Advisory Committee on Before and After School Programs
February 27, 2008
Kathie Scott (Nominee for California Department of Education Staff Liaison)
John L. White
Sandra McBrayer, Advisory Committee Chair, convened the meeting at 9:38 a.m.
Approval of Minutes from October 16, 2007, Meeting – Action
A motion to approve the October 16, 2007 meeting minutes was made by Gary Moody, seconded by Amy Christianson, and unanimously approved by the Advisory Committee.
Approval of Minutes from December 4, 2007, Meeting – Action
The Chair asked the Advisory Committee to review the minutes from the December 4, 2007, meeting. Renee Newton pointed out that the minutes should be corrected to reflect that there was a work group meeting rather than a full Outcomes and Evaluation Subcommittee meeting in August and September 2007. The Subcommittee met in October to develop a report to the Advisory Committee. A motion to approve the revised December 4, 2007, meeting minutes was made by Amy Christianson, seconded by Louis Fernandez, and unanimously approved by the Advisory Committee.
Advisory Committee Chair Report
Nomination of new staff member to serve as consultant to Advisory Committee
California Department of Education (CDE) administrators, staff from the Secretary of Education’s Office, and Carla Sanger interviewed qualified candidates for the consultant to the Advisory Committee. Kathie Scott was selected by the interview panel. The Chair introduced Kathie and gave an overview of Kathie’s biography which was included in the packet. The motion to nominate Kathie was made by Gary seconded by Carla Sanger, and unanimously approved by the Advisory Committee.
CDE Staff Report
Gordon Jackson began the CDE report by sharing that in his 28 years in the educational field he has had many conversations about partnerships. Gordon attended the National Partnerships Institute in Tucson, Arizona. At the institute he learned about what constitutes a strong partnership and how to develop viable partnerships. Gordon stated that we absolutely need to fortify this work and create common venues for open communication. Gordon spoke about the role of the Advisory Committee in creating strong partnerships.
After School Education and Safety Update
John Malloy informed the Advisory Committee that the Governor’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2008-09 budget proposes to cut approximately $60 million of Proposition 49 funding via a voter-approved initiative. The Legislative Analyst’s Office has also proposed to redirect After School Education and Safety Update (ASES) funding back into the annual budget process via a voter-approved initiative. These are two competing measures. Because Proposition 49 is a voter-approved initiative, it must be voted on again by the electorate to make any fiscal changes. John stated that he does not anticipate any changes to ASES funding levels from the current $550 million in FY 2008-09.
The Chair discussed unspent ASES dollars where programs are not fully meeting their projected attendance goals. She stated that we need to ensure that after school programs meet their attendance goals.
John stated that the CDE just received the first attendance reports from ASES grantees. CDE staff and the Regional Leads will provide technical assistance (TA) to grantees that are not fully expending their funding to help them provide the level of service for which they are funded.
Ana Campos stated that there was a portion of funding set aside for the ASES appeals process. John said that round one and two of the ASES appeals were all funded. In addition, some grantees dropped their grants and some have voluntarily reduced their grants. John informed the Advisory Committee that as it stands right now, the CDE does not have the money for another round of applications for funding.
Ana asked John for an estimate of remaining ASES funding. John estimated this amount to be approximately $5 million.
John stated that since ASES funding was initiated by Proposition 49, any reductions in funding would have to be done via a ballot initiative. The next time a ballot initiative could be introduced is the November ballot. John informed the members that there was one final ten percent payment for FY 2007-08 being held for grantees not fully expending their ASES funding.
Carla Sanger commented that the Governor is asking for a ten percent reduction for all state departments.
Louis Fernandez asked if grantees can resubmit for those districts that are under performing and for those potentially over performing.
John said that grantees can submit a request to the CDE to switch funding among sites within a grant. John explained if one school site within a grant is serving more students and another site is serving less students, the grantee can request that the CDE redirect grant funding from the site with less attendance to the site with more attendance. John further explained that the California Education Code (EC) allows grantees to allocate up to 125 percent of the maximum total grant amount for an individual school if that site has a waiting list. The grantee may only move funding from a site serving at least 70 percent of their targeted attendance. Grantees will not be able to request a funding adjustment among sites until the end of the year when they know the attendance level for each of their sites. Grantees should assess attendance at each site and work with their Regional Lead or regional CDE after school consultant to obtain TA if necessary.
John provided an example of a grantee that has three sites that propose to serve 100 students each. One site is actually serving 140 students in their ASES program, another site is serving 75 students, and another is serving 60 students. The grantee can request to move funding of up to 125 percent of the current grant award from the site serving 75 students to the site serving 140 students. However, the grantee cannot request to move funding from the site serving 60 students to the site serving 140 students.
Louis asked if there will be direction or clarification from the CDE to the field to explain this process. John answered that this process is in the current EC.
Carla asked if grantees can request to transfer funding every year. John answered that grantees can request to transfer funding among sites every year, but it must be done on an annual basis.
Louis stated that in his geographical area some programs will not meet their targeted attendance, and he would like the CDE to clarify the funding-transfer process.
John informed the Advisory Committee that the CDE can issue a communication to the field to clarify the transfer process, but grantees cannot request to transfer funds until the end of the year after they submit their final attendance report.
Carla asked whether a grantee can predict this before the final attendance report is submitted. She also asked if it is one time only.
John responded that it is one time only and there is no limitation on the number of sites among which funding can be transferred.
Carla asked if grantees are secure in their attendance numbers, can they submit a request to transfer funding before the end of the year.
John stated that grantees can submit a request each year, and the request is for that year only. It is not ongoing.
Louis thanked the Advisory Committee for having this discussion and stated that everyone now knows they can make decisions about attendance and program management. Louis said that after consulting with site principals and superintendents he knows that some sites will over-perform and some under-perform.
The Chair added that it is crucial to provide as much TA as we can right now to make sure that programs are serving as many children as possible.
John clarified that the CDE wants to make sure after school programs are fully serving children. John stated that he has heard in Sacramento that some people feel the proposed budget cuts will not hurt much because not all ASES funding is being expended. John stated this is not true and that the proposed cuts will hurt after school programs and children.
Alvaro Cortes asked if the CDE could clarify the transfer-of-funding process between elementary and middle schools. Al asked if the transfer could take place from ASES sites to other ASES sites or if the transfer could take place from an ASES site to a 21st Century Community Learning Centers (CCLC) site. John stated the transfer is restricted to sites within any given grant.
Ana asked if transfers could take place from one cohort to another cohort. John reminded the Advisory Committee that ASES grants were now in one cohort. John stated that 21st CCLC grants are still broken into cohorts and that the transfer could not take place between them.
The Chair suggested it would be great to receive clarification about the transfer process from the CDE. John said the CDE could provide clarification.
John provided an update on two new legislative bills. The first is Senate Bill 1492, Senator McClintock. This bill would basically gut ASES by reducing funding to $120 million. John asked if the Advisory Committee had any advice about this bill. The members did not have any advice at this time.
The second legislative bill John discussed was Senate Bill 1674, Senator Torlakson. If passed, this bill would make changes to the ASES Program as follows: would allow grantees to operate the program on Saturdays, would establish a minimum grant for small schools, and would clarify that grantees may spend a maximum of 15 percent of their grant award for direct and indirect administration including indirect costs. This means that a grantee that subcontracts with other entities to run the program may only spend a total of 15 percent of the grant award for administrative costs, regardless of the number of agencies or organizations running the ASES Program and that a reasonable amount of administrative funds must go to the school site. The CDE has not done an analysis yet on Senate Bill 1674.
The Chair added that at the next meeting, under the Chair’s report, she would advise the Advisory Committee of legislative updates, since legislative bills are amended on an ongoing basis.
21st Century Community Learning Centers Update
John stated that the CDE received 242 applications for new elementary/middle school and high school 21st CCLC grants. Of these, 72 applications were for high school After School Safety and Enrichment for Teens (ASSETs) grants and 170 were for elementary/middle school grants. The CDE allocated $50 million for this cohort 5 grant opportunity. The CDE received approximately $150 million in application requests which is three times the amount available. The large number of applications received indicates that there is a huge demand for after school programs.
The CDE will be conducting a Readers’ Conference on April 7–11, 2009. in Sacramento. John requested that any interested and qualified readers join Amy to help read grants. An application to be a reader is on the CDE After School Web page.
Carla asked about other funding opportunities and whether applicants could request funding to operate summer programs alone. John said that there is one case where applicants could apply for a 21st CCLC grant to operate only during the summer. Applicants operating ASES grants may apply just for a grant to add a summer program to supplement the core ASES Program.
Ana asked if supplemental summer programs will ever be a priority for funding because there are thousands of children in need of summer programs due to schools switching from a year-round to a traditional schedule.
John said that the CDE or the Legislature has not yet considered summer programs a special priority. Currently, high school ASSETs programs are the legislated priority. Cohort 5 applications show there is a large need for elementary/middle school regular after school programs. Currently, the EC states that the only other priority is for Program Improvement (PI) schools. Applicants requesting a grant for PI schools receive priority points.
Gary commented that it will be difficult to make summer programs a priority when we have three times more applications for regular school year grants than we have funding available.
Carla stated that the lack of summer programs may be a greater issue for large urban schools. Carla asked why, when you had programs running for many years off track, those programs cannot use their 21st CCLC funding to run for 240 days per year. She stated that this is not fair to large urban programs.
Carla asked if the CDE could get a fix on how many programs and how much funding this would impact. John Malloy said that all CDE after school staff are working on current priorities and to address this issue, CDE staff would have to be moved from current priorities to work on this.
Ana reminded the Advisory Committee that the ASES Universal grant process did not include an adjustment for large schools or supplemental programs. She urged members to keep this in mind when determining how future funding should be allocated.
Al asked if 21st CCLC and ASES grantees can run programs on a site other than a school site. He stated that there may be 400,000 kids on the street in Los Angeles County if programs cannot run on a non-school site.
The Chair stated that one can run programs offsite as long as safe transportation is provided and the site is as accessible as the school site. John agreed that nothing in the EC precludes using 21st CCLC or ASES funding to run a program at an alternate site.
Carla asked John to comment about the national conversation concerning
21st CCLC going to a voucher program and what this means for after school programs.
John stated that he believes it means that a child who wants to go to an after school program can use a voucher to attend a program, and any private company will accept the voucher.
The Chair stated that vouchers will result in a dramatic change in the current structure for the 21st CCLC Program. Vouchers are proposed to give parents the opportunity to have their child attend a public or private after school program. The after school program could be non profit or for profit. The voucher could also be used to send a child to a faith-based program.
Instructional Aide Frequently Asked Questions
John provided the Advisory Committee with a handout entitled Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) with questions and answers related to the requirements for instructional aides in after school programs. John stated that before the CDE sends an advisory to the field it must be consistent with law and ensure answers are consistent with field needs.
The Chair stated that the CDE has been working to ensure that FAQs are vetted with the field to make sure they make sense to the field.
John confirmed that the FAQs are checked by the CDE and then vetted with the field. These FAQs represent some of the FAQs that will be posted on the CDE Web site.
The Chair stated that the CDE continually develops FAQs, has them vetted by practitioners in the field, and then has any changes reviewed by the CDE Legal Office before they are posted on the CDE Web site. The CDE is working to make sure the after school field reviews the FAQs and ensures they make sense before they are posted. She stated that this process takes time and to be patient.
Michael Funk asked for clarification as to whether staff employed by a community-based organization (CBO) must meet the local educational agency’s (LEA’s) requirements for an instructional aide. John said yes, if staff will be directly supervising students.
John clarified that if a grantee hires someone who does not directly supervise students, that person does not have to meet the LEA’s requirements for an instructional aide. However, staff directly supervising students and contributing to the 20:1 ratio must meet these requirements.
Amy stated that a lower ratio than 20:1 is allowable if the person is not directly supervising students. John added that if you want to hire someone to work in the program, you can do so as long as there is other staff to directly supervise students, and the program will still meet the 20:1 ratio.
John discussed instructional aide requirements for the 21st CCLC Program. If a grantee combines a 21st CCLC Program with a Title I Program where the grantee shares 21st CCLC funding with Title I funding, then the 21st CCLC Program must meet No Child Left Behind Act requirements for an instructional aide.
Michael stated that his program uses a lower student to staff ratio by utilizing a cadre of volunteers and other strategies. The program might hire someone who is not an instructional aide to work along side a qualified instructional aide, but he is not sure this is explicit in the FAQ language. Michael was also not clear about requirements for volunteers.
The Chair stated that the CDE needs to clarify the FAQ regarding non-instructional aide staff and volunteers. John agreed to clarify the FAQ.
Ana asked if a 21st CCLC grantee is a CBO, do program instructional aides still need to meet LEA requirements. John stated that both ASES and 21st CCLC Programs must hire staff who meet the LEA’s requirements if the staff directly work with students and are part of the 20:1 student-to-staff ratio. John further clarified that if a grantee is not using Title I funding in their after school program, instructional aides do not have to meet NCLB requirements.
Quality Self Assessment Tool Update
Jane Ross presented a brief update about the quality self-assessment tool (QSAT). Jane stated that in an effort to move the implementation and marketing of the QSAT forward as expeditiously as possible, the CDE has reached out to our partners at the California AfterSchool Network (CASN).
Jane reported that last fall the CDE reported to the Advisory Committee that the CDE met with the CASN’s Quality Committee. That group conducted an extensive review of the draft QSAT and provided valuable input. The CDE also received feedback from the Advisory Committee, Regional Lead staff, and others. The CASN Quality Committee will now take all of the input received and, working with two Regional Leads who have piloted use of the QSAT, will revise the draft to incorporate input.
The next version of the QSAT is anticipated shortly and is scheduled to be field-tested some time this spring. Andee Press-Dawson of the CASN is convening a group in March. Andee will speak more about the QSAT in the CASN report to the Advisory Committee.
There were no questions from the Advisory Committee.
After School Demonstration Program Update
Jane and John gave an update about the California After School Demonstration Program (CASDP). CDE staff met with Janet Walden and Kathy Lewis of the Center for Collaborative Solutions (CCS) to discuss thoughts, share knowledge, and revisit experience with the Regional Learning Centers (RLCs) Program. The CCS is very supportive of the new CASPD program pilot, and the CDE is looking forward to an ongoing relationship with the CCS. Jane stated that the CDE and the CCS learned a great deal from the RLCs Program, and this shaped the work of the CASDP. Jane emphasized that the very idea for establishing strong, high-performing programs to provide peer-based mentoring and to demonstrate effective practices came from the RLCs Program.
Jane and John enumerated key things learned from the RLCs experience. John informed the Advisory Committee that one of the great things that came about from this conversation is that the CDE and the CCS recognizes that the RLCs process was the first step in the CASDP process. The idea for establishing strong, high-performing programs to provide peer-based support came from the RLC process.
Jane further clarified that the CDE needed a clear, agreed-upon selection process with formally scored applications for the CASDP. The CDE required CASDP applications to strike a balance between experience and expertise. There is a need to document what we know and to make sure that this is an open public process. It is important to realize that sites must have institutional expertise that does not end when staff leave. Jane stated that we know that programs must strike a balance between supporting the professional development needs of each program’s leader and ensuring that the expertise is institutionalized and documented, so that it does not rest with one individual. The CDE is requiring CASDP applicants to enumerate all of the evidence that supports their proposal and clearly indicate why they are qualified to be a CASDP site and learning community. It is also important that CASDP staff be well trained on exemplary strategies.
Jane explained that the CDE and CCS also determined that the CASDP needs to have definite protocols for how to conduct demonstration visits that are effective and meet visitor expectations. We appreciate that when staff visits a demonstration site they learn by seeing, but they also need an explanation of how things are best done. Effective practices must be developed and effective follow-up done.
John informed the Advisory Committee that CASDP sites do not stand alone in providing TA. The CDE and partners will define and coordinate the roles for providing TA. The CDE will work closely with the Regional Leads to provide support to CASDP sites. John assured the Advisory Committee that this is just the first step in the CASDP. Selected demonstration sites will serve as models for future sites. CASDP sites are part of the whole TA process. John added that as we move forward with the CASDP everyone will be integral part of the process. John added that as long as the CDE will be using state and federal funds to develop and implement the CASDP we must make sure we are supporting TA that is based on accountability. The CASDP sites will be required to routinely report results and will be part of a comprehensive evaluation process.
Jane discussed CASDP funding. Each site will receive $75,000 per year which is an increase from the RLCs. The CDE would like to thank the Advisory Committee for alerting us about the $75,000 per CASDP site. In January the CDE surveyed about 60 grantees we thought might have been eligible to apply but who did not apply for the CASDP. We learned that the proposed funding level of $75,000 was not enough to persuade many eligible organizations to submit an application.
Jane explained that in the next couple of weeks the CDE will finish the CASDP selection process and conclude site verification visits of the top ten applicants and two alternates. The CDE expects to name the first cohort of CASDP sites in late March.
John concluded that we are excited about the CASDP and intend to make it an integral part of the TA landscape in California, and we look forward to the CASDP contributing to positive outcomes for students.
Carla stated that other sites will need to be energized to take advantage of CASDP sites. She stated that CDE must create a market for this service and realistically manage expectations and usage of this process. The success of the CASDP does not only depend on the quality of the provider but the willingness of other sites to avail themselves of this opportunity. Carla asked what the benchmark for usage is. Carla stated that in her experience the usage of the RLC sites was minimal.
John stated that there are no exact benchmarks for CASDP site requirements and deliverables. The CDE expects heavy urban areas to have more visits. Each CASDP applicant told CDE in their application how they would use the $75,000 but CDE does not have exact visitation benchmarks. The CDE will try to engage other partners in the field to help market the sites.
Camille Maben stated from what we know about kids and academic achievement some kids need additional strategies. This is especially true for kids who are English learners and kids with special needs. If these needs are addressed, these resources could really help them.
Jane stated that the CASDP was open to all eligible grantees, and the CDE hopes to include high school grantees.
Renee commented that she was glad to see the CDE taking a stance to pilot to allow flexibility for innovation and to be able to explore other areas. In addition to taking the information that we learned from this pilot and bringing this knowledge back to the Advisory Committee and the subcommittees, we can use this information and learn from it to move forward after the pilot.
Louis stated that it is critical to look at what the outcomes are and look forward to communicating and using that information so that TA will be better.
Louis asked Jane about funding, how studies are conducted, and what outcomes will be measured. He stated that he is looking forward to utilizing this process but it is extremely difficult to communicate and disseminate TA and asked CDE staff to address this. Jane said that CDE staff will continue to work with the Advisory Committee on the CASDP.
The Chair thanked Jane and John for their report.
Outcomes and Evaluation Subcommittee Update
Renee addressed the members and recapped the last Outcomes and Evaluation Subcommittee (OES) meeting. At the last meeting, the OES brought forward recommendations from the October 2007 meeting. These recommendations wrapped up some of the information that was reported from the CDE workgroup that met last August and September. The workgroup consisted of evaluation experts and providers who reviewed ways to measure alternative outcomes. The work group determined that these recommendations should come together formally in writing as a letter from the OES to the Advisory Committee. Renee talked about the letter (enclosed) in the meeting packet.
In addition, Paula Bellacera of the OES addressed the Advisory Committee in October 2007 and reported that the group struck a balance by incorporating field input. The group had a sound methodology behind them.
Renee suggested, based on the presentation at the September 2007 Advisory Committee meeting, that a letter or memorandum from the OES be presented to the Advisory Committee outlining recommendations as the CDE seeks a contractor to develop outcome measures. The OES thought it was important to report to the full Advisory Committee before the subcommittee takes further action. In addition, the OES recommends that programs should be able if needed to switch the outcome measures they chose when they submitted their application to new outcome measures that best meet their program needs once new tools have been designed.
Renee reported that the CDE is seeking an outside contractor to develop measurement tools which meet the specific needs of after school programs in California.
The OES suggests that CDE consider the following guidance when developing tools for measuring outcomes as set forth in EC sections 8427 and 8484:
- It is important to garner the input of the after school community early in the design phase of instrument development discussions. Of particular importance, efforts should be made to gain wide representation from the field in soliciting input, e.g. representation from line staff, rural/urban programs, CBOs, grantees, evaluators, Advisory Committee members, etc.
- The CDE should contract with an evaluation/research vendor with experience in survey development to create measurement tools which meet the specific needs of after school programs in California. All tools should remain in the state’s public domain. The vendor should collect and review existing outcome tools (those in use both nationally and locally) at elementary, middle, and high school levels.
- The CDE should consider various options for funding tool design and pilot testing such as seeking private foundation support or allocating a percent set-aside of TA funds.
- Once tools have been pilot tested and modified, grantees should be given the opportunity to review the tools and select an outcome measure that best reflects their stated program goals. Grantees may decide to support their original outcome measure selection or make a change. Programs can best evaluate the feasibility of specific tool use in collecting and reporting outcome data for the annual, the CDE accountability report only after seeing what the final instruments require.
The Chair stated that the Advisory Committee was accepting the OES recommendations. She further stated that it is not only important for the CDE to seek an outside vendor and evaluator but also to seek outside funding with private foundations or others.
John informed the members that the CDE has reviewed the recommendations and fully supports them. The CDE also has a staff member (Paula Bellacera) who serves on the OES. The CDE supports the use of outside funding. The CDE does not have resources to develop the tools and looks forward to working with the Advisory Committee on this matter.
Renee concluded that California does not want to purchase something off the shelf. California needs to consider an instrument specific to California and this might require an outside contractor. The Advisory Committee wanted to weigh in on some of the parameters that they would like to see in place in seeking out a vendor.
Michael stated that if the process is to seek outside funding, will we take the recommendations of the OES in developing the tools.
John stated that the CDE will be looking for the best outside source. The CDE does not want to accept a canned program. The CDE will work with the OES and the Advisory Committee to develop appropriate tools.
Michael stated that in considering tools for review and seeking funding it is my assumption that nothing will be hitting the field next fall.
John stated that he doubted this process would be done by next fall. The CDE will be looking for an outside funder in California that might help with this process.
Arron Jiron of the Packard Foundation (Foundation) mentioned that the Foundation wants to support the CDE and after school field.
The Chair also mentioned that at the Workforce Development Subcommittee (WDS) meeting at 1:00 p.m. today the WDS will be talking about the request for proposals (RFP) with the California Community College Chancellor’s Office. The RFP was released, pulled back, and will be re-released in the next couple of weeks. The purpose of the RFP is to look at pilot sites for linking after school programs staff to career pathways. The WDS will also look at the California School-Age Consortium (CalSAC) job fairs.
California AfterSchool Network Update
Andee Press-Dawson presented the California After School Network (CASN) update. Jane requested assistance from the CASN to roll out and provide training on the QSAT. Andee reported that the CASN is excited to be assisting with this project and will have the QSAT available in approximately two weeks. The CASN will link the QSAT with what the CASPD sites are doing, Regional Lead events, and other events and projects.
California AfterSchool Network Presentation
Jeff Davis, Program Coordinator for the CASN, presented an overview of the CASN Web site. He also informed the Advisory Committee that CASN was conducting a telephone workshop today at 1:00 p.m. to outline proposed federal and state funding changes. Jeff mentioned the CASN electronic newsletter and referred members to a handout in their packet. Jeff reviewed the CASN Web site and discussed some of the Web resources available from the CASN which included a link to the CalSAC. Jeff informed the group that he recently hosted a workshop with Microsoft which was available for review on the CASN Web site.
The CASN Web site documents the history and expansion of California before and after school programs. The CASN Web site also provides funding resources, lists of current grants, virtual workshops, news, events, links to other Web sites, information exchange, and the latest policy information.
Jeff pointed out that the QSAT is available on the CASN Web site along with access to the after school Regional Leads and after school success stories. Also on the events calendar is a comprehensive list of before and after school events in California. Anyone can submit information to the CASN to post on the Web site. The information exchange includes an on-line forum where people can ask questions and exchange information.
The CASN Web site includes a map and listing of after school programs and their respective Senate and Assembly districts, the number of programs, and the number of students. Also available on the Web site are lists of after school programs by federal and state legislative districts. Jeff pointed out that the attendance data on the Web site represents potential and not actual attendance.
The Chair asked if it is possible to show the percentage of children served in addition to the number of students. This will show the gap and the need in certain areas.
Jeff commented that the CASN has a draft map that shows the percentage of students served. The draft map shows the gap is about ten percent of students being served in large urban areas, whereas a much larger percentage are being served in rural areas. He will work to post this map on their site.
There is also a link to the California After School Resource Center (CASRC) on the CASN Web site allowing the public to see what services the CASRC provides and what materials are available.
Jeff pointed out that the review process for posting items on the CASN Web site includes a review by himself, an executive editor, and then the executive director.
The Chair asked Jeff how he obtains information he posts on the Web site. Jeff said that he reviews various Web sites and other sources. The CASN intends to work closer with the Regional Leads in the future.
John suggested that possibly Jeff could query Regional Leads to find out what is going on in the regions.
Amy commented that she believes the Regional Leads are required through their work plans to communicate with the CASRC and the CASN.
Jeff commented that the calendar does not actually work by region but you can search in zip code order. The Web site also includes a statewide events calendar.
The Chair commented that it would be awesome if you could search by zip code and region.
Jeff then showed a downloadable CD (approximately five minutes long) that provided a history of Proposition 49. Jeff thanked John Malloy, the CDE, and Frank Pisi (former CDE staff liaison to the Advisory Committee) for their help in putting the production together.
The Chair thanked Jeff for the presentation.
Items for Next Advisory Committee Meeting: April 23, 2008
- The Categorical Program Monitoring process update
- Statewide Project (the CDE contracts update) and initiatives update
- The CASRC update
The Chair announced that there would be a WDS meeting today at 1:00 p.m.
There being no further business, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 11:20 a.m.