Meeting 1 - 2021-08-27

Participation

Support

Ann Su - Ed-Fi Governance Support

Meeting recording LINK

Refer to the  PPT  for additional details on the meeting minutes and discussions.

The meeting was held on 2021-08-27 12:00Pm -1:00pm CT via WebEx

Agenda

• Get input and feedback from the community on the Alliance’s work to deliver a Starter Kit focused on CCMR.
• Discuss the current data availability to answer these CCMR questions.
• Discuss the importance of the military component of CCMR. Can we make it optional to simplify the solution?
• Confirm the main users that will benefit from accessing this Starter Kit (Superintendent, Principal, and Counselors, Others?)

Notes

• Discuss the current data availability to answer these CCMR questions.
  • College ready component
    • IN - have list of requirements (e.g., SAT score) plus graduation diploma that is for college ready (there are 3 types of diplomas)
    • CA - # of AP exams, dual-enrollment in college courses, SMART data assessment; industry and career pathways (CTE), 11th grade ELA, course requirements
    • San Diego - For California, we have Local HS graduation course requirements/diploma, California a–g completion and optionally CTE Pathway completion. AP exams, dual enrollment, biliteracy, SBAC (state assessments)..
    • WI -
      • We collect the data in our Ed-Fi pipeline that feeds into this dashboard, but I'm not the expert on the dashboard itself https://dpi.wi.gov/wisedash/districts/about-data/ccrews
      • Better explanation of the WI predictors https://dpi.wi.gov/ews/college-career-readiness
    • Boston
      • Boston - the City of Boston uses these metrics for college and career readiness - 94%= attendance, 2.7+ GPA, completion of the MassCore curriculum and enrollment in rigorous coursework (AP/IB/DE), participation in anywhere, anytime learning (e.g. internships) and having an individualized learning plan
      • Instructure - @Roshni - is the GPA requirement in core academic subjects only or cumulative GPA across all courses?
        • Currently we're using cumulative weighted GPA across all courses. I should say - these are readiness metrics, they are not graduation requirements
    • Missouri (JF) - Missouri => ACT, SAT, COMPASS, ASVAB scores and AP Credits
    • Grand Prairie ISD - TX - Texas uses college entrance exams, AP scores, dual credit, associates degrees, industry-based certifications earned, advanced diplomas for students receiving special education services, and CTE coherent sequence completion. Military enlistment is temporarily suspended. It was a district reported category. The structure had inflated values.
    • TN - In TN the state is starting to implement Ready Graduate graduation requirements. The TN Ready Graduate criteria are the ACT of 21 or higher, 4 EPSOs, 2 EPSOs + 1 Passed Industry Credential...ASVAAB…

• • • Long Beach -
      • This is probably going to change slightly, but this should be close to California's requirements: https://ca01900901.schoolwires.net/cms/lib/CA01900901/Centricity/Domain/688/CCI%20Chart%20for%20Parents%20-%20Jan%202019.pdf
      • - what does the group think about FAFSA completion as a readiness indicator for college?
    • Missouri - Thorough description of Missouri's CCMR Calculation Matrix: Page 29 of https://www.jcschools.us/cms/lib/MO01909951/Centricity/Domain/54/MSIP_5_2017_Comprehensive_Guide_0.pdf

• • Career Readiness
    • IN 
      • In addition to diploma, Indiana hands-on "employability" skills (internship, volunteer experience, etc. and "post-secondary ready" which can be college OR career OR military
      • https://www.doe.in.gov/sites/default/files/graduation-pathways/graduation-requirements.pdf
      • Indiana also has a "waiver" graduation path that is usually reserved for students with disabilities who are not able to meet the diploma requirements.
    • Boston - I don't see anything related to career exploration/immersion in the metrics that are on screen (e.g. participation in internships, volunteering etc) outside of CTE
    • South Bend - To expand on Molly's point - Indiana students choose between completing a project-based learning experience, work-based learning experience, and a service-based learning experience to demonstrate employability skills.
    • CA
      • CA collects CTE pathway completion. Student volunteer may be more valuable but is not tracked by CTE. We internally count as career ready but not tracked at state level.
      • -We do have Work-Based Learning: career exploration, internships, etc are important for our CCR.
      • We submit data to the state but they do not pull into career ready dashboard
      • https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sp/cl/cciltr20190405.asp
    • TX - 2 ways
      • Meet college ready on SAT/ACT
      • Mainstream student for inclusion program with advanced diploma have foundation endorsement means military career ready
    • WI - Career & college ready data - not one of the predictors for our college/career readiness dashboard/tool set
    • OR - I will add the details for Oregon in the wiki (getting some confirmation on recent changes).
    • San Diego - One question I'd like to understand is whether work around CCMR is trying to address achieving state-level goal indicators (that schools and districts shoot for) or are we looking to facilitate monitoring of student progress towards higher education or/and workforce and/or military goals?
    • MNPS - Yes, that is the case here in Nashville. Sorry I am not the best with the detailed grad requirements but I do believe ours are more rigorous than the state requirements.
  • Military Readiness
    • IN
      • A score on ASVAB meets the "M" component (but that is one option, which can also be met by college or career metrics)
      • SS# is part of the problem
      • Does institution register the students? Not a required test. Can ask one of the districts.
    • Long Beach CA
      • Not aware collecting military readiness records
      • The requirement for Military/ROTC in CA is based on the student's course history data.
    • Boston Public Schools - we have not focused on military readiness.
    • Oregon is “nebulous” on military data collection.
      • JRROTC enrollment
    • WI - We only collect parent in military data in WI, nothing about military readiness
    • TN - We are currently working to build improved reporting to identify if students are "on track" for grad requirements. Since there are multiple requirements and now the new Grad Ready it makes this a bit more difficult so our immediate focus has been on district grad requirements.
    • SD - As for military readiness, CA does have this as a collage and career indicator, requirement includes: Two years of Leadership/Military Science, score of Level 3 or higher in ELA or math, and Level 2 “Standard Nearly Met” or higher in other subject area
    • Missouri
      • Using as qualifying for military - matrix of score
      • Done some work with Emilio for mapping
    • TX - intent to enlist and actual enlist (measure after graduation)
  • Actions you take with this data
    • SD - All this data is reported to the state; goal to see in higher frequency (real time) if student is on track 9-12 grade; real goa is to be able to monitor student progress against state-wide indicator
    • Boston
      • Many districts will also have a graduation survey where they collect students' postsecondary plans including plans to enlist
      • Boston Public Schools -- I agree with what is being said. Currently our CCLR metrics are lagging - we look at readiness for cohorts that have graduated. Ideally we'd want to use the readiness metrics in real time for current students
    • WI
      • Feed into CCMR early warning system
      • Data not state required reporting data
      • Putting on dashboard helps district to help students get back on track
    • Long Beach - Report 2x a year, including graduation requirements
    • TN - I completely agree with John's (WI)point on leading indicators and ability to track verify students are on track for graduation.
    • Missouri - In Missouri's implementation, CCMR Specialist/Counselors from School Districts monitor students indicator
    • TN
      • In MNPS the school counselors have had to previously do this by manually reviewing a wide range of student records. The goal is to centralize this information to make it easier to identify any interventions or changes that are needed for students.
      • In MNPS our students pick a "pathway" and these are aligned to various options with regard to requirements. So yes, student engagement is valuable.
      • In MNPS we are in the process of designing a Parent Dashboard. This is still in the works but it is for all students.  However, a lot of the data for our grad readiness (academic planner) are being considered to be included in the parent dashboard.
    • Boston - We need to think how this will fit into postsecondary planning / four-year course planning discussions with students
    • IN - One thing that we have been trying to figure out is how to get more experiential benchmarks into the ODS (work-based learning, internships, volunteering)
    • WI - We have Ed-Fi API integration with https://xello.world/en/ that students can access. Right now they are only using the integration for provisioning and course transcript, but tons more potential...much of the integration is still SIS direct to Xello (not using API)
  • WebEx Poll
    • Are we on the right path?
      • 
      • Are we missing something at the district level?
        • Boston - We're thinking a lot about financial literacy
        • Long Beach - Work-based learning
        • OR - Yes. Family and community supports (that we’re still trying to define and translate from qualitative to a quantitative measure).
        • TN - Not sure this fits but in TN students must take/pass a Civics assessment as part of state requirements.
        • WI
          • This is our WI CE/CCR document that summarizes what we collect
          • https://dpi.wi.gov/sites/default/files/imce/cte/CPACTEERS/2020_02_26_how-CCR-CTE-relate_19-20.pdf

• • • Using Ed-Fi descriptor or create your own?
      • Would you be willing to work with us to make better descriptor for CCMR?
        • Molly - Yes, I think that would be good Sean
        • Chris - Yes, Sean. Please feel free to reach out about mapping the grad requirements to ed-fi standards.  This is in our plans at MNPS but not sure how quickly that will be done.  It would be great to have some assistance with this process and would also likely inform your work. 
      • 

• • • • WI -
        • all collected via Ed-Fi integration
        • 'C' some ed-fi namespace descriptors some wi namespace descriptors
      • Missouri -  same as John R.(WI)
      • IN - would be interesting to know which (LEA or SEA) use edfi or custom
      • TN - In MNPS we try to stick to core as much as possible but there are some cases where we have custom descriptors.
      • OR - 'm pretty sure we've done our best to stick to the core Ed-Fi descriptors, but have asked our team for clarification.
  • Defer to Next Meeting
    • Discuss the importance of the military component of CCMR. Can we make it optional to simplify the solution?
    • Confirm the main users that will benefit from accessing this Starter Kit (Superintendent, Principal, and Counselors, Others?)

Action Items

• Respond to Google Forms survey https://forms.gle/2WA3EKXAj3WYzY319

Next Meeting: Tuesday, 9/7/2021, 12:00-1:00pm CT