Governor's Task Force to Engage
Policy Group
February 1, 2007
Carol Carriuolo:
There are refreshments in the back, please feel free to get
some at any time. I will remind you of the same things, that we have a working
agreement; we have a parking lot for you to place your ideas. Please use these
and we will refer back to them.
We have new folks joining us. We will do introductions.
(Participants
introduce themselves.)
Carol Carriuolo:
Was there anything this morning that you would like to say
here? At 12:30 there will be a POWERPoint so you will have a chance to offer
feedback. Anything come up?
Participant: This is what she talked
about?
Carol Carriuolo:
Susan, let's go into updates.
Pam Flood:
We will give a quick synopsis.
Susan Lieberman:
Is this the time for the groups to talk about their work? It
is a visual.
Carol Carriuolo:
We are handing around something but there is not enough for
everyone of the green page. You can take one of the white and share the green.
Susan Lieberman:
We heard people say that it is hard to remember what happens
from one month to the next. Last
time the groups broke into separate work groups and begin to ask questions and
categorize their work. It might be helpful to see what the other groups are
doing. Would the data group like to start? Would you talk about how you define
the groups?
Participant: Our group looked at the
sources of data that would inform policy. This was our first attempt to winnow
down the information. There is lots of information out there and we had to
decide what is relevant.
We grouped it by major headers. Under Education, we gathered information on
it is cut off on
that sheet. We looked at truancy, grade retention, and attendance patterns. We
sent it out to the group and are hoping to fill it in. We are looking at homelessness, work, social and familial
challenges. We are pulling
subheaders from reports we are looking at.
We looked at system and agency challenges and children involved in
multiple agencies.
We looked at data we have, what is out there, what needs to
be tracked, and the last column is recommendations. We started to fill that in
as well.
Susan Lieberman:
People can use that as well as reference.
The policy group is looking at topic areas and strategies
within the topics, related challenges, and specific actions to take based on
the policies. Anyone have
anything to add? They have been adding to this list over the past month. As you can see, the data you are
getting connect and support each other.
Pam Flood:
If you have questions, please stop and ask. We are working
collaboratively. Our work ends in June, so we are asking how we can finish in
June. If you have time you can look at the handouts and we can answer your
questions. Your contributions are important.
Carol Carriuolo:
We have goals today so we will push to stay within the
timeframe. By noon each small group needs to be done with their task. It is the
halfway point. We will spend
time doing a backwards plan so we are done by June. There may need to be some communication
done in between to make this happen.
Your small group will answer 4 questions:
1. What is left for us to look at
in order to bring our analysis to closure by 12:00 today?
2. How do we prioritize our work?
3. What cant we accomplish during
this time period that needs to be addressed and therefore becomes a
recommendation or the plan?
4. What do we need to do to be
successful?
We will move into making recommendations and your group may
look at a work plan. I know you want to dive into the work; we need to focus on
the time so we make the best use of the time. Complete may mean that some need to do homework.
Pam Flood:
We are light on the policy subgroup now, how many are here?
How many from data?
Susan Lieberman:
Maybe we need to do some switching. The data group was doing
detailed work but we need to look broadly now.
Carol Carriuolo:
We are here for you to call on if you are stuck. We don't
have an agenda for your group, we will move back and forth between groups.
Pam Flood:
We can help facilitate as well. Why don't we move around.
Participant: Can you reiterate?
Pam Flood:
If you look at the handout, we will be moving to this: each
group will get a chart. Today you will collapse what you have learned. This
morning you will respond to the questions on the paper. What do you need to complete your analysis? What is missing,
what do you need? Some of it has been digging as opposed to being available.
You will start to fill in the holes. In
terms of education, the data group will draft language around a topic area.
Susan Lieberman:
Looking at truancy, dropout...
Pam Flood:
A statement may be that data is used to inform and improve
education delivery. Then your need statement would be that there is data but
schools don't have access.
There are agencies that maybe can come together and pull
that together. You look at what you have, as well as what is not there. The
data you found is interesting, but not regularly used by educators. Is it
because they don't know about it?
Participant: The people we have in
data would not know the need statement; we did not have those policy people so
we would not be informed.
Susan Lieberman:
You do have it. For example, some of the information on
dropout data has come up for both but is incomplete. You want more complete
data to effect a policy change. You
have information about juvenile justice, but there is some missing.
Pam Flood:
There are questions such as did they go back to school, what
happens after they leave a detention center, etc. Then you have employment. Education, employment, integrated
services.
We pulled these from the data group. In terms of
integration, we talked about community and others so you are thinking about all
the people who would impact employment. We are building an integrated strategy.
Linda talked a lot about that piece. These
are the three categories, you may not agree or your may wish to add. It is a
start to help you frame your work.
Participant: If you help guide us,
that is comforting to me.
Carol Carriuolo:
It is a shift from analysis to starting to use the data. It
is not an easy shift.
Pam Flood:
We looked at trying to help us visualize how the product
should look in the end. Susan
thought that this helps show what is missing. There is the accountability
piece. There is a final template in your packet. It flowed out of this
document. When you start to articulate, we will start to wrestle. It will flow
out of your work; I think it is starting now. How do we plug it back in to
clearly define? What is missing? What is our need? Then the strategies flow out
of that.
Carol Carriuolo:
We are looking for clarity at the end of the day as to where
the groups are heading. When you leave today you will know where we are headed
in April and May. Let's break
into two groups.
Participant: Do you want to
reorganize the tables? (yes)
Carol Carriuolo:
The place to start is with the work plan. You will decide how to answer the questions. How will you complete
the policy analysis?
(Participants break into two
subgroups.)
Participant: We will take a moment
and read through the white sheet. Do
people have questions that you may not be familiar with?
Participant: I was out part of last
time. When I looked at what happens with DHHS students who transfer, many have
Special Education needs. The IEP/EEP is always waiting at the last school. If
there was a way to mandate that it go to the new school with them...
Participant: There is a legal
requirement for that.
Participant: If it takes several
days for it to go to the new school, that is several more days they are behind.
Participant: So it is IEP records...
Participant: And no waiting for a
PET.
Participant: The legislation says
five days.
Participant: But that does not mean
it is implemented.
Participant: It can take up to eight
months, as it is based on school days, if they transfer in May and have up to
60 days school days to transfer the records, it can be all summer.
Participant: So delayed enrollment,
we need something to state immediate enrollment.
Participant: But it is not
enrollment necessarily.
Participant: Okay, so being
instituted. We want to say all students.
Susan Lieberman:
We need to look at it specifically in the needs statement.
We want to make note that it should say "timely access to support services"
or how you want to say it. Separate services in school for reentry. Are you getting it on the chart?
Participant: I can.
Participant: Under dropout
prevention, it is in the law that a committee is mandated.
Participant: District wide. Each district
has so have one.
Participant: We need to know the
law.
Susan Lieberman:
That is where we refer to them, mandated to meet regularly.
Participant: The truancy, some of
the stuff there could be pulled together with dropout. If you refer to the same
law, you probably want to cite the law here too.
Susan Lieberman:
They should be referenced in there. I will make sure they
are cited in there. Grouping
them together leads to what we will do later. It helps us move in that
direction.
Participant: Can we go back to DHHS
so I can fill it in?
Susan Lieberman:
We will note DHHS policy.
Participant: It seems that
...Chapter 101 is the state Special Educational and so in terms of Column 2, do
you want to change anything there?
Susan Lieberman:
I think in Column 3, timely access to all support services.
Participant: When you make note,
there is state record keeping policy for all students.
Susan Lieberman:
I will make note of that.
Participant: Anything in Column 4?
Susan Lieberman:
Support of services for reentry for all students.
Participant: Where it says
guardians...
Participant: It says
"team", it is outside the margins.
Participant: It should maybe say
surrogate. The guardian is not always the surrogate.
Susan Lieberman:
Is it better to go around or by topic? What about the homeless? For these
who don't recall, SAT means Student Assistance Team.
Participant: One of the challenges
is not just staffing, but that it is a nominal position. It is there; it is one
of the titles, usually of the Title 1 coordinator. It is posted on a board and then the homeless are tasked with
finding the services.
Susan Lieberman:
It has changed, as there has been a lot more outreach in the
last few years. It needs to increase, but there has been more publicity and training.
Participant: It would be nice if
there was funding for part of it. It is an honorable position.
Participant: The challenge is going
to schools to look for homeless; it is like missing the boat. You need to have
public information statewide. The people in that situation need to know there
is an advocate for them.
Participant: There are homeless liaisons in the agencies and in the schools. One thing others have done well is
to start to connect them together. When the schools have agencies coordinating with them, then there is a
person in the school as well to connect with. I have seen it
working well. There are people who are connecting.
Participant: I have told two
different families that there is funding available, no one had told them there
was money available to help them get their child to school.
Participant: Is there a definition
of what homelessness is? A student may not feel he can live at home. When
getting him into school, the school calls home. The parents say he could live
at home, but the student feels he cannot.
Participant: There is a very
specific definition.
Susan Lieberman:
We need to make the definitions and policies better known.
Participant: We need to educate the
public. We need to know the law. We need to have it into policy and the public
needs to know. We need general information out to the public.
Participant: It is required to be
publicized. It seems the state would do well to put it out.
Participant: But if the information
gets to the school, would it then get to where it needs to go?
Participant: In my example, the
family had to live in a camper at a campground. They had to drive their
daughter to school. When they found out about the funds they were told to go to
town hall to get funding. They were trying to build money to get into a rental.
The school had the money to pay for transportation, but the family was not
informed. The school had the information on the bulletin board but when does
the family see that when they are living in a campground?
Participant: There needs to be a 211
to inform.
Susan Lieberman:
211maine.org is a resource that lists services by topic and
area and city. The benefit is that you access it by phone as well as Internet.
It is fairly new. It is just starting to get the word out. It is great to call
and have someone answer. It is
one place, a pinpoint.
Carol Cariuolo:
At noon you need to be finished with tasks. Some of what you are talking about is strategy. What needs to happen now for this to happen?
Participant: In all of this, how do
we educate the parent? That is what we are talking about. They may not have
access to the Internet, they may be part of the problem of being homeless, they
are stressed out and don't know where to turn. If they turn to the school there
may not be a person there to help. We need to come up with a parent program so
they can be educated. We rely on other agencies to educate them but they are
not.
Susan Lieberman:
That sounds like a recommendation for the group. What we
want to see is that youth and families are informed and the information is
publicized.
Participant: Yes. The parents you
talked about, there is a lot of struggle there. I will talk more later on it.
Participant: One of the challenges
is that we did not have this to work with until recently. We have not had a
chance to work with it and have not talked about the second half at all. I am
not sure we have had an opportunity to process the content enough.
Susan Lieberman:
There is a lot to be done.
Carol Carriuolo:
I think the group needs to make a decision as to how you
want to proceed with this to flesh it out by June. This is the halfway point.
Would it be reasonable to say that we will spend the next 40 minutes going
through this, and then make a plan at 11:30 on how to complete the analysis
piece?
Participant: Works for me.
Participant: As we proceed I am
wondering if we will be filling in some of this?
Carol Carriuolo:
Yes, that is the point. I caution you to not spend too much
time on strategy as that is the next point. If you want me to note it on chart
paper I will do so.
Participant: Spending time
identifying the law or policy does not make sense; spending time on the
challenges seems core. If we have good recommendations we should throw it on
the table and see if it fits.
Carol Carriuolo:
I am just saying don't spend a lot of time fleshing it out
as you will do it later.
Participant: Under homeless, under
recommendations, do I need to add?
Susan Lieberman:
I did. You talked about increased awareness of the law and
that parents be informed. I think these pieces are important and should be
included in the strategies as we go along. Anything else?
Participant: There is a question as
to whether there is a policy in schools. (yes) Is there a procedure as
to how it is disseminated?
Susan Lieberman:
We can ask that question, is there a specific procedure or
protocol for each school district.
Participant: It is not recently in
the policies I have reviewed.
Susan Lieberman:
Good, it goes with publicity and everything else.
Participant: Are there issues
related to employment and homelessness as well?
Participant: The Department of Labor
has measures and part of what they focus on is kids who are not in school, aged
16 and up. Getting them into the work force. Whether or not there is a policy,
I am not sure.
Susan Lieberman:
That will be an easy one to find, we can follow up on that
with Mary Fran.
Participant: In the Recommendation
box, who is they"?
Susan Lieberman:
The liaison.
Participant: My concern is that
there is usually one district liaison and there is a challenge with that.
Participant: They can be part of the
team and employed by the school system.
Participant: So maybe it should be
that they be involved more.
Susan Lieberman:
Someone wrote this in, the related challenges and that they
thought some SATs are more effective than others. A lot of recommendations are
to collect data.
Participant: Students in
correctional facilities? It strikes me that there is a connection with
expulsion. In many cases the students have gone through the expulsion process.
It creates challenges for them. The records follow them.
Susan Lieberman:
That is an interesting question. It needs more information.
We don't have that.
Participant: It is a data question,
the relationship between incarceration and expulsion.
Susan Lieberman:
I would like it broader. I would like history.
Participant: I think there is a
piece about being accepted, as they come with baggage that can be used against
them, even though it did not happen there. A related issue is that there are
often good kids and other kids. Decisions about kids are often based on their
history.
Participant: Do you have a
recommendation on policy? I wrote support for youth coming from correctional
facilities.
Participant: It is not just them
though, it could be any suspended or expelled students.
Participant: It is pervasive and it
is people in schools making judgment. It comes down to supporting good kids
when they mess up but not affording the same benefit of doubt to the others. It
makes a huge impact on disengagement.
Participant:
That is true. When my daughter, who has needs, was
transferred, the teachers came back and told me her statement. She wanted to
know if the school judged based on siblings, and if so she did not want to go
there.
Participant: But there is a law that
for any altercation outside of school, the school can get that information.
Participant: In support of schools,
I find that the move toward inclusion...climate is about the rules and
written-down agreement. Then there is culture, when you walk in a school you
figure out what is going on. These are climate and culture issues. Schools are
moving toward looking at climate and culture, some schools are not moving at a
good rate. But I could pull up schools where kids don't feel that way. I
caution that it is not all schools in
Participant: How do we identify
them? What is the data around them? There was a big push on that. Climate
affects culture; we need to find a way to identify that culture. It has been more
than a decade since Promising Futures came out.
Participant: I don't want to focus
on what schools are not doing, I want to focus on the task. Any reintegration
plan needs to be both policy and procedure. There need to be models, as some
schools are doing a nice job. We need to look at that issue around integration,
so when they walk back through that door, who can they go to and talk to any
time of day? Who is in support? You need to feel safe and supported when you
walk through that door.
Participant: A problem I have, when
I go into school and need to talk, it is always friends, not staff. I don't
have that relationship with them. I never talk with the principal.
Participant: So shouldn't community
leaders have some kind of structure, how about some kind of role?
Participant: We need to look at the
model schools and see what they are doing that is right.
Participant: I
had students come forward, they said that they felt supported, and it makes me
sad that all students don't feel that way.
Susan Lieberman:
You have come up with recommendations that we should come
back to. It is a series of ideas to create a supportive environment for that
student. You have talked about principals being available for students. We can
look at them later to see how to group them and where to go. We can type it in during lunch.
Participant: One challenge around
retention and acceleration is that there is a specific birth date to get you
in, and 13 years later you walk out with a diploma if you stay that long. There
is inflexibility in the system because the age structure is so strong.
Participant: There is the option of
another degree, right? As long as you are under 21.
Susan Lieberman:
The question came up. Do students know they can take it in
five years?
Participant: It could be a positive
experience to have a five-year diploma.
Participant: You can only take so
many through Adult Education. If you go over four classes you get an Adult
Education degree.
Susan Lieberman:
Can you get a five-year diploma through your high school?
Participant: But there is still the issue, what if it is five and a half years? What if you have to go nights? I would like to see it changed. If you have to take longer, if it takes six years I would like to see him graduate within his school.
Participant: I think there should be 24-hour schools. Instead of Adult Education at night, kids could come at
3:00 or 4:00 and stay until 8:00 or 9:00. If you have flexible hours and opportunities...the research shows we
should not start high school at 7:30. They don't function at
that time.
Participant: My school pushed it
back to 8:00 but the busses still run at the regular time.
Participant: If there were 12 hour
days...
Participant: In
Participant: Schools are doing this.
Participant: Schools are focused on
credits.
Susan Lieberman:
I have an article for you to read. School year-round or longer hours...I should say school
availability.
Participant: Substituting one time
frame for another.
Participant: What about online? I
have seen a change at U Maine. There are hybrid components. Maybe the class
meetsMonday and Wednesday and the rest is online.
Participant: It is hard; you have to
be motivated.
Participant: I would not advocate
for it entirely, but maybe part of it.
Susan Lieberman:
You are coming up with two things- combining adult education
with an extended time line as a statewide policy. The other piece is the option to have something similar to a
college structure so schools are more accessible year round.
Participant: You want the school to
be accessible.
Susan Lieberman:
We are talking more broad-brush recommendations.
Participant: Students like options.
Susan Lieberman:
How about graduation requirements?
Participant: I have been to high
school vocational paths and my job was to interview the students. They felt
strongly about being in vocational school all day long, grades 9-12. It is a
European model; you get to go when you reach that age.
Participant: In
Participant: Every student said that
the one thing missing was being in vocational school from ninth to twelfth
grade.
Participant: An issue would be the
competition to get into that school, so many more would benefit.
Participant: It would come down to
staffing if they get too huge.
Participant: The voc-techs are not
set up to provide the requirements plus you lose hours on the bus.
Participant: My son is into art and
he has taken all that he can in high school and is now taking it in
Participant: The bus trip to the
voc-tech took so long that the students had to lose a class opportunity, they
could not fail a class and they could not double up because of the time on the
bus.
Participant: If you take my
recommendation from before...
Participant: There is an opportunity
to better integrate voc-tech with the community college. Students can move more
quickly and get more credit. They have the chance to fill in some of the school
requirements. We have students who struggle with traditional high schools and
go off to voc schools and receive less support after because they are not in
that four-year college track. They end up with less support in terms of moving
to the next stage.
Participant: I think that is where
you bring in the employment piece. You know that is their track.
Susan Lieberman:
How early?
Participant: Seventh, eight grade.
Susan Lieberman:
Summary: different challenges as to lack of slots available,
losing time on the bus, voc-tec school in ninth grade and available all day,
the need to create more opportunities to take voc-tech classes, combine
voc-tech with community colleges, connection between employment and middle
school. Some people said elementary school.
And knowledge
of graduation requirements.
Participant: We are talking about
eighth to ninth grade transition, what is available for students with
disabilities, for schools in the college track, transition planning for all
starting at least at age 14.
Carol Carriuolo:
Let's check in. What do you want to do with the next half
hour? You have another page here.
Susan Lieberman:
Do you want to go around?
Participant: One issue is that the
truancy laws are not necessarily with teeth. The procedures are not widely
known and used. There is also the local law enforcement.
Susan Lieberman:
It is on here.
Participant: Truancy is the same section.
Participant: As a parent I don't know
the law.
Susan Lieberman:
We need to make a point to parents and educators.
Participant: We need an upper limit.
To what age am I required to go?
Susan Lieberman:
I think it is combined with the truancy. How about to
secondary transition to Special Education students? We talked about it a bit.
Participant: At age 14 or earlier.
Participant: My experience is that
they say at age 16 when you go into a PET.
Participant: I think it should happen earlier. There should start to be a connection in elementary school between students and businesses.
Participant: It is what are the
students hopes and dreams and how does the school support that, not
shoehorning them into what is there. Also integrating other supports. Who will
help when the child leaves? What is out there?
One challenge with recommending middle school is that the
communication with high school is awful. There is disrespect, information that
flows up is disregarded, unless it is which track you are on.
Participant: Would a SAT help with
that?
Susan Lieberman:
That is where we lose kids.
Participant: If there were a
transition plan for every student before they enter high school, then maybe the
high school would have to look at it. It could be driven by the students and by
data-supported plans.
Participant: I love the idea but I
have heard that kids that age don't know what they want to be and budgeting is
already done for those teachers. I think it should be that the system finds out
what the student needs.
Participant: The hands-on things the
kids get, that is the first to go.
Participant: I am trying to get us
out of the box. When we get to specific recommendation you can cross it off, I
want to push our thinking. Getting to that point would be great. I want to
start thinking about this. Data drives a lot in education.
Participant: We are asking in eighth
grade what they want to do. It is set like a track. Do they want business?
Participant: Then they have to fit
in that mode all along.
Susan Lieberman:
Youve talked about comprehensive transition plan starting in middle school to inform on student needs, which should be reviewed and modified each school year to see what the need is. Until we track it we won't know.
Participant: It is fluid. Maybe
every semester.
Susan Lieberman:
You can't overburden, but it should be reviewed.
Participant: There is a need for the
funding system to be more supportive. Schools have guidance staff that is not
providing appropriate guidance. The ratio is like one to 400 kids. How can one
person do that? There are two pieces. The focus should not be just getting into
college; it should be getting kids ready for what they want to do. It is about
closing off opportunities. Some leave with all the doors open, but a
significant portion don't.
Participant: It is more like real
life.
Susan Lieberman:
Comprehensive guidance plans to assist all youth. We will look at it later to see all
points. We will go in with the other group. We are throwing out ideas.
Participant: We need to have
employers in schools explaining to kids what they need in the business world.
Participant: There is no
coordination I see between business and career education to help kids see how
education will help with jobs.
Susan Lieberman:
What is your take on that?
Participant: Lots of time when I sit
in class, I am thinking thank you for showing me how to do it but I will never
use it. I don't see any connection. I think it is like that for a lot of
people.
Participant: Relevance is the key
issue. If you are not going to be a machinist, maybe you don't need that
information.
Susan Lieberman:
Voc ed, regular education, college requirements to establish
the need for education.
Participant: And
using youth councils. It is employers, agencies that get together to talk about
what is going on in the area and how to engage youth.
Susan Lieberman:
I will add that in. That is all of them together.
Participant: It would be useful to
have universities report back on what happens to those students in college. A
huge amount stay in state. It would be helpful for the college to come back
with data so the high schools don't just check if off and say they got the kid
in.
Participant: We saw a survey that
said one in four kids in the
Participant: To provide
opportunities, at YCCC I saw high school students taking classes to get credits
and see what college is about.
Participant: We are working a
program called Mission Transition to bring kids together with business. It
would be great to see it statewide. We are talking about doing it in March.
Susan Lieberman:
I will put it as an example. I want to go into something. We
talked about lots of these at the same time. I will go over the next four. School system setting, structure,
climate, we touched on a lot. I am not sure we talked about attitudes.
Participant: They go together.
Susan Lieberman:
Let's talk about that. Is there any thing else?
Participant: Going back to tolerant
schools, taking the whole concept. There is a school in
Participant: 21st
Century grants are meant to do that, but now they do it at state lock grants.
Participant: Are you familiar with
Hermon school? There is a web site that is based through the school for the
whole town, everyone has access to it. It would be an interesting model to look
at.
Participant:
Susan Lieberman:
There are some schools that have done that.
Participant: Some places in the
country offer things like dental care. There
are still two silos: Special Education educators and regular. Students get to
regular classes and are not provided for.
Participant: The Margaret Chase
Smith Foundation came up with these great models for applied learning. I think
alternative curriculum models would help.
Susan Lieberman:
We could put that as an action plan, Laura can coordinate.
Participant: There are great
recommendations in Promising Futures. Every child needs a champion. Mentorship is a great one to put
there. There is a program in
Susan Lieberman:
We will get that information.
Participant: Recently I have been
looking at data; schools are in dire straights as far as culturally sensitive
areas. These kids don't even have the language skills they need in school. It
needs to be strategized differently.
Participant: Migrant behavior, we
have seen that program slammed. A coordinator has not been hired. Its about
making sure these related issues are addressed. That is the migrant population.
We have a program with federal funds available and we need to make sure it is
used.
Susan Lieberman:
I don't want to lose what people have but we don't have much
time.
Carol Carriuolo:
Have you done enough discussion on policy so you can go into
strategy? Is there some big piece that needs to be talked about separately? Are there any things you want to add
so our team can meet and talk about it this afternoon?
Participant: We have already started
moving to recommendations.
Participant: I want to see student
attitudes and boredom addressed. That is tough, I have talked about it with the
assistant principal. How can you get a student to not be bored? Maybe
implementing new teaching procedures.
Participant: We have not talked
about interagency collaboration. Maybe it will come out later. Things function
better with structure, there is not a seamless structure. You see MOUs and such
but why do we have to do that to get two agencies to talk? After school, what are the other
pieces there that we did not add?
Susan Lieberman:
That was a good discussion.
Carol Carriuolo:
We will come back with discussion as to where to go next. They will show the POWERPoint
continuously so we will meet back here at 1:00.
Pam Flood:
There are handouts for the POWERPoint before you go. It is at 12:30.
(Group breaks for lunch at 12:00 and resumes at 1:05 PM.)
Susan Lieberman:
We thought we would take 15 minutes and go back to the
question at the end, about the different agencies. We touched on several; we
have not touched on others. Are there specific topics within the Department of
Corrections, any issues we did not discuss?
Carol Carriuolo:
Or did not discuss policy or other things that may help
inform strategy?
Participant: An intensive
supervision program, like for people on probation, to help them find different
avenues.
Susan Lieberman:
What are you thinking about that?
Participant: In connection with the
school, they go to alternative education sites.
Susan Lieberman:
So making connection with schools and the communities. It is the Youth Alternative Team.
When the officers cannot spend extensive time with the youth, they use Youth
Alternative teams to work with the youth. Her point is, are they making use of
that to get them involved?
Participant: What are the services
that are provided by the DOL as they exit? Do they have the supports available
to them? Maybe there is a
program that does that.
Susan Lieberman:
That is the question we want to ask. You are referring to
the community as well, both? (yes)
Participant: I am not aware of
anything that speaks to that on the Child Welfare side.
Participant: While kids are in the
DOC system they have access and for some it transfers out with them.
Participant: I can't think of any
mandates or policies. Maybe
there is a wrap-around, a philosophical process. It has all those things in it
but is not there yet.
Participant:
Susan Lieberman:
They track kids who are committed, but not necessarily kids
who are detained, and not for kids who are served in the community in regional
offices.
Carol Carriuolo:
Other issues or questions we want to explore?
Participant: What are the
interagency relationships?
Participant: Work Force Investment
Act, which visits schools.
Participant: Between DOE and DOL,
whose job is it to meet the needs of the kids? I would like to know more of
what they do.
Participant: (Listing agencies)
They are all on youth councils.
Susan Lieberman:
Part of the problem is under-utilization and under-investment.
Participant: People are sitting
around the table talking about what they do but no one knows.
Participant: Publicity and
awareness.
Participant: Get the word out there.
Participant: This is what we offer,
this is what we know. More publicity.
Carol Carriuolo:
That is what we are doing. We are trying to figure out what
is there.
Participant: Its like increasing
awareness for the public.
Participant: What if a reporting
requirement was part of this? If you have to create a report, why not have a
requirement to get the word out?
Participant: In the DHHS, how much
knowledge do they receive about educational policy?
Participant: In terms of educational
resources for kids, they need to come together.
Participant: Is there a requirement?
Participant: There is a licensing,
but does that include it?
Susan Lieberman:
Is there something that requires the foster parents to have
this?
Participant: The foster parents
should know what some of the acronyms are, and what to expect.
Carol Carriuolo:
There is procedure but maybe not policy.
Participant: There is lots of
information out there for them, the information comes out as issues come up.
Participant: Foster parents have to
have education to get their license. It seems that it could be part of that.
Susan Lieberman:
What do you think?
Participant: I don't think it would
be a barrier to getting a license. It is not an added issue.
Participant: Maybe the requirement
is for the agencies to provide course work for the parents in the foster care
system. The agencies have to provide it for the parents to get credit. Maybe
those groups have to get together and come up with a course that would give the
parent credit for their re-licensing.
Carol Carriuolo:
What else is missing from earlier?
Participant: I don't know if
everyone knows about the Childrens Cabinet and how it works. So much of what
you are talking about does get discussed but it gets prioritized. I am not sure
that people understand what it is and what it does, what the three priority
initiatives are in the state, and how to access.
Susan Lieberman:
I want to talk about that. I think it speaks to a larger
issue. There are a number of groups we are talking about where people are not
necessarily aware of others work. There is a lot happening in
Participant: Transition is a place
that is a priority for many. People have different definitions of what it
means. It would make sense to look and see if there is already a task force
that exists.
Carol Carriuolo:
That we're tapping the same people.
Participant: I have a concern about
groups having different ideas, it has to be clear as to what we are talking
about, which is children being engaged. I wonder how that gets across. I have a
concern about what is underneath this. We have had MOUs for years.
Susan Lieberman:
This goes to a couple things we will do. One is the backward
planning. Part of what we are doing is brainstorming. We will have to look at
our priorities and how to pull it tighter.
Participant: I still have a concern
that people understand it.
Carol Carriuolo:
It will be connected to the data to support us, and we will
also see where we don't have good data, where the gaps are. Either it does not
transfer or is not used.
Participant: If it all comes
together there may be a collaborative conference. This is what it is about,
this is our data, this in the problem. I
am worried that people won't know what we are talking about.
Susan Lieberman:
We get it so it is accountable and viable.
Participant: It is also important to
make it public.
Carol Carriuolo:
Any other holes that we need to patch? What are other data
or questions that we need to look at?
Participant: There is always the
question about funding, where the money comes from.
Participant: There is no funding,
that is always a problem.
Susan Lieberman:
That is the legislative piece, that there be no money
attached to this. That is a question we need to ask. We want to get the basic concepts approved.
Participant: Even legislation, no
matter what, will cost districts money.
Susan Lieberman:
You need to look at it both ways.
(Data and policy subgroups recombine.)
Data Group: Most of us are
familiar with the data we collected so we took 10 minutes and looked through
your grid to see the connections and disconnects. The biggest part is that
young people are at the center. That is really important.
We have been working with different categories, not just
education. A lot are geared toward education. There are things like policies
that have to do with social policies, some other things like employment issues. Social policies, like DHHS issues and
how they relate to young people. There
was multiple involvement, there is lots of cross-over. There is a way to
collect the data we need and to make sure it is accurate. How do people access
that? How do we get it into the right hands at the right time? The bottom line is what we are unsure
of.
Carol Carriuolo:
Thank you. Any questions?
Participant: When we looked at our
list it was the same conclusion.
Pam Flood:
That is why we revamped the afternoon. We will move into
three groups: employment, interagency challenges, and family social challenges.
What are the issues? What do we know? What do we need to
find out? Peoples best guess on where we can get that. We don't want to be a
group that makes a recommendation only to find that there is a policy there but
is not accessed. We are trying
to be as educated as we can. Maybe we need to look at in-depth policy analysis.
Carol Carriuolo:
(Handing out work charts.) You will get a chance to
work on every chart. You will have seven minutes to look at each chart. We want
to mine the whole group. Each group will have a different color to work with.
Pam Flood:
We will give a five-minute warning. It would be great to mix the groups up, so you get to see
different backgrounds.
(People break into work groups.)
Carol Carriuolo:
Okay, we will come around with markers. Review what
is on your chart in light of what your charge is. Circle what is directly
related to that as well as what else we need to know, what will help us to do
our charge well. After next month we will move into our next phase.
(Groups are reviewing charts.)
Carol Carriuolo:
Are we ready to wrap up? We will have the groups
present on the charts and we will have discussion on what we need to uncover to
get what we need.
Participant: What is the
relationship between this and what else we did today?
Pam Flood:
We will put it all together. You will have all the
information next time.
Susan Lieberman:
This is an extension of what we did this morning. We wanted
to catch those pieces.
Carol Carriuolo:
There may be information that does not exist or we can't
catch, but at least we have noted it.
Participant: It seems lopsided in
that the information that was missing was what the data group had, the policy
group had lots of information.
Carol Carriuolo:
This is not just policy.
Participant: Our assumption was that
we would do a balanced integration. Policy wants data on everything. We did not
go through your green sheets and say there was not this or that. We started
from the assumption that you had all the data. That was an example.
Participant: I agree that we don't
have a comprehensive overview so that we can bring it all together.
Carol Carriuolo:
We need to merge.
Pam Flood:
We know there is data out there but it is in pockets. What
do we need to recommend to make it available to agencies?
Participant: We don't have enough
information about what you have done on the data side to fill this in. We don't
know what is missing because we don't know what you have.
Participant: Vice versa.
Susan
Lieberman:
We need to merge, that is the next step so everyone has an
understanding.
Pam Flood:
This is a chance to crystalize what you have.
Participant: Can we have a discussion
rather than leave it to you to do the work?
A discussion between the policy and data groups?
Susan Lieberman:
Both groups put additional information in their charts.
Participant: I don't want to leave
other data that may be important that we don't know about.
Participant: There is lots of
duplication. I think several are on the other chart. There is confusion related
to the exercise.
Carol Carriuolo:
We are looking for holes so we feel that we are complete in
what we have not been able to look at.
Participant: It would be helpful to
me to have a few minutes reflection time.
Participant: It would have been
helpful to me to have the green sheet and go back home to look at it.
Susan Lieberman:
We will make sure that chart goes out to everyone.
Carol Carriuolo:
This is what we were thinking- we would begin to synthesize
the conversation and look to where we can get the information, so that next
month we are as complete as possible. The
other part is to start to chunk out the pieces that we need to finish by June.
What are the pieces, how do we work backwards to do that?
Participant: I don't have enough
information to do the first part. I need time with the green chart and the
final version of the policy matrix to look at before I can pull out the holes.
We probably can do the second part this afternoon, looking at what the product
needs to look like. I would like to see that between meetings, maybe posted on
the web. We could start with what is missing next time. If what is missing is
not of the final product we don't need to spend time on it.
Pam Flood:
We need to look at a few things- is there an information
warehouse? Is there any additional information we need to look at? Has someone
else tried to do this and got shut down?
Participant: There are many things
here; we can't look in depth at all.
Pam Flood:
That is what we were going to pose to the group. Are there
things that the group wants to have brought back to the next meeting? Is there
any information we should try to collect before the next meeting to get on the
web site or get to you?
Susan Lieberman:
It might be helpful if we look at the planning chart to help
people see what we want to achieve. We
also need to hear from everyone as to how we want to proceed. I wonder if we
should take a moment and ask people what they want to do next, and see if it
makes sense to start the planning. It may help people see where we are going.
Carol Carriuolo:
Let's go around the room, the logical next step.
Participant: My
sense is that you facilitators know where you are going but you have not let me
in on where you want to go. I don't feel like I am making a contribution toward
getting to the end. This may have been covered previously.
Participant: I can echo that. The
morning felt more productive to me. This activity felt repetitive, we got hung
up on semantics. We started big and most people agreed on the major categories.
But it feels like we are going about it backwards, we are going from the big
picture to small. It is frustrating for me.
Participant: I would like to see
both groups working together now, not in small groups. Everyone has something
to contribute and we would get away from the redundancy. We would not have as
many questions about what the others mean.
Pam Flood:
So clarity is a piece of it, which has been a part we have
wrestled with. We have tried to provide a framework so the recommendations come
from you. We are working in an area that does not have a road map. We are
trying to break down barriers.
Carol Carriuolo:
This is exactly what we were hoping to have today. It is
time to get clear about that so we know the direction we are moving in.
Participant: I agree with what you
said about the lack of a road map. You have the perfect storm. It might be
better if the groups met smaller and more focused. I know it is hard time wise.
I have missed some meetings. I am confused. I feel like each group should meet
separately.
Carol Carriuolo:
I think that will be clear. Information does have to merge.
Pam Flood:
The information complements, we need to merge.
Participant: A better design might
have been to do more group work and have them report out.
Susan Lieberman:
I want to go back to the fall. We developed a scope of work.
When we did that, we talked about providing specific long and short-term
objectives. From there we looked at policy data and structure. When we looked
at that, we found it was huge. We have looked at a couple different models, how
you break it down so it makes sense to create a plan that is simple, authentic,
doable, and accountable.
One of the models (Achieving Prosperity) talks about
an integrated seamless system. They have categories, action, and format. It is
simple to follow. We looked at the potential to use this as a model. It could
provide a framework. We are trying today to look at what is out there, what is
missing, what we need to know. That is where it gets messy. Now is the time to
move forward and look at the backward plan.
Participant: Do we know this model
worked?
Susan Lieberman:
I know the group that developed it refers back to it. Jaci
talked about it and about going back to it. We want something useable, that
people will go back to. We look at who will be making this accountable. That is
all a piece of what we are doing.
Carol Carriuolo:
I heard him ask, how do we know it is an effective way of presenting?
Participant: This has not been out
long enough.
Participant: I have been part of
several initiatives where we generated huge reports and they are overwhelming.
This is distilled; it is distinct and useable to me. People can pick it up and
look at it and go further if they want.
Participant: It is concise.
Pam Flood:
You could go and look at the strategies behind it, but we
thought the accountable piece was missing.
Participant: Who is responsible?
Pam Flood:
Whatever we do, we have a way to evaluate whether or not it
is moving forward. A recommendation could be to have someone review it.
Participant: The thing that is
missing for me is the results of the strategy. What are the desired outcomes?
We are making action plans; there is that statement of concern there. What is
it that you are working toward? That and who is responsible for it?
Carol Carriuolo:
I feel the energy dissipating. Does it make sense to
brainstorm now?
Susan Lieberman:
People need to be aware that we are part of a larger force,
the legislation group as well. It is important that you have some awareness of
it. At some point we need to incorporate into the larger group.
Pam Flood:
We had talked about how to make what we do permeable when we
take it back.
Carol Carriuolo:
Would it be helpful to brainstorm what we will be proud of
after all this work? Something useable, graphic, accountable. We want to
capture the conversation so we know where we are headed.
Participant: I like this too. What
they did was they started with a simple question. (How can we get all
students ready for kindergarten?) If we started with our question, as a
how-to statement, my question to you is would the work we have done answer that
question?
Carol Carriuolo:
Yes. We have data that defend the issues; we know some of
the policies out there.
Susan Lieberman:
I think the next thing is to group what we have done.
Participant: So you can take that
and flesh out the basic question.
Carol Carriuolo:
Yes, over the past four months we have done that.
Participant: It is easy to
lose track of this but it frames the document.
Carol Carriuolo:
What else do you want to see? (Participants brainstorm the following list.)
The end product will be:
Clear
Outcomes based
Start with how can we...scope of work
Responsibility/ accountability
Oversight
Why this is important
Audience (be applicable)
Discussion of cost User
friendly/readable
Carol Carriuolo:
So you are saying that we want something concise and
user-friendly in the end.
Participant: There are acronyms in there that are not defined.
Pam Flood:
These could be collapsed to make it concise. Our intent is to guide you in that direction, but have the content to
come from the group.
Carol Carriuolo:
What about a clear plan for dissemination?
Participant: This is backward for
me. I need to know the strategies first to help me determine the audience. If
we decide there needs to be a warehouse, that will not necessarily go to
parents.
Susan Lieberman:
That is the question we need to ask, who will the audience
be? We may answer it later.
Participant: A key component is that
we need alternate formats. This is use- friendly to people who read. There are
not a lot of graphics. A high percentage won't be able to use it like this.
Maybe an interactive DVD that is kid-friendly, or for people who don't read
well.
Pam Flood:
How do we flesh it out?
Susan Lieberman:
It will complement other works. Also the components of the
legislature piece will be there.
Participant: There has to be
discussion on how this high-color, glossy publication could be produced.
Pam Flood:
We have tried to make sure you have had access to resources;
we have had people come in and talk to us.
Participant: You should read this
carefully because you don't want to reinvent the wheel.
Participant: Sometimes you need to
reiterate the wheel.
Pam Flood:
Our group talked about what is out there, such as the Maine
Dropout Guide. We talked about Promising Futures. Maybe we need to identify
features out there and highlight that. The scope of our work is huge. We
broadened the age range; we are looking at their complete lives. There is lots
of stuff there. Maybe some of our recommendations are that committees be formed
to look at those.
Carol Carriuolo:
We will look at this next time. When we get together in
March, let's make decisions on how you want to work, what you need to do there.
Let's be clear, we have March, April, and May. We need to start being more
interactive with the other group. What do we need to do next month? I heard
that you want to spend time with the complete data and policy group charts to
see what is there. Is that true? We will take these and look at how they
interface with our work.
Participant: Can we get them
significantly before the meeting?
Carol Carriuolo:
One thing we will do is spend time looking at the data and
policy work so far. We will look for missing pieces that we can fold in.
Susan Lieberman:
Can we look at starting to group them?
Carol Carriuolo:
So people can have time to think about it? Identifying big
themes as related to the scope of our work? Then we can start brainstorming possible strategies and links
under the big themes. Are we ready to do that?
Participant: Its not brainstorming,
it is identifying.
Susan Lieberman:
When we look at the needs statement...
Pam Flood:
One thing this group did today was to look at their charts
and they identified needs in the conversation. We started to bullet out. Here
is an example: we looked at employment, are the strategies used successful?
Participant: Policy did a similar
thing, but in policy.
Pam Flood:
So you are focusing on both data and policy.
Participant: So we look at both
charts, what flows from that are big themes.
Pam Flood:
So then you articulate what follows under that.
Participant: People will have talked
about it, it will be there.
Participant: I see conflict in how
people will want to do that.
Pam Flood:
We can start when people are getting lost.
Carol Carriuolo:
This is great today. We need that push factor. We have been
mucking around because it is so big. Now we can plan better as a whole group on
how to get there and deliver the product at the end. The more we can do the
better we will be.
Participant: Part of it is that it feels redundant.
Pam Flood:
We want to make sure we put safety nets in so we don't jump
too quickly. We had things emerge as a need statement. How do we be sensitive
to these so we feel that we are doing quality work?
Carol Carriuolo:
Maybe this is enough for the bones of that meeting. We may
actually get to generating strategy.
Participant: You could also report
back to us if something does not seem to tie in. Maybe we can get a handle on
it in a large group.
Carol Carriuolo:
So we can navigate the process together. We can put the
problem out on the table. We knew today would be a turning point.
Susan Lieberman:
We do need to look at when we meet with the other group.
Participant: It seems to me that
they are focused on half of the kids, while we are focused on all.
Susan Lieberman:
This task force was started with two specific mandates. One
was a specific population; the other was a plan for kids who are disengaged.
They feel separate but they came under the same mandate. That is why we broke
into two groups but we are part of the same force.
Participant: Would it be useful to
share our charts with them? What if they ask about other things we have
discarded?
Susan Lieberman:
We have debated about how to bring this in.
Carol Carriuolo:
They have been leaking information; we need to do the same.
Susan Lieberman:
At some point we will give them feedback. Caroline Gray did great work; she collected links and information
from the data work group. It is on the web site. Please feel free to look at those on the table and access the web
site. I want to recognize people who have done additional
work.
Pam Flood:
Let's do one word to close the day.
Carol Carriuolo:
I feel relieved.
Participant: Morning was great, now I feel we are redundant but maybe we needed to do that. This is going great.
Participant: I let out my breath.
Participant: Thank you for inviting
me.
Participant: Progress.
Participant: Late!
Participant: Hopeful.
Participant: Progress.
Participant: Me too.
Carol Carriuolo:
Thank you all, we will try to get the policy and data sheet
to you as soon as possible so you can review it. Next meeting is March 1st,
here.
MARCH WORK CHART:
Data/policy charts whole group reflection
Identifying big themes as related to scope of work
Recommendations under big themes
Need statement
GEORGES
NOTES- DATA GROUP
Data you need versus:
Info links specific kid to specific problem
How far can you drill down?
Policy question - suspension/ expulsion school data get
skewed
Compliance
Disconnect/data integrity in field
Early intervention
Marcia- career/Special Ed/Adult Ed/Tech Education, 3 years out/1 year out
Use DOL- SSN
If a kid leaves your school and goes to another, must be
released from first school- moved, died, dropped out, graduated (homeless,
missing)
Data time between moving schools
Reporting dropout rates- incomplete data
Connects:
Young people are at the center of our work. We are on the
same page.
Missing:
Ways to collect additional information
Check on survey safe/drug-free school
Mydaus data
Gates recommendation for policy
Social policies
Community data policies look like
Substance abuse
Asset development
Domestic violence
Child abuse policies
Social stressors that impact children
Juvenile justice
Multiply involved youth
Family social challenges
Community support role
Employment
DATA GROUP
BRAINSTORMING CHARTS
Data Group "Need Statement" Brainstorm:
Employment needs statement:
Knowing if strategy/services are successful
Courses within business to increase hiring individuals
with disabilities
Data to assess
Employability
Career ladders
History of employees/turnover
Mobility based on history (diploma/GED)
Education:
Early and on-going standardized
Consistency screening /inter - at risk
Information warehouse (individual student)
Transferring/ tracking kids who leave school (where did
they go?)
Student profiles- broader than strengths
/weakness/learning styles
Longitudinal analysis
Need to be relevant- engaged (Gate's data)
Interagency collaboration:
Common data across all agencies
Common identifier
Collapse- reporting
Confidentiality
Data accessed- by whom and how?
Data Recommendation Brainstorm:
Policies/ data used to inform communities
Whose job? Responsible?
Dropout to GED
Student Assistive Teams
Nothing other than full credit (partial credit)
Policies child-centered, strength-based
(Good) data driven
Dropout prevention work together with adult ed/
collaboration with schools/adult education GED/employment agencies
Brainstorm: Data Ideas:
How does information get disseminated and to whom?
Businesses offer to workers families
Quality sources
Kid who is developmentally young
Education about what data means and how to use it
Expand policy for dropout prevention
Data needs to work for us to make things better for kids
MEDMS - not training truancy/not officers
Absences from school
Adopt/adapt Maine Dropout Prevention Guide Assessment
Where do kids go?
Education level of parent
DHHS:
Have access to
mental health care while in DOC
Policies?
DOC:
What community services are provided to youth leaving DOC system?
Model- Mountain View adopted transition model
What are the interagency relationships between WFIA and
DOL?
What are the interagency relationships between DOE and
DOL?
Whose obligation to connect to career opportunities?
Youth councils underutilized
Lack of awareness
Need more youth on council
Publicity to increase awareness of what exists
All communities/ commissions report to legislature
Why not make it public?
How much knowledge does DHHS receive about DOE policy?
No policy related to foster parent- licensing required
Procedure on information
Special Ed/IEP/PET
Information comes from DOL as issues arise
Should DOE, DOL, DOC provide information to DHHS related
to foster parent license?
Childrens Cabinet- how does it interface with our effort?
What are all the related initiatives? How to connect, who
are they?
Who is mapping this information?
When can we see it?
Before making recommendation, we have to state a clear
"why"
What are we impacting?
Interdepartmental conference that lays out the issue, the
data, the recommendations
If we change policy, what are the funding issues?
How will we know if we have been successful? What will be
some indicators of success? What would this mean for an 8-year-old or
18-year-old?
Employment:
8-year-old
Discussion of
goals and dreams
Made aware of
opportunities
Build
aspirations
No measure of
employment - school attendance
18-year-old:
Increased
diplomas
Increased employee opportunities
Increased rate
of pay
Increased
enrollment in post secondary
Better
connection between education and employment
More technology
centers
In school or
working
Youth prepared
and ready to move into post secondary education, training, work force
Personal and Community connections:
8-year-olds:
Community
connections will be strong
Students will be
exposed to community supports
Role models
Has a
champion/mentor
Established
connection
More mentoring
School
attendance
After-school participation
Increased
community connections
18-year-olds:
Established
sense of belonging
Increased voting
Increased
community/volunteer services
Reduced rate of
crime
Increased
community/social options
Would know
resource available to them and who to contact/access
Role models
Policy Implementation:
8-year-olds:
No child falling
between the cracks
Information
transferred between all involved parties in timely fashion
18-year-olds:
Teeth to truancy
laws
Fewer
"lost" children
No child falling
between the cracks
Information
transferred between all involved parties in timely fashion
Self-advocacy
Higher
graduation rates
Higher skill
acquisition
More
standardized
Transfer of
credits
Diplomas
System Integration:
8-year-olds:
Wrap around
(school, parents, community)
Communication
with children
Involved with
that child
Data- need
better data across multiple agencies
18-year-olds:
Communication
with children
Involved with
that child
Wrap around
Physical and Mental Health:
8-year-olds:
More resources
for help with social issues
Seize the future
Fewer
hospitalizations
Identification-
ongoing
18-year-olds:
Transition
planning for all kids (start earlier)
Better relations
between education and mental health services
Education:
8-year-olds:
All kids will be
fully engaged in school/education
Students won't
lose credits due to educational disruption
18-year-olds:
Students won't
lose credits due to educational disruption
Obtaining partial credit toward
graduation requirements when in a school for short periods of time
Transferring
credit from one school to another and accepted by school
Dispute
resolution regarding credits at state level
State diploma
By June 30, 2007 we will have:
Passed legislation addressing the need for statutory
language awarding credit and competency of standards for students experiencing
disruption in their education and/or receiving instruction in non-traditional
settings.
Developed a plan for implementation of statewide policy
and legislation that ensures that students experiencing disruption in their
educational program receive credits or competency of standards that meet
Developed an implementation plan for an interdepartmental
agreement, action plan, and/or policy that ensures that youth experiencing
disruption in their educational program receive the education, credentials and
experience needed for successful engagement in school and/or work.
Recommended a system to track the implementation of the
legislation and policies and its effect on youth.
Outcomes for the Policy Subgroup will be:
Themes for recommendations identified and agreed upon by
the whole subcommittee
Backward planning steps specified to complete project by
June 2007
The recommendations of the Governors Task Force to Engage
Maine Youth are designed to address the problems of
SCOPE OF WORK
Keeping