001Okay. Good afternoon everyone. I would like to call the meeting to order with the pledge of allegiance and sac of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay, thank you everyone. Announcements. No announcements. >> Okay. Um, so we are going to review the 8000 series, but we're putting something in. >> Wonderful. Good evening everybody. Welcome back. How exciting to be back, right? >> Yes. uh and a light agenda for the policy review committee. I want to first acknowledge our administrative team members who are here with us this evening. I want to thank our building principles and district level leadership for being here. I think they serve a vital role in informing the board of education around how policy
002potentially can interface or uh intersect with practice and have them provide us an opportunity to provide us um I'm sorry any insight surrounding where there might be language that's problematic specific to current practice. So, I'm very grateful for the five of you being here tonight. Uh, can't thank you enough. I think it's going to be a great opportunity for learning for all of you as well as uh contributing in a meaningful way. Uh, Penny was excused because tonight's uh section won't be applicable to her, but there certainly will be other policy sections where it will be more business office related and all of you will be let off the hook. Uh, it is my uh hope and and I guess anticipation to actually go through three policies before we get to uh the 8,000 section.
003And so, you do have copies of each of those in front of you. They are not reflected in the grid either. So you have a master chart that we'll work from tonight. Uh the first one that should be on top is policy 7221 non-resident students. I just want to anchor it and I know you haven't had an opportunity to read. So I certainly want to make sure that we take a pause and have you read the policy just to make sure that this policy reflects what our practice should be specific to registration and residency. I do want to let you know that more recently given our shift in um operational supports. Uh we have somebody new assigned to registration and residency and we have a number of questions slash concerns that have come up and
004I want to make sure that I operate in the best interest of the district reflecting what the board's wishes are specific to policy. So, I would be asking that you just take a moment and make sure this reflects what you'd like current policy to be around residency because then that's how I will proceed is based on uh your direction there. What's the tuition price? >> There is not any longer. We do not have any tuition fees. So it says um in item one for the payment of tuition but if we don't have a tuition price how does that work? >> So that's in deference to B on the back. >> So for number three if they're in 11th grade and they would like to stay through 12th grade but academically they're not holding status. >>
005That's really again that's why I'm bringing it to you. So there's a number of different and I don't want to give any identifiable information around families but uh right now would be a question. I just want to make sure that I operate in the best interest of the board's wishes specific to residency. So again if it is still the will of the board that a junior uh who becomes a non-resident could continue in to complete their uh the entirety of their high school career here then that's obviously how we would proceed. >> I would like it was academic standing. I don't want anyone messing up our matrixes >> and I but I would but I would even add to that if there's disciplinary issues tremendous disciplinary issues that disrupt the >> well that's up at
006the top >> failure to comply with code of conduct suspension. I think I'm gonna exclude that. >> Got it. I would just I'm gonna caution you just because there are what could be considered discriminatory practices because one of the other things that could become problematic is if you say it's uh not a student not in good academic standing that could actually impact our special education students or population and that absolutely would be deemed discriminatory. We would lose that all day long in court. >> If they're not thriving in our district and they're not living in our district, >> how do you define that? making progress attendance showing up. >> So, so if they are at the status quo to your point and their status quo and their grade wise and their behavior wise is here,
007but then also their academically is both well below their typical norm regardless if they're special education or not. I worry about putting together >> if you have a if you have a nice line of where they've always been roughly, you know, >> I do worry again even just thinking about discriminatory. So regardless of whether it was special education or a 504, if you have a student who's identified as a tier 2, tier three MTSS, a student in need of tier 2 or tier three MTSS supports that could be considered discriminatory. Like we're only willing to keep the crumb, the cream of the crop. So I'd push back on that and I'd say again if we have 11 years or 10 and a half years off this is the level they're at and it's steady >>
008and then they take a huge dip then then you would have documentation that that proves otherwise. >> What if there is a mental health issue attached to that? >> Well then you have extending circumstances and such. >> I see what you did there. >> Could we? >> So when it's policy conversation I I mean yes you can contribute. It's really the board has to agree upon what the policy is. >> Gota, can I ask a question? >> Yes. >> There's language in number one that references the superintendent schools shall determine the extent. Is that something that could be added that >> honestly I wouldn't put myself in that position where I would be making a potentially decision that's could be deised. Like it's actually better for me and the district if there's clean language around
009what is the criterion. So it's not subjective whatsoever. So, I think there it sounds like there's a motion about adding some language around uh good standing or some standing, but I'll be upfront. I would I would absolutely run it by legal. If there is that recommendation, the board wants to include language like that. I would I would push that to be legal before I was thinking it's almost like a privilege to come to a school that you're not really in residency with. So, to get that privilege That was kind of what I was thinking. But I see what you mean. It's tricky especially. >> So even linking it to attendance, you run the same risk if there's a child with mitigating circumstances that are medical in nature. >> And again, am I am I determining
010if in fact there's those extenduating circumstances. It feel that feels very subjective >> and again could be deemed discriminatory and we wouldn't win that. I think this is this policy is more about residency or not residency. >> Correct. >> So someone who lives in William Center versus someone who lives outside that comes in. Right. So >> it just would be a shame to give that privilege to someone who >> I guess to steer you in your thinking. I guess the larger issue that the district is currently faced with is more specific to number two uh where a family potentially moves out of district after mid year and they may continue. We have quite a bit of transiency happening and then there's no follow through and the kids remain regardless. >> So that is really the
011last >> after the school year or >> so it could be they've been here for five days. They attended September 5th through the 10th. I'm making up a not I'm making up an example right now. So there is no identifiable information. September 5th, the school year starts there for 5 days. Family moves, they continue and there's no intent on moving the kids out of the district and then they continue their academic career here >> and is no longer the family goes elsewhere and they're kind of hanging out longer in district. >> So but they're technically still enrolled here. So they would be like lost on the radar as far as the state's concerned because the states they're enrolled in Williamson. >> The burden is on the district. Is there um >> I'm probably the wrong
012person to ask about this because I moved all over the place and I didn't get a choice for oh you could stay in your school. We don't have to do this. >> You do not. >> You go where you move because realistically how many people are going to it says in the first or second paragraph if you're non-resident you have to transport your kids. How many people are going to physically leave Williamson, reside somewhere else, and still transport their kids back to Williamson? >> Well, it's unfortunate, but that's why I'm bringing the policy to you tonight. >> Realistically, people won't do that. >> Kids staying for more than one year. >> Is that what we're finding this this >> I think what we're finding is they're staying, but they're not really attending. They're not really
013staying. >> No, they're staying in district. They're not living in the district. No, what I'm saying, >> but are they attending school? >> Yes. >> Number two says that the they may complete that school year without the payment of tuition. It doesn't really have language beyond that. >> So, right now, as is, we have some residency issues. If I abide by and honor the law of the land, which is board policy, we have some we have some I don't want to say significant, we have a number of residency issues which will prompt us to have to pursue those residency issues and have them no longer attend because either they moved uh much prior to the midpoint of the school year and or they moved in a previous school year and they're still attending. >> Are
014they providing their own transportation? >> Pardon me. >> Are they providing their own transportation? they would have to be or >> I really don't want to give much >> you don't want to give >> this is about policy it's not about the circumstances so if I were to talk about >> so benefit to allow students our numbers are going up is it a benefit to have them >> stay or their their parents are not taxpayers so it's almost a gift of public funds because you're paying for that child's education >> and there's no contributions to the district got >> um technically this says in number two after mid year so if a family moves in October They should enroll themselves in a different district. >> They should not. They're not privy to this policy, >>
015but we wouldn't be compliant as a district. >> That's correct. And again, to make sure that I honor and respect the Gore's wishes, it's important for me to understand if you want to expand this policy. To your point, if you'd like the children to be able to remain, then we would need different policy language to for me to allow for them to remain. based on how this is written, we have a number of residency issues that are going to require some action. >> I mean, I I think there's definitely benefits for staying through the year, but after that year, unless they're a senior, right? >> So, even if it's an October standpoint, it's October 10th and the child is moved, the family has moved, you believe they should be allowed to stay for the remaining
016year? >> No, >> I don't. >> That's a hard one. It's not for me. >> I in the case of homelessness, they would be different. >> Yes. And and I and there's an understanding of that because it's important for them to stay, >> right? But that's govern >> that's governed by a whole different set of laws. >> I know I understand that, but I'm just saying that there was a reason that they put that in place, too, right? >> I think it's about protecting and preserving continuity of instruction for the child. Like if you think about the way this is written your midpoint you're beyond the midpoint of the school year it is a significant disruption to the child. So if you think about the wellness and the whole child that's an advocacy of the
017child who had to move after the midpoint but again if a family moves October 10th right so I guess that's the question when as the educ educators when when is it to a point where it would disrupt their education like when would you say >> any would be a disruption right I mean at any point during a school year would be a disruption it's really more about what's the willingness and tolerance of the board of education because again could argue that it is a gift of public funds because we're going to get families who are not paying taxes into this community and the kids are attending free of tuition. >> I I have a quick question. Is midyear a hard cut off of which the students can stay in the district um saying that if
018they stayed like uh up to a point before midyear um is that follow through or >> great question. So literal inter and I would be very literal in my role. The literal interpretation for me would be the midpoint is end of first semester. So I would go to our high school calendar and say what's the end of the first semester. If it's before that if it's before the end of that first semester then they haven't been here at the midpoint. >> It would be very literal my interp or my enforcement of the board policy. >> It would be strange to strange to accept a full year from an 11th grader and only half a year. It doesn't there's not a lot of continuity there. So if the 11th grader is staying for the 12th grade
019year, not paying any taxes for the whole year, we take away that privilege for other students. I'm just not sure I understand that. >> What do other schools do? Because I'm the wrong like clearly I weigh on the wrong side of this. I just counted I attended at least seven schools in my K through 12 time and I still got a good education. >> I think it varies. Uh and again, I could I could get we could conduct some research. I mean, Kelly could put it out to district clerks or I could put it out to the CSOS. I will share with you more recently, legal is cautioning about any acceptance of non-resident because you're on the hook for all. And all means all. That means a $500,000 special education student. No offense to the
020special education student, but the reality is if you're doing it for one, you have to do for all. Otherwise, it is discriminatory practice. So, in most cases, legal is going to tell you the less you are doing for non-resident, the better >> for the district. >> Yeah. two we have to do for three and vice versa. >> And the reality is we we have to talk money when it comes to budget time and that could be a budget killer. >> Half a million dollars could and several staff members. >> Well, you this policy opens you up to you could have, you know, a whole classroom worth of kids that don't live here, don't pay taxes, and are attending school here. >> So, do you hear what >> three number three is common? I've seen that
021before in two other districts. That's just for conduity of students who may have been in their home district for a extended period of time. They want them to graduate >> at the school they're most familiar with. >> So I guess what do you need more from me to be able to weigh in on this policy? Again, I do want you to know we currently have some situations which are going to warrant my attention. I'm going to give a huge shout out to our new administrative assistant, Jen Jubie, who's doing an outstanding job, very thorough and comprehensive in looking at our registration and our residency issues and she's brought a number of them forward which are going to require action. So, as written, it would mean that we would be um taking next steps and I'm
022not going to say, you know, I'm not going to go through operationally what those are, but we would go through next steps and potentially asking those families to remove their children >> is number one in their home school district. I guess I don't have a problem with that. I mean, I'm going to to what was saying I moved during a school year also school year more times than I can count on. >> You know, >> that's life, man. It happens. And >> it's called resiliency. Correct. Perseverance. >> Correct. >> I moved my senior year. So, >> yeah. So, >> I do have questions about like are these these students who started the year already past their midpoint year? >> Not at the midpoint. No, but I mean like were they supposed to go last year
023and we're just now telling them this year? Like, okay, it's time to get something policy. >> Well, the question is if we change the policy, I guess it's more like is this going to be shocking and just kind of cruel or is this like expected a long time coming? >> The reality of your policy has been what it's been since 2016. The only reason I'm bringing it forward is before I take action and because we're doing a policy review, I want to make sure this is what you want the policy to be. >> And we would give these people to the midpoint of this year, which hasn't happened yet. >> No, that's not how it would be like tomorrow. >> I I guess I guess I'll do that. >> That's not how it reads at
024all. >> It means if they move before mid year, and if they've already moved, it's before mid year. >> They should already be gone. I guess I would say regardless of what time of school year it is, if your parents if your parents or guardians move to a different district, that student should also be moving to that different district. And I don't care if it's April 1st, March 1st, September 1st. We are no longer responsible for that student on the day when they move. That's it. So I think a lot of this be adjusted and this half year thing this half year thing to me is irrelevant is the moment they move. >> I'm sorry but the school moves with the ball. >> That's correct. >> Okay. So I guess is there any additional information
025you would like to be able to weigh in or feel more informed in weighing in on this that I can bring forward? Right now what I think I hear is that the policy as is I could move forward with the residency issues that I'm working through right now. based on the language that's here. Like it doesn't sound like you're looking to expand uh and have not contract it. >> Yeah, I would restrict it down. >> I would make >> I'm not sure why. I'm assuming four is in there because it happened. But I would think that that's law. >> Yeah. If if someone's placed there by court order, I don't need think we need to have that in policy. It's a court order. So to me, I would think a lawyer would tell you to
026take four out. >> It's unnecessary because we have to follow the law, >> right? You have to follow, right? >> I would guess that five isn't necessary either because if you're participating in exchange program, you're living with someone who's in the district, >> other than it's not their legal residence, right? So I would say yeah, you probably do because they're technically a non-resident people and where they're staying is not their legal residence. >> So you would keep five. >> I would keep five. >> Three you're saying is common? >> Yes. in both previous districts I was in >> is one common >> which I think if I'm reading that is like a family's planning to move here >> attempt >> and because to me that makesense >> one is a situation where a parent's actually
027being a good parent in my opinion >> I I think most of the times just from what I remember when the regist office we would require like a a purchase sale agreement and usually it takes 60 to 90 days to available. >> Yep. >> Yeah. >> Does that need to be written in here? >> It says the superintendent. We had one >> and I think it's part of our part of the >> registration. >> So number six, do we still need that? And what does um if the district is under penalty of another district mean? >> The very last sentence in I don't even know what that means. >> Meaning like they got suspended or they something they happened years ago. >> So it looks like it sounds like we've agreed on everything other than
028number two. I mean, I think I'm taking all those little faces in elementary school of kids who need to move because it's just disruptive to their education. And I know it doesn't serve the district to let them stay, but it's just >> to me I look at I look at the financial aspect of it. >> Fiscal stewards. That's your number three. Your pillars are superintendent, policy, and budget. I I can't justify spending our districts, our taxpayers money on a student that isn't actually living inside our school district, especially if it's going to be an extra cost outside the norms. >> You can't push that onto the taxpayer. >> We are tasked to do what's best for kids though at times. >> We are tasked also with being financially prudent. Sometimes students believe it. >> It's
029it's a it's a very tough one. >> This has latitude. I mean, it actually does state if the family moves after the midpoint that the child can continue. Many districts would be you've moved, you need to go register in your new home school district. >> No, I I agree. I think I I agree with the idea that after midyear it would be a huge disruption. So to finish out that year, but I you can't go beyond that. I think it's that year, right? >> I I would leave it in there for that, but also maybe clarify it that if a student leaves before the midyear that they leave before the mid year. >> I I don't the way it's written, I don't even need that based on how this is written. >> So do we
030have a motion to keep two as is? Well, you don't really need a motion. I use that a lot in case a motion. Do we need a second? All in favor? >> I think if we I mean it it says what it says. If we're literally looking at what it says, then I think we should keep it. It's been the policy of our >> How do you define midyear? 90 school days. >> No, mid. Well, you end my first >> I use first semester. >> Well, the middle the elementary school uses three trimesters. So, how do you define mid year again? >> Whatever the midpoint is, >> I would still use >> the high school calendar. >> So, then probably write that in there. >> I guess I would I would >> propose that we
031clarify what's midyear because it's different depending on what building you're in. >> You could literally say it's a 180 school day camp 90 days. So I think we have a prop or a recommendation potentially that we would change that instead of after mid year it would be after the first 90 days. >> 90 school days. >> First school. Yeah. >> Are there 182 school days? >> 182 bills in your snow days, Jeff. And then you give them back if you don't use them. That >> could be it. >> I hope to be able to give them back. I guess I have a a question. How what how long does it take the registration process in a different like a district? Is that a relatively quick thing? Say we uh I'm saying that because of >>
032the same day I believe, right? It's pretty straightforward. It's not complex. >> So they're not >> No, here's here's my address. I believe an apartment, a house or whatever it is. >> It's a very good question. Yeah, >> they're supposed to start you with schedule and then after the fact they like for example a high school student's transcript might come up tiny bit later. So then they'll make the modifications after the fact to make sure everything is perfect. But they'll get you started. So we're good with just a revision on number two and then would you have an omission of number four or do you want to leave it? It is regulation. So, do you want to leave it or do you want to pull that strike that number four? >> I'm okay striking it.
033I I mean, we've taken other policies out if it was regulation or law. It seems to have done it. Now, if the law changes, you got to make sure you update the policy, >> right? >> So, to me, I would take out number four because that's not unique to us. We're following. >> Yeah. Would we have a radius? I'm just thinking of number two. So, say for example, someone is living out of district and they live in 30 miles away. >> As long as a parent drives them, what do you care? I mean, it says above. I mean, that's the transportation required. >> I I understand that part, but >> um then they got a kid waking up even earlier and does that benefit a kid? >> I guess that would be the parents decision,
034>> right? >> Kids should go with their parents. You can you can say no and that's fine. >> Uh looking at B on the back if we're going to make revisions and probably will update this so that you can actually do a first read. >> Do we even still need That's what I was wondering. Do we need >> number six at all? Because six >> no correct >> B if they were 2008 they've already graduated >> they were enrolled. >> Oh is that was all that? >> No B is separate. So you go back up to the top. A is nonup residence may be admitted blah blah blah. These are the extenduating circumstances. Why >> is separate? >> B is separate. >> Okay. So do we need six? >> No. Because really if as soon
035as we say no, they would grieve it and we would lose because it's in their contracts. >> Is that just saying that employees >> allow? >> It's in each of their contracts. >> So you could remove six. >> You could remove six. >> What about the payment of tuition in number one? >> If we don't accept the payment of tuition, >> the payment of tuition number one, should that be deleted? >> The last line. So number one would be let's say your residency must be assessed with 90 days. We could determine that we would want them to pay tuition if if we could at such such juncture and we have not that has not been constructed and we didn't with the one case this year >> but leaving it in there gives you the option
036to >> but it does give you an option. >> Okay. >> But we don't have a set payment of tuition. uh Penny would have to figure that out. It would be based on um cost per per student and then um prorating based on the length of time. So she would have to calculate that. >> So it's something you could calculate. >> Yes, absolutely. >> Okay. >> And it's fluid unfortunately. >> Yeah. It changes. >> So B could be removed on the record >> other than maybe you want to say the district does not accept non-resident tuition based students. just take out the district about 2009. >> The district does not >> does not fix that >> non-resident tuition based students and then take out this the second sentence completely. >> You must have changed that
037in 2009. Okay. >> And then CI is an option. I mean in the event you got a kid is trying to come in they've been expelled in another district. Okay. >> All right. Not bad. We got one done >> in a half hour. >> Great. >> All right. Hopefully, we're going to fly through the other uh two that are coming up. Uh 6115. This is also an add-on, so you should have a copy of it in front of you. Additional emergency appointments. Uh the language in this reflects practice that we do not engage in. So, it would be the recommendation of the superintendent, myself, that we uh remove this polic. it's unnecessary, meaning that we don't start employees unless they have unless we receive fingerprint clearance and we certainly don't want to shift to a
038practice where we would ever even consider doing so. Do we have that? Is that law or do we have that in policy somewhere to prohibit a future superintendent from hiring someone who has conditional >> I guess the fail safe would be for a sub >> that's why this policy >> the fail safe for you to then change in the future >> except that this actually allows for them to start someone. So, you want to revise this policy? >> Okay. >> Like, this allows for this to do that. >> What I'm trying to get at is how do we >> prevent a bad actor >> for lack of a better >> No, but you're right. >> You know what I'm saying? >> I know exactly what I'm saying. But again, the board turns over and then
039the superintendent changes. >> All right. May I guess uh maybe it should be that our policy is we don't hire someone >> who has without So, so what I would say to you, Angela, if I might take the liberty of uh tableabling this one, I guess now, and coming back to our next policy meeting, and I have language. What I also think would be helpful for the board, again, thinking about the long term would actually be to have language around emergency appointments. Like, we have an established practice that is effective now, and it's all documented. Kelly gets the documentation. I snip everything from you, but it would probably be behoove the board to have policy that actually suggests how a superintendent must secure emergency approval for uh an employee if it's prior to a board
040meeting where you actually do a formal appointment. So, what I will do is between now and the next policy meeting is I'll actually uh get language around the actual emergency approval process and that in no circumstances would an emergency approval ever happen unless we had secured the fingerprint clearance like we would press pause. You can't do it. >> Okay. >> I don't I don't know that it's that specific, but it should be. >> Yeah, it should be. And then the next one I anticipate might be a lengthy conversation as well. Uh and again just I guess for the purpose of the administrative team, I'm sorry I didn't connect the dots for you. Uh the board of education reviewed section 6000 last year. Uh 6115 and 6430 were the only two policies we were unable to
041uh reach resolution to, which is why we're bringing them back now to try and wrap them up as part of the policy review uh process. 6430 is employee political advocacy and ideological activities. Um what you should have in front of you is the um proposed language uh that I brought to the board for consideration. Again, just so that I guess for the cabinet's purpose 6430 around political activity is a challenging one because we have to be very u conscientious about freedom of speech and the constitutional right that individuals have. And so we have to be very cautious and it's I feel like my role to make sure I'm uh cautioning the board around anything that might be an overreach around what you're uh able to do as far as freedom of speech. So 6430 the
042first page reflects what I sent to the board. The second page reflects uh what uh one of our board members sent back saying could we potentially look at uh where it says version two and then version three in the packet I've given you is I ran the version that the board suggestion was through and asked for it to review for any um freedom of speech constitutional violation u concerns in the policy and this is what came back. So version three is clean as far as it does not uh does not have any overstep as far as violating constitutional rights specific to freedom of speech. >> So are you proposing use version three? I'm proposing version three which again takes the original version factors in concerns considerations and then gets run through to make sure it's
043clean make sure that the board hasn't done any overstep specific to constitutionality of freedom of speech are >> this is not part of the 8000s it was part of the 6000 >> I know I was looking at from 6,000 >> because I couldn't remember was this one that the attorney recommended that we keep. >> We actually did update this last year because of concerns around >> we tabled it. >> Yes. And I think we tabled it because there I think that there were some concerns around it not being stringent enough. >> Right. >> And now I think through the interfacing and the multiple versions I think we've addressed the concerns and hopefully have sufficient language. >> Yeah. I I like version three. So, do we have to have the attorney review this and make sure
044we're not >> uh I certainly could. So, this takes Erie one. This is the original ER1 which we did. Well, actually, did we do ER1 last year for 2024? >> I think it was just >> I don't think we did. I think it was our policy and we just >> That's right. Yeah, >> we did update it because we it's dated 2024. there were concerns about political activity and we updated in 2024 and then ultimately was brought back as we were going through um the 6000s I I do recollect now that there were just questions concerns about was it stringent enough to your point yes because it's not area one I would have I will >> just because we've kind of >> yes >> edited it heavily >> so is there any concern with taking
045version three having legal run through and then our first read would be on 6430 version three um plus minus any recommended revisions by legal >> I'm so I guess my question is outside of work hours your home and your personal in your personal home on your personal computer. But if you are stated that you work at the Williamson School District and these are your opinions on a political matter, are we okay with that? So when we get into the 8000s, great question. When we get into the 8,000s, there is a staff acceptable use policy, which we did not have, which I'm recommending, that includes language which provides the district coverage in the event because there was recently an incident in a district that used to be near and dear to my heart. >> There are
046some that may be near this district or very close to this district. >> And the language in the staff acceptable use is what will protect or mitigate the risk for the district. So it has to be an inclusion of that language in that policy not necessarily this one saying scope and applicability. Yeah. When this speech and conduct when acting in an official >> but when it says when acting in an official capacity what he just described >> I'm at home at night and I'm you know my keyboard warrior and I say well I'm a teacher at or I work at blah blah blah. >> Can that be construed as acting in an official capacity? >> I would say yes. I think what she's saying is that that's a different policy. It's just not on the
047>> So again, having worked very closely with the superintendent for one of the districts and again it is >> near and dear. >> Um and really what the saving grace in that whole situation was was it was policy specific to political activity, but really the defining policy was more about staff use the use agreement, >> right? But if they're doing it on their own, >> you'll see when we get into that policy. >> It's like setting an expectation. >> Yep. and cautioning them ahead in the user agreement around staff. So we have a student use agreement. My recommendation is that we add the staff user agreement because it gives us the language we need in the event something like that happen. It's very clear in the policy what your expectation is. >> Okay. >> All
048right. So it looks like homework back to me 615 language. I do emergency appointments and uh making sure fingerprint clearance. No, no candidates can start without fingerprint clearance. And then 6430 I'll take version three and have legal run through that for any recommendations and I can bring that back to our next policy. Okay. Now I hope we go fast in the 800s. I hope >> faster than what we've already done. >> Well, I hope I think they're lesser controversial perhaps. Uh so now we're going to fly through. Uh if you go to the grid, identify the grid, there should be a hard copy for everybody, including for the administrative cabinet. Uh for administrative cabinet for your purposes, uh the board of education, one of the three pillars of their primary responsibility is uh policy as
049far as governance. Uh so they're responsible for policy, budget, and uh hiring, evaluation, and potentially termination of a superintendent. That's really their three primary roles uh as a board of education. uh we are now engaging in what's considered a four-year uh policy review cycle. I did give that to all of you including the administrative team. So if you go to the front of your binder, what you'd see is the four-year review. Last year we got through section 6,000 minus these two policies which hopefully will resolve next meeting. We're working on 8,000. So I'm going to fly from this document so you know how I'm my brain is thinking about moving the process along. Uh if you look on your on your chart, the first one says 8100 and there's gray highlighting on that document. That's
050because of the previous review cycle. The board eliminated that policy. So you should not have in your binder a policy that's 8100. Next policy is 81 time question. >> Yes. >> Can we add two things to this document? >> Because when you've been doing this for as long as I have, >> unless you write your own notes. >> Yep. Can we add a legend that says what the key what the colors mean? >> Yes. >> And can we put a date on it so that we know we're looking at the most recent version? >> Absolutely. So these are I mean this is new the color coding. It's new this year. So yes. >> And then >> I could show you ones that are colorcoded from years ago. >> And then uh you'll see on the
051end I did ask Kelly if she could keep notes. So in the uh far right column, she'll actually uh record what the actual board action is, whether keeping, revising, eliminating, removing. So first policy 8110 curriculum resources. Uh our policy was from 2016. It is my recommendation that we replace our 8110 8110 adopt as any discussion. Um it I guess in my mind the uh there's not any really criteria for the curriculum. So administrators are in charge of reviewing the curriculum but there's no like criteria for what should be put in or what shouldn't be put in. >> That would be a very lengthy document. Well, really it's driven by the first paragraph. Board of Regents and State Education Department are responsible for setting our learning standards. That should be the basis and foundation for all
052of the work we're doing. Like it it isn't the board's role to determine what the curriculum is state education department, >> right? No, I don't think that's our our so the state department provides all the curriculum. >> No, they provide what the learning standards are and then it's the district >> provide the curriculum. >> Correct. >> So what if we provided a curriculum that wasn't nonpartisan or that was I don't know there's lots of that wasn't that age appropriate or something like that like those kind of standards are not in the policy at all. So, >> oh, or what if they provide curriculum that's not academically rigorous or um it doesn't emphasize critical thinking, but telling you what what to believe versus see like those kind of things that I think are important to have
053some kind of a >> maybe a checklist to say, you know, these check off these We do have practices in place when we do do curriculum >> review that 8120. >> No, I'm saying 8120 is about >> Yeah, >> I think that's why I put it in. I mean it does say >> it does say though that the district curriculum will align with state learning standards include any specific topics required by law regulation and guidance. >> I feel like it defaults to >> it's still let me say for example >> like in Chicago I think they had a uh a non-racist math program >> implemented. What does that really mean? >> Not that word. Yeah, that was that was my thing. So, it's just like a like why >> like a multicultural >> they called
054it they called it non-racist. So >> So it might be in that state that it was required in the same way we had a period of time where everything was DEI that was >> directed by state ed that was certainly not Williamson sodas or honeyo direct you know deciding that that was what was going to happen. >> Yeah. >> Well and was DEI required? I think the I was strongly strongly suggested recommended. >> You didn't have to use the acronym DEI. And so many districts, including myself over at Honey while it was being rolled out in Williamson as culturally responsive um education. We were doing the same thing, honoring and recognizing knowing our communities and how our communities would respond. and thinking about the portrait of a graduate that's going to be very dictated by
055the state for ongoing. >> So when you you just said something about critical thinking skills a while that's all embedded within SED and the portrait of graduates it's going to be rolled out >> which is all about the student responsive. So I 8110 the eerie drafted policy I'm okay with except that we would have to update the part at the bottom that says no refer to because ours don't match. >> Yeah. And it hasn't been our practice to put that in there either. So we don't have to do that unless you want to do that. Um, but I guess I need a more compelling reason to delete 8120 because to me 8120 is the board's way of saying we don't want to just do the bare minimum that the state requires. We want more for
056Williamson. So we want continuous improvement. So paragraph two on page 2021 page 202 one talks about recommended curriculum changes would be prevented uh presented. So is there a way if there's something specific you want to pull from 8120 you would add it into the Erie 1. Again Erie 1 is created and vetted by a legal team and they I mean the policy is called resources and evaluation. So I don't know that we need a separate policy might be that you just pull a sentence from our existing 8120 and throw it in >> and they and they create a general policy for all districts to then tweak to their personal needs if they have. Yeah. And you buy into the service, right? But again it's legal. Well, I can tell you what I like about 8120
057is the first two sentences actually the first three >> is that covered within 8110 the first paragraph the board development is that is that autonomous enough to say that the board has the power to be able to implement boards in 8120 >> where are you reading >> so 81 120. The first three >> Yeah. >> that you wanted to keep is that in curriculum development resources and evaluation of 81 8110. >> Is that covered in the first paragraph there? Specifically like the second and third >> to me it's not because that says the board can. This says the board wants continuing evaluation. Like we shouldn't be >> to me. Yeah. To me the the way this is word I mean you could change it but to me the way this is worded is saying the
058board places a priority on continuous improvement like yes there's a standard that the state sets and we have to meet that >> but we don't want to be >> but if we're meeting it we don't want to just like okay we're meeting those minimum standards so that's good enough >> why can't we do more than that >> to me see when I look at 8120 that first paragraph I'm like is that in a policy or such practice and that guided by the strategic plan and like embedded in other things that we do. >> So I think to Scott's point, thank you for pointing it out, Scott. Page one of two uh under curriculum development resources evaluation paragraph 2 last sentence and really again because this is board policy. It doesn't have to say that the
059board directs because ultimately this is you directing them. Instructional staff are expected to continue evaluate district curriculum in order to improve learning and foster student growth. Again, you don't need the phrase the board directs because it's your your policy. That is you directing us to engage in that practice, >> which is going to happen by default, >> right? Because you're looking at the data, you're looking at the same. >> It depends who's sitting in that seat. >> Well, if we're getting the statistic that we want, then >> No. But no, but I'm saying if we're looking at the data and we're making choices based off of data, then >> based on my 50 years of experience, it depends who's sitting in that. >> You have turn over on your board and you hire super. It
060says the strong language right here. And if you're saying it hasn't happened, then it's more of a practice than just policy. So like this says it shall direct and the statistics have been good and it hasn't changed anything. So, I do feel like this one covers it and it's always going to happen if the board is active and responding to the data anyway. Correct. You know what I'm saying? Like if you're you're you're putting initiatives. >> I do. I will repeat it depends who's sitting in that chair and who's sitting in these five chairs. If you have a superintendent who is not Bridget, >> who is the opposite of Bridget, >> correct, >> which they exist, >> and you have two board members who are like, >> I just show up to the meeting and
061we've had that in this board before. >> It goes back many, many years. >> But the right combination of the wrong people in the chairs, that's why you have policy. Well, I hear No, I I like the policy. I think it covers it in 8110. I'm saying the concern of the difference in language really comes down to the practice. So, it's stated in both that is expected. >> Angela, let me ask you this. Would you like it worded stronger? Well, the like that last sentence that Bridget just pointed out covers the first sentence. I'm looking to see if there's something for those other two in this middle page two of two district administrators. So, I think that covers sentence three20. District administrators will work with instructional staff to develop, improve, and evaluate district curriculum. The
062only thing different I think that's in 8120 is it talks about it being in a systematic way. And so maybe that that would be the ad would be just saying um that they will evaluate the district curriculum in a systematic way. That way it's not left to chance that it's going to happen once every 10 to 15 years, >> right? I guess that's that's part of what I like about that is that you're saying there's a system, not just yeah, we looked at it and it's good. So, are you comfortable with in page 202 first sentence that it would be evaluate the district's curriculum in a systematic way? >> Yeah. >> And here's the thing. You have the liberty in the last sentence of page 202, the board may periodically request that the superintendent and
063I would say or designate because it really can right now present reports necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of the curriculum. So that's how you hold to superintendent. >> You would change that to say or designate >> or yeah because it really wouldn't be represented professionally would be canon who would be presenting it. >> So it says district administrators in this case is district consider district and building an inclusive statement or should it say district and building administrators will work with instructional stuff. >> That's funny. Stylistically, I would say instructional leaders, >> which we could do, too. I just wanted to clarify. >> So, she's concerned that just like it's only Karen, but really it is a collaboration. It's also going to include building leadership. So, we district and building administrators or we could say instructional
064>> all the administrators in the district. >> Yeah. >> How would you how would you word it? >> How much is district and building model administrators? >> I like it. But >> would you change it on page? >> Oh, I just saw it. Hang on. Because it says district administrators on page one and now I lost it. Oh, the very last sentence >> of that one. >> Yeah. No, page one of 8110. It says instructional staff under the guidance of district administrators are expected to consider those resources for possible improvement. Is that okay to say? >> I'm second guessing even now putting in and just leaving it at district because to Rob's point I read it as all district administrators and the other realities if I think about as we're futuring there is a hope
065and expectation that there's going to be more district level oversight around curriculum and instruction. And so I look at that and I wouldn't want no offense to our principles. I don't want them operating in deference to what district has said this is the oversight for reading instruction moving forward. >> I'm fine with whatever. I just was curious what the definition was going to be. And I like >> I think we do that. >> And is there any need to put it in up in the definition? >> No. >> I like that idea. And the I guess the second paragraph under curriculum develop resources evaluations talks about trends in specific content areas, changes to educational best practices and student input as being ways to prompt curriculum change. >> It says they may be prompted. >> Is
066that on the first page you said? >> Those just seem really subjective. >> The learning standards are concrete. The trends would be data. So, data trends in specific content areas. >> Here's the thing. That's the board giving the latitude to the district to make those changes based on in response to those things. Honestly, I don't think I'm not sure you need to give us the latitude. I would argue we could probably take it out, but it's a way for the it's the board demonstrating we recognize that there may be circumstances which warrant change in your curriculum and you're naming them. or for other reasons. Maybe we just say and student input and or other other reasons. I don't think you need it. >> It's 5:30 just so everyone knows. >> Oh my gosh. Well, we
067cranked. >> Well, we we almost did. You get your tire stuck in like we were just getting a rhythm. >> You put the rocks out behind the tire. excited. >> So, there's multiple. >> So, are we going to go back to 8116 or are we good with 816? >> 8110. >> You're getting ahead of yourself 8110. >> I guess we're okay. Yeah, I mean that's Francis. >> It's probably just me. >> See, I read I read that as like a student say, "Hey, we want a course on personal finance or we want a course on why don't we offer this course?" >> No, I I understand that. I'm I'm just thinking like in my role as a pastor, I know there are lots of churches that go after trends like constantly and they usually don't
068work out, right? like they're just following something that worked in a specific place in a specific area for that church. So those things usually just are chasing after or changing just to change, right? >> I'm wondering if sometimes it's like data trends or like shifts. I wonder if it's not like trendy but like trends in >> yeah data data in there instead of >> it's open enough I think to say like if you look at reading acquisition and learning reading they went from phonics instruction to whole language cycled back to phonics instruction like it's it allows this allows that shift to occur with support and autonomy on both >> was it that change better or worse like we're back to what we were before. >> Oh gosh, that could be the lengthy challenge. >> We
069do not have that. >> We don't have time for that right now. >> I just I guess in my in my mind we want to really think about before we change something. >> I think what's I feel like what's frightens you is the word trends and maybe we need to think of a substitution. I understand where you're coming from and that isn't always best practice, right? However, we do need to allow for the respon the district needs the latitude to be responsive to shifts and trends and maybe change so it doesn't feel like oh hey let's just do this >> right let's try something new to try something new or this didn't this didn't work after a year of trying >> uh Dixon when's our next meeting >> our next meeting is >> January 28th
0704:30 30 right here again. >> And good news, we're going to be on 8110. >> Uh we just need to adjourn. >> I to move. >> All in favor? >> Do I just hit transition again, >> Francis? >> Do I just hit transition again? on the left and the bottom >> and transition.