Advisory Committee on Before and After School Programs Meeting Minutes
January 23, 2007
Members Present
Amy Christianson
Patti Clark-Roehrs
Louis Fernandez
Ana Campos
Alvaro Cortes
Gary Moody
Mary Hoshiko
Sandra McBrayer
Renee Newton
Carla Sanger
John White
Michael Funk
Frank Pisi, California Department of Education (CDE) staff to the Advisory Committee
Members Absent
Steven Amick
Commencement
Some members of the Advisory Committee had a flight delay therefore Sandra McBrayer, Committee Chair, opted to convene the January 23, 2007 Advisory Committee meeting at 9:48 a.m. and reordered agenda items so that all members could be present for the approval of the November 2007 minutes as well as other action items.
Presentation on the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act
Frank Pisi gave a presentation on the Bagley-Keene open meeting act. Frank reiterated that all questions related to Bagley-Keene will be posed to the CDE legal office to get clarification. Bagley-Keene applies to all appointed committee and states that all meetings must be open to the public and that these meetings must be publicly announced with meeting agenda ten days prior to the actual meeting date. All meetings must also give time for public comment in which a public citizen may provide a request to the chair of the committee.
Given that Advisory Committee members had requested that a special meeting be held in December, particular attention in the presentation was paid to the criteria necessary to be able to hold a special meeting. A special meeting is one that is not subject to the 10-day public notice requirement, but rather must be noticed at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. The criteria pertaining to a special meeting are as follows:
- To consider "pending litigation" as that term is defined in subdivision (e) of Section 11126.
- To consider proposed legislation.
- To consider issuance of a legal opinion.
- To consider disciplinary action involving a state officer or employee.
- To consider the purchase, sale, exchange, or lease of real property.
- To consider license examinations and applications.
- To consider an action on a loan or grant provided pursuant to Division 31 (commencing with Section 50000) of the Health and Safety Code.
From this discussion, Carla Sanger offered the opinion that a special meeting could be called under criterion number three, if the Advisory Committee wished to discuss the action of asking for a legal opinion to be issued. Too seek clarification on this issue, CDE staff, as well as Carla Sanger, would take the following question to their respective legal counsel: “Can a special meeting be called under Bagley-Keene for the purpose of considering the action of asking for a legal opinion on a particular issue?” Both CDE staff and Ms. Sanger would report their findings back at the next Advisory Committee meeting.
A question was raised regarding documents and/or presentations being discussed or presented to the Advisory Committee. The process for documents to be distributed, presentation topics to be addressed, or topics to be discussed was clarified; requests are to be brought to the attention of Sandy McBrayer, Chair, and Frank Pisi, Staff. The Committee Chair will make the decision as to what is presented or discussed at Advisory Committee meetings. The items need to be submitted with advanced notice so that it may be included in the agenda and that there is time to make copies made to be distributed to the Committee and public attendees.
Approve Minutes from the November 1, 2006 Meeting
Discussion was held around the issue of meeting minutes not being substantial enough to inform individuals who were not in attendance of the discussions held and information presented. An example of this was pointed out in the November minutes; The CDE report section contained only a bulleted list of topics addressed, no more information about what was presented or discussed was included. Sandra McBrayer, as chair, clarified the Committee’s position on the content of the minutes and suggested that a request be made to the CDE to have the meeting minutes more detailed, especially when it comes to the CDE Staff Report and the Documents received. Ana Campos motioned to withhold approval of the November minutes until more detail for each agenda item could be included and Gary Moody seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved. CDE staff will redraft the November minutes and submit them for approval to the Advisory Committee at the next meeting.
After School Education and Safety (ASES) Program Grant Award Process
John Malloy, Administrator for the After School Policy and Evaluation Office (ASPE) gave an overview of the ASES program grant award process. He stated that the ASES Orientations are began with Sacramento on Monday January 22, 2007 and continuing through February 2, 2007. He asked that if any member of the Advisory Committee is present at any of the orientations that they please let CDE staff know, as they would like to recognize them during the welcome portion of each orientation.
John went on to speak about ASES grant awards. The CDE funded just fewer than 2100 schools with universal grants and, unfortunately, the CDE was unable to fund the additional 1900 schools that requested funding. The entire $550 million has been allocated with the exception of $19 million that was held for appeals. The only appeals the CDE is considering are schools that were newly opened in 2006/07 and therefore did not have an official free and reduced meal rate or other data. Currently the CDE has received 64 appeals representing over 170 schools, which is well over the $19 million in funding, however not all schools fit the appeal priority and therefore won’t be funded.
John also addresses some of the problems associated with the preliminary posting of ASES awards. The CDE posted the list of grants on the afternoon of Friday, December 15, 2006 and by Monday morning, December 18, 2006 the After School Partnerships Office (ASPO) realized there was a data error and the list came down. This initial error was due to a data error resulting from a communications issue between multiple databases. As a result of this, almost 300 schools were “dropped off” of the final list received by ASPO. When the issue was diagnosed it was corrected and a revised list was created. The ASPO then revised the list and sent out the proposed grantees list to the Regional Leads so that they could verify the schools. He addressed the appeal date and explained that due to some schools being out on vacation during the original appeal date, those schools could turn in their appeals on January 23, 2007.
The ASPO staff is working on finishing up the Transitional notice which is exactly what was on the final 21st Century Community Learning Centers (CCLC) amendment for FY 2005/06. The ASPO expects to post the Transitional grants early next week. Appeals on Transitional grant awards are not expected, as it is not a competitive process.
The next topic that John discussed was the two 21st CCLC Request for Applications (RFA) that was set to be posted January 23, 2007. The due date for the applications is March 2, 2007, with the reader’s conference set for April 9-13, 2007. The conference will be very large and the ASPO is asking for anyone who is interested to be a reader for this conference to notify CDE staff 21st CCLC funding priorities were presented to Advisory Committee members. The first group of applications to be considered for funding will be those that satisfy the federal government’s criteria for Competitive Priority; Applications that where at least 50 percent of the schools to be served are identified as being in need of improvement under Section 1116 of the No Child Left Behind Act, and submitted jointly by at least one LEA receiving funds under Title I, Part A, and at least one Community Based Organization (CBO) or other public or private entity. Within that group, and in all others, funding will first be allocated to schools that are currently not funded with an after school grant, either ASES or 21st CCLC. Funding will then be allocated to schools that are currently funded under ASES or 21st CCLC. Several members of this Committee voiced the concern that funding allocated in this way would have a potentially negative impact on currently funded ASES and 21st CCLC grantees’ ability to receive funding for supplemental programs or expansion of their programs. John Malloy stated that given the fact that almost 2000 schools that applied for ASES funding in the last process were not granted funds, ordering priorities in this way would provide an opportunity for the CDE to allocate grants to brand new programs that have never been funded before.
After the priorities of the 21st CCLC RFAs were discussed, Ana Campos asked about the feasibility of pushing back the RFA due date to the middle of March rather than March 2, 2007. Given the late release of the ASES grantee list, an extended due date for both the 21st CCLC RFAs would give applicants more time to determine their needs and establish their applications. John Malloy, Administrator, ASPE, and Jane Ross, Administrator ASPO, both explained that this might not be possible, given the complexities of preparing applications for the Readers Conference. In addition to that, state law mandates that initial grant award notification must occur on or before May 15, 2007. After discussion about that process, the Chair clarified the suggestion to the CDE that the due date be extended by 10 days. CDE staff will take that suggestion under consideration.
Ana Campos also made a recommendation that in case the appeals are not posted on February 1, 2007, the CDE post the status of the ASES Universal appeals, as well as Frank Pisi let the Advisory Committee know when things are posted. Sandy noted that Frank Pisi cannot let Advisory Committee members know of when items are posted due to Bagley-Keene. Renee Newton suggested that a notice can be sent to all interested parties through the After School Network listserv.
Amy Christianson openly thanked the CDE for all the efforts that have been made regarding the processes of determining Universal as well as Transitional grantees. Gary Moody echoed support for the CDE for how quick the RFAs process is going. Ana followed with the concern that the CDE must hold true to the dates set forth in the 21st CCLC RFAs.
Sandy wrapped up the conversation with a description of the pertinent statistics associated with Proposition 49 funds. Ms. McBrayer reminded all present that the initial funding level of $550 million was based on five dollars a day for schools in FY 2000-01. Since FY 2000-01, 450 more schools opened, so automatically the $550 million figure became inadequate because it was based on of pervious year’s data. This coupled with the fact that eligible 21st CCLC grantees than were required to transition into ASES resulted in only approximately $220 million available for new Universal grants.
Discussion About the Use of Technology in After School Programs and in the Promotion of After School Resources and Technical Assistance
Jane Ross, Administrator to the After School Programs Office, provided an overview of how the CDE is supporting after school programs through the use of technology. Jane introduced Dr. Deborah Wood, Executive Director for the California after School Resource Center and Gary Quiring, Consultant for ASPO who are both working on developing strategies to use more technological approaches in provided technical assistance to after school programs. The CDE’s plan for integrating technology into after school programs is to work with technology and program experts both internally and externally to identify and disseminate appropriate and effective uses of technology that support the implementation of quality after school programs and the effective outcomes for students on a state-wide basis.
Jane spoke about the new after school database named the After School Support and Information SysTem (ASSIST) and the benefits it will have to the field as well as the office. Some of the benefits of ASSIST are listed below:
ASSIST allows the After School Program Office (ASPO) and After School Policy and Evaluation Office (ASPE) offices to track and control all grant-related data, including:
- Attendance reports – all attendance reports will be submitted electronically through ASSIST.
- Expenditure reports – all expenditure reports, including revisions, will be submitted electronically through ASSIST.
- Budget data – all budgets, including revisions, will be submitted electronically through ASSIST.
- Payment data – pending submission of all required reports, payments will be generated by ASSIST.
- Grantees will be notified through ASSIST of all upcoming reports due to CDE.
- Grantees will have access to all submitted report data, and all payment history data.
In addition to managing grant-related data, ASSIST will play a role in managing applications for all RFAs.
- Applicants will be able to access ASSIST from Internet, and apply for all open RFAs.
- ASPO / ASPE staff will be able to monitor all applications as they are entered, and provide technical assistance with the field during this process.
- ASPO / ASPE staff will be able to establish grant records for all awarded applicants, and use ASSIST-generated reports to provide information for all Grant Award Notifications.
- ASPO / ASPE staff will be able to manage Readers’ Conference data, including reader and table assignments, and will serve to collect scores for all applications by reader.
Jane turned the discussion to Deborah who provided an update and live demonstration of the California After School Resource Center (CASRC). Dr. Wood outlined the critical feature of the Web site and described the peer review process that all materials submitted to CASRC for posting will undergo. For more information, visit the CASRC Web site (Outside Source).
Update from the Outcomes and Evaluation Subcommittee, Including Information Regarding Recommendations on the Independent Statewide Evaluation
Renee Newton gave an update on the December Outcomes and Evaluations Subcommittee meeting. She explained that the committee has been hearing from experts on this subject and the overall opinion is that the CDE should adopt a standards based approach to outcomes and evaluations, which means that there needs to be clear well defined standards to tailor instruments and tools and that those tools be valid and feasible. Frank Pisi presented a set of initial findings of the Subcommittee to the Advisory Committee. From this set of findings, CDE staff will work with both the Advisory Committee and Outcomes and Evaluation Subcommittee chairs to draft the set of initial recommendations that will be submitted to the CDE, with a copy to the Legislature. Discussion was held around the initial findings document and suggestions for additional information to be included were offered. The Advisory Committee gave initial approval to this report, with the expectation that initial recommendations would be developed as stated.
Renee continued with the next steps of Outcomes and Evaluation Subcommittee, which are to gather the opinion of a few more experts, consult with the CDE on the use of the particular tools and to further the recommendations for the statewide evaluations that will go through the CDE and to the State Board of Education for approval.
Advisory Committee Chair and California Department of Education (CDE) Staff Report
These items were previously discussed by John Malloy and Jane Ross; please refer to the After School Education and Safety (ASES) Program grant award process and the discussion about the use of technology in after school programs and in the promotion of after school resources and technical assistance section of the notes.
California Afterschool Network Report
Jennifer Peck spoke about the California Afterschool Network’s (Outside Source) involvement with the ASES Orientations. The network are working towards sending out alerts via their listserv when the CDE Web site has changes and/or updates. The Web site will also post funding opportunities, new research and other things that are of interest to the field. Jennifer spoke about a research speakers' series, an endeavor that will be funded by the W. T. Grant Foundation that is meant to be a series of conversations with nationally recognized researchers that are looking at various topics and issues related to after school programming. These experts will be brought to California, and discussion session will be held in various locations around the state. The next steps for the network are continued outreach, increasing representation for the network, and working with the Advisory Committee.
Update from Perry Chen on His Work with the Packard Foundation
Perry Chen explained his work with the Packard Foundation and after school programs. Perry is looking at the practical aspects of running after school programs, and his conversations with current program providers has led to the creation of a start up guide that includes tips, strategies, and tools that individuals can use as they create and begin to implement their programs.
Perry also described the work that he is conducting around efforts to identify relevant materials to be sent for California After School Resource Center (CASRC) peer review. This effort will focus initially on identifying materials and tools targeted on administrative issues. Funded by the Packard Foundation, and not connected formally to CASRC, Perry will solicit materials, provide an initial review, and submit materials to CASRC for review.
Discussion About Language to “Clean Up” Senate Bill 638 (SB 638)
Sandy explained that the CDE met with Senator Torlakson’s staff this morning so a more inclusive update will be given at the next meeting.
Other Discussion
Discussion was held around the frequency of Advisory Committee meetings. Sandy reminded the members that the Committee decided to hold meetings every other month, but that it could revise that schedule at any time. Ana Campos and Carla Sanger both commented that since so much is occurring with the ASES And 21st CCLC programs, and many deadlines for CDE Web postings and decisions have been set, the Committee should consider meeting monthly to ensure that all activities are executed as planned.
Ana Campos made a motion to have monthly meetings for the next four months and Alvaro Cortes seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved. The next meeting will be held in February. CDE staff will work to identify available times and dates.
Topics for Next Meeting
The following agenda items were identified:
- Advisory Committee chair report
- CDE staff report, including response from CDE legal staff
- Initial recommendations on the independent statewide evaluation
- Afterschool Network report
- Workforce Development Subcommittee report
Public Comment
Michael Funk, Sunset Neighborhood Beacon Center, spoke about his desire to see the Advisory Committee look into leveraging the Mott Funded Experience Report advocating for engaging older adults for staff in the after school workforce. The comment and suggestion will be passed on to the Workforce Development Subcommittee for consideration and discussion.
Adjournment
Sandra McBrayer adjourned the meeting at 12:15 p.m.
Handouts Distributed at Meeting
Meeting Agenda
- Minutes: November 1, 2006 Meeting
- Concept Paper: Measuring Homework Completion Rates
- Notes from a Telephone Conversation about Measuring Homework Completion Rates with Dr. Harris Cooper, Duke University
- Memorandum from Senator Tom Torlakson to Renee Newton, Outcomes and Evaluation Subcommittee Chair
- Outcomes and Evaluation Subcommittee Preliminary Report of Findings
- California Afterschool Network Update
- Informational Packet from CLRN.org
- Tips for Starting Up Proposition 49 Programs by Perry Chen
