001All right. Um I'm just going to uh call the meeting to order now. Uh it is 6:07 p.m. um on November 20th, Thursday. I'll call the um meeting of the board of education grant board of education policy committee to order. Um present are uh assistant superintendent and Marie Mancini. Um, Rebecca Goldberg, Denise Doolittle, Sean Corkerin, uh, Andrea Arian, and Ian Thomas. Um, anybody else in attendees? Nope. Okay. All right. First order of business is the uh review of the minutes. So, I'll entertain a motion to accept the minutes from September 9th. I'll I'll second that. >> Well, I need someone to make the motion first. >> I'll make the motion. >> All right. Do we have a second? >> I guess I'll second it even though I can't see it, so I didn't read them.
002[laughter] >> Okay. Um All right. So, moved by Corkran and seconded by Acriman. And um any comments, discussion? >> They look good to me. >> Yep. I have nothing. Um, all right. So, all in favor of accepting the minutes from September 9th. >> I >> Right. All right. Unanimous. Um, next we'll take a look at uh 6146 uh graduation requirements. So, to put it on the floor, I'll entertain a motion um to accept the alterations. Um there >> are you going to put it up, Ian? >> Yes, working on that now. Just going to convert it to Word real quick. Make sure you enlarge it. >> Yes, >> I should be able to see in a couple of days. >> That'll be good. >> Watch the recording. I'm going to go off camera because I
003have to share my screen in order to do this and I'm going to have um limited uh control here. >> Should we all do that? >> Um it's up to you. I mean I'm not sure how it looks on the on the home screen, but um there we go. Can everyone see the document? Yes. >> A little more. >> Zoom. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Sure. So, um, so I'll entertain a motion. Uh, did someone move that? I move it. >> All right. moved by Corpin. Um I'll second it. Um all right. So uh who would like to give the background on this? >> I will. >> Is that uh Dr. Mancini? >> Yes. Thank you so much. >> All right. Thank you. >> All right. So just a little background on this. I want
004to say last spring uh there was a discussion about revising the graduation requirements for the districts spec and I really that just applies to Fitch High School considering we only have one high school. Um and the first step with that is was really going to first the leadership at Fitch doing some uh background information on you know what uh if anything is causing students to struggle with the graduation requirements uh getting that information and then working with the leadership team um to think about some revisions that we think were uh would be important. Then additionally um I looked at several different policies including the model policy from CABE to make sure that um you know we had all of the important updates um based on so I want to say back in October I brought
005the policy well actually not the policy I brought the recommendation of the graduation the reduction to the graduation requirements to first the curriculum committee for the board. We discussed them at length. I made two specific recommendations because right now the graduation requirements that we have for the district there are 27 credits. The state board of education only requires 25. After doing a careful analysis with the leadership team at Fitch, we recognize that uh the uh the additional credits come in two areas. Number one in world language. We have an extra world language requirement um that is not you know again required by the state department of ed. And we also have one additional elective that is required. And so uh made that recommendation to the curriculum committee of the board of education. Um they were
006in favor or supported those recommendations and the next step was to bring it here because it of course is a policy implement uh that are a policy implications for those changes. Um, in addition to the obviously the credit changes, you know, there were things related in the policy that needed to be updated. And the first one is right here in this first paragraph. Up until the last couple of years, um, boards of education could not adopt or um, I would say not adopt, but um, state what the graduation day was. There were very specific um uh there was very specific legislation around when a board of education could say when the graduation was was and it was always after April the 1st. That is no longer the case. A superintendent and the board of education
007can actually uh name the uh or identify the graduation date as long as it's after once the uh district calendar has been published. as long as it's after the or on the 180th school day or after. And so I eliminated that language from paragraph one. >> Would you mind scrolling down, Mr. Thomas? >> Sure. >> Unless anyone has questions about that first part. >> Yeah, I was sorry. I was muted there for a second. I was just going to ask if anyone had any questions about the first paragraph. No, I think the first first paragraph is good. My questions are about the number of credits. We'll get into that. >> Sure. >> All right. Yeah, I have no concerns with the first paragraph either. >> Me, too. >> Okay. You'll see here um there are
008some uh revisions that are made because the um you no longer need to worry about the class of 23, 24, and 25. All these u you know class of 25 is graduating this year. So any revisions to the policy would not impact these particular graduation classes. >> Moving down. >> All right. So the class of 2026 >> class of 2026 this remains the same. We are not looking to make any changes for uh any of the classes that are at the high school with the except the first class would be the current freshman uh which I believe is the class of 2029. >> Okay. >> So you can actually scroll se several pages. >> Yeah. My I just have a question real quick. >> Sure. Um I I see I looked up online earlier today
009and it's 25 credits to graduate. Why is ours set at 27? >> So um Sean, I don't have the historical knowledge on that. It happened before I got here, but from what I understand in in doing some research, the additional world language credit was put I don't know about the additional elective. I'm not sure why that was put in place. So we have one extra elective. Again, I'm not really sure why that was added. the one additional world language credit was because there was a misunderstanding um there the the thought was by whoever created the graduation credits um was that if you are an IB school students have to take additional credits in world language that is not actually the case um I did uh research on that um well I kind of knew it
010but I wanted to confirm that I went ahead and you know confirmed it uh with some doing after doing some additional research They the IB world organization does not care. They don't get into credits. They care of course how many hours students take world language um what kind of language they take. They want the kids to take lang what they call language A which is um their native language. In this case it would be English. They want the in most cases they want the kids to take a a world language of course if they are in the IB program but um they are they don't get into how many credits students take in in anything to be honest with you because it's an it's a world organization that that system does not translate in other
011countries. And if I could just jump in on that I think this was um in the pipeline when I first came on the board about two years ago. it was approved around about that time. Um I think shortly before um but uh yeah so there was a lot of discussion about that um and there was concerns raised at the time but it was sort of a done deal um the way is presented to us u >> so we could not if we wanted to we could not go back and change anything prior to 2029. Yeah. And the reason for that, Sean, that's a good question because, you know, we thought a little bit about that, but the reason and that that was brought up by the board subcommittee, I mean, the the board curriculum committee
012as well, but uh in looking at that, you know, looked at that, of course, with the Fitch leadership team, but we were concerned that um any other grade levels like the 10th grade on, those students are already in their program of study and then it would kind of negative impact negatively impact what they're doing. >> Okay. I I I agree with changing it back in 2025. I don't think we should make it any harder to graduate for students than it already is. >> Yeah. And I don't know if you have the memo as a as a part of this, but you can see in in the memo that I uh created, I actually listed how many students typically uh receive uh failing grades in the advanced level, you know, uh Spanish and French courses that
013we offer and how um one thing that we talked about is that students in particular with special needs tend to um really struggle with world language. And so I really feel like, you know, the graduation rate that we have right now, we're not meeting our ESSA milestone. Our ESA milestone right now is 91%. Last year or in 2023 24, Fitch's graduation rate was just under 89%. And so we're hoping that a reduction like uh this modification will help especially those students that have special needs or struggle um to um really meet that graduation requirement more successfully. Okay, that's helpful. Yeah, I just think I understand why it's confusing for students if uh they are um not if there's different graduation requirements per year. So, >> yeah, that's something that's typical. Um doesn't always happen in
014a lot of high schools, but whenever a high school makes a change, it doesn't always apply to all four grade levels. just for the same reason I had already mentioned that you know there are there are kids that are already in their program of study and you know those adjustments would kind of um you know really alter what they're doing. >> Okay. >> So the class of 2029 is the that's the class that's entering >> that's our current freshman. >> That's current freshman. Got it. So plenty of time to adjust. >> Yep. And >> and so here the graduation credits or requirements are essentially the same with two adjustments as I mentioned. The first one would be reducing the world language credit from two credits to one and then reducing the number of electives from
015four to three. >> I like it. >> I do too. So it doesn't have any um implication or you know uh negative impact on um any of the major categories of course not on English not on uh like the STEM you know none of those big broad categories. >> Uh quick question um is there still the college requirement for students to have like three years of of a foreign language instruction? >> So colleges don't require that. What they say is if you want to go to college, colleges look favorably if you have more than one year of world language. Um you know and they say three is ideal. And this this change does not prevent students in any way from taking more than one world language credit. Um we know that those kids that want
016to go to college and uh or you know a university study there, those kids are going to take um you know multiple years of world language. But this really does help those students with special needs. I think Denise, you know, she's on this call. She's not um really, this is not her policy, but I'm sure she can weigh in and talk about students with special needs and how they do tend to really struggle with the world language requirement. Denise, do you want to kind of talk a little bit about that based on your background in special education? >> Um, just to you don't have to say that they don't have to do that for me, for my account. I'm I'm sold on the deal. um was just asking out of curiosity more than anything else
017cuz I I that was when I was going into college way back when um there was a lot of um attention paid to to foreign language and and I know that I had taken three years in high school, the high school I went to. So I was I didn't have to take a foreign language in college, but some people that I did go to college with at the time had to take a year or so of of a foreign language to clear out a requirement. Um >> yeah and I think that varies Ian depending upon the school. I know for me you know of course I also took more than uh multiple years of world language. Um I w I went to Yukon. Yukon did not require a world language. If you of course you
018wanted to take a world language you could. I have two daughters in college right now. Neither one of them were uh it's not a requirement at their schools. I think it really varies depending upon the school. >> Yeah. The school and even the the major that you're pursuing, >> right? >> Yeah. Well, and it was quite some time ago that that I was doing that. So, things have changed. >> I hear you. I hear you on that. >> All right. Um, yeah. I don't Is it imperative to or I do we need to go into that? Not to cut you off, Denise, but I do want to be mindful of the time as well. >> Oh, yeah. No. >> Yeah. No, that's fine. Thank you, Ian. But I do agree with Ann Marie. >> Okay.
019Very well. Um so this is the major change here. Um if I understand correctly, >> those are the major changes. Yeah. Other otherwise there's maybe a like some language change like a word here and there um just to clean up the you know to clean up the document. But um that is the major change right there. >> And this pretty much as it came from the curriculum committee. >> Yes. >> All right. Um is there any more discussion? All right. If nothing further, then um I'll call for a vote and all in favor of accepting the changes as proposed. >> I >> All right. Uh none opposed, none obstaining. Unanimous in favor. Um All right. I'm going to stop the share and pull up the next. Let's see here. >> Uh 5113 attendance is the
020next one up. >> That is me as well. >> All right. So, a little background on this. Uh per the request of chairman Washington back in uh I want to say June just after school dismissed last year in 2025. um she asked me to really look at the at the policy that we have currently for attendance. Um that policy has not been updated since 2018. As you probably are aware, last year in the last couple of years since CO 19 um our students have struggled to um to get to school. Our our a chronic rate of chronic absenteeism is very high here in Grten. Last year it was 20 20.1% I believe. um which is which is far too high. We know that if students are not in school, they can't learn. And so um
021I assembled a team of administrators from each school to review our existing attendance policy. When the uh when we completed a draft of this policy, we shared it with the uh GA membership. They provided us with some feedback. Um as part of this work, we also looked at not only the policy, we updated the regulations and our tiered interventions. Um and so we've done a lot of work on this. We in in researching the policy, we looked at um we looked at the existing policies from other districts including Vernon, Glenbury, East Lime, Old Lime, Westport, um many many districts um especially those districts that had just recently updated their policy. And so I want to highlight a couple of changes here um with the policy. So um right now I really believe that what we've
022done is more reflective of a policy. Our last policy really read like a regulation. Um, and so we wanted to to be more reflective of the policy. Um, it defines clearly what it means to be in attendance during a school day. It includes required language about mental health days. Um, the state adopted those several years ago and our policy did not include that. Um, it also require includes required language for children of service members. um that was adopted a couple of years ago and our policy did not include that um either. It shares that schools will reach out to parents when students are absent and have not been notified. Um the fact that um so much of the I guess uh ownership was on the families and not on the schools. We really want to
023make that more of a um kind of like a dual relationship. Um, it outlines the responsibility of the student to secure and complete missing work. And it includes information on dismissal of students for reasons related to safety and security, which we know these days unfortunately are is so important to make sure that um we have the right people picking up our students and our students will always be safe. Um, and so that is what I want to share about this policy. I believe Dr. Acriman has had her eyes on this at one point. um once it went it was at at one point it was in front of the full board and Dr. Arian wanted to do some um look at it and clean it up a little bit. I believe that she did have
024the opportunity to do that and I appreciate that Dr. Acriman and so here it is looks really good from what I can see. >> Well, you don't forget you you did look at it at one point. >> Yes, I did work to improve it. >> Correct me if I'm wrong. me sorry the mental health >> to open up discussion let's let's have a motion and a second >> um >> I'll put forward a motion >> you'll move to uh pass 5113 as uh >> as as as written >> so this is our second read if my count's right or did it >> um >> I forget where we oh let I'll second it anyway just for formality sake and now yeah okay question Was is this our second read? >> I believe it is because
025it went to the full board. So, does it go to the board after it had a first read? >> It usually does. Yeah, that so if it >> must be our second. >> Yeah. And then Yeah. So, this this is our second read. Okay. Um I remember a lot of discussion on the board about this and it looks like a lot of the issues have been cleaned up. Quick question. The mental health days, that's something by the state, I think I remember you talking about that at the previous meeting. >> Yeah. So, the state um several years ago, I think it was after may have been >> after CO um the state required that um students be given two mental health days. Uh I remember Dr. Dr. Acriman had a lot of questions about this
026or some questions about this, but students are are granted mental health days too during the year that they can take for any reason. Uh well, for you know, reasons of mental health, but we're not supposed to ask any questions about this. Um I can tell you in my house um that was not something that I shared uh widely with my daughters, but um but they are available, you know, for those students that feel like they need it. >> Sounds good. >> Yeah. And there's a state requirement to have it in there. So it was we can't cut it out. >> No, we cannot cut it out. It's it's legislation. >> Yeah. So >> I can say is please [laughter] >> Well, and and and like I said in the meeting, I now the conversation's coming
027back to me more like um Yeah. I think this sort of just formalizes what's been um informal practice in some households for years. >> Sure. >> Um >> I understand that. Yeah, >> you know, and I I don't want to um say that it's not legitimate. I mean, we know that some students are really struggle with mental health. And so, I want to recognize that. I don't want to um say that, you know, it's not legitimate. Some some students really do have some some struggles that they are dealing with. And so, >> I guess for those >> Yes. >> Yeah. That's that's just >> well and there's also just a ma matter of fact of the uh you know there's a lot there's a lot of pacing you know there's a lot going on in
028in high school you know with all the extracurriculars and um you know it's it's amazing you know like life actually academic pace slows down in college for students and I think you know >> for sure >> it's it's been an awakening for for for my son at least you know like he's he's been able to manage the class load a lot better in in college and high school was a challenge at times but uh so you know to that end I you know I can totally understand you know and you know like I said back in my day you know it wasn't formal um but it was just you know every now and then you need a break you know take a day >> yeah and that's between you and your parents right >> right
029all right so um any uh areas of critique in the language Um, knowing that has had her time with this document, I'm [laughter] >> I'm confident moving forward. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> All right. Uh, any further discussion? >> All right. Hearing none, I'll call for a vote. All in favor of passing uh 5113 um as proposed say I. >> I. And I heard it's a unanimous vote. I heard three eyes. So there's no opposition, no abstensions. Um so 5113 passes as a second read and um we'll pass it back to the board. Uh just quick bit of housekeeping before we move on. Uh the 6164 that we just did, was that a first read? >> That was a first read. >> Okay, got it. Thank you. >> And I believe it's is >> 6146.
030Sorry, I got my numbers transposed. Got it. Thank you. All right. Uh, next up, what do we got here? Um, 6141, Curriculum Design and Development. That's also me. My office is working hard. Working hard. So, um this is something that I had uh worked on during the summer. We have a curriculum design process. Uh it actually went to the curriculum sub the curriculum committee first similar to our graduation uh requirements. Uh this is something I had I had to review with them. We have a curriculum handbook and in that handbook there is a process for curriculum design and development. um excuse me the current process um if for example uh the high school wants to propose a new course they have to uh there's a whole process they go through the process right now takes
031I think 18 months and so essentially if you want to if you if I'm a teacher for example I taught English I want to propose a new English course I need to know two years in advance before that course um is offered And um and that's okay. I understand why that was put in place. Uh I think that's to kind of gatekeep and make sure that you know people uh the schools, the high school specifically, isn't just creating courses like crazy and there's no um there's no quality control. But in this case, um it also really um hampers or uh slows down in uh in some cases when there is a new course that's needed or for example, maybe the state department of ed uh mandates a new course like the the personal finance course
032or a couple years ago um they mandated a new social studies course, the um African-American and Latino studies course. this um actually would help that speed up that process so that um those courses can get in place a little quicker. Now, if you could scroll down a little bit for me, Ian. >> Sure. >> What you'll see is that we've made the revision here. So, the first step is that when when the high school or the middle school has a new course, they present it to the superintendent or to me for approval. That has been happening. Then it goes to the board curriculum committee for review and recommendation. That also has been happening. The next step is that in the past it was recommended that it go to the committee of the whole. Now um
033we made a revision here because in the past from what I understand the committee of the whole did vote uh to approve or not approve items. Um the committee of the whole no longer um votes to approve items. And so I made the revision here. Although I'm happy if if people are not happy with this change, I'm happy to move it back to committee of the whole. But since the committee of the whole is not supposed to be a voting uh meeting, I changed it to full board. Um it just that made more sense to me. That would be the third step. Then the approval upon approval curriculum is is written. The next step was that the once the curriculum was written, it went back to the curriculum subcommittee for review and then to the
034full board for a final approval. My feeling with this and I've worked with the curriculum u the board curriculum committee on this is because the board curriculum committee had already reviewed the proposal um and would see it as a full board as a part of the approval process. it. Um I was hoping to eliminate step five from the process. This would also save not a ton of time as a part of the process, but a few months um and it would probably bring the bring the process from 18 months to approximately a year, allowing teachers who came to me, for example, this spring um to have all of next year to go through the process and then be able to offer the course the following year rather than two years out. Okay, thank you. Um,
035so >> say again, >> I said good explanation. >> Yes. Um, I'll just make the motion this time, I guess. I'll I'll move that we accept uh 6141 as proposed. >> Can I just say can I just say something before that again? And that is >> yeah, >> I I I heard this over and over and over again and I even remember Rita um saying that um you know this has already gone to the to the curriculum committee. Why are we doing this? Why are we wasting time with this when we could just look at it and and uh vote on it? And I think, you know, I am in total agreement with her and with with what we're discussing now. So, I just wanted to give a little history with that. >> Got it.
036Got it. Yep. No, I was just doing the motion in the second to make it to officially shift into discussion >> out of background into discussion. [snorts] Um, but I I definitely I thank you for the comments and and it's good to have that historical perspective. Um, looking at this, it to me it looks fine as well because the board does get two looks at the document in one form or another. And really, if there's any profound concerns, there is a vote for final approval on the final draft in step six, which would then become if this is approved, then that would become step five. Correct. Um, so you know, so the board gets two looks at at at policies, the board gets, you know, so I think the board getting two looks at the
037curriculum is good as well. Um, and I can appreciate uh, yeah, the committee the whole does not have the power of a vote. Um, you know, that only happens in regular meetings. So, that's a good change in number three. Um, that just kind of hastens the process. Uh, Mr. Corkran, do you have uh anything? >> No, I think it's makes complete sense. >> All right. Um, any other further discussion? >> No. >> All right. Um, and that's the only change. Correct. We're already in legal reference. So that's that's the end of the document. >> That's the end of the document. >> All right. So, uh, hearing no other uh discussion, call for a vote. All in favor of passing 6141 as a first read. Um, >> I say I >> I >> All right, I
038hear three eyes. That's unanimous vote. So, there's no abstensions. No, none opposed. 6141 passes as a first read. Next up, um, let's see. Oops. That would be 6131 and 3273 generative AI. Pull that up here. Um, while I'm pulling it up, uh, who's giving the background on that? >> Who wants >> That would be Dr. Kennedy. >> All right. I I can certainly try. Forgive me. I was not in attendance at the uh, last I believe last formal action that took place uh, on this policy at a full board meeting that was then returned to the policy committee. Um I do have a lot of background of this all the way to February of 25 when we first put this out there in the committee. Um but uh I I my understanding is there was
039some concern about uh the the piece of uh the committee that this policy would direct the superintendent to create who would be um assigning members of that committee etc etc. And obviously there's other uh modifications you'll see in red as Ian scroll scrolls up and down here. Is that fair to to launch, Ian? >> Yeah. Yeah, it sounds about a good synopsis of the situation. We've seen this one before a few times. Um and that was an area of contention as far as uh you know the the construction of the committee. And if I if I may be so bold, forgive me. Uh my main concern is getting this moving in that uh we were hoping initially to have this ready over the summer so that I could take action upon this and work and
040we're in a bit of a holding pattern uh as of right now. [snorts] Yeah. All right. So, uh, that being the case, I'll entertain a motion, uh, to, um, accept, uh, sorry, what was the number on this one? >> 16 or 6131-2 >> 2373. >> Yeah. SL And then there's a slash 4118 53. There's a lot of numbers on this one. >> All right. So, it looks like we made a lot of the housekeeping change. Oh, sorry. Um, uh, Dr. Aman, would you second that? >> A second. Yes. >> All right. Very well then. Moved by Corkran, second by Hackman. Uh, and this would be, let's see, is this uh, we passed it as a first reading when it first went up to the board, but the board did not accept it. Is that correct?
041If my memory serves >> that is my understanding and Marie check me please. >> So it >> yes that's what that's what my memory that's what I have in my memory as well. >> As of right now it has not it has not received a a favorable vote from the board to move into official second read territory. It's our second look at it but we're still in the first read level. Yeah, I think I it was me who uh who voted no. I think anyway because I don't think we should be telling the superintendent what kind of a committee should be put together. And I see that's crushed up, >> right? It got uh after much discussion, it got shifted into a request, not a mandate. um which um I was the one that um
042I definitely was well I wasn't the only one but I was one of the uh members who was in favor of of the more assertive language um only because uh yeah I just want I you know something this complex I think we need a lot of input on and um I'd want to make sure that it there is going to be a committee that is dedicated to this. Um, >> did that get in put into the U regulations? >> It did get put into the regulations. >> Yeah, that's where it belongs. >> Uh, Sean, do you have anything to add? >> Any thoughts? >> I'm okay with the way it's written now. Yeah. >> Yeah. I am if I mean the big I know Clint's not on this committee, but it really is, you know,
043affecting his everything he does. Well, you know, the uh the truth of the matter is um you know, this this policy I imagine is going to be a frequent flyer because of uh the the adaptive nature of AI and how changeable it is. So, um I'm fine with moving forward off of this aspect um just for the sake of just getting it out there, getting something in place because it's going to be revised over the years anyway. So if there becomes a situation where you know the board feels it has to be more assertive in its direction to the administration there'll be opportunity to revise it. Uh Clint I see your hand. >> Thank you Ian. I appreciate it. Just a very brief comment. I I [clears throat] I I would love to see this
044move forward as is as it exists now. Number one. And number two I couldn't agree with you more Ian. the if if history serves and how we've seen this ramp since kind of the chat GPT moment in 2022, um I don't think I would be doing my job if I'm not regularly communicating with the policy committee and the overall board of education individually but through a committee uh because this is a this is a massive issue uh and continues to evolve very rapidly. So, thank you. >> Right. Um that being said, uh do you want to take us through the rest of the changes? Um, a lot of it seemed to be like housekeeping as far as shifting a lot of stuff to regulation, but I'll let you take the lead. >> Yeah, I I
045certainly am happy to answer any questions if there's any uh um concerns about how things were moved or what was moved into regulations. Um, I think the the less is more as far as this goes right now and and I can support this. So, I can walk you through, but I also think it's it'd be better if anybody has any questions, I can certainly try to answer those. [snorts] >> Um, just right off the bat, sorry to jump in again. Um, so if I'm looking at this, uh, the policy is all just in the first page, >> correct? >> And so, all that we're missing here is, um, any legal references that we might need to add at the bottom. Yeah, we've had this conversation before and um it's a fair question and I've asked
046it myself and there are very few legal precedents that I think are appropriate there. We could certainly take another look at it if you feel or the committee feels it's important to do so. Um but I think it speaks to the nature that this is very new. >> Got it. I mean just uh for formality sake I would feel comfortable if there was anything at all that we could remotely attach it to. Um did we use anything as uh inspiration to craft it? >> Uh we did and we one of the earlier versions we did uh kind of mentioned the cade policy and CAB staff who were uh a critical component to this. But I believe as one of the one of the motions of this committee, forgive me if I'm wrong, but was to
047remove that paragraph which was kind of a a thank you and and and right I don't want to say shout out, but [snorts] >> got it. >> I remember that. >> Originally, this was originally based very much so on the sample cade policy and done in conjunction with CAB staff. Okay, >> we should write him a nice note. >> I would be happy to do that. >> All right. Um, yeah. Well, if there's nothing legal, then um, you know, again, like we'll probably have an opportunity. There will be something written the next time this comes through, I'm sure, that we could tie in as a reference. Um, anything else from the other members? >> No. Uh Clint, would you feel uh just do like a maybe like a three-minute overview of of of the regulation
048side of things? Is there I mean just a general gist of like how it's supposed to function. >> So sure I I'll be short and sweet, but certainly welcome a conversation. So I cons I would continue to see this evolve over time kind of how you're what you're what you're saying and um in my experience working with staff and students to date. One of the biggest issues is students asking really it's it's it's not that they're looking to cheat or or get away with something. They're really asking for permission. And I think we owe it to them to give them permission as best we can and we continue to do that. um you know seniors last year for example you know writing their their college essays and so forth what is permissible is from an
049a generative AI perspective should it help them brainstorm should it help them write an outline should it write the whole thing and they edit it etc etc we had many many students asking really important questions around you know what permission do I have and where are the boundaries and how I should be doing this one for for for following the rules but two also my conversations I have with teachers is where is the line so that we're continuing to have that cognitive load. We're continuing to have students work hard to learn um and ultimately be able to demonstrate that without these tools as a guiding hand. So I think this start to speak the reason it's in elements for students and elements for teaching staff. The idea is can we start breaking down what that
050permission is and what that guidance is and that should evolve over time as we have more experience with this as this continues to evolve um overall. Um so I think that really was the intent and the structure of that. Um, obviously at the end we have kind of the review process and a collaborative approach and the like because again I think it speaks to the fact that we need to be agile with this because it's changing so quickly. But we do need representation from all parties to help us really work through this and and and make sure that we're paying attention and doing right by our students, by our staff, etc. >> All right. Um, and here we are in the part of the regulations where it speaks to the committee and it says the
051superintendent will establish and it looks like it's going to be a um subject specific committee. It's going to be it's not going to be sharing duties. Um, so I I say I'm happy to see that and um I look forward to seeing this uh you know evolve over time. >> Otherwise, I have nothing else to add. Any other discussion? >> No, I I I would I'm with Clint. I would like to see this. >> I'm sure all of us would like to see this move forward. So, >> yeah, >> he has to. >> Sean, you all set? Oh, you muted. >> Sorry. All good. >> Okay. Very well then. Uh, seeing no more discussion, I'll uh I'll call for a vote on 6131 to pass. Let's see. Let me get this right. I guess I'm
052just going to say to pass as a first read to the board so the board can uh vote on it as a first read. >> I All right. Three eyes. No opposed. No abstensions. >> Ian, do you think we can since Clint needs this done soon, do you think we could try to get this on the board meeting uh next Monday? Uh yeah, we have a regular meeting coming up on >> on Monday. >> Yes. Uh I believe so. They haven't produced the agenda yet. >> Yeah, I haven't seen an agenda yet. So, okay. >> And Friday Friday would count. So, I'll I'll reach out to Bev. >> Just from a mechanic standpoint, sorry to interrupt the end. Is it considered a first reading because it was referred back to the policy committee? That's [snorts]
053my understanding is like we're not advancing as a second read. We advanced it as a first read out of this body, but that got bounced back without approval. So, in my mind, to my understanding, that we're still in the first read tier. >> Got it. >> So, hopefully it'll it'll pass. We can get it on the board uh agenda for Monday and um and then we could do it again in December. Thank you. >> How do we how do we ensure that it gets on for Monday? >> I'm going to call Bev as soon as we get done with this meeting. >> Oh, great. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Then I I'll just try to like actually everything that passed as a first read get it on so we just kind of move these things
054along. All right. Uh, next up is um where where are we? Does someone have the agenda up in front of them? Um, >> sexual harassment, I think, is the final one. >> Uh, yes. Okay. >> Yeah. 5145.com. >> All right. So now this um I asked to have put on the agenda. Um it's it's it's going to be complicated, I think. Um but is there someone in attendance that's going to give some background on it or or is that on me? Um so I can share that um we have attorney Rebecca Goldberg on the um Zoom this evening. Um attorney Goldberg uh works for Burch Moses >> and her and her colleague who has since retired, Carolyn Dugis, uh are attorneys that specialize in sexual harassment and they worked with the district to draft the
055policy. um back in 2024, January 2024. So, we have um we're very happy and and pleased that Attorney Goldberg was able to make time this evening to join us. Um and we understand that there may be questions related to the policy that Attorney Goldberg is um available to to answer for the for the committee. Understood. Um, so I asked for this agenda to come on uh in response to some communications we received um uh over the past month, month, two months. And um actually was a few months ago, but long story short, I just wanted to kind of get a sense. I didn't want to make any motions. There's no adjustments made and there's nothing proposed in this agenda item right now, but I just wanted to kind of do a little bit of a
056a strategized discussion as to like um I assume uh Attorney Goldberg, you've you've um aware of the the complaints that we received, the trans, you know, the communications um and recommendations we received from some community members. Is that uh correct? I have a small amount of information. Um, my understanding is that a community member was unhappy with the policy because they felt certain conduct should have been prescribed by this policy that wasn't. And um, what I can speak to about that is that this is a policy that really outlines the contours of Title N. Um and so what happened is um during the first Trump administration, the department of education promulgated rules under title 9 that uh reflected a shift in terms of the definition of sexual harassment under title 9. And one of the
057big changes is changing the word or to the word and which looks small but has you know I'm sure as a policy committee you understand what a big impact and changing an or to an and can have. And so the ramification of that change from or to end is that conduct um under one of the definitions for sexual harassment needs to be severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive. And what we frequently run into um is that you have conduct that might be severe, objectively offensive, but it happened one time. And if it's a quid proquo and it happens one time, that counts. If it meets certain very specific uh statutes such as uh stalking or domestic violence or sexual assault, that counts. But the definition that kind of encompasses the majority of situations that you see
058in a school is the one that requires uh it to be severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive. And so, um, we see cases where that word and is the determiner of saying, well, this is inappropriate conduct, but it's not Title 9. And Title 9 is very specific. You follow specific protocols, and under Title 9 uh, regulations. You cannot discipline someone for sexual harassment without a determination that they violated sexual harassment as defined within Title 9. However, you can discipline them for other things such as making inappropriate comments or touching someone without their consent. And so what you get into is you have to look in those situations for other code of conduct violations. But if you were to try to say, well, we want to go broader. We want to put more in our definition of
059sexual harassment. You would have a Title N problem because now you're disciplining um the accused person for sexual harassment when you haven't met the criteria under Title N. So this this is something that changes with the political winds during the Biden administration that and went back to an or and then um there was a court decision that struck down the Biden regulations which then brought things back to the original um 2020 rule which put it back as an and this and versus or thing is not accidental. It's not that, you know, the Department of Education doesn't understand the import of that distinction. It's intentional, so we're not really free to change it. I think that was the crux of what I understood to be the concern um from the community member. Um again, we have
060other code of conduct provisions that uh we can and should utilize in those cases where someone has done something that is inappropriate but doesn't meet this Title 9 definition. >> All right. All right. Well, thank you for that explanation. Um, what I'd like to kind of get the sense of the committee, uh, that community member also sent in, uh, about four or five recommendations, um, which I have not had a chance to really take a deep dive into, uh, to see. We have about 11 or so policies, 11 policies and regulations that are all related underneath this this this initial banner. Um, so my thought was to to just kind of like take some time, not tonight, uh, because it's that's a very deep dive. Um but at some point to schedule a meeting where
061we could maybe um look at those recommendations and see if there are improvements that could be done um as to far far as like how things because to to what I read it seemed more like there was certain little procedures that that were m the major hiccups that were the source of the complaint. um where it's like there's communication concerns and and and things like that. So, I'm not sure exactly. Again, I didn't haven't had time to really do a deep dive and do a compare and contrast with like what we have established versus what he was recommending and where those pieces would actually fit into the one of or a few of the 11 or so policies that we have. Um so, I just want to kind of get a sense of the committee.
062um if that's something that uh we'd like to take up um at some point in the next uh month or two um to do a maybe a special meeting where we're just looking at that and be able to handle it and uh you know either take action or not take action. >> Um can I just ask first what are I'm I'm unclear about the 11 policies that are under this policy. Oh, well, there's um like regulations, subsections. Um I don't know. A lot of it had to do with with um let me pull it up here like reporting and um I don't know. I mean, let's see here. So if we go to the student section. [clears throat] So if you look at uh 5145 um down underneath that we have seizure. No. All right.
063So, well, you got regul basically a whole bunch of regulations. Um, so maybe that that's what I'm identifying is is >> um >> Are you referring to the regulations under the title 9 policy specifically? >> Yes, there's R4118 and R5145.5. >> Yeah. like how things the nuts and bolts of like how things are reported and communicated >> amongst >> and that's really all um you know we can certainly look at it. There's ve again very little wiggle room in that because um there is a regulation under title 9 that specifies all of this. Um it tells districts very clearly what they need to do. This regulation is designed to um to really just put in to you know kind of this regulatory format for the district what is in the f the federal regulations. So
064there are a couple choices that the um district gets to make. For example, they get to decide whether the burden of proof is uh preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence. But that is not something that um so no I'm sorry my [laughter] M to you need to leave right now. Mommy's on the meeting. >> Okay. >> Um when she couldn't come in during the first hour when I was muted. Um [laughter] >> perfect timing. So when um I lost my train of thought um for example you know things like the burden of proof and you know in that case every district is choosing um preponderance of the evidence that's the more complainant friendly one anyway that would probably be what this person would want you know there's very limited choices so you
065know happy to take a look at what he has said I have not seen specifically what he has said um >> but you know we're basically just outlining the legal parameters. This isn't something we designed. >> Got it. >> You know, from our own choices. >> Thank you for that because that helps me clarify what I think could be a productive use of time. Um, and especially since, you know, it's been, you know, well established that, you know, regulation is the the purview of the administration to make adjustments. We can provide comment and maybe make a request but we uh don't necessarily command. Um, but maybe what we could do, um, is package up the the sections of the of of the email that was that was sent that where the recommendations from the community
066member were provided and and send that off to your office. And have you have the office provided like a written response as to like would would could those changes be made in the regulation and would they be recommended to be made? >> Right. I was just going to say there's really going to be two um responses. You know, one is just would it violate the regulation to uh the federal regulation to make the change? And then secondly, you know, I we've been dealing with these regulations, you know, for a little over five years now for multiple districts throughout the state. We have a pretty good sense of what works and what doesn't work at this point. >> Right. >> Okay. So, um would it be the consensus of the committee to to make that request?
067>> It sounds to me like the law is the law, you know? I mean, we could request >> Well, I guess what I'm asking is to to have it explained in writing as to like, you know, to to to have a a an official response from the board's >> legal advisories, uh, to to say like, okay, well, we hear your recommendations and here's how they match up with the regulations. here's, you know, what could be done and then what is has proven to be best practice over the past five years in the experience, you know, just to have an official response. >> Interest could I just ask a question? Could you give us an idea, Ian, the scope of the work you're proposing for the firm? I'm just wondering how many points of um >>
068recommendations you'd like us to look into. >> Yes. I like u well that >> I haven't seen the I haven't seen the email either. >> Oh well that email that was sent to everybody um a few months ago. Um I can send it back around. Um but there [clears throat] was a uh he after relating the whole situation he the the email was summarized at the end with like four requests um possible recommendations that the community member was asking the board to look at as ways to maybe improve the communication process. uh between complaints, respondents, and the administrator. >> There's four recommendations for communication. >> Yeah. Essentially, >> clarifying. >> Yeah. So, you know, I I think it's just a matter like my my interest is not to is just to b basically like um
069to honor the request of of reviewing it and you know, give it the due diligence to say that like and and with a written explanation. identifying the legal parameters like what can we do? I mean it sounds to me like you know we're there are some very strict guard rails as far as the federal law is concerned under this particular thing. So if that's the case then just to have that articulated so that you know we're showing that you know we're doing our due diligence to make sure that you know if there's any opportunity to improve that's legally permissible and might fall in line with best practices um you know that that we're willing to consider it. Um, but I don't know that I don't have the legal background, but we do have a an
070office that does that. But we would have to kind of I'd have to talk to Bev about this and um, you know, see is that a thing that the whole board would have to vote on to make the request to the attorney's office? I don't or can the committee ask for an illegal opinion to see if there's something that we have to review? May I suggest that the, you know, the initial, if if uh the board does choose to go this way, that the initial review uh product should be an attorney client privileged memo to the board of education. Um, you know, and then if the board chooses to, you know, have some further communication uh back to the individual, that would be decided separately. >> Understood. Okay. I think that's a fair way to
071proceed. >> I I think so, too. And I'm I have two reservations. The first is I mean, with all due respect, it's going to be a costly um decision if we were to to to go that way. And secondly, um I see it opening a door that again I've said this before about other issues that can't be closed. I mean once we start doing this for one individual that's going to happen over and over and and then it's going to be past practice and I see us getting ourselves in a place where we are going to regret terribly. So I say that we don't even the law is the law and it's between um we have met with the attorney uh she has experience um that that qualifies her and Mrs. I know Floyd's wife
072um >> Carolyn Dugas. >> Thank you. Um you know that we should trust what she has to say and know that the bottom line is the law is the law and that's as far as I think we should go. >> Right. Well, I guess what my concern is that I don't know if that if if if the attorneys have looked at those recommendations that came forward. I know that they were involved in handling the case, but you know, as far as like the actual recommendations that came from the email, I don't know, Attorney Goldberg, if uh your firm has even seen those or had a chance to comment. >> I I have not and obviously Caroline's not there, so she's not. So you know it might make sense just to at least let me see
073it and if I am looking at it and I say you know okay this you know this is someone who complaint is with the law itself and not really with us um you know that's one approach and if the answer is you know actually he's got some really good suggestions here that can be done within you know the parameters of the law there's nothing saying we can't do that you know then that could be up for consideration. >> Okay. >> And I don't think it has to be an extensive process either because basically I'd be looking at a letter and saying does, you know, can this be done? Can it not be done? Do I think it's a good idea or do I not think it's a good idea? I I don't envision that being
074a a time-consuming process. I do hear the point about not wanting to open the floodgates. Um, and you know, that's that's certainly your judgment call to make, but you know, in terms of just if they have input and we can look at it. Um, you know, I'm I'm happy to do that if that's your choice. >> I'm happy to to to um to take Colberg's recommendation for looking at it. If if you think that's the way to go, if that's your advice to us, then I [clears throat] I would I would listen to you. >> I would say let me let me look at it and see what kind of response I believe it warrants and then I can come back to you with the proposal um as to how we move forward be beyond
075that point. But right now, I'm speaking in the vacuum because I haven't seen the letter at all. >> Understood. >> But I'm glad that you understand about the floodgate, too. >> Absolutely. And and to be fair, I do I do share that concern as well, Dr. Aman. I no doubt like I you know, we don't want to uh have to deal with um you know, anything that's not >> Yeah. >> things become flippant, you know, and and then just you know, right? Um, but in this case, you know, the only reason I'm I'm I'm bringing this forward is because to me, I felt like there there was a certain amount of gravity attached to this and and the recommendations were not like out of left field either, um, in my opinion, but then again, I'm
076not, you know, trained in the law. So, um, Sean, do you have anything to add? >> No, I think that Rebecca made a good recommendation. >> Okay. All right. So, um, if that's the consensus of the committee, then I'll forward that email along and, um, you know, we'll look forward to hearing back, uh, from >> Yeah. Um, Ian, do you mind copying Ann Marie and I as well? >> By all means, I'll I'll do the full and and all the head the top admins. >> So, >> thank you. We appreciate it. >> Sure. No problem. >> And thank you, Attorney Goldberg. >> Yeah, of course. And I don't know if uh if if it's appropriate to to to copy um the rest of the committee to Sean and me. >> Oh yeah. No, I was
077going to I was going to send do a BCC of the whole board so that you know the board's aware of the communication that's occurring and that the requests that we're making and so that they can be ready when the memo comes back as to like what the context is and that we're getting like a basically like a >> not a not a full-blown legal opinion but a memo or response from the attorney's office on the recommendations. >> Right. >> All right. Um, now let me get back. Are we Is that it for the agenda? >> Oh, future meeting topics. Uh, yes. All right. Um, >> thank you. >> Ian, is is it okay if we Thank you. >> Yes. Yeah. Anyone that's not involved with future meeting topics and and the adjournment can uh
078you're free to leave. >> Thank you. >> All right. I will sign off. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you very much both Denise and Attorney Gold. >> Thank you. Have a good evening. You too. >> Thank you guys. >> All right. Future meeting topics. Um, anyone have anything bubbling up? >> I want to look at um Yeah, I think you and I had a conversation at one point. I want to look at um the uh I forget what it's called the is it the draft the kind of placement the of students and into into different schools and like I've heard from families that there's been potential >> right >> favoritism around that. So, just wanted to see if that's a policy that we can review >> policy for uh the lottery deter schools. >>
079All right. I'll I'll take a look through the policies and see if there's something that speaks to that and >> Okay. >> Um see, >> I couldn't get the word to pop in my head. >> That's all right. It's >> been a long day. >> Yeah. Yeah. And and and I almost had the hour meeting, but you know, >> we were fine going over because Yeah. That's important stuff. It was an important discussion. >> Agreed. Um, Dr. Aman, any uh policies that you are bubbling up on. All right. >> Oh, >> I'll just do the I'll do the grammar thing. >> Understood. So, I have not done a deep dive on the operational review yet. I've done some surface level skims. Um the chair did ask me to uh take a look back over the
080policy committee minutes over the past couple years uh to see how many policies we did with the ad hoc budget procedure committee. We did move forward a lot of recommendations that came through the policy committee. Um and we did make a number of adjustments on uh a lot of the uh budget policies. Um, however, I want to kind of square those up and and Bev asked me to to create like a a report of what's been handled, what corresponds to what the operational review was recommending, and what have we already handled, and then also if there's anything that still has yet to be handled. Um, and if there's anything in the operational review that uh was not on our radar already and to put that on our radar. So, um, like I said, I haven't
081had a chance to do a deep dive on the operation review yet, but, um, I will have some time over the next month or so. Um so future meeting topics I think is going to be um basically squaring up what we've done to uh manage our budget better already and how that corresponds to the operational review and if there's anything that we need to take direction from out of the operational review or that we may want to consider at least make sense. >> Yeah. All right. Um, any objections to >> No. >> Okay. Very well then. Um, all right. Well, if there's nothing further, um, uh, Dr. Mancini, any, uh, anything that come from your department that you'd like us to take a look at? >> Well, you didn't have enough for me tonight. >>
082Well, you know, you didn't leave, so I figured I'd ask you. >> Well, you know, just trying to be polite. >> All right. Well, I appreciate your time and appreciate your work. >> Thank you. >> Nothing further. Dr. >> You ready for me? Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> All right. Uh, all in favor say I. >> I. It >> was a great meeting. Thank you, Ian. >> Good meeting. >> Thank you. >> Appreciate you all. All right. We are adjourned at 7:21.