Welcome State Steering Team Meeting Paramount Hotel October 23-24,

Expectations for Our Meeting Update SST about new materials, including ACReS online course and OSY Screener Provide information about the work of the TST Discuss lessons learned from Year 1 of SOSOSY Learn how states have integrated OSY into their CNA and SDP process Provide feedback on OSY State Plan, SOSOSY Equity Review and CIG Collaboration Inform SST about the Mentoring Pilot process and discuss the State Snapshot Template Discuss needs of Consortium in the future Provide networking opportunities and opportunities for technical assistance

Agenda – October 23 Welcome and Introductions – Doug Boline Updates from SOSOSY – Tracie Kalic – TST work groups Training Work Group – Emily Hoffman and Sonja Williams Mentoring Work Group –Barbie Patch Curriculum and Materials Work Group- Bob Lynch ID&R Work Group Technology Work Group What’s on the horizon? States Updates and Discussion – Susan Durón – Lessons learned from SOSOSY Year 1 – Use of pre/post assessments and process OSY Screener- Brenda Pessin – Review assessment – View video SOSOSY Equity Review Process – Susan Durón – Review procedures – Discuss rubric – Nominate Equity Review Process panel

Agenda- October 23 Panel discussion and focused feedback of strategies and tools to include OSY in State CNA and SDP – Susan Durón Mentoring Work Group presentation – Barbie Patch – Share state systems for working with OSY – Analyze state resources for development of an State OSY Plan Goal Planning – Susan Durón and Tracie Kalic Training of Trainers and State Training Plans – Sonja Williams and Emily Hoffman Discuss progress toward SOSOSY goals and objectives – Susan Durón Review goal planning tools Discuss data collection and the Year 1 APR Plan and review goals for Year 2 Dissemination Event planning – Tracie Kalic

SOSOSY Updates TOT- Congratulations to all the trainers and the Training Work Group Pre/post assessments New curricular materials – Write Now ACReS online course

Technical Support Team Update – TST work groups Training Work Group – Emily Hoffman and Sonja Williams Mentoring Work Group –Barbie Patch Curriculum and Materials Work Group- Bob Lynch ID&R Work Group Technology Work Group

Training Work Group Members: Sonja Williams (NC- Co-Lead), Emily Hoffman (MA- Co-Lead), Jorge Echegaray (FL), Kathleen Bibus (MN) and Brenda Meyer (CO) Over 75 trainers from 21 states Next steps

Mentoring Work Group Members: Jessica Castaneda (TN-Lead), Barbie Patch (NH), John Farrell (KS), Ray Melecio (FL) and Michael Maye (NY) Mentoring pilot Next steps

Curriculum Work Group Members: Bob Lynch (NY- Lead), Brenda Pessin (IL), Lindsay Ickes (NE), Stephanie Clark (PA) and Marisela Trejo (GA) Write On New mini lessons Pre/Post Assessments Professional development

Identification and Recruitment Members: Jennifer Almeda (NC- Lead), Erin Shea (VT, Taylor Dearman (MS), Sheila Peck (AR), Joan Geraci (NJ) and Marlene Willis (Technical Support) Creation of spreadsheet and possible map for each member state (Department of Agriculture census resource Recruiter Knowledge Assessment

Technology Work Group Members: Kelsey Williams (ID- Lead), Marlene Willis (KS) Sabrina Rivera-Pineda (GA) and Alfonso Zepeda-Capistran (WI) Members assigned to serve as technology liasions on other work groups

What’s on the Horizon? Dissemination Event planning Mentoring work Trainer support via webinars and other just-in- time professional development Integration of technology New ID&R tools Professional development for instructional support

States Updates and Discussion The Year One Annual Performance Report (APR) requires SOSOSY states to report the lessons learned. With a partner, discuss one lesson learned and print it on the response card at your table. You have 6 minutes for this activity. We will debrief with the large group asking 2-3 states to share their lesson learned.

State Sharing of Lessons Learned from Year 1 of SOSOSY What are states’ lessons learned, “aha’s”, and important reflections based on the first year implementation and outcomes of SOSOSY?

Use of Pre and Post Assessments Process used in SOSOSY states Results from the data Consider: What was the response by service providers? What suggestions are your recommendations? (e.g., ease of administration, data collection) How are service providers using the data?

OSY Screener – Brenda Pessin (IL) Revised Screening Tool (includes instructions, score sheet, and expanded tool) – provides more detailed instructions – separates the following components: administration instructions, score sheet, and instrument – includes optional screening for higher literacy levels (in English and Spanish) Video and Viewer Guide (shows students of various levels being screened for language proficiency) Pilot of Tool and Process

Equity Review Process We proposed reviewing all SOSOSY-developed materials to ensure equity. (See FII 1.10) “Review all materials using an equity process to eliminate language or procedures that are exclusionary, put out guidelines to ensure equal educational opportunities and affirmative action for OSY, and follow the strategies put forth in the Federal guidance for Section 427 of GEPA” See the handout in your packet

Equity Review Process Convene a panel of migrant educators with knowledge and experience working with and/or administering programs for OSY 2)Panel reviews and rates all SOSOSY- developed materials based on an equity review rubric and recommends changes, as needed 3)SOSOSY-developed materials are revised

Equity Review Process See the handout in your packet

Equity Review Panel We are asking members of the SOSOSY Steering Team to nominate themselves, a representative from their state, or someone who is not here today as panelists. We need 3 Equity Review panelists!

“Panel Discussion and Focused Feedback on Strategies and Tools to Include OSY in the State CNA and SDP." Brenda Doug Mary

Panel Focus on SDP SOSOSY Performance Measure 3.2: By the end of the project, 80% of consortium states will demonstrate capacity to serve OSY as documented by measurable program outcomes specific to OSY that are included in the state Service Delivery Plan (SDP). Expected Outcome: 16+ of 20 states include MPOs to support OSY in states’ SDPs

Panel Focus on CNA SOSOSY Performance Measure 3.3: By the end of the project, 80% of consortium states will demonstrate capacity to serve OSY through the collection of comprehensive needs data that is included in the state Comprehensive Needs Assessment (CNA). Expected Outcome: 16+ of 20 states include data on OSY in their state CNA reports

Where Are We Now? Baseline data show: 8 of 20 states include OSY in their SDPs 7 of 20 states include data on OSY in their CNAs We have a ways to go to meet the goal!

Panel Question #1 One of the objectives of SOSOSY is to provide systems and supports for including OSY as states collect data for their Comprehensive Needs Assessment. How has your state structured its CNA to include OSY? What specific data on OSY do you collect and report in the CNA?

Panel Question #2 Another objective of SOSOSY is to provide systems and supports to states for including OSY as states develop their statewide Service Delivery Plan. How has your state structured its SDP to include OSY? What MPOs and solution strategies does your state have in its SDP that specifically address OSY?

Panel Question #3 What advice do you have for states that currently are updating their CNAs and SDPs?

Mentoring Pilot Overview of mentoring and process used to develop the mentoring tools Reaction from pilot state- Snapshot tool

Mentoring– The State’s Perspective Our mentoring session was very productive and useful. The mentors were very professional and helpful. Our meeting began with the mentors asking us some questions about our state and our out of school youth population. They also asked questions about where we wanted to go with the population. We shared our thoughts about getting focusing more on the out of school youth. Each of the mentors shared how their state does certain things regarding the out of school youth. They also shared problems they had encountered along the way and possible solutions for things we might encounter. They brain stormed with ideas we had on state wide activities focusing on out of school youth. Each of them made it clear if we had any questions that they were available to help us. What I appreciated the most was that the mentors did not tell us what to do but rather made suggestions and listened to what we had to say. We would certainly not mind if they were to come again to work with us. It was a very pleasant, positive, nonthreatening experience.

Evaluating the Mentor Pilot Developing (1 point) Good (2 points) Exemplary (3 points) Quality of TA/mentoring ‘ Relevance somewhat limited ‘ Somewhat relevant and informative X Highly relevant and informative Applicability to State needs serving OSY ‘ Not applicable ‘ Somewhat applicable X Very applicable Interactivity and opportunity for Q&A ‘ Chances for involvement and participation limited ‘ Some interactive activities and chances for involvement X Numerous interactive activities and chances for involvement Materials to support the TA/mentoring process ‘ Not useful ‘ Somewhat useful X Very useful Mentor(s) level of expertise and skills ‘ Limited expertise and TA/mentoring skills to facilitate learning ‘ Has some expertise and used some mentoring/TA techniques to facilitate learning X Has considerable expertise and is skilled at TA/mentoring techniques to facilitate learning

State Snapshot Tool Why was this tool developed? How will information be used? What will be shared with mentoring states and others? – Way to collect information about what states are doing – Build models to share how states are supporting OSY – Connect and network states who may have specific needs – Refine our technical assistance capabilities

Goal Planning Training of Trainers and State Training Plans Progress toward SOSOSY goals and objectives Review of goal planning tools Data collection and the Year 1 APR Plan and review goals for Year 2

Preliminary Data Review on Progress Toward SOSOSY Goals See handout on APR Performance Measures outcomes for Year 1 of SOSOSY Where did we meet our objectives? Where did we fall short? What do we need to do to plan for success in Year 2?

The Year 1 APR is due to OME in December Submitted by Kansas/META Requirement for each SOSOSY State to submit a signed Grant Performance Cover Sheet with ONLY items 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12 completed This sheet is PRE-POPULATED for your state. ALL you need is to get the signature/date.

Please review your State’s cover sheet for any necessary changes A “draft” report will be ed to states by Friday, November 1, 2013 to use for obtaining signatures

APR Cover Sheet SOSOSY Submit signed Cover Sheets via overnight (or 2 nd day) delivery no later than Tuesday, December 10, 2013 to: Susan Durón META Associates 518 Old Santa Fe Trail, Suite Santa Fe, NM (303)

Dissemination Event Planning When? Where? Structure of the 2-day event Theme Event planning committee

Agenda- October 24 Welcome – Tracie Kalic Collaboration/coordination with national, state and local partners: how to broker services – Bob Lynch – Calendar of events – Survey for Migrant Literacy CORE reading CIG – Susan Durón Instructional Technology – Kelsey Williams Talk about lessons learned by states in using educational technology Presentation: Academic and Career Readiness Skills Online Course Discussion of Future Needs – Susan Durón and Tracie Kalic Planning for Potential Year 3 Discussion of future needs, goals and objectives Year 3 Budget Meeting Planning -- Tracie Kalic Select spring meeting date Location and time

Outreach/Training To Date SOSOSY Sessions at OME Conference (11/2012) Participating in InET, ML CORE, and Math MATTERS sessions and meetings (ongoing) Sessions at the National Conference (4/2013) All CIG Session at National Conference (4/3013) What other ways can we inform MEP staff in the other CIG States about the resources available through SOSOSY?

Survey for ML Core Please assist Migrant Literacy CORE by completing a 3-minute survey on interstate/inter-CIG collaboration On behalf of the 14 states in MLC, thank you for your assistance!

Collaboration and Coordination How do states collaborate with national, state and local partners? How are services brokered? How can we move our CIG collaboration/coordination forward?

Instructional Technology What are states using? What other options do we want to consider in regard to instructional technology? Introduction to ACReS online

Discussion of Future Needs Going beyond Year 2 of SOSOSY: What are the future needs, goals, objectives, activities, and budget suggestions for a third year of SOSOSY? What are the implications for Performance Measures?

Meeting Planning Spring meeting – Location – Time – Other questions?