 Thank you so much for being willing to talk with us today, Dr. McQueen. And you know, we're sharing information with our region about state planning around the new Every Student Succeeds Act. And we wanted to learn a little bit more about Tennessee's experience. So could you share a little background information about Tennessee's as a planning process, what that looks like? Sure. Well, when we began the process of thinking through what would we do under ESSA, we started with our strategic plan, a strategic plan that we had put in place about a year before the new Act was passed. Our plan is called Tennessee Succeeds. And this plan was really built off of stakeholder engagement and a connection back to the data and the analysis that we had done on what should be our priorities in the state. We did build heavy stakeholder engagement at that point. And then in December of 2015, when ESSA was passed, we felt like it was an opportunity to take the strategic plan that we had released and do another round of stakeholder engagement along with that. One, it was to get the word out about what we were doing already in that strategic plan, but also to bring another set of fruits together to really give additional feedback to say, what can we do to make this stronger? How do we focus back in on standards, assessment, accountability? There was an opportunity to look at school improvement, even in a more robust way than where we started. And so we took that plan and said, let's even make some parts of it stronger and have another opportunity to even talk with additional stakeholder groups that we had not engaged with earlier. And ultimately, we ended up with a moment in time where we have said, state plan, first and foremost, state strategic plan, how does ESSA actually help us build on opportunities that we believe we had identified? You mentioned that you used the opportunity to engage with stakeholders that maybe you hadn't previously. Can you talk a little bit about who those constituencies were and how you involved them? Absolutely. We set out our first draft of the ESSA plan. We engaged with around 3,000 stakeholders. We started that with the group of superintendents. We went across the three primary regions in our state, met with the superintendents representing those regions, got initial feedback on some of the pieces of the plan. And then we met with school board members. We talked with advocacy groups across the state. We met with very particular groups that we had not necessarily engaged with before. Groups that were serving special needs students and were advocating for students with disabilities. We met with groups that were specific, librarians association, groups that were with physical education. So we tried to be very concentrated in advocacy groups that we had not necessarily brought into our conversations previously. We had a new equity coalition that was forming at the same time, which took a lot of our advocacy groups that were very focused on equity like the Urban League and a group we had locally called Connection. That group was a very important stakeholder group for us, and we met with them very early on, and they continued to give us feedback throughout the draft. After we had those 3,000 stakeholders really engaged in this first round of feedback as we were preparing the draft, we put together six working groups. And those six working groups were concentrated on very particular pieces of the plan. Standards and assessment, accountability, student support, educator support, school improvement. And so they were also building out pieces of the plan. Very diverse groups of people who represented, everything from teachers to administrators to Chamber of Commerce to parents. And so those groups were also giving additional feedback. After we put the draft plan out towards the end of this past calendar year, we had six regional town hall sessions, and we had over 1,000 people attend those town halls across the state. They were also giving feedback. We had very specific exit tickets on what they heard at the town hall, how they felt about the different components, what opportunities did they feel like we should take the most advantage of, what were pieces of the plan that they would tweak or give more feedback on. And then after that, we were able to also get feedback from the online feedback column that was associated with the posting. And so we have had a great bit of feedback, and when we actually ultimately put out our plan in April in a final version, we will be able to share, what did we hear from stakeholders? And what did we change based on what we heard from stakeholders? What did we improve upon? And how did we make sure that the stakeholder engagement was a key part of the final plan? And so we're looking forward to hearing just a couple weeks sharing what our stakeholders ultimately did to actually change the plan for the better. Great. Do you have some highlights you might be able to share with us about stakeholder feedback and how it influenced and changed your plan? Absolutely. I can think of several very concrete examples. One, we had lots of engagement, first with an assessment task force that we convened almost a year ago, and we continued stakeholder engagement around our assessment program, the assessments that really run from 3 through grade 12. And we were getting feedback that was concentrated in grades 3 and 4 and grades 11 as grade levels that we needed to think differently around the time that students were spending on the test. And so we went back to the drawing board and looked at what should we do in grade 3-4 that would create some time reduction, but would keep what we heard from educators that we want feedback on how our students are doing in all of the four main content areas, math, English language arts, science, and social studies. So there wasn't an appetite to cut the test. There wasn't an appetite to think about reductions and possibilities of how we could think through the information that they were receiving. So we did make some reductions in both the third and fourth grade science and social studies test. Those reductions will allow us to add slightly more of a robust piece of the test to our reading or in English language arts test. So we're focusing in on an area in third and fourth grade that really matches to the priorities we set as a state, which says that reading is one of our highest priorities throughout our strategic plan, how we've spent resources and how we've aligned the work that we're doing in the department. So if that is going to be such a strategic focus, let's add more to that assessment that gives us more robust information and at the same time make some reductions in the third and fourth grade science and social studies that give us similar information to what we got in the past, gives us information around the progress, still focuses on science and social studies, but offers an opportunity for reduction. That was completely based on stakeholder feedback and it was an excellent suggestion that we were able to build that into the final plan. Another quick item was around school improvement and we got feedback as a state that we truly needed to give more clarity around how our school improvement plan would play out in certain communities that had some of our highest needs schools. And so we've continued in multiple iterations clarifying what our strategies are around school improvement, how stakeholders are engaged in that process throughout the school improvement continuum, and then ultimately what do we do with schools who are not performing and have been historically, you know, for a decade underperforming. We don't, we don't want to start over and we want to take what we know has worked in the state and continue to have a really solid practices around that. So we've made that entire continuum and clarification much more robust and that was based on stakeholder engagement and what folks shared with us they needed to be able to do this work. Those are great examples and I think what's remarkable is how substantive they are. I mean, these are, you know, carefully considered kinds of feedback based on people's real experiences with the system. You know, what are some of the major provisions of SF that you believe will have a positive effect on your state? You're excited about the opportunity to think about our school accountability model again. And so for context, Tennessee has not had a specific school accountability model. We have had a district accountability model and then we had a school report card, but we did not have indicators on the school report card that were associated with accountability. And so ultimately what we were able to do was to say what has worked under district accountability that we would want to put into a school accountability model and then using these opportunities for new metrics that were not necessarily test-focused metrics, what would we do with those? How would we frame them and what outcomes did we want? I would say that opportunity to keep high expectations, to be more specific at the school level, think about the transparency that communities need to know how their schools are doing and to know what to do next was one we took very seriously. So as we developed the school accountability model, we said, okay, as a state, what is one of our primary overarching goals? And we talk a lot in Tennessee that we have a new normal. And the new normal is the high school graduation is the floor and the new normal is that our students are moving into post-secondary. We have one of the highest graduation rates in the country, and we know that we are doing a good job with rigorous graduation requirements of moving our students to graduate. But we are not necessarily moving our students to post-secondary credentialing that we know will help them move into the workplace seamlessly. And so with that, we developed a ready graduate metric to really point out what we know in our own data around the experiences that students should have in high school that get them ready for post-secondary. So our ready graduate metric has four checks, and those checks are pretty clear. We know that students who score 21 or above on the ACT or the equivalent on the SAT have a more seamless experience and are more successful when they go directly into college or any post-secondary program. Number two, we know that students who are completing successfully four early post-secondary courses, like AP, dual credit, dual enrollment, IB courses, they are more successful when they get into college. And we actually saw that in our data that completing four gave you the equivalent to making a 21 on the ACT. You have that similar experience as you transition into post-secondary. The other piece that we thought was important, which was number three, is that students who are on these career and technical education pathways, that needs to be honored, and we need to promote that more students need to be accessing and completing early industry credentials that match them to a career. And so we have a check of students need to earn two early post-secondary opportunities or an industry credential if they're... not or, and an industry credential if they're on this pathway in career and technical education. And then the fourth check is military readiness for our students who have an intent to move into the military. And so we're asking for those students to complete two early post-secondary opportunities. Again, preparing them for post-secondary world. You know, many of our military personnel go on into college at some point. And then at the same time, they need to have at least a 31 on the military entrance exam or the ADFAB because that is what one of the military would require as a student is moving into the military. So those checks are pointing out that to be a ready graduate, the expectation is that you graduate. But we really need to have more happening at the high school level to show that a student is truly post-secondary ready and is ready for the credentialing that we know they need in our state to access the job that exists. That was an extraordinary opportunity for us. We've now said we've said it's important. It's a vision. We've walked very hard on getting these early post-secondary opportunities in our schools. But now you're going to be held accountable for moving more students in all student groups. All student groups, that's important. Into these early post-secondary opportunities so we can see that success. So I point that out because that's one of the most important ways that we have attempted to connect that vision to the actual work under ESSA. How about the flip side? What are some of the challenges related to ESSA from Tennessee's experience? Great question. I feel like the challenges are challenges that we would expect. You can't consistently get everyone to agree on the same thing. Even in a highly engaged stakeholder community where you brought people together around multiple working groups, you've had people come together that represent multiple stakeholder groups, and you've had multiple iterations of a draft with ESSA, you will still never have 100% agreement around what the ultimate outcome is. That's always going to be a challenge. And we certainly saw that in our experience like other states have. What we have attempted to do is to say in areas where stakeholders really felt very compelled on a particular item, that we're going to still work on what they were compelled by. It might not be something we would include as an accountability metric. It might not be an area where we feel like under ESSA it makes sense to include this, but it's important. A stakeholder group has said, this is a high priority area for us. So we've had to step back and say, is this an area that we want to continue to study? Have additional research. Look at additional data points. Step back and have additional engagement with them from a training or implementation perspective, that didn't really feel like it was an appropriate new accountability metric or the model of school improvement that we wanted to move into. But it was one that we wanted to continue to look at and work with them on. So we've done a lot of that and just say we value that work. We value what feedback you've given. We value the perspective that you have. But at this point, we don't have data that supports that that's the right next move. Or we don't have the research that's robust enough to say, this is what we would do in our accountability system. And so what we have done is say, we're going to continue to study some of these items. And that's actually pointed out in our final plan. I can think of two specific areas that in the draft plan and then again in the final plan, we said we don't have enough data. We don't have enough information to pursue this. But we want to continue to pursue it. And that has brought value to what the stakeholders have brought to the table. They said, thank you. This is a challenge. We know that you can't do this yet. But we appreciate that you're going to continue to look at it and keep it written in a plan that people will keep at the forefront of their attention. I mean, I think it's really notable from your description that Tennessee took stakeholder engagement really seriously. And of course, democracy is hard. So, you know, you're right. There are all these stakeholders coming together and they may feel very passionately and with different perspectives on these issues. So I think it's worth highlighting that one of the ways that you dealt with that is to say, we're going to kind of put this in the parking lot and we're going to continue revisiting it as more information or data are accumulated. Absolutely. And you know, I think if someone said this to me one time and it resonates in many ways as we've gone through the process. And this person who said it was an advocate herself. She said it's a lot easier to advocate than it is to implement. And I've thought about that a lot. I mean, folks are advocating for issues that are important. And I appreciate the advocacy because it helps us think about what could we do to implement it. But the implementation can be a challenge. It can be difficult, particularly if you don't have enough information around isn't the right next step. And so we're valuing the advocacy. We're valuing the feedback and we're trying to figure out if it's the right place to go with implementation. And how would we know what research questions or data points that we have to have to say, yes, that's the next right step. And so that's the work that we're dealing right now as we phase into the implementation component. That quite frankly never stops. But how do we continue the R&D, you know, the research and development piece within the department that keeps this at the forefront of our conversation? Mm-hmm. What are some of the unanswered questions about as a, either in terms of policy or implementation at this time that is influencing your work? I think probably the biggest unanswered question is funding. We do not know exactly where the funding will play out in the budget. And so that's just a question mark, probably every state superintendent or commissioner has. We have plans for our Title II funding. We have plans for Title IV that we're very excited about. But we ultimately don't know what will happen with Title II, and we don't know in Title IV exactly how much money will be there, and we're certainly hopeful that that will continue to go forward. So the funding questions are there. What we've attempted to do in both of those areas is to go forward with the work that is in those buckets. I mean, we're already implementing that. We're already thinking about the use of those funds, and we've got backup plans. You know, if something was not to be funded, what would we do differently? What are other options that we would pursue that would get to the same goals that we had? In Title II, we have a new focus area on principal and future residencies. We're very excited about that work. We're one of a handful of states that said, we're going to use that money to make these robust MSP programs that are transformational for our candidates. And so that work we've got to think through if we don't have the funding, how would we continue it and do it in a way that could ensure quality. The other pieces in Title IV, we are using some of those funds or projected to use those funds to support these early post-secondary opportunities for our students. We want to ensure that students can pay for AP. They can pay for, you know, the actual sitting for the exam. And so part of this funding was to also help them with those. We've got some backup plans if that doesn't pan out. But that's an unanswered question that we all need as we're attempting to move into our implementation phase. And that's a big one. Absolutely. I have one last question for you. Is there anything else about Tennessee's asset preparation that we haven't asked about that you think might be important for other states, other educators, other stakeholders to know? What's important as you were creating an implementation that was based on a plan that you were mindful of what happens after you submit the plan? I think sometimes we get to the phase of, you know, it's over. We've submitted the plan and we don't have to continue the stakeholder engagement. I feel like we have stepped back and said, what happens after submission? We're going to do webinars with very particular groups that the asset plan will impact. Directors of special education, our educators and administrators who work directly with students that are English-English learners. The work that we have with our priority schools and multiple districts who will be doing these school turnaround. So we're bringing those folks together and webinars and meetings to say this is what it means for you and we want to make sure that you're continuing that one to work with us on the implementation that quite frankly you need to be leading that. And so owning that vision, this is Tennessee's vision, you were part of the planning of it and now we want the implementation to be seen looking successful. We'll do the same thing as we go into the fall semester of the school year by bringing together different groups that need to know what does this now mean for you? The school board members, our administrators across our schools and our directors of schools, those folks as the school year begins need to hear this message again. What does it mean? How are we implementing it? And at the same time, we are putting out communications around, this is what stakeholder said, this is what we heard, this was ultimately what was in the plan to ensure people feel value through the process. But the actual submission of the plan is really the beginning of continuing the stakeholder engagement with the people who are ultimately going to be implementing it and communicating the strong work quite frankly around equity that we think is built in, the strong work that we have around school improvement and ensuring all students are successful and the strong pieces that are in our accountability model. People have to own it and have to be their vision and so it's going to be about communications, communications, communications after this is ultimately delivered. So I appreciate the question and it is an area that I hope we all do a very robust job of as state leaders. No, I think that's a fantastic point. The plan is not even really the beginning. It's the pre-beginning and then the real work comes with implementation. Absolutely. Well, thank you so much, Dr. McQueen. We really appreciate you taking some time to help us understand some of the details of the work that you and your team and all the stakeholders involved are undertaking. Well, thank you for the opportunity and thank you for the work that you've done to support our work in Tennessee. Our pleasure.