every student succeeds act consolidated plan team · pdf fileif the workgroups have solid ......

NOTE: The ESSA Consolidated Plan Team reviewed the recommendation(s) for Washington’s ESSA Consolidated Plan. They will not take effect unless they are approved by the State Superintendent and the U.S. Department of Education.

1

Every Student Succeeds Act Consolidated Plan Team

Meeting Summary August 24, 2016

Facilitator: Gil Mendoza

Members Present: Andrea Cobb, Ben Rarick, Bernard Koontz, Bill Keim, Brad Sprague, Chris Nation, Deb Merle, Doug Nelson, Frank Hewins, Gary Kipp, Gayle Pauley, Israel Vela, James Smith (via GoToMeeting), Jennifer Kindle, Jennifer Wallace, Julie Kang (via GoToMeeting), Kathryn Hobbs, Kim Brodie, Leonard Forsman, Lorna Spear, Mele Aho (via GoToMeeting), Michele Miller, Mynor Lopez, Randy Spaulding, Sarah Butcher, Sherry Krainick, Tim Garchow.

Workgroup Members Absent: Ann Waybright, Carrie Basas, Chad Magendanz, Dana Anderson, George Dockins, Jeff Vincent, John McCoy, Kate Davis, Leonard Forsman, Minerva Morales, Rich McBride, Sharon Tomiko Santos, Steve Davidson, Suzy Martinez, Wanda Billingsly

Alternate Members Present: Brian Jeffries (Alternative for Stephen Mullin), Mara Machulsky (attending for Craig Bill), Sally McNair (attending for Justin Fox-Bailey)

Guests: Aubry Deaver, Deb Came, Doug Gill, Ethan Moreno, Jami Peterson, Kathe Taylor, Maria Flores, Megan Wargacki, Paula Moore, Robin Munson, Sue Anderson, Tony Brownell

Meeting Summary Taken By: Carrie Hert


2

Agenda Item Discussion Action

1. Welcome/

Introductions/

Announcements

Meeting started at 1:30 p.m. State Superintendent Randy Dorn thanked everyone for coming and for doing this important work. This is a good process and we are getting a lot of input in many different ways, the largest portion of input is from teachers. Randy announced that the timeline to submit the Consolidated Plan remains the same and will be submitted in December. If the workgroups have solid recommendations, he will take them into serious consideration. If the workgroups don’t make recommendations or can’t decide, Randy will have to move forward using the best information he has. Randy wants the plan to be sent in December, and asked the ESSA Consolidated Plan Team to do whatever steps are needed to make that happen. Gil announced that the ESSA Consolidated Plan will comply with our state laws. If a recommendation comes forward from a workgroup that does not comply with state law, we will set it aside for later consideration to change the law. Other Announcements: Gil Mendoza announced that Tim Garchow replaced Alan Burke on the workgroup, representing the Washington State School Directors Association.


3


Gene Sharratt has retired and left the workgroup. A replacement will not be appointed.

2. ESSA Students with Disabilities (SWD) Workgroup Recommendations 1–6

Doug Gill, Assistant Superintendent of Special Education went through the six ESSA Students with Disabilities (SWD) Workgroup recommendations.

SWD1 Recommendation: The Students with Disabilities subgroup encourages the ESSA Consolidated Plan Team to take full advantage of every opportunity to maximize the state’s fiscal, regulatory and reporting flexibility while maintaining meaningful accountability measures consistent with the intent of the reauthorization of the ESSA, and apply the core principles of universal design for learning (UDL) to build capacity within the general education core curriculum to promote equitable and meaningful access, engagement, and representation of students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment for each student. Doug Gill shared the following discussion from the ESSA Students with Disabilities (SWD) Workgroup:

Using data collected but not previously reported as part of accountability measures (i.e. attendance, graduation rate; Healthy Youth Survey results; climate surveys).

Maximize flexibility.

Universal Design for Learning.

Unanimous consensus to move forward to Superintendent Dorn for consideration.


4


Adequate funding.

Improved access to Least Restrictive Environments. Discussion took place between ESSA Consolidated Plan Team members around the following areas:

Crosswalks between workgroups.

Composite scores are not locked in.

Metric for accountability will come from the Accountability System Workgroup.

Unanimous consensus was reached to move forward to Superintendent Dorn for consideration.

SWD2

Recommendation: The ESSA Consolidated Plan Team should adopt multiple measures for school and district accountability in the Students with Disabilities subgroup including a clearly articulated multilevel, linear growth model using existing data, that complements the primary measure of academic progress towards state standards with a variety of secondary measures to promote increased instructional time such as; school climate data, social emotional survey data, attendance records, and disproportional exclusionary discipline rates. Other measures of college and career readiness in the accountability index should result in a composite score that also includes post school outcomes, and extended graduation rates consistent with an eligible student’s

Unanimous consensus to table this recommendation and collaborate with the Accountability System Workgroup.


5

Agenda Item Discussion Actionentitlement to services until age 21 under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

Doug Gill shared the following discussion from the ESSA Students with Disabilities (SWD) Workgroup:

Reduction of exclusionary practices.

Increase instructional time available to students (reducing

suspensions, poor attendance, expulsion).

Consideration for students with significant cognitive disabilities.

Creating intentional graduation plans (i.e. students may take fewer

classes but receive more support along the way to get maximum

benefit from instruction). This may result in taking longer than the

traditional four years to graduate.

Discussion took place between ESSA Consolidated Plan Team members around the following areas:

Meaning of composite scores.

Different sub measures within a category, each one has some ability to

count towards a larger composite score.

School climate factors

Effects of attendance and chronic absenteeism.


6


Different indicators for different sub-groups of students.

Flexibility with expected year of graduation in ESSA.

Changes to achievement index and picking off certain sub-groups that ESSA

will not allow.

Additions to the Report Card.

Should the ESSA Consolidated Plan Team determine system capacity to

deal recommendations.

Looking at sub-groups and different indicators for accountability.

Use of multiple measures.

Unanimous consensus was made to table this recommendation and collaborate with the Accountability System Workgroup.

SWD3 Recommendation: The ESSA Consolidated Plan Team should adopt and encourage the use of blended and/or braided funding mechanisms (cost allocation models) endorsed by the U.S. Department of Education to enhance the development and adoption of research based, multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) for all students, and ensure the full participation of special education staff in school and district wide personnel development opportunities so that the source of funds for a particular position does not limit any staff person (certified or classified) from gaining skills to improve one or more of the multiple measures for school and district accountability, or limit service delivery



7


to students who are eligible for services across multiple categorical programs (Title I, English Learners and Special Education). Doug Gill shared the following discussion from the ESSA Student Students with Disabilities (SWD) Workgroup:

With the ultimate goal being equitable access to ensure optimum outcomes for students.

Tiered levels of instruction/intervention.

Blending/braiding of funding is necessary as more students qualify in several distinct categories (i.e. Special Education; McKinney-Vento; E11; Free and Reduced lunch. All programs can share in the funding of services to ensure students receive optimal services

Need for professional development and technical assistance for all school staff including educators, administrators, para educators and ESAs.


Braided model and discussion to ensure the targeted services were implemented.

Unanimous consensus was reached to move forward to Superintendent Dorn for consideration.


8


SWD4

Recommendation: Given the ESSA 1% limitation on the percentage of total tested students that can be alternately assessed, the ESSA Consolidated Plan Team should adopt a statewide definition of the term “significantly cognitively challenged” to clarify the characteristics of students that are eligible for an alternate assessment as a result of an IEP team decision, and enable districts to uniformly apply for a waiver of the 1% limitation should the district have the need to apply for such a waiver. Doug Gill shared the following discussion from the ESSA Students with

Disabilities (SWD) Workgroup:

Adopt a state-wide definition of the term “significantly cognitively challenged” (i.e. those students who require intensive or extensive levels of direct support that is not of a temporary or transient nature. Students with significant cognitive challenges also require specially designed instruction to acquire, maintain or generalize skills in multiple settings in order to successfully transfers skills to natural settings including the home, school, workplace, and community. In addition, these students score at least two (2) standard deviations below the mean on standardized, norm-reference assessments for adaptive behavior and intellectual functioning.)

Local districts will be able to apply for a waiver.

Majority consensus to move forward to Superintendent Dorn for consideration.


9



This definition was developed in 2004–05, and this is an opportunity to be very clear on this definition.

Level of ability to determine that districts are accurately doing this and following the definition.

To request a waiver we must have a definition, which was the intent of this recommendation.

The Consolidated Plan Team voted 21 votes to move this recommendation forward to Superintendent Dorn as is, 1 opposed, and 4 abstained. Majority consensus was reached to move this recommendation forward to Superintendent Dorn for consideration.

SWD5

Recommendation: Consistent with the application of the core principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in Recommendation 1, the ESSA Consolidated Plan Team should encourage the development and adoption of Alternate Achievement Standards using the Links for Academic Learning (LAL) process on behalf of students with significant cognitive challenges and ensure that a student’s need for an alternate assessment is not the result of a lack of the student’s access to appropriate instruction, or the need for assistive technology.

Majority consensus to move forward to Superintendent Dorn for consideration.


10



Coordinated Service Plans lead to maximizing services to students.

Questions for IEP teams to consider before deciding a student shouldparticipate in an alternate assessment should be imbedded in the IEP.

Intensity of student need should drive the program delivered.

Need to intensify services to Special Education students to close the gap.

The Consolidated Plan Team voted with 24 votes to move this recommendation forward to Superintendent Dorn, and 2 abstained.

Majority consensus was reached to move this recommendation forward to Superintendent Dorn for consideration.

SWD6

Recommendation: The ESSA Consolidated Plan Team should encourage OSPI to develop model notification language and IEP team guidelines for school districts to use regarding alternate assessments which includes language that indicates a student’s participation in the alternate assessment may delay, or otherwise affect the student completing the requirements for a regular high school diploma.



11



Students who continue to receive services should not count

against the graduation rate.


The recommended model notification language will be provided

in other languages, if adopted.

Need of definition on what regular high school diploma means.

Discussion on students that are not on either path to graduate.

ESSA requires parents be notified—this recommendation is to

develop a model for notifications.

Unanimous consensus was reached to move forward to Superintendent Dorn

for consideration.

3. ESSA Student Assessment System (SAS) Workgroup Recommendations 6–9

Robin Munson, Assistant Superintendent of Assessment and Student

Information went through the four ESSA Student Assessment System (SAS)

Workgroup recommendations 6–9.

SAS6: Recently Arrived English Learners Majority consensus was reached to move this


12


Recommendation: The workgroup recommends a hybrid of options 1 and 2: Year 1 ELA testing would be optional; determination of whether to test a student could be made at the district, school, or student level. Accountability phase-in listed in Option 2 above would then be used (growth measure in 2nd year tested; proficiency reporting in 3rd year tested).

If student IS tested in ELA the first year:

o Yr 1 ELA score is not included in accountability;

o Yr 2 ELA score is included as growth measure at the school, district and

state level;

o Yr 3 ELA score is included in proficiency rates at the school, district and

state level.

If student IS NOT tested in ELA the first year:

o Yr 1 is no-score and has no impact on accountability;

o Yr 2 ELA score is not included in accountability as there is no basis for

measuring growth;

o Yr 3 ELA score is included in proficiency rates at the school, district and

state level.

recommendation forward to Superintendent Dorn for consideration.


13


If the state cannot propose a hybrid as part of consolidated plan, the

workgroup decided the original Option #2 would be their preference.

Robin Munson shared the following discussion from the ESSA Student

Assessment System (SAS) Workgroup:

Under ESSA, for students that arrived in the U.S. less than 12 months ago, the

state can choose either of two options for testing and inclusion of results in the

accountability system.

1. Exclude the first year students from participation in the ELA test. In the

second year the students are to be tested and the results count fully in

accountability system.

2. Test first year students but phase their results into the accountability

system over a three-year period: exclude first-year results, include

measure of growth for second-year, and report proficiency for third-

year and all subsequent years.

Majority prefer a hybrid that is more student-centered, with districts deciding

on best approach for its own students. The group wants students to have as

many options and access to alternatives as possible.


14


Discussion took place between ESSA Consolidated Plan Team members around

the following areas:

This recommendation is only referring to students that are not English proficient.

Importance of parent input and inclusion of parent/guardian in decision.

Districts would be using prior information as well as their experience with the student through the year to determine if the student should test in English at the end of the year.

It is a local level determination on whether the student should be assessed in English or not.

Removal of district decision and added language of parent input to recommendation.

The Consolidated Plan Team voted 23 votes to move this recommendation forward to Superintendent Dorn, 2 abstained, and 1 opposed. Majority consensus was reached to move this recommendation forward to Superintendent Dorn for consideration.

SAS7: Audits of State and Local Assessments

Recommendation: The workgroup recommends that OSPI seek the funding when it becomes available, and conduct the inventory at the state level and

Unanimous consensus was reached to move this recommendation forward to


15


develop a sampling plan for local inventories, issuing grants to local districts that are interested but ensuring that there is a representative sample of districts awarded grants. Robin Munson shared the following discussion from the ESSA Student Assessment System (SAS) Workgroup: ESSA talks about a potential grant opportunity for states to apply for funding to conduct state and/or local audits. The workgroup discussed whether OSPI should seek that funding if it becomes available and how to best use the funding (i.e., require all districts to do the inventory or offer grants to LEAs that are interested). Discussion took place between ESSA Consolidated Plan Team members around the following areas:

Very time intensive process for districts.

Use of a common tool if grants are awarded Unanimous consensus was reached to move this recommendation forward to Superintendent Dorn for consideration.

Superintendent Dorn for consideration.

SAS8: Capping Testing Time Recommendation: The workgroup does not recommend limiting/capping the amount of time that students are allowed to spend testing at this time. This

Unanimous consensus

was reached to move

this recommendation


16


item should be re-visited once additional information is available (i.e., outcome of audits/inventories and further guidance from US Dept of Education). Robin Munson shared the following discussion from the ESSA Student Assessment System (SAS) Workgroup: ESSA offers states the opportunity to set limits on the time students spend taking tests. The workgroup discussed this possibility in terms of definitions, local control, timed/untimed testing, individual student differences, etc.

If state pursues this course, the plan would need to speak to specific tests

(likely state-level only as those are the only common tests for all districts).

If state chooses to impose a cap, how at the student-level do we manage

individual testing time management? How do we hold to the idea of untimed

tests where appropriate to the student need?

The workgroup recommends deferring the issue of limiting/capping testing time

until more information available (i.e., outcome of audits/inventories and further

USED guidance).


Recommendation to not have a limit or cap.

forward to

Superintendent Dorn

for consideration.


17


No change to current practice.

Unanimous consensus was reached to move this recommendation forward to

Superintendent Dorn for consideration.

SAS9: Innovative Assessment Pilot

Recommendation: The workgroup recommends that WA/OSPI pursue grant opportunities specific to science. Robin Munson shared the following discussion from the ESSA Student Assessment System (SAS) Workgroup: The Secretary may grant up to seven states initial authority to implement innovative assessments, such as competency- or performance-based assessments that validate when students can demonstrate mastery and allow for differentiated support based on individual student needs. Discussion took place between ESSA Consolidated Plan Team members around the following areas:

If grants are awarded, those districts would still be allowed to administer the science assessment if they choose to.

The Consolidated Plan Team voted with 24 votes to move this recommendation forward to Superintendent Dorn, 1 abstained, and 1 opposed.



18



4. ESSA Learning and Teaching (LT) Workgroup Recommendations 1–4

Kathe Taylor, Assistant Superintendent of Learning and Teaching went through the four ESSA Learning and Teaching (LT) Workgroup recommendations.

LT1: Challenging Academic Standards and Aligned Achievement Standards Recommendation: The workgroup recommends confirmation that Washington’s adoption of the Common Core State Standards in 2011 and Next Generation Science Standards in 2013 is assurance that the state has adopted challenging academic content standards for mathematics, reading or language arts, and science. Kathe Taylor shared the following discussion from the ESSA Learning and Teaching (LT) Workgroup:

All members present were in agreement that Washington’s previous standards adoptions provided the needed evidence to support assurance that the state has adopted challenging academic content standards and aligned academic achievement standards, which:



19


Include not less than 3 levels of achievement that will be used by the state and its public districts and schools.

Apply to all public schools and public school students in the state.

Include the same knowledge, skills, and levels of achievement expected of all public school students in the state.

Include mathematics, reading or language arts, and science. Discussion took place between ESSA Consolidated Plan Team members around the following areas:

Inclusion of world language standards The Consolidated Plan Team voted with 25 votes to move this recommendation forward to Superintendent Dorn, and 1 abstained. Majority consensus was reached to move this recommendation forward to Superintendent Dorn for consideration.

LT2: Challenging Academic Standards and Alignment with CTE Standards Recommendation: The workgroup recommends confirmation that the state has demonstrated that the challenging state academic standards are aligned with relevant career and technical education standards for mathematics, reading or language arts, and science.

Unanimous consensus was reached to move this recommendation forward to Superintendent Dorn for consideration.


20


Kathe Taylor shared the following discussion from the ESSA Learning and Teaching (LT) Workgroup: The workgroup reviewed the CTE standards and frameworks template used to determine CTE statewide course equivalencies. Equivalencies are reviewed every 4 years; all statewide course equivalencies are posted on the CTE webpage. Members were asked whether they felt that additional information would be needed in order to make an informed recommendation on this topic. Those present indicated they felt no additional information would be needed to support assurance that the state has demonstrated that the challenging state academic standards are aligned with relevant state career and technical education standards. Discussion took place between ESSA Consolidated Plan Team members around the following areas:

Confirmation of several ESSA Learning and Teaching workgroup members being experts on Career and Technical Education (CTE).

Alignment of CTE standards and academic standards.

Conversations on the relevance of academic classes with CTE.

Alignment of skills centers and academic rigor.

http://www.k12.wa.us/careerteched/Clusters/CourseEquivalencies/CTEStatewideCourseEquivalencies.pdf

http://www.k12.wa.us/careerteched/Clusters/CourseEquivalencies/CTEStatewideCourseEquivalencies.pdf


21

Agenda Item Discussion ActionUnanimous consensus was reached to move this recommendation forward to Superintendent Dorn for consideration.

LT3: Challenging Academic Standards and Alignment with Entrance Requirements for Credit-bearing Coursework in the System of Higher Education in the State

Recommendation: The workgroup recommends confirmation that the state has demonstrated that the challenging state academic standards are aligned with entrance requirements for credit-bearing coursework in the system of higher education in the state.

Kathe Taylor shared the following discussion from the ESSA Learning and Teaching (LT) Workgroup:

Members discussed the alignment of Washington’s challenging academic standards in math, English language arts and science to prepare students for credit-bearing coursework in higher education. Learning standards form the basis for the math, English, and science courses required for graduation; the State Board of Education has aligned high school graduation credit requirements in math and English with four-year public college admission requirements.

Unanimous consensus was reached to move this recommendation forward to Superintendent Dorn for consideration.


22



No science alignment with higher education institutes.

Next generation science standards and high school graduation requirements.

No placement assessment. Unanimous consensus was reached to move this recommendation forward to Superintendent Dorn for consideration.

LT4: English Language Proficiency Standards and Alignment with Academic Standards Recommendation: The workgroup recommends confirmation that the state has adopted English language proficiency standards that:

Are derived from the 4 recognized domains of speaking, listening, reading, and writing;

Address the different proficiency levels of English learners; and

Are aligned with the challenging state academic standards. Kathe Taylor shared the following discussion from the ESSA Learning and Teaching (LT) Workgroup:



23


In 2013, Washington joined a group of 11 states (English Language Proficiency Assessment for the 21st Century (ELPA21) consortium) to develop both the English language proficiency standards and an assessment system to address the needs of Washington's 120,000 English language learners. Washington adopted the new English Language Proficiency Standards in December 2013. The new tests measure the language proficiency of English language learners as they progress through their education. The ELPA21 assessment was used operationally for the first time this spring (2016). Additional resources are available at http://www.k12.wa.us/migrantbilingual/eld.aspx, including English Language Proficiency Standards with Correspondences to K–12 English Language Arts (ELA), Mathematics (April 2014) The Consolidated Plan Team voted with 25 votes to move this recommendation forward to Superintendent Dorn, and 1 abstained. Majority consensus was reached to move this recommendation forward to Superintendent Dorn for consideration.

ESSA Effective Educator (EE) Workgroup Recommendations 1–2

Maria Flores, Director of Title II and Special Programs, and Sue Anderson, Director of the Educator Effectiveness Office went through one recommendation from the ESSA Effective Educator (EE) Workgroup.

http://www.k12.wa.us/migrantbilingual/eld.aspx

http://www.k12.wa.us/migrantbilingual/pubdocs/ELP/WA-ELP-Standards-K12.pdf




24


EE1: Definition and criteria for effective educators (teacher and principals) Recommendation: Teacher and Principal Definition: Teachers and principals with more than 3 years of experience will be identified as being effective if they receive the following summative scores on TPEP: 4- Distinguished 3-Proficient Teacher and principals will be identified as emerging early career effective* in years 0-3 of their career if they receive a “2” on TPEP. They are identified as effective with a score of 3 or 4. Should any federal and state funding be allocated to target ineffective educators, educators in the emerging early career effective category would qualify for job embedded professional learning. Teacher and principals will be identified as ineffective if: More than 3 years of experience: 2-Basic 1-Below Basic

The Consolidated Plan Team voted on:

EE1 recommendation as is, with no changes—13 votes to move this recommendation forward to Superintendent Dorn, 11 opposed, and 2 abstained.

EE1 Minority Opinion 1—13 votes to move forward this minority report as the recommendation to Superintendent Dorn, 8 opposed, and 5 abstained.


25


0-3 years of experience: 1-Below Basic Minority Opinion 1: 0-5 years 1 Ineffective 2-Emerging Effective 3-4 Effective More than 5 years 1-2 Ineffective 3-4 Effective Minority Opinion 2: Student growth should be a part of the definition of what an effective educator is. Maria Flores and Sue Anderson shared the following discussion from the ESSA Effective Educator (EE) Workgroup: The Effective Educator Workgroup is required to define “effective” educators (teachers, principals, and other school leaders), which now replaces the former highly qualified teacher requirements under NCLB. The definition is needed to


26

Agenda Item Discussion Actionidentify the data elements to be collected as required under ESSA for the Ensuring Equitable Access to Excellent Educators plan to:

“describe how low-income and minority children enrolled in schools assisted under this part are not served at disproportionate rates by ineffective, out of field or inexperienced teachers the measures the State educational agency will use to evaluate and public report the progress of the State educational agency with respect to such description.”

The workgroup identified different potential criteria, mainly focused on the Teacher and Principal Evaluation Program. Additional potential indicators of teacher and principal effectiveness discussed included: level of certification/licensure, continued professional development, sub-criteria under TPEP, years of experience, student engagement, teacher dispositions and academic content knowledge.

The workgroup reviewed the current requirements for TPEP and the 0-5 early career period in which a summative score of 2 is considered satisfactory for employment purposes for educators.

Some of the workgroup was concerned that a summative score of “level 2- basic” on the evaluation was not a sufficient level of demonstrated skill and discussed the 5 year time period in which an educator would be allowed to receive a level 2- basic. The workgroup was concerned about meeting the needs

http://www.k12.wa.us/TitleIIA/EquitableAccess/default.aspx


27


of students, particularly the most at risk and their need for an effective educator. The workgroup also is sensitive to the professional growth needs of early career educators and the ability for evaluations to support their growth during the early induction and mentoring phase of their career. Discussion took place between ESSA Consolidated Plan Team members around the following areas:

Concern for students that continue to have teachers that are not effective teachers.

Concern for sending mixed messages to staff/teachers.

3 years vs. 5 years.

5 years at Level 2 being too long.

Significant change being in the reporting.

Highly Qualified under NCLB has a series of consequences. ESSA takes away those consequences.

No consequences associated with the label of ineffective.

Concern regarding moving away from the TPEP structure.

Removal of the notifications to parents/guardians if a teacher is not Highly Qualified.

3 years being enough time for teachers to become effective educators.

Teachers that have been teaching for 5 years or less are considered inexperienced—not ineffective. There is a difference.


28

Agenda Item Discussion ActionThe Consolidated Plan Team voted on:

EE1 recommendation as is, with no changes—13 votes to move thisrecommendation forward to Superintendent Dorn, 11 opposed, and 2abstained.

EE1 Minority Opinion 1—13 votes to move forward this minority reportas the recommendation to Superintendent Dorn, 8 opposed, and 5abstained.

EE2: Paraeducator qualification requirements

This recommendation was not discussed due to lack of time and was tabled to be discussed at the September 29 Consolidated Plan Team meeting.

None

ESSA Parent and Community Engagement (PCE) Recommendations 1–4

These recommendations were not discussed due to lack of time and were tabled to be discussed at the September 29 Consolidated Plan Team meeting.

None

Meeting Checkout Gil thanked everyone for coming. We look forward to our next meeting on September 29.

Next meeting is

September 29.

every student succeeds act consolidated plan team · pdf fileif the workgroups have solid ......

Documents