001Yes. Okay. All right. I'll now call to order the November 18th, 2025 special school board meeting study session of the San Main School District Board of Directors. Our director's present, Director Murray, Director Evans, Director Olsen, Director Shriber, and Director King is about 10 minutes out of town yet, so he'll be joining us shortly. And I'm going to ask our director of communications um Cwell to lead us in the pledge of allegiance. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. And we have Alexa, our student representative, here tonight, too. All right. You have the agenda before you for the November 18th, 2025 special school board meeting study session. Is there a motion
002to approve the agenda for the November 18th, 2025 special school board study session as written? So moved. Moved by Director Olsen. >> Seconded by Director Murray. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Any oppose say no. And the agenda has been approved. So today we will be discussing board policy 3241 on student discipline. And I'll now turn it over to superintendent and the executive director of teaching and learning, Dr. Colin Ryan. >> Thank you, Director Shiver. I appreciate everyone reconvening around this uh important policy and and uh want to say out loud again thanks to Alexa for being here to add student voice around this as well. We really appreciate it. Um I want to orient you to the materials that you have in front of you um so that we can reference
003them throughout tonight's discussion. And you'll notice the the number in the upper right hand corner as we're referring to the packets um on each of the articles. So the first is the agenda that we plan to move through tonight. Uh the second number two upper right hand corner is our current policy for student discipline 3241. I'll just point out that that um this policy 3241 around student discipline was uh adopted first in the district in 2003 and last revised in August of 2019. The second artifact is the um memo from October 7th with a draft of that went to a first reading around uh student discipline and then shortly thereafter on the October 21st which is article 4 uh the memo and associated policy recommendation that was moved back to the study session. So that's
004article four. Article five is the crosswalk what the board um has seen before which um looks at both the WASA recommendation and uh where state law applies to that recommendation. Article six is the policy um as recommended by WASDA. And you you'll notice that um we don't typically do it, but we did definitely print in color to see uh on all of these artifacts where the strikethroughs occurred, which is which is helpful when when discussing possible change and where additions are recommended from losses. So that's article six. And article seven, although this wouldn't be something that we would move on tonight of course um as it's in operations realm is the the procedure recommendation for 3241 from WS. So those seven artifacts are um here for you for reference for this evening. Um, and I
005thought I would uh start by just highlighting our current policy. And it's helpful for me to look at the current policy and then actually look at uh article 4, which is the recommended um update to the policy from uh 2000 uh excuse me, October 21st, 2025. a few sections that I'll point out around the scanning policy and they are um what the discipline policy since 2003 has has aimed to do and you can see at the bulleted portion of that engage with families support students administer discipline when needed provide educational services for students um during suspension which is required or expulsion and facilitate collaboration and then ensure fairness, equity and due process. In that uh the other headings which I think are going to be important as Dr. Ryan elaborates on here in a moment
006are around um as I flip through to back to the first page minimizing exclusion. There's a whole uh section on that which exists um for obvious reasons. And then and then uh staff authority which you're you're well aware now has been uh struck uh in the recommendation ensuring fairness providing notice and opportunity for hearing which uh is still in in different context development and review and then distribution are all called out in the standing or existing policy. So with that and knowing that you've already oriented yourself to both the the recommended policy that came back to study session and the existing policy, I'll turn it over to Dr. >> Thank you, Superintendent. Um before I get into uh our policy that we look at work packet four, I just wanted to highlight a couple key
007changes. Um per roda and superintendent and I'll talk about a few of them, but one underscore that wanted to be noted was that educ educational services are provided whether it's a classroom exclusion or kids are missing class. That's that's going to be a highlight. other forms of discipline, one or more forms of discipline are attempted before any kind of classroom exclusion except in the case of immediate classroom threat. And then um it calls out the need to have a periodic review of disagregated data to look for disproportionality in our district, what we're doing about that disproportionality. and then um the requirement of a timely re-engagement meeting in the case of a long-term suspension and or expulsion. So those are the two keys. Even broader than that, um was committed recommendations to suggest more consistent and
008precise language so that might call to attention and focus to some of the strikeouts. and we I'll go through some of that right now. So, >> can I just can I just as before we >> I made the mistake the last time uh I just assumed that Washington was weird and was calling changing the name of this policy to a weird statement. Uh and I just thought that tracks from the state so I didn't think anything of it but I want to make sure this time that I actually understand. So, I look here and it says student fundamental rights and then it has number one and then we strike through this whole page and then we go to here to two. So, am I understanding that this is supposed to be two under student fundamental
009rights? >> What packet? >> Oh, I'm sorry. Um, >> that's packet four. four >> is is that like number two under student fundamental rights we're like bringing that up or did we miss a header somewhere in all of our striking out of things. >> So which part I'm sorry student fundamental rights is a second portion of the revised policy page two bottom. >> Yeah. So, page two, bottom, we did one. Am I reading it backwards? And then this is the back page. >> That's page one. >> Page one, two, page one. >> And then this is two that goes here. >> Yes. >> Three. And then we're striking all that. Okay. I just got to make sure I'm reading this correctly. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mom. Thanks for that. Um, more or less packets
010three and four are the same, but for >> the title is different. >> Yeah, >> we put the student formatting. >> Yeah, there was just a formatting issue of three. Um and then walking through it, added language on um both student rights and then keeping a lot of just adding some language for student responsibilities, crossing out like I mentioned, minimizing exclusion as much as possible. Um development and review still there and then going back to the main page with all the strikethroughs that director Evans was referring to. Um W did recommend to strike all this through specifically with ensuring fairness, providing notice and an opportunity for a hearing. Um the rationale for that is the suggestion is to keep anything that's operational with procedural steps and procedure as opposed to policy. And then um development
011and review is is not page. I get backwards so many times. The government review is still there, but was edited on the previous page. >> And then there's some minor edits on distribution of policies and procedures on the last page. >> This is all gone, >> right? That's struck through, but it's but it's here. It's here. >> Oh, I see. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> See, this is why I got confused. Like, wait, what is happening? So those are the broad areas of change and this um packet four is based on some WASDA recommendations exclusively. >> Y so you mentioned striving for precision and language in the revisions. >> Yeah. Um which I which I get and understand. I I think the the one one area that I'm hung up on is the
012elimination of staff authority. Um because we're providing many rights and responsibilities for students, but we're striking a critically important aspect of the policy that is called for in the procedure, which is student staff's authority to impose discipline. >> And I and I'm I'm bothered in removing that. I really think that should remain. And I think inspector Olson and looking at like state whether it's whack or do I'm keeping the staff authority wording in is in line with state law. So there's >> there's lots of recommendations and then they're also careful to say these are recommendations. They're aligned with the laws and there's space for districts to make decisions based on context community >> which I appreciate. Um and then this this table applies to the to the proposed revisions. Is there anything not present in
013alignment with the law that's in the current policy? nothing. So that so that from a legal perspective the current policy and the proposed policy are are the same >> except for um some uh changes to vocabulary. Right. >> Um some examples would be around um emergency expulsion as emergency removal. >> Right. Right. >> Those are changing the law and also chang which Yeah. Yeah. >> That's that part of the procedure. That's incredibly important to have. Um I was reading through this and I thought, okay, wait, after I retired, they changed emergency expulsion to which is good because parents always focused on the expulsion, never the emergency. >> Um and so now the removal makes and it's that language is consistent with emergency removal from the classroom. So to make sure I understand again uh we
014are taking out the WASDA recommendation is you take out staff authority from the policy and you move that to the procedure because that's more operational. Is that what you said? >> No. Ensuring fairness, providing notice and opportunity for hearing is is language in policy, but it's also procedural language in the procedure for and keeping um keeping staff authority pretending like we kept it in. It's not out of line with safe box, >> right? because it also then gives the credence for what staff is responsible for and able to perform that's in the procedure >> is that element where the the procedure has to be the has to have an umbrella covering everything within it in the policy. >> That's right. >> And that's what's missing in the in the revision is that staff authority and
015responsibility. So that's why I advocate for having it back in. >> Right. It's actually in their recommended procedure. staff authority is not in there because because there's not no umbrella for it under the policy. >> So where does WADA put that information? What policy is that attributed to if it's not in student discipline? >> It needs to be in district policy. >> Yeah, I >> I guess is my question. If if Wazda is advocating for us to take away, you know, staff authority from a policy, where are they saying it should be? >> I couldn't find in any of the revisions um where that would be directly called out as a part of policy. >> I researched it too. >> Is it somewhere else? another policy called >> because it feels like we have steps
016for everything. You know, we talk about chain of command, we talk about all of the different things when we're talking about discipline or anything else. Why would we not have I guess I'm in agreement. Why would we not have some provision for staff to be able to, you know, there shouldn't be certain provisions? >> We don't disagree. So, so what I hear you guys both saying is that in a in a third iteration of a revision, you would ensure that that paragraph remains >> that staff authority. >> Would you edit it or would you leave it how it is? >> Well, I in looking at it um and reading it previously um there's nothing in here that changes because of vocabulary change. There's nothing in here that changes because of law change. There's no there's
017no laws uh reference. So, um, I don't see any particular word or phrase in here that couldn't be set verbatim. >> So, we could just leave this paragraph. >> Y. And then if you left that in, would you have to change or would you add a portion about staff authority into the procedures or would it just stay here in the policy >> since it would now be encompassed in the policy? Would it be appropriate to add to the procedures or No, >> we could look we can think about what that would look like. It seems like the procedure is just really um dense with >> Oh, no. disagreements and grievance and and hearings >> and who who does who does what and then in in what steps do they do it >> you could refer
018to the staff authority piece and the policy >> because the policy has has addressed that in the procedure are the steps in which you make that happen >> to to answer like I in reviewing this um and not having the current procedure in front of me don't recall a portion of the procedure that has staff authority in it which would make sense because it's called policy. >> Mhm. >> Okay. So, seven is was recommended procedures that they say should go with their recommended policy. >> Correct. >> And is this what you are recommending we change our policy or our procedures to >> or have we gotten to or have that and that's not and that's not our perview. It's not. But like I just just to clarify like >> well in and hearing the tenor
019of the conversation we could shape the procedure to to um fall in line with that particularly around the um the in staff authority piece. Thinking about the community feedback that happened the last uh couple of times that that this was brought forward seems to be in line with that as well. Um the procedure does really um draw the guard rails for uh h how exclusions occur, timelines for them. Um those other things because item two, bullet two, providing due process to students, procedures, lay out what that due process is supposed to look like. throw my two cents in here. Um I think this is a really important issue for the sake of the students and teacher and the teachers. Uh and um I'll be attending a session on student teacher burnout. Okay. This week uh
020and that would be a factor I think part of the problem. So I think it's really important to have a clearly defined authority defined. I mean, I would really like to see keep the whole old whole policy except where there is a need to change words and things like that. So, just for funsies, when I read this um procedure, this recommended procedure from WAZDA on it does have a section that's titled staff authority and exclusionary discipline in it. So if you're saying that you would contact that then that would mean there would need to be something in the policy right? >> Yeah. What I'm hearing is agreement that staff authority would remain >> I think so >> in the policy. >> So we would need another version of this >> topic. >> Excellent. >> I
021love read out policies. Alexa, is there anything like in hearing our discussion or thinking about student life that you pops up or is this just it's fair to say this is a lot of legal jargon. It looks like documents. >> Yeah. the second just so we're clear because I I would hate to bring it forward um in something that's not clear and not what this board desires uh for a first reading um everything that we brought forward in on the October 21st first reading plus the paragraph under staff authority is what would like to come forward as a as a first read. Is that the consensus? >> So ju one one question and I think I know the answer. The third bullet on the proposed revision 3241 implementing culturally responsive and then discretionary and non-discretionary
022is the non-discretionary the only thing I can think of is um a weapon to school a knife or a gun where the law is very clear about what has to happen. >> Exactly. >> Okay. and that pretty much every other discipline is discretionary. >> And that was one of the changes that, you know, came forward in the last couple years that that discretionary and non-discretionary discipline. And you're absolutely right, the the non-discretionary isn't even called out in the law like weapons on school ground. >> Is that language defined in this policy? Because that would be the other thing that if someone from outside was looking at this policy, I would like to make sure that we have defined terms of what >> I think I think there is a specific weapons policy. Is there not?
023>> Would that be 3210 regulation of dangerous weapons on school premises? >> Oh, I page you go to the very last page where >> how many papers you have for your child? You only have a couple of papers in front of you >> under article four on the last page down in all of the management resources. >> Well, and that's and that's fine, but what I was trying to get at is if we're talking about what's discretionary and what's nondiscretionary, that's a those are terms that we're using that people may not >> understand what that means exactly. If there was a way for us to incorporate some language that explains what that is >> without having to do cross references to other policies that would just some clear definition of what those two terms mean.
024>> Sure. And the recommended pol procedure excuse me 3241 was re it's packet seven um bullet five uh and then bullet 10 uh define um those two terms. I actually appreciate the fact that they start with definitions like you're like you're talking about Marie um as a means to I mean even I had to honestly had to study the difference between what what it what it uh what it really meant and um how they're associated with the RCWs as well. I'm going to go as far as what the uh meaning of parent means. They call it out because it's important when you know you're talking about who can >> due process and >> I'm okay with it still remaining in procedures. Okay. I I did notice that um in looking at websites of different schools
025locally um or regionally if any others had adopted the new WASDA policy and so far no. Um the ones I looked at all were remaining still the what our cons current policy is >> and I think several have been having these conversations too across the state >> maybe this will be a topic in Washington would be >> it's a good policy to go Mhm. Mhm. >> Unless the legislature tells you in the middle of a session that the that the new policy is in effect immediately, which happened a couple springs ago. >> So we have is to go with number four here and leave in that paragraph authority. >> Consensus. That's what I hear. >> Okay. Put that into a read. >> Happy to do that before the next meeting. >> And then with that,
026whether we taking out of policy, >> this will replace policy. >> Yeah. was thinking specific. So we have that that one section on on teacher teacher authority >> we're leaving in. >> Y >> but what else are we taking out? >> So well that'll all be indicated by red strike through >> and then you'll see that the staff authority will be the left one >> and nothing really is taken out. It's just been reformulated to be in different sections and so that it read actually reads more clearly right. It's hard to track it. Yeah. >> Yeah. Because it almost it feels like it's been reworked, but the language is still really there. >> Pretty much the only one I did not see was the that was important language was the staff authority language. Everything else
027was in many cases shortened um and lined out more cleanly and clearly throughout the policy. >> It it definitely is our longest procedure. Director Evans talks about the internet. You almost have to to reprint this uh this procedure, unfortunately. And so, um I appreciate what they the work they've done to do that, but thank you for the conversation and and hear the community feedback on that. We'll have a first reading back to uh the December meeting. Thank you. Any other thoughts or comments on board school session? We got 30 minutes. Excellent.