001I'd like to order to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Okay. Good afternoon, everyone. >> Uh, any announcements? >> No announcements. >> Okay. I know we're not starting with the 8,000s, but >> we are not. In front of you, you should have a packet of new materials. That's your binder. They are whole punched and ready to go for you. I knew uh Scott would be happy if they were prehold punched. You're welcome. Uh what you have in front of you are a couple things. Number one, you have an updated copy of our agenda for today. So if you look at this document with the grid, this reflects our four-year policy review. If you look under
002February 11th, it states the ordering of the policy that we'll go through today. You also have in front of you an updated master doc. This is the actual grid and it's now colorcoded to reflect what is no longer an existing policy. point of the ads uh does not reflect updates around which policies we've already discussed. And so one of my intentions this afternoon is to actually take us through and anchor in to make sure we're all in the same place around uh what the recommendation is for Kelly to make sure we're all have common understanding. Uh and then the last thing you'll have is a stack of additional policy documentation around the ads policy andor some of the ones we discussed last meeting uh for your consideration. And so what I'd like to do is
003start with first uh a policy at 1360 which was code of ethics for board members that was a board member brought that forward and asked if we could include that on our agenda for today. Uh said said board member uh also provided recommended language change which you have in your packet. You also have recommended language that came from legal and the NISBO recommended language for your consideration. So the question before you would be to accept the recommended language change provided by a board member, consider the attorney provided document or the NISMA document and I defer to you. The NISMBA document is right behind you. >> Yep. You should have the hand there should be handwritten changes on 1360 our existent policy. Underneath that, you should see a misba. I think it says clean copy. And
004then there's one uh that's actually a policy that was provided by legal uh from another district. That was a pretty comprehensive code of ethics policy. >> So the one that at the bottom says new handover county, that's that is the one that was provided by legal as an exemplar around tight code of ethics. These were sent in an email as well. So, But it also has things in there referencing the law which we said taking out of policy. So it feels like going backwards and a lot of it is a lot of >> law. So, it feels like we're going backward like the one that legal recommended. Like the first paragraph references law and when I read through some of the like the board member commitments, it's law. You have to be confidential. You have
005to number >> this feels going like going backwards. Well, like number six, respect the confidential confidentiality of information. You have to do that. We don't need a separate policy to say >> it's our policy confidence. Given uh the amount of text, we might move to table this until our next policy committee meeting. This is not a part of the series 8000 and so we might make recommendation to just table this one that way everyone can take the amount of time they need to actually read through the three different drafts. So is anyone uncomfortable with moving forward in that way? >> Okay. So 1360 will add uh to our next policy committee meeting and again we'll frontload that at the beginning of the next policy committee meeting as one of the first ones again given that
006it wasn't part of the thousands >> which could we have policy the next meeting >> this we squeeze this one in >> this is a new one >> our next one is March 4th >> coming to a theater very soon near >> um my gosh yeah >> very soon I mean >> so the The next one I want to introduce and I did send an email to the group just because it did not make the agenda and my regrets for that. Uh we had a question raised by a student specific to uh what's called limited open forum and what that is is that would be a non-curricular extracurricular and the board policy currently on extracurriculars is silent around inclusion of that and what that means is without the inclusion of any language we actually could
007take liberty and approve such a request before making such a decision. frankly felt more like a question of governance and wanted to bring it forward to the board. So I know that there was a communication to you via email. There were a couple other back and forth. I do have a recommended policy. I have the extracurricular in hard copy if you want it. I did send it electronically as well. This is the Eerie 1 policy. A recommendation might be just to include the o limited open forum language in our existing eligibility policy and that would satisfy uh if we so if you so choose to want want to have that language in the policy or not. So the question before you is are you is that permissible or not and if it is because it's
008not in policy we can move forward or you could say we want to assert that it's part of our policy and we want to include that limited open forum in our eligibility policy which speaks to extracurriculars. Make sense? So right now with the request that we have you have no policy prohibiting that. So Rob can authorize I can authorize. Does the board want to assume governance of that? But once you authorize any, you have to be okay to authorize. >> That's correct. >> Within reason. >> No, I think you have to be prepared to authorize all. That's correct. >> There's no reason. >> So that >> it's all or nothing. >> Right. >> The way I understood the email. That's correct. >> Right. >> And because we have currently in our uh WFA contract, we
009have GSA, which is considered limited open forum. One could argue because we've already opened that door, we are traveling through that door. you would have to actually exact policy that would be prohibitive and then we'd have to go through our current list of extracurriculars and see if there's any others that might fall under that. >> So >> anything that's non-curricular is considered limited open forum and we don't have to permit any type of gap of club such as that but the board would have to have you would have to govern in that way in such a way. >> I just want to make sure I'm understanding. So, we currently have no policy that has language specific to limited open forum. Okay. >> Which means we can do it. >> When you say we can do
010it, you mean >> we can approve the club that was that was requested. Rob has authorization to approve because currently there's no board policy that's prohibitive and I can support that request. >> But just to understand when you say then it opens up where we can authorize anything. Well, >> so you can have a hate group come in here and say that we want to have us use the building. I'm hopeful that our code of conduct would be prohibitive and I certainly would work with legal if I was concerned about it being something like that where it would be DASA or something that would be constitute a violation of a code of conduct. My hope would be that legal would support a position that wouldn't be appropriate or >> there language about it had to
011follow something specific around that. It's more about it has to be voluntary. It has to be unpaid I don't even think it's said unpaid. has to be a >> we have to have an adult person supervising but again nonparticipating >> correct >> but when I hear you say that right >> no one's up to everything that extreme right student >> they can't facilitate it >> they can't have a curriculum right >> correct because it's noncurricular correct >> so it has to be discussion based no matter what >> I don't know that it's prohibited affecting different activities No, like so if they have there's not there can't be a teaching aspect of it in the sense of >> message. Correct. Because the the advisor uh would not they play a nonparticipatory role. >> Right. >> I
012know the club that's in question like they provide students with content essentially to discuss like topics to have like on a regular basis throughout the year, conversations to engage with. Is that is that allowed under the law? >> Yes. The pro the problem is when you do a policy discussion that it has to apply to all. So that might be for this group, but we have to think about it from the lens of for policy. We're going to put language in. It could be other formats. It's not not specific to the current request at hand. >> So I guess my first question would be I know we went back and forth about GSA which I think is not currently an active. >> I confirmed that Dr. Snder yesterday. So my first question would be what
013other clubs like if you look at the list of extracurricular um >> you'd have to conduct an audit. I can't >> what else falls under that before we make a decision because it could be other it could be multiple activities that are impacted or it could be none. >> Correct. I guess we'd have to conduct a self audit. I guess wouldn't want to engage in that audit or not if there's not really a concern on the board that you want to limit that there are not going to be any limited open form clubs, right? Like I'm not going to engage in that crosswalk between what we have and what we're going to leave it the way it is. >> Correct. I just feel control that's why >> it's it's a very hard thing I think
014in some ways because of the the potential for a group that would be you know more hurtful or harmful I don't know >> like I don't care I say I don't care words the current group that we're talking about that's fine but if we don't have some type of policy Could it again you're opening yourself up that says well then anything can come in here. >> I would assume we wouldn't have a hate group coming in here but >> how do you stop it? >> Again I think given the language you're using would be in direct violation of our code of conduct and I would be able to use that language to actually push against that type of >> group is going to say they're a hate group. >> Well, they're not. >> Right. And
015and when we say hate group, there are there are hate groups out there that that >> some people in this room might find acceptable, >> right? >> That I wouldn't find acceptable. >> I don't know if this makes >> and I could use examples, but I don't know if people >> feel better. But if you think about assembly like we actually had a group that came and engaged in prayer at the flag pole and when we consulted legal really legal response was again yes absolutely and be prepared for you have to allow for assembly of other students and that was in the club that was the one time assembly and I apologize I can't remember what the occasion was >> see you at the poll >> that's right see you at the poll so I
016mean I guess we and that didn't turn into something other than that >> well and even if a if a like a Christian group came like you're not talking about adults teaching like you're talking about discussions happening maybe about religion or about the Bible right >> but the there's no curriculum to that right and there's no adults that can be I don't know I I don't know that I see anything wrong with it and I don't know that we'll get groups that come in that want to meet in that and maybe at that time. I mean, if say a hate group or something like that wanted to come in, could we at that point change our policy >> and just end all groups that are >> So, so again, I would say there are groups
017that are >> you couldn't end all >> acceptable to certain people that I find >> right um the school population might think that that a particular group is fine. I would disassure that. >> Does this leave any wiggle room to that point? It says, "However, the district and its agents and its employees retain the authority to restrict that materially and substantially interfere with the worldly conduct of educational." >> Thinking about code of conduct. Yes. I mean, so if it's if it's if it's creating uproar that's interfering with educational activities, that would give us leeway to say, okay, >> anything that would be in violation of code of conduct is just cause for us to have conversations. >> What about just just chatter though? Like just the hype of it, would that be considered like so
018if something started and it was just very controversial and kids are talking about it, it's interfering with their daily activities. It's not really a violation of code of concept. What Sarah one might suggest that at the time GSA was starting. I mean this is a number of years ago now but at that time that was controversial. Not so much anymore. I mean many most districts had a GSA >> and prior to the initial launch of those clubs. It was controversial in schools and that was not that was not the prohibitive um nature that had boards say oh no we absolutely can't do that. >> So >> it sounds like there's not strong most I mean it sounds like you're not like yes we should do it. And I'm wondering if maybe you do need more
019data because the reality is if we have other clubs right now that are currently on that WFA contract which means we've really already opened that door and it might be a moot point. So because you're not 100% saying yes, let's do it. Maybe potentially this is another one we need to table until March 4th. I'll conduct the crosswalk with what we currently have on the WFA contract that are siphoned and see if any of those would actually be considered other uh open public forum clubs and then that way that'll better inform you. It might be again that this is a move point because you've already opened the door and we're already correct. >> So is anyone comfortable with that? I think just given that there's still so much um mixed sentiment surrounding this one. So
020we'll table until March 4th. >> What policy is that? You know what policy number? >> So we have I put it in my email. We have I want to say 7351 but you know I'm terrible with recalling exact numbers. It's our eligibility policy speaks to extracurriculars and then the extracurricular activity from period one is 7410 and I did put that in my email and I'll tell you why. I'll make sure I pass this out after we finish policy. You have this copy. >> We deleted we deleted a similar policy but it was I checked I looked it up the other day even today I think I did and it was like only had three lines. was not as excessive as that policy, the one that we deleted back in a while ago. And that was
021755, I believe. >> We deleted that one. >> That's the number that was in your email, but >> we still have an extracurricular policy specific eligibility. It's the one we just updated with. So the only policy over here about extracurriculars is specific eligibility and we just updated that in 2025. And the reason we updated it was specific eligibility. We didn't touch on anything open uh public open forum. Sorry. >> 7505 is our current policy. I apologize. I think it was 7500 >> is the one that we >> So we're pressing pause on any response to this time. Well, that was my next question is if we table it then do they just sit on your own decide correct because we currently don't have policy one way or the other >> a little bit more as
022well. >> Okay, we'll see what we have and again it might be a point because we already have clubs and you've already open the door >> open the door >> and then you can't exclude this one. They have to actually say yes >> or else you'd be discriminatory in practice. Um, so if you could provide an update to the student group and just let them know that we're having senior conversations, we'll provide and if not then we'll have my question would be do we have active clubs that >> I know from when we went to the high school last year the kids complained about they have all these clubs that don't meet don't do anything. So just because we have stipens does not mean it's an active club. If it's not active, then >> so
023it'll be a twofold. >> I think we have more >> twofold process. I'll do the crosswalk to see if any of them might qualify as public open for it and then I'll connect with Dr. Snider and ask if you get any data specific to how active those clubs are. >> Okay. >> I'm curious this is I'm curious. I guess I'm kind of neutral about this. I'm curious what's the what's the magnitude of value of having them and is it common for schools to have them? >> It's a hook. I mean, it's how do we get kids connected to school? And oftentimes it's about doing those clubs. For some of it, that's the only part they're connected at school. So, I have a hard time I really will share. I have a hard time saying no.
024That's the only way I'm going to incentivize a kid to want to be at school. Like, for some, that's like the hook. >> Yeah. >> You know, I could talk about like uh what's esports, gaming. I mean, some would say that's not a curricular. I guess an argument could be made, but I have seen some literature that esports is not curricular. So, esports would fall under that public open forum. And so, for some kids, like gosh, highlight of the day, esports, right? So, okay, I'm going to move ahead uh into the 8000s and I just want to very quickly, if you follow along on this chart, I just want to make sure we all have the same common understanding about where we are very quickly to make sure uh Kelly's ready to go with updating.
025So, for 8110, I have that we're going to adopt area one with some revision. 8120 removed. 8140 removed. removed. adopt area 1 7315. New policy area 6410 and this was one we tabled and I have since brought you additional >> Y. Go ahead. >> 8110 on this sheet says adopt as is. There was one revision on it. >> So it's with revisions, not >> page 202 on 8110. There was a first paragraph and third paragraph on page 202. Ellie, do you have that? >> Yep. Okay. So with my newision, >> I'm just going this says as is. So that's why I'm questioning. >> That was initial recommendation. The final column hasn't been filled in. Angela >> that was original that was my recommendation and now we've had conversation and I would have said as is.
026Then per conversation you had two recommendations for revision. >> This is really the recommendation. >> Yeah. So if you look at the far pink column it says 17 and 128 POE action. And I did not fill that in because I wanted to make sure we were all on the same page today. >> Okay. Okay. So we had a question about 6410. 6410 in your policy manual is the one about uh user agreement staff acceptable use. We tabled that because there was a question around prohibited allowed language on page two and the board asked if we could get other districts policy for you to review. And so uh thank you to Kelly. She got three districts and then provided you I think a couple others. email. And so wonder if the board has or would like
027to have an additional conversation about on page two of three, third paragraph down, social media use by employees. So again, this is new policy. We did not have a staff acceptable use policy. 6410 is the Eerie one recommended. The only question we had was page two of three, paragraph 3 under social media use. The statement in question is personal use of social media by employees during district time or on district own equipment is prohibited, discouraged, allowed on a limited basis. >> Okay. So the examples was Holly >> Brighton Webster and I think there was something in the email about what other districts do too. >> Yep. I think she had three others. >> So uses allowed on a limited basis. I think he's prohibited and newer redid the whole thing. >> Yes. >> I guess
028to me the language allowed on a limited basis. You better specify what limited basis is. >> That would be on the regulation. So again thinking about policy is what governance regulation is the execution and so one of the things we have in our service with Erie one is and we are going to move forward and with this is actually that regulation and then customize it to Williamson. So once we've gone through the 8,000 sections, including the add-ons that are not part of our 8,000s, we'll get all the regulation and update to reflect what's approach and uh from a um what's the word I'm looking for? not enforcement, but from uh are we following our policy? Which one of those do you recommend? I think this one's a tough one to police. I feel like my
029principles are going to be doing more counseling meals. So allowed on a limited basis gives the latitude out if it's appropriate use or if it's not being abused. You know, like a teacher's on their unassigned time and they're, you know, a kid walks in and sees that they're on their social media platform. It's their time. It's not our time. So, I wouldn't want to bring them in because board policy says that they're on a district-owned device and they've looked at social media. >> What do you mean they're on their own time? >> Their planning period and their lunch periods do be free. You do not control that time. >> Nor do I. most >> even though it's going to work. >> That's that's correct. Especially the language is very clear in the contracts do need
030to launch. >> So my concern with it being prohibited is and I don't know that we want to attend have our administrators directing their attention to counseling for this because there's plenty of other things that they're expending their energy and ethics instruction instructionally. So it would allowed on a limited basis uh it would allow them to get on to social media during their planning period but not those other times >> and that could be spelled out in the regulation. So again policy doesn't spell out how they do it. Uh it could also be like unless there was some academic instructional use and they you know went to car gosh that makes perfect sense. Please do that. Right. So on a limited basis. So either prohibited or on a limited basis allows latitude if it's an
031appropriate use of social media without them having to counsel for every single time somebody's caught on their phone on social med or on a district device on their you know on social media. I don't feel like that's a good use of our administrator's time. Can you do the combo that make discourage but allowed on a limited basis? >> Right. That way >> it does give you more. >> We'd rather you not be doing it and allowed on a limited basis and then we just have to make sure that the regulation spells out. >> I like that better. It's like we're not going to say anything, but you know, we're noticing. >> What it does do is if you had someone while they're supposed to be teaching and they're found on their phone scrolling or on
032a device scrolling for a whole period or supposed to be in front of the class teaching, that would certainly not be an acceptable appropriate use and we could certainly hold the teacher accountable or employee accountable if necessary. So, I think what I hear is a motion for discouraged but allowed on a limited basis. >> Yes. Okay, now we got that. And then that puts us forward to the 8152. 8152 recommendation was to remove 8153 is to adopt area 8271 as is. The next one is progress. That one sorry. And then the next one was 8154. I did just Can we go back to 8271? >> Yes. >> Um I did have We're going to leave in this um star paragraph and we're taking out the second paragraph on page three. >> Which one are you
033looking at? 8271. On page two, we're going to um keep that italicized paragraph with a star. >> The last one we did last It was right at it's it's the Eerie one policy that's connected to internet. >> It's not our like I can't I I can't keep up. I'm sorry. >> Okay, everybody go back in your >> Williamson 81723 >> 815. I'm like we didn't get to 8172. You're absolutely >> You got to tell me which policy you're looking at. There's way too many of them >> and they don't go in any order. >> So, >> no, because we got 40,000 emails that Oh, put put this in. No, put this one in. Put this like I can't. >> So, 8271. What are you saying we're doing? >> We um discussed keeping on page two
034the paragraph at the star. >> Yep. And then on the third page, we're going to delete the second paragraph. >> Yep. >> All right. That brings us to on your master document 8154. The recommendation is to take 8154 and replace it with theory 1 5676. The question for Karen Hoodie is who would work with our is there any recommendation for updates in the language of 5676 that the board should consider >> 81 auction here with all >> I mean it's like the end of the flea market. Hey 5656 going going. >> Okay. So the question is is there anything on the 5676 that you change? >> Correct. So 5676 I asked Karen Hoody to work with Michaela. She's responsible for direct oversight. Michaela is our data protection officer. I asked if there were any considerations
035that should be brought forward to you as we're thinking about 5676. >> We're finishing up policy and a board meeting starts at 5:30 just to let you know. Okay. >> And it is going to be a blast to be here right now for this. It is. And it's going to be a learning opportunity. >> Okay. So, there are no recommendations from our data protection officer. Is there anything from the board that you'd like to see revised in 5676 in the Erie One policy? >> I mean, this is all just legal stuff, right? >> You got it. I mean, there's no room in it, I'm guessing. So, is there any motion to do any revision on 5676 or can we keep one as defaulting to the professionals? >> I'm pretty sure the one that we have
036is the same. Well, I was say this area 5676 has already been adopted as 815, >> right? >> Yeah. I don't know if there was that much difference. So, what I don't know is in the one that you had 8154, you adopted in 2021, that may or may not reflect updates from Erie 1, which is why I'm always going to defer to the most updated one for Erie 1, which was updated in 2020. >> So, even though you adopted it in 2021, I don't know that >> they could have updated it. Correct. But when they do updates, don't they tell us >> quarterly? Yes. So, you should >> and they would have changed the date. I don't think there's been. >> So, most likely not updates. >> So, this is the same policy. I I
037couldn't it was hard to go word for word but I did go through the first page and see exactly >> well theirs is 2020 ours is 2021 >> but we adopted it in 2021 >> right so we would have adopted it >> I wasn't part of the I I didn't do a crosswalk on every single word so what I do know is 2020 is most recently 21 >> on page four do you want me to put who the district data protection officer is or I can just take that off. >> Oh, the Eerie one version 56 officer that part >> I think we are required to actually post to >> Okay. I mean we post elsewhere. Do we have to post in our policy? >> I think I'd have to ask but I think it
038>> it's in here right now. >> Is it? It's in our policy right now. >> Is it Michaela? >> Nope. >> So, I would say if we can ask legal, we don't have to put that in there. >> Yeah. >> Do you want me to just ask our policy? >> Yes. >> Yeah. Refer to >> is it do we vote that every year >> at the reorgan? So maybe we can put a note about >> it's not on the organization >> not in the organization >> or whatever whatever >> in the uh refer to XYZ >> minutes of the reorg meeting. >> See this is actually has implications for practice. We probably should have something on the website about more data. So actually Karen is here can take that as an great Can you confirm
039just what's on there and it needs to be updated? >> So 5676 we update policy. I'm sorry. Uh Kelly is going to check to make sure that we don't have to include the name of the person in policy for legal reasons because it might be that we do have to. If not, we're going to omit that. If we do, then she'll update for Michaela's name. Uh moving on 8180 and that supplemental and incidental resources uh recommendation was to remove or edit ask that Karen take a peek and provide recommendation for 81. >> Yep. So um I took a look at the definitions of supplemental resources and incidental resources. And so in terms of the definition, those instructional materials that support or enhance, I I wondered what you would think of saying support, extend, or reinforce,
040but do not replace adopted primary. Maybe let's backtrack. Is the board interested in keeping the policy because I don't want to have her go through all the policy changes. If you're interested in removing, and the only concern I have about removing is that you don't have anything with the ratings for moving that would remove word policy around that. That doesn't mean that you could we couldn't embed that somewhere in the regulation around instructional materials which is attached to 8110 8120 curriculum resources evaluation like could be included in regulation there. >> Does this cover things that aren't really happening in the classroom though? The curriculum resources would be just classroom type stuff, right? >> Anything that's outside of the adopted curriculum. Yeah. If you look at the only thing that really is governance is number four,
041like you saying, it isn't okay for you to show a rated PG-13 movie to pay six students. So that might be a compelling argument for you to keep. >> I know that's one that parents have looked at in the time I've been on board. So if you take it out and put it in regulation, they have nowhere to find it. >> Okay. >> So I think that's worth motion to keep it just for that piece of it. And this could cover things like after school programs, right? Before after we still do that in the lower grades where we have say after a classroom >> that would be separate. >> So we would need something to cover that. It's not >> so that a separate guideline. >> Well, that's not >> if they're doing something after
042school. It's not under the name of it. Thank you. >> They have their own handbook. >> Y >> I I would love for this to tighten around videos that the teacher are required to watch the whole video before playing >> before they just playing it because it's PG >> because that makes sense. It does already say that. Number three says teachers review their content activity issues. Once it's selecting, they have to review the their content. It doesn't say their content, their content and review. They should be looking at the material. So the professional responsibility is already >> we spell that out though because number of movies have been played where >> it is. They may have thought it was an okay movie and then my kids come home and they're like, "We saw a nude
043person on movie today." I was like, "Oh, really? That's interesting." >> All right. So, it sounds like we're going to keep this policy. Now, I'm going to backtrack and I'm going to go back to Karen. So, Karen has some recommendations for your consideration. Let's go paragraph by paragraph and then we'll factor in your recommendation around teachers assuming responsibility for review of all of the content. So, I'm sorry. Now we'll go back to paragraph. Paragraph one, recommendations for change. Um, so I changed support or enhance to support, extend, or reinforce. Kind of a I liked the language around it. It's about it. >> Support what? >> Support, extend, or reinforce. Um, for incidental resources, the examples they gave, some of them were outdated. um those instructional materials usually used occasionally within classrooms at the discretion of
044the classroom teacher. I just so I took out the examples and just added in but are not essential to core instruction. The examples are you know changing so quickly at this point. Um, in terms of guidelines for number one, uh, the teachers have the primary responsibility for selecting supplemental and incidental materials to enhance the district's adopted curriculum. Um, I wondered about how you would feel about adding something in terms of, you know, align it to New York State standards. I mean, in theory, our district curriculum is aligned to New York State standards. Would maps it out a little bit more specifically? >> Where would you put that? Number one, is it adopted curriculum or is it district implementation of state standards? >> To your point, >> that's better because that's actually probably better because not
045everybody has specific curriculum resources adopted. So for number one, the change would be the last part of the sentence to enhance district's implementation of state standards. >> Should enhance to like did you not like the word enhance there either? supplement. >> Supplement the same word I was saying. >> Yeah, that's great. Uh, and then number three, um, I wondered about when selecting supplemental learning central materials, teachers review the content and consider the uses of violence, profanity, historical accuracy, or mature subject matter. Um, I wondered about uh access in terms of representation. So like when we think of the different like we're supposed to be sharing diversified materials, do we want to add in something about that? So um teachers review the content and considerations of vital profanity profanity historical accuracy representation historical representation there's some
046things I wouldn't want to show like you could this is not a great example but you could look at some like you take television show friends some of those things are not acceptable some of the humor then is not acceptable by today's standards of humor watch. >> Should there be something maybe like political or ideological application? >> You already have a political policy to cover that. >> That would cover that. >> You cover that. Yes. >> Doesn't have to. >> You nailed that into policy. >> Actually, you're going to move on that tonight. Yes. >> I just >> Can we change in that number three? Can we change the word there to the >> because it's confusing >> because Yeah. >> Yes. >> Um so when selecting what if it said when selecting supplement or
047incidental materials teachers review the content and consider equity accuracy and appropriateness i.e. violence propit but not limited to say again equity. >> Yeah. Say that again. So um teachers review their content and um how did I say that before? >> Consider issues of equity, access and appropriateness. >> Developmental readiness. >> Equity access developmental readiness. >> Yeah. Um i.e. violence profanity i.e. or including but not limited to violence profanity development. Did you say historical representation? Is that one of the things? >> That was one of the things I had suggested. I don't know if that's kind of encompassed in historical accuracy. I I did it make you wonder like the representation. I've been really I've been doing a a survey for the state of Asian-American um representation in our curriculum. So it's really kind of what
048has stuck in my mind too in terms of what's Can you read back what we have done for Kelly just to make sure we all have the same. >> Yes. So when selecting supplemental or incidental materials teachers review the content for equity access and developmental appropriateness in this is the part I didn't write down um for example or i.e. including but not limited to violence, profanity, historical representations could do representation slash accuracy or mature subject matter in the selection process. >> Can we add are required to before review so that teachers >> um how about teachers review in entirety >> reviews material in entirety. What part is it too? It says teachers review >> and it's hard to manage. You wouldn't know what they did or did you know? >> Yeah. >> Well, it could
049be a teacher if you had an hour at least eliminates. It already says that though you're obligated to have teachers review the content >> like I don't you don't even have to say must because it says teachers review the content. So you're like I don't know that it needs to be tighter than that. If they haven't and they haven't addressed the issues that she just said equity access development readiness historical representation then it's already a violation of policy. Okay. >> Everybody good with the chart on number four? Anything on number five? Um to remove the statement. Um we're also modified the statement for supplemental or incidental materials films, videos and DVDs or streaming. So we want to add in streaming there may not be used in classrooms for entertainment or recreational purposes regularly or as
050a filler instruction. Well, I mean totally used that are educational. I don't really like the movie for the older kids anyway. For younger kids, I get it. There's like the Polar Express and there's all the But when you get to high school, is there really time to watch those movies? I don't I don't know. And then it's like if you throw I'm just gonna I don't know if I should say this, but if you put a PG-13 movie on there, like movie, it's like this PG-13, what do I really want my kid watching that in high school instead of something else? I don't know. I don't want them watching. So for PG-13, grades 78 permission, but on grades 9 through 12, they don't. And on a preview day where they're not doing academic things and
051they're not regularly watching entertaining videos, but on that one day they are, they can throw in a PG-13 movie. And I think some of those are not really >> the year it's made, right? Like >> exactly for school. I don't know. But that would be something you could show on a day. So >> do you know what I'm trying to say? The high school is really going to sit down and watch movies or whatever they do. >> I'm thinking out loud like a whole day of play that we have, right? That could be I'd be interested to see how many students actually come to school that day since they don't have their phones during the global day of play and sometimes that's what they like to use. That'll be it'll be interesting. >> It's supposed
052to be a screen pres >> supposed to be. It'll be interesting. Um >> I'm trying to think of a good justification. >> So you would have days like that. Again, I'm comfortable with having it be again that the building level administrators and their assistant principles are going to be just doing enforcement of movies. I don't know how large the scope of that issue or question might be. Like I got to assure you that this is the first time anything about movies has come up in 18 months since I got here. I'm not hearing about and maybe Ronin as a student rep you can push back completely and say, "Oh my gosh, Miss Ashton, we're watching movies all the time." Like we're watching Adam movies all the time. Well, thank >> but I certainly wouldn't want
053our high school kids watching that every day, right? >> Well, I can't say that we're always watching Adam s. on days like the day before Christmas break that is a common occurrence that like students watch a movie uh PG-13 movie um if that's something the board wants to address or and from my personal perspective those movies don't seem to pose any harm to high school students but obviously time has changed and uh of course what is acceptable has changed so >> it's just the word regularly I know it does not mean regularly But that just kind of for some reason gets me like well what's regularly? Is it like once a year? Is it like you watch these movies four times a year? I assume a lot of loss of instructional time if someone multiple
054movies throughout the year and it could be anything in the PG-13. There's a great book uh Sarah called Ship the Monkey written by Ted Wicker. And the premise of the book is enforcing or managing behaviors of the many when really it's only the few. And so I get uncomfortable thinking about putting policy and tightening. I'm going to just use the word micromanaging to a certain degree. If it isn't an issue, if it's a large scale issue, then it makes sense that there might be language that actually addresses it. But if it's only a couple teachers, frankly, my professional expectation would be that that guy, this guy, and this woman, they're addressing it with teachers because they're regularly showing movies they shouldn't be showing because it's a professional expectation that they're delivering instruction on the curriculum.
055>> So again, I don't feel like I have sufficient data to feel like it would make sense to tighten in that way. I think it would be a significant withdrawal to the culture of the organization right now, honestly. >> Yeah. I think the I think it's the combo between regularly and the fact that 9 through 12 can watch any PG-13 movie and there's so many out there that I just think are not as appropriate and that's where my discovery is. So, >> but you can show it as long as it's not regular. >> But that's going back to they're reviewing it to make sure it's appropriate. >> That's for that's more for like for entertainment if that's the case. >> Well, I think we just heard from Ronan. I mean I and honestly I don't
056for a moment think that we're not having movies on the day before grade and I honestly think like that's part of the celebration like just kind of part of I mean I did it when I was still in the classroom as a third and fourth grade teacher >> it would have been like I'm not throwing on any >> so so number three does number three apply to to the movies that could be played for break I guess that's what Sarah's asking >> well it's still considered suberal that resource. So yes, >> y even if it's a P13, they should have watched all of it to make sure that it's appropriate. >> That would be the expectation >> and then inappropriate will be shown. Then it would be Rob, Scott, Kate who have to actually have
057that conversation and potentially counsel as necessary. Did you have anything else? >> No, I do not buy the business. Is the language problematic? I wonder if it said may not be used regularly, should not be used regularly. Like really what we're saying is it should be used regularly, but on occasion, day before a holiday, i.e. The day before break, you might be watching a movie. And that's happening everywhere across the state. The day before holiday, everybody's watching movies or playing games, pizza parties. >> No, I think I think um if three is applying to things that are just for entertainment. >> Okay. All right. So, are you good on number five? We got time for one more. We do. >> You have three and a half. >> So, I got to go really fast. I
058can talk really fast. Next one is 8200. The recommendation is to replace with theory one which is 8210. There's four pages that's specific to safety programs. Any questions, concerns about 8210? So adopt area one as is. >> Are we providing instruction to high school students and CPR and the use of the as part of the district's health education. >> If we're not, we must. >> That's a state law. >> Y make a note to yourself. That's be a practice question, right? Are we actually doing what we're supposed to be doing? >> Okay. So, Kelly 8200 is going to be adopt 82101 as is. Uh, next policy is 8202. It's specific to suicide. Uh, we have a current policy. The recommendation is to adopt 7540 which is the 31 policy. Uh my note to the principal
059Scott, Kate, and Rob, was there anything that we I'm sorry, 7540 that you saw as problematic in practice that you'd like to board to consider before they had that policy? So again, we're on 7540 one policy specific to suicide. Dr. Snyder and Kate have nothing to add. Scott, did you have anything for 7540? So then the recommendation would be to adopt Erie one as is. Any uh feedback or comments from the board? I feel like the third, fourth and fifth paragraph. >> Yeah. >> 40 page one. >> Yep. >> The third port is paragraph. I just I don't know. They just didn't seem like they needed >> and actually your point paragraph I was defunded. So paragraph I should be struck because 98 doesn't exist anymore. It was defunded. So uh board members, are you
060interested in removing paragraphs three and four on page one specific to >> the only thing I would say is I think Rob said it's procedural. If we remove it, we need to make sure it's in the regulation or procedures. >> So why would >> we are obligated to provide mental health professional development and safety training at the beginning of the year. So one of the things Karen has to do as part of her professional responsibility, she has to check to ensure that the district has delivered the safety training specific to mental health and suicide. So it's kind of covered in like what we're required to do by regulation anyway. >> Yeah. >> And then similarly suicide prevention is covered in health. So we're required because of the curriculum to cover it. >> I it just
061seemed like this was already covered somewhere else or in the curriculum itself part of the safety plan. >> I don't know. >> No, just those those three paragraphs >> number two, three, four, and five. But five is something we have to get rid of because it's not in existence. >> No, four we have to get rid of. >> Oh, I don't know. >> I mean, I don't care one way or the other. I just would >> I just would say if we remove them, we if we subscribe to their service for regulation, we need to make sure it's regulation. >> But we can keep them. >> I'm not uncomfortable. It's actually what's happening. So, I don't feel like there's Can I can I ask >> I'm not for shorter. >> I understand like the title.
062>> Can we keep our title instead of theirs? >> Theirs is just suicide. >> Yeah. >> Suicide. >> Yeah. That's just what we have a policy called suicide but that just doesn't >> I don't like that as a type. >> I don't know that it actually addresses any other atrisisk behavior stuff. Um >> um yeah it does because I just read something about self harm >> which doesn't necessarily have to be suicide. >> Okay. >> Correct. >> Attention seeking behavior possibility. >> All right. So >> suicide. >> I just don't like that title for a policy. >> Okay. >> I get that that's part of the subject matter. So 8202 the recommendation will be to adopt 7540 with title change to what we had removal of paragraph five on page one and we're going to
063keep paragraph >> see if I can do really really quick. >> I'm shutting you down. >> Shutting you down. 8207 school safety teams. Uh that's ours is called school safety plans and the team's recommendation is to adopt 561 pages and the recommendation is to incorporate language around tab which I did put in your document. It fell in the green is the recommended language around Any discussion on 5681? >> Does that mean we have to table the next time? >> Yeah, I'm thinking >> I told the so close. >> No, >> I was all with you until you really >> wants to go over to 32,000. All right. So, next policy meeting is March 4th and we'll start with the two that we tabled earlier. I think it was code of ethics and extracurriculars and then
064we'll come back to the thousands. I'm anal. Yeah, I sent I sent two via email and then another one >> I actually waited I'm so proud of you, Jeff. Hey, look. >> And there's no there's no >> post. Another letter.