Advisory Committee on Before and After School Programs
March 14, 2007
Frank Pisi, California Department of Education (CDE) staff to the Advisory Committee
Sandra McBrayer, Committee Chair, convened the March 14, 2007 Advisory Committee meeting at 9:44 a.m.
Approve Minutes from the February 22, 2006 Meeting
The Committee reviewed the February minutes and noted no additions, deletions, or changes. Gary Moody motioned to approve the minutes, Louis Fernandez seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved and carried.
Advisory Committee Chair Report
Sandy McBrayer called attention to the fact that the Committee was celebrating a one year anniversary. Ms. McBrayer thanked the members and acknowledged many of the successes the Committee’s partnership with the Department has garnered including: an extension of the deadline for the due date of the RFP for 21st Century Community Learning Centers (CCLC) and the contract extensions for the After School Education and Safety (ASES) programs to December 31, 2007.
AB 1685 Action
Sandy McBrayer noted that the Committee has been working to correct the Before School language in AB 1685 (Garrick). The Committee voiced their strong request that this Bill carries only before school language in it and nothing should be added. The bill could be heard as early as March 27. Sandy reported that the bill is an urgency bill and that she had spoken with Senator Torlakson, as well as the OSE, the Governor's Office, etc., who are all in support of the Bill. The Chair apologized for not having the exact language and asked John Malloy from the Department to clarify. John stated that the language added is four words to Education Code (EC) Section 8483.75 that relates to Before School Programs. A motion was made by Carla Sanger to support AB 1685 as written and seconded by Gary Moody. The motion was unanimously approved and carried.
Protocol for Calling Advisory Committee Meetings – Action
The Chair discussed the necessity and proposed requirements for calling additional Committee meetings and stressed that the mandate of the Advisory is to focus on statewide issues. The Committee discussed that any need for additional meetings must be requested by at least four members, would require a quorum, be held in a geographically convenient location, and the Chair should verify that the need for the meeting be confirmed as a statewide issue. There was discussion regarding the difference between local, district, county, statewide and other issues. A motion was made by Renee Newton to adopt a policy stating that when a member feels that an additional meeting is needed at least four members must contact Frank Pisi or the Chair regarding the need and the topic of such a meeting. The Chair will then work with CDE to determine if the topic is a statewide issue, and then adhere to Bagley-Keene insuring that there is a ten day notice and send out a three possible meeting dates for members chose while ensuring a quorum can be met. The motion was seconded by Ana Campos. The motion was unanimously approved and carried.
Outcomes and Evaluation Subcommittee Report
The Chair called upon Renee Newton to provide this report as part of the Chair report. Ms. Newton informed the Advisory Committee that no Subcommittee meeting was held in March, given the late February meeting. At the February meeting the Subcommittee received testimony from representatives of Resource Development Associates regarding their experiences evaluating after school programs and information about the research of the Academy of Sciences on critical features of programs that support healthy youth development from Sam Piha of Temescal Associates. This research is referenced in California EC and must be reflected in the independent statewide evaluation. Ms. Newton also informed the Committee that the Subcommittee received a memorandum from the Bay Area Partnership. This memorandum contains recommendations for the CDE and Subcommittee to consider as outcome measures for after school programs are defined and developed.
The Subcommittee is planning on receiving more testimony from field practitioners regarding their evaluation practices. CDE staff is working with the chair to develop a final set of recommendations for the independent evaluation of programs, as well as a document that will provide Advisory Committee members with a summary of the Subcommittee’s consultation with the CDE on the work around outcome measures.
CDE Staff Report
The Chair announced that the CDE Staff Report will include four items due to the need for background information and staff presentations on the remaining topics. The additional items will be added to the agenda for the next meeting.
Content Literacy Project
Frank Pisi noted that the Content Literacy Project has been in progress for the past two years at San Diego State University. The project is to develop training modules and tools to help train line staff in delivering standardized literacy assistance. Committee member Steve Amick commented that this is to assist paraprofessionals in basic literacy teaching techniques and stated that there will be five Train the Trainer events provided in this contract.
Carla Sanger noted that she would like more information on the next steps and asked how CDE is planning to ensure communication to the field and advise on the training opportunities available.
Louis Fernandez commented that there may be systems in place at the local community college level that provide credits for similar training.
Michael Funk asked the Chair to address the item of State Technical Assistance (TA) which was not on the agenda. It was noted that this since there were eight items for which information was requested, it had been announced that the Committee would address the first four items only that this meeting. The remaining four are to be added to the agenda for the next Committee on meeting. Michael then commented about a discussion which was held at the last Subcommittee on Evaluation meeting and presented a concern that the Committee look at this type of information in a more holistic context. Michael then added that he agrees that there is support for more communication in terms of getting the word out about TA projects. He stated he has observed in his own staff and also program coordinators that there are a lot of opportunities like this that are missed. Michael stated that there is another element of this that might involve incentives for participants to take part in what the State funds and puts together as part of the comprehensive ASES quality Program. Michael suggested that this would have to have some type of thread in terms of what the Outcomes and Evaluation Subcommittee is recommending in terms of objectives and standards; should also be tied to CDE developed technical Assistance as well as the California (Afterschool) Network Subcommittee on Quality is working on. Michael stated that somehow this is an opportunity to do things in a less fragmented way where the evaluation, quality, and technical assistance can be perceived by the field as something that is not in its own compartment. Many programs hire large staff that do not have any training in the management of a group of children and Michael would like to see some type of effort in communication strategies, but also incentives and technical assistance.
The Committee asked for clarification on the funding of trainings. Steve Amick talked about the financial incentives available for the Train the Trainers series. He stated that the role of getting out the message should fall upon Regional Leads so they can rely upon their training networks to communicate with their regions to insure that these training actually take place. Steve added that major providers usually identify folks who are responsible for staff development.
Carla stated that this process is not working for the smaller, new, and/or isolated programs in that they receive so much information and training opportunities that it is difficult for these programs to distinguish what material is worth their time. Carla then suggested that if the Committee is serious about this that we get this off the ground now and not to wait for all the "universes to be aligned." "Although our current systems are designed with the best intentions," Carla went on to say that she "doesn't believe that these systems are getting where they need to get to in the profound way that they need get there."
Steve Amick acknowledged the points made by Michael and Carla and then recommended that the Committee might consider having the staff that developed the Content Literacy Project meet to brainstorm additional needs and what actually is possible. Information from this meeting could bring additional thinking on how to get the word out and next steps this could be used in the field and also to advise the CDE.
Mary Hoshiko commented that she felt that information is sketchy at best for the smaller regions. Gary Moody then added that is obvious that there are different levels of expertise in different regions and suggested that hands-on examples be used in the trainings.
The Chair reminded the Committee that TA is one of the items that will be on the agenda for the next meeting.
John White asked if we have looked at any ongoing models that are productive and suggested that these could be incorporated and used as guidelines to promote consistency in the trainings.
Steve Amick stated that the point is to get input from the Advisory Committee before these TA projects roll out. He then commented that he felt it would be very unproductive to bring someone to the Committee to fully describe what is going on the Content Literacy Project and then have the Advisory Committee make recommendations based on that information since this project has been in place for several years, well before the Advisory Committee was even in place.
Frank Pisi talked about current projects to be placed on the agenda for next month's meeting. He reminded the Committee that many of the current projects started before the Advisory Committee was created.
There was more discussion regarding keeping the Committee informed for upcoming projects.
The Chair stated that she felt there are two points being discussed:
- The importance that the Committee be informed before launching 2007-08 projects; and
- The Committee is brought up to date on already existing programs by CDE staff.
Categorical Program Monitoring (CPM) process
Frank Pisi reported that the CPM process is required by law for many of the categorical programs that are under NCLB. This process was formerly known as the Coordinated Compliance Review (CCR) process. The most significant difference is that the CPM process includes an ongoing self evaluation tool. CPM review teams visit local educational agencies (LEAs) and sites to monitor compliance with statutory regulations. A team is currently conducting a CPM for high schools this week in the Los Angeles USD. CDE staff is also scheduled to visit San Juan Unified School District this week. Luther Burbank High School in Sacramento City Unified School District is scheduled for March 23 and Coachella Valley Unified School District is scheduled for May 28.
Approximately 250 school districts are selected every year by CDE’s CPM Office. Every program that is included in this process creates a program specific tool that focuses only on program requirements mandated in law. For example, one thing this year that the CDE is looking at for 21st CCLC programs is attendance, as this data must be reported by law.
Several Committee members requested more information about the CPM process and wanted to see the currently developed documents related to after school programs.
ASES and 21st CCLC Update
John Malloy, Administrator of the After School Policy and Evaluation Office began the update with the ASES grant extension. John stated that CDE had approved the grant extension request by the Advisory Committee. The extension is to December 31, 2007; John stated that this is a one time grant extension for this year only. John wanted to be very clear when stating that though the grant year has been extended, more money cannot be used on Administrative funds. Only 15 percent of the grant award may used on Administrative cost, the other 85 percent, must go to school sites for direct student services as stated in the grant conditions.
John went on to explain that the appeal notifications went out on March 2, 2007. The appeal notification is sent from the CDE to the person who signs the grant request, which is mostly the District's Superintendent for LEAs or Chief Executive Officers or Presidents for Non-LEAs.
John explained that the Grant Award Letters for transitional grants should be going out this week. He also mention that he doesn't have specific dates associated with the other grant awards as both offices are focused on the 21st Century Applications and Readers Conference. He further explained that the ASPE is just now starting to get back the signed Grant Awards letters and we will start processing payments for those awards that are coming in soon.
A question was raised about the left over money from the Cohort 5 ASES funding process. John explained that they have held approximately $6 million for the Before School legislative correction and based on the appeal funding there is approximately $9 million that will allow the CDE to fund lower on the list. At first we were only able to fund schools that were 50 percent free and reduced or higher and the funds available after the appeals process will allow the CDE to fund school lower that that 50 percent mark. These schools that are funded will still be Cohort five ASES grantees and they are still required to be up and running by the end of the year, June 30, however, exceptions may be made on a case by case basis.
Carla brought up the point that some of these schools that were close to the 50 percent free and reduced priced meals have applied for the 21st CCLC grant. John explained that if a grantee was awarded ASES monies with this new round the CDE would check with them to see if they want the ASES grant and only if they want to serve more students then they could keep the new 21st Century grant as well.
Mary then brought up a concern about CBOs who have applied for the 21st grant because the district was not awarded ASES funding. John explained that the CDE will call the district to see of they would like the funding and ask them how they would like to handle the 21st Century money if they are in a partnership with a community-based organization (CBO).
John continued with the 21st Century applications process. The deadline for these applications was Monday at 5 p.m. and even though the CDE extended the due date ten days there were still people calling up for an extension however, no exceptions were made. The CDE ended up with a little over 200 applications about half elementary/middle and half ASSETs a final count of schools has not been determined at this time. John's estimate is that there will be far more schools requesting funding than what is available. The Readers Conference is scheduled for April 9-13 and staff is working hard to complete all the in house tasks for the Conference. The CDE's intent is to notify by May 15, 2007 and for the start date to be July 1, 2007.
After School Network Report
Renee Newton introduced the interim Director, Lynn DeLapp. Lynn explained some topics that the network has been working on. These are the listed below:
ASES Orientations that happened in January
- Orientations took place in all 11 regions throughout the state with over 1,900 participants.
- 78 percent of the participants rated the conference exceptional or good.
- Key comments from the orientations were to provide more specific fiscal and evaluation information and to use Regional meetings to support networking.
- The participants also wanted a more engaging presentation styles and more opportunity for questions.
Membership and structure of CASNET
- There is a leadership team with 18 participants, including some advisory members.
- Participants were selected to provide organizational, geographic and different diversity groups.
- There is an executive committee with five members of the leadership team make day to day decisions that can't wait for the leadership team.
- Another component is a Leadership nominating committee. The idea behind the leaderships team is that six members would rotate on each year so there needs to be a nominating committee to take a look at how to replace positions but still uphold geographic and diversity representation.
- There are two standing committees in addition to the nominating committee. One is the Policy Committee which examines key policy issues that surround after school both private and public and provide information to policy makers and the field. The other committee is the Quality Committee which is involved with identifying consistent elements of quality.
- Though the strategic plan is still in the works below are the key strategies:
- Of the field and for the field we support each other – shaping after school policies at all levels and provides communication on all leaves.
- Work to insure access to necessary funds and resources – promote policy that help expand after school to all families in need.
- Empower practitioners to successfully advocate locally.
- Provide great programs and build strategic partnerships.
- Work on building CASNET itself and its ability to support.
- Research inter-series
- First forum is in late May and will be on continuous quality improvement.
- There are now 1,740 subscribers to the listserv.
- Web site enhancements will be coming soon.
- There is regular contact and information provided from CDE.
Workforce Development Subcommittee Report
There was no report as the Subcommittee had not met.
Process for Resolving Conflicts between ASES or 21st CCLC Grantees and the CDE
Frank provided guidance for resolving conflicts between grantees and the CDE: The grantee should keep in constant contact with their fiscal analyst and program consultant. CDE managers should also be informed of the situation. Keeping everyone in the communication loop and having the proper documentation is very important to avoiding future conflicts. Jane Ross is the administrator of the After School Programs office which is responsible for Regions 8 -11 and John Malloy is the administrator of the After School Policy and Evaluation Office which is responsible lf for Regions 1-7.
Carla Sanger reinforced the fact that it is the program's responsibility to push for an answer and inquired about what the CDE's policy is when denying a request. If the program has a detailed paper trail, presents the request, and it is denied at the program office level, Frank explained that Jan Mayer, Director of the Learning Support and Partnerships Division, should be involved. When all CDE avenues have been pursued and there is still no resolution to the issue, a claim with the Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board may be made.
Ana Campos requested something in writing of a more formal process for conflicts between the field and the CDE. She proposed that the CDE creates a formal process and present it to the field. Frank explained that he is not aware of a formal written process, but he will research it and create a write up of his comments at this meeting and report back to the Committee.
Items for Next Advisory Committee Meeting – Action
- Approval of Minutes – Action
- Advisory Committee Chair Report
- CDE Staff Report
- Update on Technical Assistance
- Update on Regional Lead System
- Resolving Conflicts
- After School Network Report
- Outcomes and Evaluation Subcommittee Report
- Workforce Development Subcommittee Report
- Items for next Advisory Committee Meeting – Action
- Public Comment
Lindsay Callahan, Central Valley Afterschool Foundation addressed the Committee regarding the earlier discussion on technical assistance. She reinforced the idea of the CDE presenting its plans for TA and supported the notion of taking the Committee's advice on projects.
Sandra McBrayer adjourned the meeting at 11:30 a.m.