Five structural conditions.
Two integrated pillars.
The v3 conceptual proposal (Larry-reviewed, Apr 10) is now built around five structural root causes the school will permanently change — time, targets, grouping, teacher PL, master schedule — solved through two integrated pillars: a mastery-based school organization and AI for leaders, teachers, and students. The 80 conceptual points score at 72–79 in our internal estimate (90–99% of available range).
The standard is the constant.
Time is the variable.
Ron's line, now the spine of the proposal. The five structural conditions — not curriculum, not teacher effort, not student ability — are what produce current outcomes. The planning year permanently alters them; the three implementation years operate the new model.
What the proposal commits to permanently changing.
From v3 §6a. These five conditions, not teacher effort or student ability, are what produce current results. Each maps to a planning-year workstream and a leading indicator.
Seat-time progression masks unfinished learning
Students move on the calendar, not on evidence. Unfinished learning compounds silently grade-to-grade. → Replace with mastery checkpoints.
State standards say what to teach, not what students must do
No shared definition of "good enough." → Performance standards reverse-engineered from the IN diploma through K–8 grade bands.
Age-based cohorts assume uniform pace
Differentiation becomes a heroic teacher act, not a system feature. → Mastery-evidence grouping + looping.
PD episodic, disconnected from student evidence
Teachers under-equipped for mastery instruction. → Indiana Expert Teacher cohort + AI collaboration tools + protected time.
Rigid period blocks prevent flexible time
Mastery-based progression needs schedule slack the current structure cannot provide. → Whole-school redesign in the planning year.
If we change these five, mastery becomes operationally possible.
And student outcomes follow. This sentence belongs at the top of §6a — Larry flagged it as the gap between 14 and 16 points.
A whole-school redesign + an AI system that makes it operationally viable.
Not mastering the standards inside the existing structure. Redesigning the structure itself: master schedule, grouping, progression criteria, looping, performance standards, teacher collaboration time. Whole-school, K–8.
Leaders: design-support tool for structural decisions. Teachers: collaboration AI for shared evidence + inquiry cycles. Students: ALEX — a Socratic agent extending teacher reach. Three layers, one integrated system.
Calibrated to each LEA's baseline during the planning year. School-specific baseline data is one of the four LEA-supplied items — see Scoring Posture.
What Bob & Ron actually told us
- Marian's CVS is the Expert Partner. BFD sits in the sub-contractor spot. Not Empower / Skybound / MGT / EES.
- Apply under "Innovative" intervention priority with the 1003 Flexibility Waiver — even though we won't actually need a waiver.
- Network application is allowed across districts & charters, but reviewed school-by-school.
- Joint budget built with CVS & districts. Multi-school LEAs unlock efficiencies.
- Lead with the problem, not the solution. How time is used, what we aim at, how kids are grouped, master schedule, teacher PL.
- Mastery-based system — not just mastering standards. Looping is the example to lean on.
- Whole-school, ES + MS — be ready to defend why.
- Solve the "pig in the python." Show how the new model is sustainable after the SIG money ends.
What we need from Eli, Larry & Jason
Ron was explicit. We need Jillian on a call this week to align on writing roles and the joint budget framework.
Bob named 26 candidates. Which 20 do we commit to recruiting in the next 4 weeks? TSI schools likely jump to top.
This is the number we put in the joint budget. Need a confirmed staffing model behind it before we commit.
Is ALEX an internal grant deliverable, or a product the new entity can sell to non-SIG districts later? Architecture & security posture depend on the answer.
Five workstreams.
One integrated system.
The v3 proposal commits to five planning-year workstreams, each targeted at one of the five structural root causes. Three implementation-year focus areas execute the redesign. A Build/Operate/Transition staffing model protects the school from permanent contractor dependency. No state accountability waiver needed — HEA 1515 already authorizes mastery-based education in Indiana.
One workstream per root cause. Each maps to a measurable leading indicator.
| Root cause | Planning-year workstream | Leading indicator |
|---|---|---|
| 01 · Time Seat-time progression | Replace time-based progression with mastery checkpoints; redesign the master schedule for flexible time allocation | % students clearing mastery checkpoints in ELA & math; # schedule blocks redesigned |
| 02 · Targets No shared definition of mastery | Build performance standards reverse-engineered from the IN diploma through K–8 grade bands; develop exemplar student work + formative assessments | Performance standards ratified per discipline; exemplar tasks library size |
| 03 · Grouping Age-based cohorts | Implement looping; flexible mastery-evidence grouping; progression criteria per discipline | Looping cohorts launched; % students regrouped on mastery evidence |
| 04 · Teacher PL PD episodic, disconnected | Indiana Expert Teacher cohort (~150 across network); AI collaboration tools; protected collaboration time embedded in master schedule | Collaboration hrs/week; % teachers reporting confidence on performance tasks; inquiry cycles completed |
| 05 · AI infrastructure No scaffold for leaders/teachers/students | Build leader design tool; teacher collaboration AI; design + ship ALEX (student Socratic agent) | AI tools deployed; ALEX interactions/student/week; teacher-tool adoption |
Plus three cross-cutting concerns running continuously: stakeholder co-design (teachers, families, students); data & evidence systems built in parallel; governance — ETT formal authority documented so decisions can be made at the speed transformation requires.
Redesign the structure, not just the curriculum.
AI-drafted, teacher-owned
Reverse-engineered from the new IN diploma through K–8 grade bands. Each school in the CVS network contributes teachers — compensated, with published criteria — to the standards-setting process. AI accelerates drafting; Indiana Expert Teachers ratify.
Whole-school structural change
Schedule rebuilt around mastery checkpoints, not periods. Looping is the worked example: teachers stay with the same cohort across multiple years. Mastery-based education cannot work in one grade while the rest of the building runs on seat-time.
Discipline + assessment leads
Each domain backed by a national expert in discipline + assessment design. CVS coordinates standards-setting across the network so 20 schools build one shared performance-standards spine.
Three distinct AI surfaces. One integrated system.
Interactive design support
Research-grounded tool for principals making the structural decisions mastery-based schooling requires — schedule redesign, grouping, resource reallocation. "Acting your way into thinking differently." Not consulting; deciding.
Collaboration scaffold
Shared analysis of student work against performance standards; suggested instructional responses; support for the inquiry cycles that drive continuous improvement. Deepens capacity — doesn't script it.
ALEX — Socratic agent
A patient, adaptive thinking partner. Conceptual understanding per discipline. Drives agency & metacognition. Extends the teacher's reach — every student gets one when the teacher is working with others.
1003 Flexibility Waiver — even though we don't need a waiver.
HEA 1515 already authorizes mastery-based education in Indiana — no state accountability waiver is needed. The model is so well-designed around existing IN policy that it doesn't require regulatory relief. The 1003 vehicle gives us operational flexibility (master schedule, grouping, collaboration time, looping) without asking the state for permission to ignore standards.
Y0–1: CVS & subcontractors stand up systems. Y2–3: operations transition to school staff. Y4: full handoff. Protects the school from permanent contractor dependency — the most common reviewer concern about external-partner-led applications.
15 questions, asked and answered.
Click any question to expand the answer and our takeaway. Answers are quoted from the meeting notes; takeaways are our read.
August / September 2026
IDOE notifies schools of award decisions.
Fall 2026
Approved schools receive funding in the fall.
Fall 2026
Planning year work kicks off immediately on award.
26 candidates, target 20.
Bob's list spans traditional districts, township MSDs, and charters. Reviewed school-by-school, so a network app can be partially funded. TSI (Targeted Support & Improvement) schools have a stronger case.
64 schools in the funnel.
Jason's latest field update with Bob Behning. 27 interested schools get face-time with Bob & Jason next week — that meeting is the swing factor for hitting 20.
Conversion needed: 63% of interested → committed to lock 20
Concentration by LEA
Multi-school LEAs unlock budget efficiency. Wayne Township (10) is the anchor; Fort Wayne (10) and Elkhart (7) are next.
Charter & standalone candidates
Districts named without school counts
These need confirmation on which buildings opt in:
$1M per school per year, with LEA efficiencies.
Ron's frame: roughly $1M per school per year, but multi-school LEAs unlock efficiencies — so the total is not just schools × $1M. Built jointly with CVS and the districts.
Per-school annual envelope (illustrative)
| Line | Recipient | Annual | % of school |
|---|---|---|---|
| School / district direct support | School + LEA | $300–400K | ~35% |
| BFD — design, ALEX, leadership support | BFD | $200–250K | ~22% |
| CVS — Expert Partner (network-allocated) | CVS / Marian | $400–500K | ~45% |
| Teacher compensation (standards work) | Network teachers | included | — |
| Per-school target | ~$1.0M | 100% |
Note: CVS's $400–500K is described per-year for the partner overall (not per-school). When normalized across 20 schools that's ~$20–25K/school/yr — but Ron framed it as a flat partner allocation, not per-school. We need the joint budget call to resolve which.
Network totals at 20 schools
Where BFD shows up
Year 1 — Planning
- Master schedule & system design facilitation
- Performance-standards co-authoring (with CVS & experts)
- Leader development curriculum design
- ALEX v0 — Socratic prototype, narrow domain
Years 2–4 — Implementation
- Ongoing leader coaching at each school
- Teacher PL system & collaboration AI
- ALEX expansion across disciplines + grades
- Feedback-loop instrumentation (district ↔ classroom)
May 29 → Fall 2026 → 2030.
Two adjacent opportunities: the Next-Gen SIG (May submission) and a separate IDOE mastery-based pilot in late summer / early fall. Plan for both.
Co-design with districts.
Don't deliver to them.
This SIG application is being run by a new, independent entity. The work proposed here will be delivered by Black Flag Design (strategy, product, ALEX engineering) and Voltage Control (facilitation methodology), partnered with The Center for Vibrant Schools at Marian University as the named Expert Partner.
Black Flag + Voltage Control + CVS = the right shape for this work.
No single org has all three capabilities. The new entity exists precisely so this combination can be assembled — cleanly, without legacy entanglements, with each partner doing what they do best.
Strategy + product + AI
BFD owns the theory of change articulation, the Strategy Map, ALEX engineering, and the leader/teacher AI surfaces. Track record of turning hard institutional problems into shippable products. Houses the engineering that makes the planning-year promise real — not a pile of decks, an actual learning system.
Facilitation at scale
VC ran 65 workshops in 50 countries for Cardano — the closest analog anywhere to what we're trying to do across 20 schools. They bring the methodology, the trained facilitator network, and the credibility to defend "co-design" as a real thing in the application, not a slogan.
Mastery substance + the IN relationship
The named Expert Partner per Bob and Ron. Jillian's recent Lilly grant wins. Domain authority on mastery-based education, the Indiana diploma, and the standards-setting methodology. CVS leads the application; BFD & VC sit in sub-contractor spots underneath.
Why this is a fit, not a marriage of convenience
- BFD brings the AI & product muscle. ALEX is software, not a workshop output. It needs an engineering team, not a working group.
- VC brings the convening muscle. 65 workshops across 50 countries is the unfair comparison — we're proposing 6+ workshops per school across 20 schools, a smaller version of work they've already executed.
- CVS brings the substance and the relationship. Bob & Ron will not back an application without them. Period.
- Independent entity = no legacy entanglement. Architecture, security posture, IP, and revenue model are designed from scratch for this work.
- Productization is on the table from day one. If Wayne Township or Marion principals want a Forum-style assistant later, the entity is built to sell it. ALEX isn't a grant deliverable trapped inside a 501(c)(3).
- Three named partners, three clear lanes. Reviewers see capability stack, not vendor sprawl.
65 workshops in 50 countries.
One ratified constitution.
Voltage Control facilitated 65 workshops in 50 countries for Cardano, designing global sessions to collaborate in the drafting, revision, and approval of a constitution. The result: the first blockchain ecosystem to prove that self-sustaining community governance can be put in place by the community itself. That outcome — a community that owns its own governing document — is exactly what we're trying to produce in the planning year of this SIG.
Three reasons this is a structural fit, not a metaphor.
Decentralized network, central document
20 schools, 17 LEAs, 7 charters — no single entity controls the network. We need shared performance standards, master schedule logic, and progression criteria, drafted from the bottom up. Same problem Cardano solved.
Sustainability requires ownership
Bob's pig-in-the-python warning is real. Schools won't sustain a model imposed on them when SIG dollars end. Co-designed standards = teacher and leader ownership = the only durable answer to the funding cliff.
It's already in the pitch
We told Bob the standards work would be done by expert teachers, compensated, with each school contributing. This is just the methodology that operationalizes that promise — and gives us a credible facilitation partner to name in the application.
Voltage Control's framework, mapped to our planning year.
VC identified five values that made decentralized decision-making work at Cardano. Each maps cleanly to a planning-year design choice for the SIG.
Every school's voice carries equal weight
VC: No one workshop's feedback was considered more important than any other, and all community members were invited to participate. SIG application: Beech Grove and Wayne Township anchor schools have the same voice in standards-setting as a single charter K–8. The TSI schools — the ones with the steepest climb — get the same seat at the table as the high-flyers. This is what makes the whole-network application defensible reviewer-by-reviewer.
Decisions visible across the network
VC leaned on the immutable ledger to make decisions auditable. SIG application: Every standards-setting decision, every master schedule revision, every progression-criteria call gets logged in a shared workspace visible to all 20 schools. ALEX itself becomes the transparency layer — the audit trail of decisions, the rationale alongside the artifact.
Active participation, not consultation theater
VC: facilitators must ensure active engagement and participation in the process, inviting everyone to express their viewpoints with confidence. SIG application: Compensated teacher-experts in each discipline, structured small-group design sessions, principals running their own building's redesign with national experts on tap. Not a survey. Not a steering committee. Real work, real authorship.
Agile, willing to shift mid-design
VC: facilitators must be comfortable reacting to a dynamic gathering or process. SIG application: The planning year cannot be a 12-month waterfall. Standards drafts get tested in classrooms in months 6–9 and revised before implementation locks. Master schedule prototypes run as 4-week pilots at willing schools, not paper exercises.
Facilitators show up fluent in the domain
VC: facilitators benefit from learning the basics of the industry and its current trends. SIG application: Whoever runs co-design sessions has to walk in fluent in mastery-based education, the new Indiana diploma, the Indiana accountability frame, and TSI specifics. This is where CVS's domain expertise + a facilitation partner (potentially VC, potentially internal capacity built with their playbook) is the right combination — neither alone is enough.
Three workshop tiers, scaled across 20 schools.
Engaging VC = credibility, speed, lower execution risk, but a meaningful budget line and an external dependency. Building in-house = lower cost, internal IP, but slower ramp and a less defensible reviewer claim. Either way the methodology gets named in the application.
72–79 of 80 conceptual points.
The remaining gap is district data.
The conceptual sections of the SIG rubric (Vision, Innovation, Strategy Map, Intervention Priority/Model, Indiana Priorities, Sustainability, Readiness) total 80 points. Our v3 internal estimate is 72–79 — 90–99% of available range. The remaining 72 points (community narrative, academic landscape, barriers, ETT, expert partner, budget) are LEA-supplied and out of scope for the conceptual template.
+4 to +6 points
across three sections.
§6a Strategy Map (+1–2): leading with the five structural root causes — the rubric's top band asks for the why, not the what. §8 Intervention Model (+1–1): 1003 Flexibility Waiver instead of Innovation Network School fixed a factual mismatch. §12 Sustainability (+0–1): the pig-in-the-python paragraph is now doing real work — the most sophisticated sustainability argument in any draft. LEA-voice fixes across the document don't change scores directly, but remove the risk a reviewer reads it as ghostwritten.
| Rubric criterion | Points | v2 prior | v3 now | Read |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C4 · Vision Statement & Alignment | 12 | 11–12 | 11–12 | Strongest Vision yet. Opens with the problem, names CVS & HEA 1515 without sounding ghostwritten. Whole-school commitment answers the Behning guidance. |
| C5 · Innovation | 12 | 11–12 | 11–12 | Two-pillar structure dramatically clearer than the old six-element list. ALEX is named & described concretely. K–8 rationale evidence-backed (E4A results). |
| C6a · Strategy Map Biggest gain | 16 | 13–15 | 14–16 ↑ | Five structural root causes lead. Workstreams map 1∶1 to causes. Leading indicators measurable. Add ToA sentence at top to lock 16/16. |
| C7 · Intervention Priority | 4 | 4 | 4 | "Other Innovative" cleanly justified — mastery is the OS underneath all named priorities. NAEP K–8 anchor lands. |
| C8 · Intervention Model | 8 | 6–7 | 7–8 ↑ | 1003 Flexibility Waiver fixes the prior factual mismatch. "No waiver actually needed" turned into strength. BOT staffing properly attributed. |
| C9 · IN Strategic Priorities | 8 | 7–8 | 7–8 | K–8 reframing works. Targets calibrated to baselines (+10 ELA/math, gaps −⅓, absence −25%, discipline −30%). |
| C12 · Sustainability | 4 | 3–4 | 4 ↑ | Pig-in-the-python paragraph is the most sophisticated sustainability argument in any version. Fee-for-service language gone. CVS network efficiency named. |
| C13 · Readiness for Transformation | 16 | 13–14 | 14–15 ↑ | LEA-voice fixes meaningful. Specific structural changes named, not just willingness asserted. CVS network as external accountability mechanism. |
| Conceptual subtotal | 80 | 68–76 | 72–79 | 90–99% of available conceptual points. Solidly exemplary on most criteria. |
None require new research. Each is fill-in-the-blank when an LEA customizes the template.
These four items are the difference between 72 and 79. They are not writing problems — they are LEA-data problems. Each LEA pilot must supply them on intake.
One line: "If we change these five structural conditions, then mastery-based progression becomes operationally possible and student outcomes follow." 6a is at 664 words against budget; there is room. Locks 16/16 on the highest-weighted criterion.
One sentence naming a specific prior structural change this leadership team navigated. "Our leadership understands staying the course is the most important behavior" is assertion. The principal supplies the evidence.
District board posture on mastery-based redesign; documented IDOE conversations about the 1003 vehicle. Conceptual template can argue the model fits 1003; only the LEA can show the board is ready.
Mastery-checkpoint proficiency in ELA & math; subgroup gaps; chronic absenteeism; discipline incident rate. The +10 / −⅓ / −25% / −30% targets calibrate to these baselines during the planning year.
What the conceptual template covers vs. what each LEA must supply.
- §4 Vision Statement & Alignment — 12 pts · Full
- §5 Innovation — 12 pts · Full
- §6a Strategy Map — 16 pts · Full
- §7 Intervention Priority — 4 pts · Full
- §8 Intervention Model — 8 pts · Full
- §9 Indiana Strategic Priorities — 8 pts · Full
- §12 Sustainability Plan — 4 pts · Full
- §13 Readiness for Transformation — 16 pts · Full
- §1 Community & School Narrative — 4 pts
- §2 Academic Landscape — 4 pts
- §3 Barriers — 16 pts
- §6b CSI/TSI Status — 4 pts
- §10a ETT Membership — 4 pts
- §10b ETT Authority — 4 pts
- §11 Expert Partner — 8 pts
- §14a Budget — 4 pts · §14b Budget Explanation — 4 pts
Pig in the python & six other risks.
Bob's biggest worry is the funding cliff: don't get caught in the middle of a transition with the extra dollars gone. Here's our risk map and mitigation posture.
The new model can't cost more to operate steady-state than the current one. If we use SIG dollars to layer cost on top of the existing system, year-5 collapse is guaranteed.
School-by-school review means we could win 8 of 20. Below ~12 schools, the joint standards-setting and ALEX dev cases get harder to defend on a per-school basis.
Ron told us to apply under Innovative, but he wasn't sure it's a listed priority option. If it isn't, we need a fallback (Student Pathways? Personalized/Differentiated Instruction?).
Ron acknowledged it's not clear what differentiates one school's application from another in the network. Reviewer fatigue could hurt later applications in the stack.
Jillian recently led several Lilly grant wins, but CVS is small. If she's stretched, our timeline compresses fast.
Bob said we may need to defend why this has to be whole-school and span ES + MS. A reviewer instinct will be to fund a single grade band first.
Open strategic question: is ALEX an internal grant deliverable, or a product the entity later sells to non-SIG districts? The architecture, security posture, and budget all change based on the answer.
Open questions, with owners.
Things Bob/Ron didn't fully resolve, plus strategic calls only entity leadership can make. Each has a proposed owner and a deadline relative to May 29.
Ron told us to apply under Innovative; he wasn't sure it's an option. Confirm in writing with IDOE. Have Personalized/Differentiated Instructional Experiences queued as fallback.
MOU framework with CVS & Marian. Define drafting roles, decision rights, and budget split before we start writing.
This is the strategic question I keep flagging: could Wayne Township, Beech Grove, the Marion principals pay for a "Forum"-style assistant trained on their theory of change, hosted by the entity? That changes this from a cost center to a revenue line. The answer rewrites the architecture, security posture, and budget. Even a tentative direction this week lets us right-size the engineering plan in the application.
Bob flagged it as a separate opportunity. Two paths: (a) focus all CVS+BFD bandwidth on the SIG and treat the pilot as overflow; (b) reserve a subset of schools for the pilot to reduce SIG concentration risk.
Of the 26 candidates, which 20 do we commit to? Suggest TSI-first: Wayne (6 TSI), Fort Wayne (6 TSI), Elkhart (3 TSI) covers 15 immediately. Round out with Beech Grove + 2–3 charters.
IPS, Marion Community, South Bend, Hammond, Michigan City, East Chicago, Mishawaka were named without school counts. Need building-level commitments from each superintendent.
FTE shape behind the rate. Coaching delivery vs. ALEX engineering split. Multi-school LEA efficiency model — what shared resource lives at the LEA level vs. per-school.
Ron quoted $400–500K to the Expert Partner per year. Need to clarify whether that scales with network size or is flat. Big swing in the budget.
Bob explicitly said we'd need to defend both. The looping example is necessary but not sufficient — need a clean "system effects" articulation.
The pig-in-the-python answer needs a number. What does the redesigned school cost to operate without SIG dollars, vs. status quo? A graph in the Strategy Map.