLC funded sites mapped. They are adding the newly funded 21st CCLC grantees as they are available. With additional funding it would be possible to also add the non-publicly funded sites such as the Boys and Girls Clubs, YMCAs, and faith based programs so that they can really show a picture of after school program in California.
Committee member Amick stated that the GIS mapping feature is not just a good professional resource; it’s a good community resource as well as a great place for parents to go for information.
Ms. DeLapp went on to report that funding to support this feature will be part of a grant proposal currently being developed for the Davis and Lucille Packard Foundation. Ms. DeLapp requested that the Advisory Committee review and discuss this proposal at the next Advisory Committee meeting. She also requested the Committee's official support for the proposal prior to its submission to the Packard Foundation.
It was reported that the Network will be hosting the first forum for the California Afterschool Network research speaker series. This first event will focus on evaluation of after school programs. Three perspectives on quality assessment will be presented and discussed: Nicole Yohalem from the Forum For Youth Investment who recently prepared a review of six different after school program assessment tools, A youth perspective from representatives of Youth in Focus, and a perspective from a K-12 Administrator and Lecturer. This event will be held on May 23, 2007 from 2:30 p.m. to 5 p.m. at the Sheraton Grand Hotel in Sacramento (right after the next advisory committee meeting). This was scheduled to accommodate this committee’s attendance at the event. There will be a reception following the event.
The next Quality Committee meeting is planned to take place on June 6. Quality Committee members will review the CDE's quality self assessment tool and provide feedback to CDE staff.
The Chair thanked Ms. DeLapp for her presentation.
Renee Newton stated that this is a report from the April 3rd meeting and in preparation for the next advisory committee meeting at which two reports will be advanced by the subcommittee. The first report to be presented at the May 23 meeting will be regarding final recommendations from the Advisory Committee for the statewide independent evaluation of before and after school programs. A report of the Subcommittee’s consultation with the CDE on the outcome measures stated in California (EC) will be presented to the Advisory Committee at its meeting in June. At the April 3 Subcommittee meeting, members received testimony from an evaluator of rural programs, Christy Hurt, who shared some of the considerations to bear in mind when conducting a statewide evaluation. Carla Sanger and an evaluator from LA's BEST will testify at the sub committee meeting on May 9th.
Also discussed at the April Subcommittee meeting were two memoranda received from representatives from the advocacy community: Bay Area Partnership and Children Now. Both memoranda discussed issues and recommendations for the Subcommittee and CDE to consider as standardized tools and procedures relative to outcome measures are developed. In summary, both recommended standardization of measures with flexibility for local programs.
With reference to development of standard reporting tools and instruments, CDE staff at the Subcommittee meeting suggested that this be completed via a CDE convened work group. Comprised of CDE representatives, a representative of the Subcommittee, representatives of practitioners who have experience in the design and development of these instruments, as well as other evaluators, this workgroup will develop the necessary standardized tools and procedures over the summer of 2007 and present them to the Subcommittee when completed.
Another issue surfaced at the Subcommittee meetings is the CDE’s legal interpretation of the definition of teacher as referenced in ASES and 21st CCLC (EC). CDE legal counsel maintains that “after school teacher” must refer to individuals credentialed to teach in California, while the author of the legislation in question, Senator Tom Torlakson, as well as Children NOW and Bay Area Partnership feels that the term should refer to staff working in an after school (not limited by a credential). Discussion with CDE legal counsel is ongoing, and this issue may be brought to the full Advisory Committee for discussion.
The chair asked if there were any questions for Renee.
There will be no Workforce Development subcommittee report. The Subcommittee will be meeting directly after the advisory committee meeting at 1:30 p.m. Mary apologized that she cannot attend the Advisory Committee meeting due to a broken arm. Amy will act as co-chair at today’s meeting.
The chair outlined agenda items for the next advisory committee meeting as follows:
- Joanne Lowe, CDE legal counsel, conflict of interest presentation
- Discussion and action item on TA projects presented at this meeting and the Committee members’ responses to the two questions posed by CDE staff.
- Roles and responsibilities of the regional system.
- Draft recommendations for the independent evaluation from the subcommittee on outcomes and evaluation (to be voted on in the June meeting).
- Standing agenda items
- Continue to update ASES and 21st CCLC
- Discussion and action item on the California After School Network proposal that was mentioned at today’s meeting.
Katie Brackenridge, Director, After School Support Services at the Bay Area Partnership introduced herself to the members. Ms. Brackenridge asked the committee to consider two items be discussed at the next meeting regarding the TA plan. The first is that a lot of the proposed pieces involve having line staff receive training, which is very important, but asked that the Committee consider the question of when could staff be available to receive the training. Language in SB 638 allows for three days to be available for staff development. While this is good for programs, she has heard it interpreted to not allow programs to not operate for these three days; programs must remain open. If this is so, how can staff be trained? Ms. Brackenridge stated that there might be an issue or conflict in the interpretation of this clause and asked for the Committee to consider these issues. The other request with regard to the TA plan is to consider the needs of the field for training around whatever evaluation system is developed for the outcome measures identified in (EC). If measurement tools are going to be produced, there should be a TA system connected to it.
The Chair noted that the next meeting date is May 23, 2007 and the meeting after that has been tentatively scheduled for June 13, 2007.
Frank Pisi noted that the June 13 date is a new date and he will follow up with a reminder when he finds available meeting space.
The Chair thanked the committee and the meeting was adjourned at 12:15 p.m.