All right.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Thank you for being here.

We're going to try to start on time or one minute late.

It is my pleasure as chairperson to my house.

Is it not on?

Or am I just not speaking loudly enough?

Anyway, delighted to open the meeting, the July 22nd meeting of the Indianapolis Public Education Corporation.

We have done a fair amount of work since our last meeting, or moving forward on the referendum.

You are going to hear an update tonight from the performance framework working group.

And the main item on the agenda tonight is the executive director hire.

But before we do that, I would entertain a motion to approve the minutes from the last meeting.

Second.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed say nay.

The motion has passed.

Terrific.

Well, the first item on the agenda is the executive director process and search.

And we have a candidate.

We're delighted he is here in the office in the audience, Kariga Rausch.

We have gone through a rigorous and multi-month long process to get to this point.

We had 36 people apply for this role, and we want to thank each and every one of them for their interest in helping to make education in Indianapolis better.

A working group of the Indianapolis Public Education Corporation interviewed several candidates and recommended six finalists for the mayor to consider, which he did.

He did interviews with all six of those people, and want to offer a very special thank you to the mayor.

Interviewing six people is a lot of mayor time.

And also want to offer a very special thanks to the six finalists, all of whom are exceptional people in their own rights, and we really appreciate their willingness to be part of this process.

It's made it stronger and richer.

But under stat the statute that created the Indianapolis Public Education Corporation, the mayor recommends to our board for uh approval uh an executive director, and he has now done so.

Um that person is Kariga Rausch, who is in the audience, whom you'll hear from here in a second.

Kariga is a lifelong resident of Indianapolis and has worked across many different sectors in education and in different forms of government and nonprofit, uh, including working in this building uh for two mayors, Mayor Peterson, whom I worked for, uh, and Mayor Peterson's successor.

And it says actually something quite remarkable about Karriga that he was asked to stay on to a successive mayoral administration, which is not normal and it is specially not normal when under the circumstances that that uh change in mayor's office took place.

So uh very interesting.

And I know our very own Ashley Thomas had a chance to spend to work with Kariga as well, so she's had experience with that.

He has spent the last decade at the National Association of Charter School authorizers, where he's really focused on improving uh accountability for charter schools so that we ex so that high quality schools accelerated across the country and there's real accountability for low performing schools.

Uh among his many accomplishments, he also raised a significant amount of money, 25 million dollars to support NAXA's strategic initiatives and deliver um strong results for their sector of schools.

Um before that, he led a multi-coalition group that ultimately resulted in the Indianapolis Public Schools offering preschool for the first time.

The what's possible campaign that was changed chaired by IPS Superintendent Dr.

Eugene White and Mayor Ballard.

He holds a PhD in education psychology from Indiana University and has written a number of articles on education, specifically on special education and student discipline.

Um I have had the pleasure of knowing Kuriga for about 20 years.

In addition to being an outstanding education thinker, education leader, he is also just a stellar human being.

It's just one of the finest people I've had I've had a chance to get to know.

So delighted that we are in this place today.

I did want to give a moment for the people that my fellow executive director working group members to make any comments they want to make before we move forward.

So Patricia, you want to do that.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Yes.

Today was the second time that I met Mr.

Dr.

Kriega.

So not had the pleasure of knowing him for the 20 years as you have.

But the impression that I had on that first meeting was amazing.

It was great.

It is not often that someone comes home to their community to do the work that they have so successfully done across not only the state, the city, the state, but also the nation.

And that is encouraging to me is that the heart of community and coming back home to bring all of those findings from across the nation are coming home to Indianapolis to his home.

So I thank you for making that choice.

As you said in your interview, you're not looking for a job, but this is a job that called to you and to me that is very important when it comes to answering the call of community.

So I just wanted to add those comments to the record.

Thank you, David.

Great.

Thanks, Patricia.

John?

Yeah, I appreciate Mr.

Chairman a chance to comment briefly.

I I do know uh Cariga, I have uh work with him in the past and long ago, actually, and then all of a sudden uh he's found his way into leadership on a national level, and now he's come home, as uh Patricia said, to help us lead a very special um effort here that is unique in the country, honestly.

And um I think the one thing that I that stood out among other many, many um incredible sort of accomplishments on his end during his career is the fact that I think he understands the special circumstance that we're in as a community in our urban school district.

And the balance that needs to be struck as we kind of move into a a new era and um understands both sides of and all sides of the equation.

Um and that part really um I think for for me it makes as a one board member makes me feel confident that we'll have some strong leadership there to help strategically, you know, the design of an approach that will help us accomplish what ILIA set out to accomplish and what the community expects us to accomplish and what the General Assembly laid out for us to accomplish.

So with that, Mr.

Chairman, I appreciate the chance to comment.

Great.

Thank you.

Uh and we'll have an opportunity to have conversation, but before we do that, would invite Kariga forward to make a few comments.

Um IPIC Chairman and to the IPS board president um and other um IPIC board members.

Thank you for the opportunity.

Um I am deeply honored and humbled at the chance to advance excellence in public education for students in our community, um, and am deeply grateful for Mayor Hogsett um and this board for your trust and for your leadership.

For more than two decades, um, I've worked across multiple sectors district, charter, nonprofit, higher education, city government, and more, with a consistent commitment to improving student outcomes, fostering collaboration, and building sustainable systems that serve communities well.

I'm proud of the work that I've done in collaboration with many um over the years to strengthen educational opportunities across public education sectors and bring people together.

The authorizing work that we were able to do under Mayor Peterson and Mayor Ballard and that Mayor Hogsett has built from, set an example of what quality schools need to look like.

I've also been able to take that learning into my current role as president and CEO of the National Association of Charter School Authorizers in advancing high quality oversight across the country.

I'm also very proud of the accomplishments made during my time in and outside of city government as a partner with IPS.

When I departed city government, um I designed and led a 10 organization cross-sector community initiative.

And throughout that effort, we were able to engage more than 7,000 IPS residents as the chairman mentioned, what we call the What's Possible campaign for their views and educational priorities and the subsequent result of that important community engagement work resulted in IPS allocating resources for preschool for the first time, um we believe.

But perhaps most importantly, I've spent my career being a bridge builder among stakeholders of different perspectives but shared aspirations.

If you talk to my colleagues, my coworkers, my friends, they'll tell you that I do have a unique ability to listen well to a wide range of people.

And I've sought to listen carefully, communicate clearly, and build consensus around meaningful outcomes for kids and families.

I know this will be very hard work.

And I know that kids and families are going to be counting on us to deliver.

It'll also be very important as we think about continuing to grow the important staffing and infrastructure for this work that we tap into the really important knowledge that folks in IPS have, building on the critical knowledge and infrastructure as key partners in this effort and endeavor.

And I look forward to doing so.

It'll also be very important as was indicated.

I'm running a national organization right now that's taking me to a lot of different places across the country.

And I am looking forward to refreshing some relationships here, building some new relationships and being a part of community for the betterment of our kids.

I'm looking forward to getting started.

Thank you.

Terrific, thank you so much.

And one thing that Korea just said that I want to underscore is how important it is when we continue to build out the IPEC team that we have people who have deep understanding and experience in IPS as part of that team.

So look forward to that being part of future hires as we move forward.

But would love to open up for any discussion among IPEG board members or questions or comments.

All right.

Well, we'll have another chance.

We'll accept a motion to approve the mayor's recommendation.

Yes, Mr.

Chairman, uh, would very happily like to make a motion to accept Mayor Hoxett's choice for executive director of the Indianapolis Public Education Corporation.

This is Dr.

Korea as his choice.

Terrific.

Do we have a second?

Second.

We have a second.

Uh any further discussion.

All right.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

It passes.

Thank you.

Congratulations, Korea.

Very excited.

So the next item on our agenda is to get a report from the performance framework working group.

And our very own Petty Rangel is going to provide us with that report.

Yes.

So board members, you have the packet in front of you.

Since we do not have screens in front of us, I'll probably be narrating slide change so you know where I'm at in the presentation.

But as Chairman Harris just stated, I am leading the performance working group on what the statute calls a single school performance framework, alongside board members, Hope Digstar, and Janet McNeil.

We've had a couple meetings, and we're here tonight to walk you through why the framework exists, the timeline we're working under, uh where things stand today across city schools, and the principles that will guide our design work process going forward.

The one thing I will uh not promise, this is not indicator by indicator.

This is not a fully built tool that will come after community and stakeholder engagement, which our group has discussed.

So next slide.

This is the second page of the packet.

Great.

Um so Housen Rolled Act 1423 gives IPEC two distinct responsibilities, and it's worth being really clear about both because they drive everything else we'll talk about tonight.

First, we have to act on chronic low performance.

And that determination has to be made the same way, regardless of whether a school is district-run or charter authorized.

So one evidence-based approach applied consistently across every governance model.

Second, we are responsible for reallocating underused facilities.

So making sure that IPEC controlled buildings are being used at a scale that matches actual enrollment.

Go on to the next slide.

So every date on this slide comes directly from the law.

None of it is a timeline we've chosen, and it's important to note that because it gives us a really clear runway.

Um, we are 10 days out from our first deadline.

Um so by August 1st, we owe a progress report to the legislative council on our discussions up to this point.

Um and as you can see, November 30th, 2027 is where the full performance framework itself is due to the legislative council, um, and it becomes effective for all participating schools in school year 28-29.

That gives us a really defined runway, but it's also not an open-ended one.

So uh we are kicking off the design work now to get ahead of things.

And before we design a framework that is applied across the city, it helps to be really clear on who we're actually designing it for, which is on the next slide.

Great.

So the current state, Indianapolis schools fall into four distinct governance categories as it stands, and any framework we build has to work fairly across all of them.

So there are schools under the IPS Board of Commissioners.

Those are direct-run IPS schools plus in LEA innovation schools that are governed and overseen by the IPS Board of Commissioners.

There are mayor-sponsored charter schools that are authorized under Indiana's mayor-sponsored statute through the Office of Education Innovation.

Those include innovation schools whose charters sit with OEI.

There are state authorized charter schools authorized by the Indiana Charter School Board, and then there are university authorized charters, those authorized by Trian University's Education One.

Four different governance structures, one shared framework.

So what is that shared framework actually look at, which is on the next slide.

This is the heart of it.

The framework looks at a school through six lenses academic results, student growth, discipline, enrollment, finance and governance, and facilities.

And the keyword here is multiple.

This isn't a single score that reduces a school to a number, but it's meant to give a fuller, more honest picture of how a school is actually performing across all six of these dimensions.

And again, the dimensions have not been clarified, but they are all incorporated into this single performance framework.

That fuller picture feeds into two very different pathways of action depending on what data shows.

And we'll go into that next on the next slide.

So HAA 1423 requires IPEC to use this framework to drive school improvement through two separate paths, and they lead to two different decision making points.

Path one addresses chronically low performing schools, and as I've mentioned, that's a determination based on multiple years and multiple measures.

It's not a single bad year or single bad measure.

When that's the finding, the IPS board or the relevant authorizer leads the decision making.

And that's a really point uh clear point of clarification there.

Path two addresses building inefficiency, low usage relative to capacity, and their IPA uh IPEC leads the decision making directly.

So different triggers, different decision makers, but the same overall goal, which is improving student outcomes and building stronger schools in our community.

None of this is happening in a vacuum, however.

So we've begun listening already in the two meetings that we've had, which is on the next slide.

Early stakeholder engagement from the people who are statutorily responsible for enacting this performance framework.

That is uh IPS and our charter authorizers.

Um what we've heard thus far, and this was in our uh our first meeting in May, and then again in a more recent meeting in early July.

There's a desire for clarity, consistency, and efficiency.

So uh school leaders, district leaders have said if you know this is going to be the reality, we have to make it as efficient as possible to get this data, and we shouldn't be duplicating work for schools.

They already have enough on their hands.

Um there's also a consideration that needs to be made for a new state accountability framework, which is why we've mentioned this will not be a score or a uh letter.

That'll be far too confusing.

Um, it is just a capture of multiple measures.

And then also we really need to be clear about roles and responsibilities for IPS and authorizers, which is why I made the distinct clarifications on the previous slide of the two different paths.

Which brings us uh from all of these understandings to the principles that we have uh used to guide our future work in designing this accountability framework.

Uh there are nine, and uh all of us uh are able oh, next slide.

Yes.

Um I will not read each one, but I will uh narrate the themes.

The first one is about authority.

Uh the framework supplements existing decision making, it does not replace it.

So authorizers in the district still decide where their school exists.

Um IPEC's role is really deciding distribution, not existence.

The next few are about fairness.

So high stakes determinations are grounded in outcomes, not checklists.

A fair read of any school requires looking at both proficiency and growth for a fuller picture, um, and since neither of those alone tells a picture fully.

And the thresholds we use are externally anchored, not something that are negotiated school by school.

Again, that kind of points to the importance of aligning these two things like the state accountability measures.

And the next uh the the next set are really what I believe is rigor over reaction.

High stakes decisions uh have to rest on multi-year patterns.

So we're not going to let one bad year or one good year drive a determination.

Financial health is reviewed independently and annually so that those judgments rest on solid ground rather than self-reporting.

Compliance is treated as a floor, not a scorecard, meaning that uh meeting the minimum isn't the same as performing well, and that's an important caveat.

And there's no summary score, like I've already mentioned, we're not going to boil a school down to a single number.

Uh the framework is built on multiple measures on purpose.

So taken together, this framework is designed to be fair, evidence-based, and resistant to being driven by any single data point, good or bad.

Um, with those principles in place, here's where we go from here and what we've discussed as recently as our last meeting.

Community stakeholder input.

So the next phase of our work is going out and figuring out how we proactively and consistently seek input from our community, not just a single comment or a meeting, but an ongoing channel as we move toward that November 2027 deadline where we have to have something due to the legislative council.

So that is where we're currently at.

Uh future meetings will be fully creating a schedule of how we're seeking input, um, how we are agreeing to work on creating this uh framework, uh, and then uh setting the timeline backward from November 2027.

Um before I open it up for questions, I'd invite uh board members Hope Duke Starr or Janet McNeil to add their comments or add anything that I have forgotten over the past uh meetings that we've had.

I just want to say this is extremely um thorough.

Thank you so much for putting it together.

Um I I want to just reiterate that these were well thought out preliminary ideas and thoughts, and uh we are looking extremely forward to taking public comment and listening to parents and teachers and school leaders on what works and what does not work for them.

Thank you for the opportunity to respond.

Um I would just share that the clarity, consistency, and efficiency was extremely important to the committee, um, even for ourselves, getting clear on our exact role in this, and I think you kind of highlight that better here for everyone tonight, um, and that this uh does not supersede it to supplements, and I think that is very important for community to understand.

And the last thing would be community engagement where we are right now.

There have been stakeholders around the table, but we also have been lifting up in the committee who else needs to be, not just at the table, but who needs to be communicated to in our community about the role of the performance framework, not just the working group, but IPEC's role in making sure that we are being balanced and fair across school types and all of all of those things.

So I think we're all very it's very important to all of us to get to the community engagement piece as soon as possible.

Questions?

Eddie, terrific job, by the way.

Thank you.

And thank you to Pope and to Janet for your participation.

That was a terrific report for a short period of time.

And we have a lot more work to do.

I have one question.

Um see here it says the IPEC decise distribution.

Can you uh elaborate at this time on what that means?

Right.

Yeah, something that we all learned actually in the most recent meeting that and uh board member Hope Duke Starr actually just said it, um we need to be really clear about those two different paths.

Um the the law says we need to have a plan for closure, and they say closure explicitly.

Um for us, we need to be clear that this performance uh framework, the multiple measures, the the decision still lies with the district and the authorizer.

IPEC, our decision making lies in facility usage or reallocation.

So a school's existence is not our discretion, that is still lies with the district and the authorizers.

Um, whereas resource allocation does lie with IPEC.

And uh I think those of us at the table and the the recent meetings had to be very clear to to outline that.

So a school can be a school that may not be able to operate in a facility we operate.

Theoretically, yes.

Okay, gotcha.

Thank you.

And maybe just to expand on that a little bit, if you could talk about circumstances under which a school may continue to operate but not operate under a school that is under the control of IPAC.

Can you maybe just to put a little finer point on that question?

Do we, as the working group is contemplating this, have a role in saying, okay, say the authorizer of a charter school determines whether that school continues to stay open, but IPEC has a role to play in determining whether they can continue to operate in a building that IPEC is responsible for.

Correct.

Yes.

And if we, as IPEC have said, based on our multiple measures and multiple years of data, we see that the school is chronically low performing on our framework.

Then we do have uh the op not the opportunity, but the option to engage the state board um for further discussions on a decision around those schools.

Um and then to your question is if we've decided that a school is chronically low performing, um, I think the the clarification would seek uh I'm trying to get words here, that the metrics that we've laid out in the performance framework then would say their utilization, uh facility utilization or their enrollment matched to their capacity, um, does not state that they should continue operating in this building.

They can exist in a different building.

I hope I answered your question and invite anyone else to add in there.

Well, just to I think you did answer the question.

I think it's also probably something that more thought is needed as the working group focuses on the work going forward.

And the process for making those kinds of decisions should be very clearly laid out so there's no ambiguity about who makes what decision.

Correct.

Other questions or comments?

Ms.

Mr.

Chairman, I might just make one point and just as much as I hate alluding back to the Indianapolis Local Education Alliance, this this very issue was vigorously debated.

I know I have b between uh Dr.

Johnson and Council President Lewis, both members of that ILEA.

There was, I and I'm gonna express it based upon my memory, which is always questionable, but there was real debate about this process, and I can remember ILEA member um Barato Britt saying we need to hold authorizers and in in this case IPS, which can't be an authorizer or this the school system accountable on performance standards on the quality of education provided, but felt very strongly, and I think that's where the ILEA came down to say it really shouldn't be the role from a from a school performance framework other than highlighting performance issues, but the authorizers should be held accountable for the quality of their schools.

That was that's kind of the gist of the way I remember the debate about the ILEA, and I don't have eyes in the back of my head, but maybe counselor Lewis, President Lewis, and and Dr.

Johnson can nod and say I'm right about that.

Yes, they're nodding.

My memory is correct.

Sorry to interrupt, I just call it a partial note.

Okay, that's the best I'm gonna get tonight.

Other questions?

Yes, I do have a question.

Um the progress report this due on August 1st.

Um, are there certain is there certain information that will be shared, like what's the clarity that we're gonna offer in that progress report?

Um, or and were there specific items that we were just gonna be highlighting in that.

I'll invite Mr.

O'Connor to to comment on that.

My perspective, because the the law says essentially an update on where we are, I believe you've seen the progress report tonight.

Okay.

Thank you.

And and and we will allude to the last slide, which is it continues to be a work in progress with the the, I think everybody's re uh recognized the need for substantial stakeholder input.

Okay.

Um is there a cadence that the working group has um set to give the rest of our board updates?

So since this will be a progress report on August the first, um, this going to you know the legislative council, I'm wondering how when and what could the um breakdown be for us to actually receive updates as well.

Yeah, um our plan is to report out after every one of these stakeholder engagement meetings uh with fellow board members.

Um I I'm also sure that we will be updating here uh for the public just to keep everyone up to date on what those engagements have looked like, what feedback we're hearing, and then progress on building something that is substantial.

Mr.

Chairman, if I may, thank you, Mr.

Rankel, for the the opportunity for questions.

On the engagement, the stakeholder engagement side, um, I am I imagine that those meetings will have um a lot, a lot of comment, a lot of conversation.

Um are you potentially thinking of maybe arrange them in a thematic way and uh have a list of like what these meetings are going to be for and what is going to be discussed at which I like to go to all of them, but I don't know if I if I can go to all of them, and then when are they starting?

When is your plan for the meetings to start?

Uh that is an excellent question, and something the group did discuss at our last meeting.

One, uh we want to seek opportunities to plug into already occurring communities stakeholder engagement instead of creating yet another evening that people have to attend.

Um so getting out and being proactive about saying, hey, this is the work we're doing, and we're seeking your feedback.

Can you give us a couple minutes or 30 minutes as part of a standing meeting?

Uh the second thing was uh a fear of um not being clear enough in the request for feedback and then having everything get muddied or tangled.

Um so we are thinking about being very thoughtful about uh groups of stakeholders and engaging them so that we can ask very narrow specific feedback from um those different groups, whoever they may be.

And when are they starting?

Immediately, yes.

Uh after this update and after we get the the update to the legislative council, um, we will be planning those out as a team to hopefully start mid-August and uh through the remainder of this year, definitely.

And if there's a community group or stakeholder group that would like to invite you into their meeting, how can they actually request you know this particular working group to show up and present?

Yes, that's excellent.

Um through our IPEC emails that are on the website, that'd be a great first start.

Um, just reach out and saying, hey, we'd like to invite you to do some engagement, and uh then between the three of us on the working group, we can go out and engage.

And although we will soon have an executive director who whose day job will be to do all this work so it's not all on the the three of the our board members who've been doing such a great job, but who also have other things to do.

Thank you.

I forgot I was just gonna add um is it possible also to put out a survey using you know technology to assist us in collecting feedback?

Yeah, absolutely.

Uh surveys accessibility was also a conversation.

We don't want this to be in monolingual.

Um it needs to be accessible to all in our community.

As a follow-up question, um I imagine that there is engagement, stakeholder engagement at this part of the plan, a plan will be produced.

Will there be engagement after the plan is produced?

Yes.

Yes, and that's why we're getting started now.

We have that end date of November 30th, 2027, and we'll work backward from them uh there to give ample time for all rounds of feedback.

I think I think your question is extremely uh spot on.

Thank you.

Um I think that we will take in as much information as we possibly can.

And uh hopefully there is quite a diverse opinions that would be spoken.

I think that what putting it down on paper and making sure that it is um best practice, and um Corriga, you can help with that, please.

Um but um I think that is important, and I think people looking at it, this committee looking at it, school leaders looking at it, is really really important because we could miss something along the way.

Um just a comment, one of the things that we also discussed when we get to the piece around clarity.

Um we also were discussing as a committee where the bug stops, and it is really it's nice to have this clarity that we are um more about looking at building usage, but if we're going to create a performance framework, our community gets to hold us accountable.

And one of the things that I was concerned about that I'm hoping that we will work through through, is if we are making these recommendations and creating a performance framework to what end?

Are we the last word?

How long do they get to hear feedback about proficiency that is not hitting the mark before we who takes action in that moment?

So we want it to be fair.

Whatever we do in community, we need this to be.

We promise folks that charter schools and IPS schools, all schools of all types would be held to account.

And when that happens, we don't want to leave it at oh, well, the authorizer said they could do three more years of being inefficient.

Um but certain other places are held to a higher standard, and we don't want that.

And so that's one of the things that I am happy to be on the committee to continue to make sure that this is balanced and fair.

As a response to that, and and thank you so much for that information.

Uh um precedent.

I also hope that I mean, and we've talked about this quite a bit also, is in the being transparent to our public and to the public, to parents as uh and and building that transparency as part of the plan so that all of us as parents know where our school stands in that progress.

So I don't know if that fits into into the work of your of this committee, but that ultimately is what we'd like to see happen for like I said, all of us parents that are looking at where is this school.

Other questions.

I have a few.

Um as you have begun this work.

Um are there a few issues that you think boy, these are gonna be especially tricky that we should just have in our heads and start thinking about as we move forward.

Yeah, I think you've uh pinpointed one earlier, which is the facility usage.

We're gonna need um external third-party facility usage studies to ground us and in what we deem as something that will trigger a building reallocation.

Um, you know, how enrollment matches to capacity, for instance.

Um and we did not talk at length about that.

We also know that there are other working groups that will start to to coexist on this board with facilities and transportation as well.

Um so it's imperative that we get input from those stakeholders and those working groups as we define those metrics.

Um I think that was the one that we we did not talk about often.

Um but from academic standpoints, we've got a lot of academic inputs um specifically with the state accountability.

I will say one caveat um uh a group of stakeholders have already reached out and want us to think beyond um our our twelfth grade, they want us to start looking at life outcomes um and or just consider life outcomes in how our schools are performing across the city.

And again, this isn't gonna be the singular metric that you know decides on whether a school is improving or not, um, but it is something to consider of uh thinking beyond what we traditionally have thought about in terms of uh life outcomes or academic proficiency.

Well, as you know I'm one of those people who thinks that we should look at life outcomes.

Uh and it certainly shouldn't be the only metric metric, but I'm not sure there's a more important metric.

The purpose of schooling is to improve the lives of our students.

And that should be the ultimate way that we determine whether or not we're being successful or not.

And if we're measuring what's most important, that's where we will put our time, effort, and resources, which is really important.

New Orleans is an interesting example.

I have heard some of the architects of the reforms in New Orleans that achieved big academic improvements, express frustration that that hasn't translated into better life outcomes than the way they had hoped for their kids.

So I do think this is a really important piece.

Kind of a related point, and I'm sure you guys are already thinking about this.

Um there's only there are I think significant opportunities for us to bring philanthropy into our work so that we can bring outside experts that both bring capacity but bring expertise and bring different perspectives.

Um I'm glad that the legislature has given us a considerable amount of time to put this together because this is complex.

Um but I'm I think that's something that your working group should have conversations about.

I've already talked to some with uh Kariga about this because I've had conversations with some local philanthropists who are interested in at least exploring whether they might support this work.

Getting this performance framework right is so critical to success.

So just again count me as a as a strong proponent of putting life outcomes as one of the major areas of focus as we evaluate schools.

Any other comments before we move on.

So terrific work, Eddie and Hope and Janet.

That was a really good conversation, and thank you for everybody for participating.

We know we will have many more conversations about that going forward.

So very excited to continue to learn more about that.

Um not quite as exciting, but maybe as exciting to Mike and to John.

Uh we mentioned at the last meeting that we needed to extend their contract, and they have actually generously been working without a contract.

Um, and we are now have the opportunity to honor what we said we would do before.

So you all have in your packets uh the proposal for both Mike and for John, which are separate contracts that would extend through September 1st.

Given the timeline and where we are, I could imagine us extending that again uh before we have Cariga on board, but that's not what we're gonna consider tonight.

We're gonna tonight focus on the proposal before you and would be open to any questions or comments that anybody might have before we consider a motion to approve this.

Hearing none, I would entertain a motion to approve the proposed contracts.

Motion to approve.

We have a motion.

Second.

We have a second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say nay.

Passed.

Mr.

Chairman.

Yes.

I want to just make a just a point of John information, I guess, or personal privilege, maybe second.

But um many of you have worked with law firms.

Um you recognize that you know, behind the scenes are a bunch of other people working hard to help get the research done, do the support, etc.

There's a lot that goes into this.

I know we see our two um mainstay people here, but I I do know they've got a uh strong group behind them, and I say that uh lovingly coming from a competitor uh competitor, you know, competitor law firm.

But that that said, I just kind of want to recognize that I think it's important that you know there's a lot happening um before we get to these board meetings that they're the they've been extremely helpful on and appreciate that.

So thank you.

That's a very good point.

And we should also just thank Mike and John again, just done a terrific job.

So we really appreciate it.

I would one isn't with us, but Roman is with us, and um I would also extend it.

Maybe Roman does the most work of us all.

So um so thank you.

Our management committee also thanks you.

Yeah, thank you, Roman.

Yeah.

All right, I do want to make a um so yeah, I want to also thank you both.

And we're Roman.

I'm trying to hand pointy.

Okay.

He's right back there.

Um yeah, I do want to thank the team because there's been a lot of really extensive work being done.

Um, and I know even just juggling the millions of questions that we all have that you're like, hey, I'm thinking about that and like a hundred other things.

Um, and it's uh super it's been super helpful.

So I do want to thank you for that.

Um I would like to say with this contract um going through to what September 1st.

I want us to consider uh when we are considering Dr.

Roush's um onboarding plan to figure out what the next phase of the contract look like and that be a part of like onboarding on what he needs um to make sure that he has the support and that you can like unload a lot of things that you've been doing, um, IPEC port, things that we're gonna be handing off over to him and his team as he builds.

If we can see a full plan as opposed to just going like month to month, I would love to be able to see that um alongside of his onboarding plan.

So if we could.

Great point.

That's a great point.

Thank you.

All right.

Any other comments about that?

If not, we'll turn it over to the acting executive director for his report.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um just uh just a few updates on short-term items that were acting upon to keep uh the multiple work streams of the Minneapolis Public Education Corporation uh moving forward to meet all of our deadlines.

You heard from from um uh board member Ron Hell about the work of the uh performance accountability team as I as I said in response to uh uh commissioner and board member Thomas's question.

That will be our update to the legislative council to keep it moving, and we will we will copy you all on that update to the legislative council.

Um secondly, we've worked with the Marion County Clerk's Office and the Marion County Election Board, which reports up to the clerk.

They have all of the information necessary to prove our state dictated referendum language on the ballot for this November.

They've got a few meetings scheduled.

I think our deadline for that is August 21st, is that right?

August uh August 1st.

August 1st, okay.

Um but uh they will uh have indicated they have the information necessary and will approve that.

And then we've also a community call information uh communicated all information, pardon me, necessary to the auditor and the treasurer's office uh to make sure IPEC's first installment funding is transferred to our already established accounts.

We expect that to be transferred again.

We'll notify you either late this week or early next.

That's uh that's to the tune of 1.4 million dollars, roughly.

Yep, and and to be clear on the August 1st deadline that was simply just to send it to the clerk's office, not to have the election board approve, but they are meeting uh on the 27th on Monday and um awaiting word as to whether we'll be added to that agenda as well.

But as Mike mentioned, they've the election boards quite busy this time of year and have all kinds of meetings going on.

And that's the end of my report.

Great.

Any questions of Mike or John?

Quick question.

Who is our bank?

Uh JP Morgan Chase.

Thank you.

Sorry.

All those all of the actions we've taken are either short-term items or changeable items.

Should the we I've you know, I'm not buying green bananas on behalf of IPEC at this point.

So everything we're doing is changeable, but had to establish something, so that's where we went.

Any other questions?

If not, oh I need to indicate there are no approvals of claims this meeting.

And our next meeting will be August 12th at 4 p.m.

in the city county building, but at a room to be determined, or is it might it be somewhere else?

We're working on all of that.

We're working.

All right.

I'm sorry, August 12th is our next meeting at 4 p.m.

Did I say something different than this?

It's the 12th.

It is it is the 12th.

So the award is on the website.

Yeah, it's been the August 12th date's been on our website for a while.

I was I didn't catch if there was a mistake on the draft uh uh agenda.

My apologies for that.

But August 12th is the next meeting.

Yeah, and this has been on yeah, this is on everybody's IPEC calendars.

And I will now take a well before actually doing that, just want to again Corriga.

We're just thrilled that someone of your caliber is gonna be leading us in this very important effort.

So thank you so much, and we wish you godspeed.

And also just want to acknowledge we do have the president of our city county council who's talking at the back, so I'm sorry, but just want to thank her for being here.

She's she has come to all of our meetings and she has an enormously busy schedule, and we just couldn't be more appreciative of her support, and we have the superintendent of the Indianapolis Public Schools.

I was listening to a podcast where someone said the three hardest jobs in Indianapolis are Mayor.

Actually, the person said the coach of the Colts, I'm not sure I agree with that.

And the superintendent of IPS, an enormously challenging job, and we're just appreciative Dr.

Johnson for you being here as well.

And I will now entertain a motion to adjourn the meeting.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

We are adjourned.