001Oh, hey. I will defer to them about that. Good afternoon and welcome. And thank you for being here. Um today's agenda includes review of the 7.00.000 policies, community, review of 2.00.000 policies, district administration, and finally um 1.60.040 P district performance auditing. And that's that's not um that's just a discussion that we're going to have. Um that policy is also being um considered in the audit committee. Um but whether it's considered there or not, it still needs to kind of come to this committee to be vetted here. So, um I'd like to start with introductions. Um do you want to go around the table starting at this end? Oh, hi. Jerry Parker, communications department. Thank you. Roseann Talbot, manager. Sharon Crane, chief legal officer. Emily Courtney, senior legal counsel. Uh Michelle DePass, uh chair of the
002committee. Nora Isles, Grant High School student. Uh Ethan Taylor, Roosevelt High School student. Seth Klein, uh Southeast Zone 6 um board member. I lost my pen. All right. Um do we have any public comments today? Uh we do not. Okay. We have Marcela Kany, counsel. Okay. Excellent. So, so we're going to skip over that. Um so and we'll dive right into the 7.00.000 community policies. And this isn't the first time we've uh seen these. Um the last time we met, we talked about the difference of shall and will. And um I think there was a request um by Director Englesman, I believe, to um change that wording in our in our um in our policy. And so, that's You should have that in your workbook. Um you can confirm that it's been added, and we
003just wanted um socialize that with everybody, and um can we move this if with two of us on the committee? Cuz that's Yes, okay. Two or three is a quorum. Two or three, okay. Two of Two of Three. Thank you. Um So, this is the 1.70.020 policies. And um so, I I'm I'm happy moving it, and I just need to know if you are okay moving it and then student reps. Okay. Um so, we're going to move um I guess section seven policies to the full board with that correction. But, just 020, right? We have Yes, one I'm sorry, 1.70.020. Yes, 1.70.020. And that um you'll see the redline in uh under B eight, policy interpretation, both will and shall are intended to express the board's expectation that the action is going to or must
004or occur. A change in usage from shall to will or vice versa is not intended to change the meaning. And then we just don't add the date in there. Once we get So, So, this one is good to go. This will be on the May 12th meeting. I was just going to Okay, it's going to be on May 12th. Okay. So, I I I to I was going to bring this up on email. The one thing I The one concern I have about putting these on different meetings, at the last policy committee meeting, I noticed that in changing one of our policies, I I can't remember which one it was, but it was one where we were actually removing the need for a background check for volunteers because it's elsewhere in the policies, but elsewhere
005in the policies have yet to be looked at. We haven't gotten there yet in this process that we're doing. And so, I am uncomfortable with sending this to the full board piecemeal, and would much prefer to move things to the full board, and then when we're done moving every policy one through seven, or however many there are, in completion, then the board has all of them in front of us. Because I do think that there is a an unfortunately good chance that in making changes here, and by here I mean any of the ones that are in front of us, that we may accidentally leave something out because we're removing it or adding it from somewhere else that we have yet to get to. And so, I think it [clears throat] would be my preference
006to move them to the board, but not piecemeal them on random board meetings, instead to have them all together. Yeah, that's that's the um that's the goal. It is to move them in tranches. So, it would be section For instance, we're working on section seven, it would The idea is to move all of section seven at once. Okay. Does that make sense? And then we would go to section two. >> That makes more sense cuz I I don't think we have Help me remember because I don't have my notes in front of me. The one last policy committee meeting where we were changing and actually removing the requirement of background checks from a subsection. Legal had said, "It's somewhere else. You don't have to worry." But it's somewhere else further down. Is it in the
007same tranche or is it in a different chapter? So there I I I think you're speaking about 7.20 which would be 2.0 p where we had talked about removing some somewhat obsolete language around volunteers completing a criminal history verification form. And volunteer information form. The The procedure is a little different. Volunteers still need to do that. It is also addressed in a revised administrative directive on visitors and volunteers that is currently in process. But that requirement hasn't changed and won't change. Um So can I ask a clarifying question? If Director Angle will let me jump in. I I missed last meeting. Do you mind? >> Yeah. So if I think that I think the crux of the issue is and I apologize I don't have it in front of me. Where in a policy does
008it now say that the board requires volunteers to be background checked if they deleted that? I think it's really a big loss. Yeah. Right. So that's where we want to look at 5.10.140 and we have that So it's in a different tranche. Yes. To answer your question. Yes. And so okay. Have we moved that tranche in yet? Exactly. So that's where I'm concerned. And so I appreciate the idea or the efficiency of moving them in tranches. But if we are deleting something from seven that is in five but may not be We might not get to it. >> We haven't looked at it yet. We may have even if it's for five days, we may have a lapse which is not okay for something like this. I mean, it's not okay for anything, but certainly
009a background check on a volunteer. So, this is where I'm saying I I I like the idea of moving things to the board, but I would prefer to not schedule them on different board meetings. I'd like to just have all of our sections in tranches 1 through 7 or 1 through 10, however many we have to look at in front of the full board at once. I think it's going to be possible to to move So, the idea is to work through this committee and move them in tranches. There's I think a total of seven seven tranches. Um and and for us to have the discussion here. Yeah. And I I think I understand your point that if we're removing something from seven and we're moving seven to the whole board. But so, I have
010a question. In practice, do we So, we we could jump around and in fact, we have cuz we were we were going to go in order and we decided not to do that cuz we want to have the time for the whole board to talk about uh section one. But is there I guess is there concern about the practice? Cuz I would be concerned about the practice, too. Does if if we remove the language from section seven and it doesn't appear until it appears somewhere in section five, if in the in the in the in the in the lag between sending section seven to the whole board and and talking about section five, is the practice going to change at the school level? As a practical matter, no. But can I offer a suggestion? >>
011Okay. It We do this all the time in different kinds of negotiation settings and you could have your cake and eat it, too. You can still love that. You could move section seven as a tranche. Go ahead and move it to the board now. And we can put a great big note in there that says, "This is to be deleted when the board approves 5. whatever." So, it stays there and then it We don't have to bring it back to you and do the whole iteration again. But we can simply say the board votes to remove it effective upon the time that you do this background check. So, we can >> something I could live with that. What does five say? Is it I haven't looked at it. Um is five Exactly the same language.
012>> Yeah, this 5.01 photo of fingerprinting and criminal history verification. Volunteers for the district who the district determines may have direct and supervised contact with students will be required to undergo a criminal history verification through the human resources department of education. Okay, so this is I think where that we're missing something cuz seven I think talks about Cuz most volunteers are not having direct unsupervised contact. And so, we don't have anywhere in five In fact, I think in seven we we were talking about whether anybody should be having direct unsupervised contact. >> I remember the conversation. >> Yeah, and so now the only thing in five is talking about direct unsupervised. What about It sounds like there's nothing about supervised. So, a volunteer could say, "Well, I just get to come in because nowhere in
013your in your policy requires a supervised volunteer to do a background check." And it doesn't. So, they should be able to just walk in the door and say I want to go to my kids' classroom without having to do a without having to do a background check if we make these changes. But, I like You could Yeah. Yeah, I like that. I'm comfortable with that. I'm not comfortable with anything else cuz we are we have a huge gap for classroom volunteers. We do. Yeah. Nobody's they're kicking them out. I I when I my kids were little, we um there it seemed like there were a lot of volunteers. That's certainly So, um and these other 5. um section five uh policies, professional conduct between adults and students, is that covered there also or It is
014is the background check So fingerprinting um 5.10.06 or P professional conduct between adults and students because um there was a question about the Waiters case and the last time we talked about this. Yes, volunteers are addressed directly in that. [clears throat] Okay. Okay, so that's what I was curious about. Um so that would be um in um Stephanie 5.10.064P um professional conduct between adults and students. And then 5.10.140P is fingerprinting and criminal history verification. Um So No. I I just wanted to get clear for the record we have it, but what I hear is you maybe want to make a motion to amend that part of Well, now I'm now I'm reconsidering it because I'm realizing that this is going to be a relatively unique and unusual circumstance. Because most changes so far most of
015them have been will to shall and he him to there. They've been um they haven't been as huge and potentially problematic as this. And so I think in this situation I would be most comfortable just doing seven and five together. Um like the the work has been done on seven. >> [clears throat] >> Next policy committee we could do five and so we don't have a gap and then move them both. I don't know or even just do 5.whatever it is. You don't even have to take the whole five. I don't know what else is in there. But And as five is large I'm sorry, excuse me. I was going to say I would defer to staff cuz I thought that there's already work on section two started, so that's already started. Um I like
016the idea of kind of cross-referencing um in in this section seven it says, you know, I think I can't remember how you worded it, but this will be applicable >> Contingent. Contingent on >> there until you get it and explicit. So it's explicitly, you know, um And five is all of the personnel ones that are fairly substantial ones. So it's what we're planning to think you have two next and then we were going to five was after that, but it's that's probably just knowing pace is probably more like June-ish. So if there's a worry, my legal recommendation is if I give you legal advice in public, make it contingent so we don't have that gap. Okay. Just so you know. We're covered all the way around that the board is saying it's going to happen.
017I'm confident that it won't change a practice, but it's not a bad thing to have it forward. Absolutely. >> Absolutely. You know, you all expressing your intent that you'll be covered. Okay. Well, then I guess I do make a motion then to amend seven What is it? 7.10.020? 7.20. 7.20.020. Go back. This is I actually have it in front of me. I would make a motion >> 7.20.020. So I would make a motion No, it's not. It's Um it's volunteers. >> 1.10.020. It's right it Wait, what is it? >> It's volunteers. Oh yeah, we're getting to the next one. Um You can just We don't have to be overly formalistic if if that's all right. If I that Well, that you're telling you direct staff that two of you direct staff to keep that in
018there and make a note that it's contingent and will be moved by the appropriate policy in five when five is passed. Okay. So I am comfortable moving this solely with that. Um I like that too. Yeah. And the legal recommendation to the full board when we have this discussion that that is a sound and smart thing to do not that we should actually be debating whether we should even be doing that. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, okay. Thank you. Okay. So we'll add back a section six and and back that two months. Yeah, thank you. Yeah. Oh yeah, there we are. Okay. Um and I forgot to ask you um Tom Craig if there's anything you'd like to mention to get us Dr. Armstrong has taught everybody to call me by my last name. You can just
019call me Tom Craig. I did. >> [laughter] >> It's like She likes it. Yeah, I I used to. It's a coaching. Yes. Um so um you know, at our last meeting we reviewed and discussed community policies and then was there anything that you wanted to add from last any follow up or Um any words or questions? Yeah, I I just wanted to confirm that there were two changes made since last time on this board so we um changed the site council policy 7.10.0100 and added language on our student representative's request to encourage the inclusion of students as members of site. So you can see that in section two C five. Was that added late? And that where's the red lines for that? It's 01 it's It's on page two. If you scroll down I think
020let me go down a little bit into it. Yeah. It's number one. 7.10.0100 I was looking board book problems and so I got a PDF emailed to me on Friday and I'm just wondering if it was avidly. I don't I remember the conversation I don't have problems with it it's just not the red line is not showing up. I'm not sure why it's not anywhere in any of my 7.10s. Is it have you refreshed your board book? The board encourages the inclusion of students there we go. You have like four copies of this. That's great thank you. And we made this just a correction to the type in the district foundation policy reference section. In reference section 501 internal. There was a typo there and it was corrected also. That's it. Nothing else has changed
021since the last appearance. Great. So I have one question about 7.10.030 the district foundation. And I wonder why in the original policy the very last line sentence of the first paragraph says both the board and the foundation board of directors will receive annual evaluations of all funded projects. And I wonder why that's not in the new policy. I don't unless I missed it. I don't know why we would not keep that. I'm looking through that I didn't catch that. Are you looking at the red lined Yeah. version? Yeah. 7.10.030P the whole thing is I'm looking at I'm looking at 2030. Foundation okay I'm sorry. I'm on the wrong one. I got apologies. So, the whole the whole thing is red lined and then there's a new district foundation policy, which looks great, except that we
022have removed the board and the foundation board of directors receiving annual evaluations of all funded projects, which to me seems very critical. And I would move to add that in there. I'm sorry, you're looking at the red lined under the district foundation section two? I don't know what I'm looking at. I'm looking at 7.10.03 >> Yep. I see. End of the first full The end of the first full red lined cancelled >> Oh, yes. But the board and the foundation board of directors will receive the board and the foundation board of directors will receive annual evaluations for all funded projects. I don't remember what that was like who was going to be doing the evaluation, if it was I think there was some ambiguity around it, which was and it's not and we recommended the
023model language from OSBA. If you want annual reports or something, you probably need clear more clarity from you all about what that is and what you've received and what you want to continue to receive. We're trying to capture We're trying to capture what clarity for the future and we just didn't have that. So, it's a question of what what you want and what has been in the past. That was also before the foundation changed and so >> Right. there's potentially I I don't know if that changes the what could be reported or how it should be reported or what you want to see from these is the question. Well, I'm interested in yeah, and just clarifying this too. So, I think evaluations I used to work as an evaluator and I think they're really good
024ideas. Um The board will rece- uh will receive an annual evaluation and the foundation board of directors. So, that's both us as a as a board and the foundation board would receive um we would receive evaluations. So, that would either be a report or uh yeah, I think that would be a good idea. I mean, it's important that we we should understand how we're doing. Yeah. And so, how we get that at this point does not seem material. Keeping that language in I agree. >> is the first step and then figuring out what a report looks like Yeah. is Who who does it? >> Exactly. Someone else will tell us what they're going to give us, but Yes. >> to get annual Yeah. >> reports. Third party reports. >> Yeah. I like that. Thank you.
025So, do I I Can I move >> Okay, good. I I mean, I'm sorry. It's We should two nods from two directors. Yes. Sorry. Yes, we'll we'll and then And I have to I mean, I didn't I mean, skim the rest of it to make sure educational equipment Foundation Incorporated Allen Lane established display I think everything else is in there. Um okay, perfect. Thank you. I'm looking um up the date of our next um meeting. Board meeting or full staff? Our policy >> Isn't it? Are we done? Is one June 15th. Thank you. The next one is May 18th. Um May 18th. So, May 18th and June 15th. Okay. Is that the one that we skipped? Um I I believe so. So, we have site council. Yeah. And principal and family involvement, so we're happy
026about it. Achievement. Oh, which did we need to go over that? Uh 7. Sorry, jump So, we're doing the So, I think that Good. Well, so the the staff memo has a nice table that kind of summarizes the changes, most of which are not substantive. Yeah. Um did you get to see that? Oh, yeah. I have looked at every word on this document. I was having trouble scrolling around, but I'm also wondering there's another staff memo at the bottom. Um that talks about all these two points. Are we doing those today, too? Okay. That's the next. >> Yeah, got you. Yeah, so we're going into Sorry, I'm not doing a very good job of facilitating cuz I'm my workbook is like so jumping around. Um yes, so now we can um move on to the
027review of the section 2. Can I just clarify for my my tracking minutes here? So, we've We're moving the seven dot policies group with the changes to the district foundation and the additional language in this uh s- um volunteers. volunteers Okay. With that with those caveats. >> Right. So, they're all going to a first reading. >> Yes, they're going to first reading. Okay, thank you. So, we'll start to we've already had um staff start on the 2.000.000 policies, district gifted instruction. There is a staff memo um outlining um which review revise or resend um that may be in there. Also reminding us that um in reviewing all of the policies in section two, um OSBA and the Beaverton School District um policies were reviewed to see where we align. Um that's all outlined in the
028memo. Um do um I'm just wondering in terms of work how we want to move through these rather than I mean we could today maybe just say let's put them all, you know, forward them to the full board. Um but do we want to schedule or start talking about do we want some discussion? And I actually think um Director Chase Miller would like to be here to go over this uh section, too. Um is there are there any that you'd like to pull out and um maybe discuss or should we come back next week or next month ready to uh have reviewed all these and ready to talk about them? Um Um sure. There I think the ones that if if I were to do I would just start on the ones that we're revising.
029It looks like there's six of them all together. Um one of those the racial educational equity policy I'm good. naming school district property I'm good. religious and cultural observances uh public access to district records um and student education records. Um and then there's a recommendation to recent student participation uh because it's outdated and ineffective. And and some of these are outdated. Does that sound like a I'm happy to move it to next time. I do have a question that maybe can get answered by next time. Okay. Um in uh seven, excuse me, 2.10.010 um on the second page the very last full paragraph um that starts with the board will hold the superintendent and central school leadership staff accountable. Um I'm curious why the last two sentences are taken out which require the the to
030present to the board a plan to implement goals A through F within 3 months. And whether this has already happened or why we are taking that out. The superintendent reporting on progress towards these goals at least twice a year and provide the board with updated action plans each year. Um I'm curious the rationale behind taking that out. So that first like this this policy was adopted in 2011. And so when it called on the superintendent to present the board with plans to implement A through F within 3 months of adoption. So that would have happened a very long So that was obsolete. Okay. And then the second one was in in consultation with our racial equity department. Um There was a determination that this this instead of just a twice a year formalized process they
031did incorporation of disaggregated student data by race is reported on in multiple reports throughout the year to the board. Um and the state called for like segregating I see. I guess then I would like to add back in that last sentence because while the practice under this current superintendent is above and beyond what this policy requires, it is just practice and if this is taken out someone in the future could just decide never to report on this again because there's no policy requiring anything and it's just the superintendent going above and beyond and her team giving us good updates and reports, but that could change and if we take it out then there's no requirement that at least two times a year the board is provided with updates. Um I'd like to add some historical
032context. Um, so at the time that this was um developed, there was a big community uh effort to talk about racial equity and one of the best practices at the time was to uh because this wasn't happening like I don't think um was to disaggregate by race. And I think that effort with this policy [snorts] was to weave that practice into everything that we've done for the last uh 13 years. And um and you can see it in all of the reports that we get and the uh data dumps that we get from the um racial equity department. And so I think you're I I know you're fearful and as I am about like going backwards, but I think I think that it's we've been very successful in weaving this idea into all of our
033practices. I've seen it in my six years here um and I've seen it be even beyond that when I was here. Um my sister was a actually worked on this courageous conversation. It was a whole district-wide effort to talk about race and to um change our practices. Just you know, we were looking at demographics and you know, looking at the second graders and who our community is and was. Um, so I feel like I don't I feel like you know, this this is it feels old to me because we are getting all of our data is disaggregated as you recall like by Native American, black, Asian Pacific, white, you know, so on and so forth. Which is terrific, but it's also and I I assume >> like a modern practice. >> It's a modern practice,
034but also it's a practice that is not um enshrined in a policy and so it is not a requirement of a superintendent in the future to continue to do and if the community isn't paying as much attention or is dealing with other things then we are just I like there seems to be no there's no downside to leaving it in here and just making sure that the board policy remains it's a it's a bar. It's much lower than where we're at, which is great. Yes. But it's at least a bar. And if we take out that last sentence, there's there's no bar. And that feels unnecessary because our that last sentence doesn't create any higher bar or additional work for anybody. It just makes sure that nobody in the future can go to zero because
035our board policy I mean there's it I I just haven't heard a reason to take it out. Mhm. Um it's no work on staff. It's it doesn't put any extra burden on anybody. It's well below what our superintendent and her team are already doing. So, I think until I hear an actual reason to take it out, it seems like we're just again assuming that everyone in the future will just continue to do the great work. And I don't know that we can. I don't know why we would. I um I feel like this is one of the reasons we're going through this policy is to update um our policies to adapt to the changes in society and changes in US statutes. And it it feels like overkill to me. It feels like overkill. Especially because
036we are meeting and exceeding that bar already. Um I'm really [clears throat] worried about things moving backwards, too. I've seen I mean it's just our administration is moving things right back there. Um but for the work that we're doing here, um I don't we're already clearing this bar and and and exceeding the bar. Um I guess if we were going to adopt it, it would have to say something like the superintendent will present the board with a plan to I mean A through F is Yeah, that's updated. Yeah. Um So, I feel like we're already getting this information. Right, but but as a board, a policy is what dictates what other people do. And we're not going to be here forever and ever. And so I appreciate that it feels like we don't need it,
037but you know, 2 years ago I had reproductive rights that I don't have anymore federally and to just take it out because everything feels good here is I think irresponsible without a reason to to take it out. I haven't heard a reason to take it out. It Like why not why not >> Could I ask a suggestion because what the feedback I heard from staff is they were concerned that this uh requires them to actually do something that above and beyond what they're doing now. Like what if they're supposed to be doing a regular report just on this policy and these policy outcomes. I wonder if we could leave the language in but change it to you know, the superintendent will regularly include student achievement data disaggregated by race reports to the board throughout So,
038something along those lines that may address that concern. And also so is that what we're we're already getting that? So, is that Does that solve for just to report on this policy? Yes, I think. Or That's what I I think that's good. We are already getting reports and we maybe want to codify it by saying um I think there's a way for us twice a year or whatever. I'm sorry. I talked over you. What I was going to offer is I think there's a way for us to incorporate what I think I'm hearing which is you want me to articulate a bar. You want to articulate something close to the current bar. And I'm also hearing your the concern that that that we not that we're not creating an additional step that staff doesn't already
039do. And perhaps if we let us wordsmith that and include the racial equity team and make sure that now this is what you're currently doing and then that could be the bar that you all and we could bring that back to you. Does that That sounds great because frankly the bar what what you wordsmith should be much higher than this because we're we're already having staff give us a lot more than this and so that should be the the new bar but wordsmithed to not be more work but just saying hey this is the this is what our community has worked towards for 13 years and what we're doing regularly so let's do it and then >> And it will not be incorporated And inappropriate. Yeah, I've written down. Yeah. That's great. So we can
040we can take that as a to do then. Okay. Thank you. Moving right along. Naming school district property. Um There are very few changes. And and this probably will come up next year in the map I imagine. I mean I'm already hearing that. It's a hold there. If this is what you that the board wants to consider before it I I I've no idea how all of the school reimagining will go. Right. But this is my suggestion is that if this is one that is acceptable it's good to get it in front of the whole board so that it's decided before the reality of applying it hits. Yeah, I agreed. Um I mean, can I can I just push back a little bit? Um Sure. It doesn't This changes absolutely nothing about the process, right?
041Right. The point is just for the board to have looked at it and make sure that this is the process. Staff are not recommending changes to substantive changes to this one. But, given the environment we're in, my suggestion is that you all as board members look at it and make sure before you actual situation in front of you. Yes, they did. determine that this is what you want. Yeah, that that was that was probably inarticulately said, but that was my suggestion. But, this is the this policy Did this policy change after McDaniel Ida Um Did the change or is this a policy that was in place when those two 12 2023. 12 2023. After McDaniel and after Ida B. Wells, for sure. So, this policy was amended after. So, they changed under a different policy.
042Okay. And they And they both ended up with I mean, they both had like the whole process with the community engagement, the alumni. The only part of change in this policy was the ability for community members to go directly to the board and request rather than to have um the request come through the district to the board. Yeah. Other than that. Okay. Yeah. So, basically, we're just saying, "Hey, read this because we might have to" Well, we have some schools that are you know, have been waiting in line to rename and um and then with the right-sizing conversations, it might be timely to to put this in front of us. Advice. Um to to just have this in front of us. I was in Cleveland last week and I saw again um we have the
043all of the student groups. There's going to be 15 of them that have typed up long paragraphs um with research behind it's so impressive the work that the students are doing. Yeah, it's very impressive what I saw. So so are you comfortable moving that one with the mostly non-substantive changes to the full board for Yeah, I think it's entirely non-substantive, yeah. Yeah, religious and cultural observances 2.30.010p religious and cultural observances. Yeah, I thought I had on this. Wait, are we imposing this [clears throat] one till our next meeting or Well, we still have time We're going to talk about it. So this one I was thinking about was it a public comment that was made or We had a conversation at a board meeting where there was a OSAA event on an observed religious holiday.
044The conversation we had at the board meeting was that OSAA is their own thing. And is there anything I didn't see anything in here and I wonder whether we should add in here that I don't know. We should work with OSAA to better align practices so that things don't get somehow looped them in or say that somebody will let them know if where where where avoiding a date because of XYZ reasons could they look at not scheduling something on those days? Is that possible? Is that Sorry, I'm sorry. Under three non-PPS sponsored events when school or PPS events are scheduled and controlled by organizations other than PPS for example OSAA after school national testing organizations PPS will advocate with those organizations such that events are not held on major religious and cultural holidays. But it
045doesn't say they have to say yes, but it does say that we will engage with So are we and they just Do we not? We'd have to ask athletics. I I would hate to Okay. give it up. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Um Okay, well I'm okay like saying, you know, we're going to work with you, but I'm I'm not okay telling another organization No, no. Uh uh. I'm not either, of course. Um I also don't think we have the jurisdiction to. Um That said, I would hope that everyone is reminded that this policy exists Yes. in case it's not happening as much as it should anymore. It's almost You know, when we we have the conversation about our calendar, um I would I would hope that we would share with our counterparts at those other organizations
046so they know when the calendar is. And And you'd also hope that they would collaborate. Right, like send out a draft calendar Yeah. to say, "This is what we're thinking for girls basketball state championships. Yeah. Is there Are there any Are we missing anything? Yeah. Yeah, maybe. But I I just don't know cuz I don't work with the school district. I don't know if that how that's happening. I'm sure it's happening though. Yeah. But the OSAA I think Well, athletics Thank you. school. >> [snorts] >> Student station 2.40.020P Oh, there's nothing here. That is a recommended position. position. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Um Can I Can I make a request? Um when we're doing the next tranches, if something is a recommended rescission, could it be like stamped on the top just
047so we're not going up and down and up and down like recommend rescind? Is that possible? A finger or something. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. I feel like I should print out the table. Um I haven't learned how to print from BoardDocs yet. I just tried it last night. I just I Thank you. Paper wasting is trees. Um okay, student education records. This one has looks like it has a lot of red lines on it. Um did you want to speak to this? Um where the changes are coming Yeah. Jeez. I'm struggling with BoardDocs. Um public access to district records redline. So I have had emailed legal just curious about the chapter one and I got your answer. So yeah. I didn't get the context for that. I really thought it was funny. Because I was
048trying to I was concerned that we are removing certain the process and then simply saying go to chapter 192 and I was curious without having time to look at 192 what 192 said. That's why I asked. Yeah. It Now it makes I'm sorry. I was moving fast too. I didn't have any of the context either. There's a whole robust process for appeal and it happens all the time. >> Okay. Yep. >> [clears throat] >> Okay. And you had your question answered? I did. Um Did you look at 192? Can you ask answer a question about it or no? Um I found it a shot. Yes, I mean we live in 192. >> in 192. So, um does it now issue a decision within 30 days, the board's procedures, um hold on. What section are you
049referencing? Um eight. E111. Does the does anything in 192 has anything in 192 changed from what is currently in Roman eight? Or is it like is it existing? And if you don't have that answer, since we're not moving this today, I can just look at it. So, the reason I modified this is because the original language speaks to an appeal to the school board, whereas 192 um gives a right to appeal um immediately to the DA. The DA. Okay, so that is the appropriate shortens the process for someone wanting to appeal. Okay, that was the question that I had. As a practical matter, that's what happens all the time. I I have to admit, when you asked me that question and now that I'm reading this, yeah, this has never happened. So, we're making it
050easier for people to maybe, I guess. It It's not taking the DA's or the board's time >> Yeah. to do something. Cuz by the time we got it in front of the board, the DA would have already decided, because the DA has time frames. That's right. >> We have time frames, the DA has time frames. Okay. By the time you all get it before you, it becomes moot and it's you're making decisions that honestly, the DA is That was That was the exact question I had. Thank you. Perfect. Sorry I didn't answer that in a way that I could have. You also did not articulate it very well. It's like, what does it say? A lot of things. Yeah. [laughter] Right. Thank you. So, we'll move on to 2.50. Like, 020, student educating records. There's
051a redline um attached. Do you want to speak to this one? Yeah, this one was mostly to bring it in line with the recommended OSBA policy, which So, the Beaverton already adopts um and to modernize it. I think it really is something that OSBA And um Beaverton adopts their policy word for word. I think I read that. Okay. It almost is the case. And is there um interesting copy of is So, I was wondering about um Is there a reason to take out two? So, that was replaced I'm not seeing that was replaced with section six. Um Hello? Mhm. She's added. Wait. I don't think six says um PPS has an affirmative duty to provide records requested to find another school. That's five. Uh >> Well, the numbering has changed. Okay, so it's the It's
052It looks like on my copy it looks like seven. Seven. PPS will comply with the request from parents, guardians, or student 18 years or older to inspect and review records without unnecessary delay. But that doesn't incorporate what two had in it, which is students with disabilities and their parents have additional rights under federal and state law with regard to student education records. These rights have been included in the special education manual located Is there a reason that we're not So, the rest of that section six, which might look like seven, it sounds like two as speaks to um the rights of students or parents and students with disabilities and to examine their records. It does reference so law. Um Should we add in federal as well since there are federal protections? The parents have additional
053rights under federal and state law with regards to student records. which is I think that you you get will also have a an 18-year-old student who doesn't need a parent. So, I think the wording above students with disabilities and their parents or something that allows autonomy of an 18-year-old student with disability cuz this paragraph reads that only parents of students with disabilities have that opportunity. And we need to make sure that autonomy for 18-year-old students still exists. I don't see where the student who 18-year-old is not included in six. It looks like seven. PPS will comply with a request from parents, guardians, Yep. or a student. Um Yep. But then the next one specifically talks about students with disabilities and it references parents of students with disabilities. And we're removing students with disabilities and their
054parents have additional rights. Um So, I think it needs to read PPS will give like we had above, students with disabilities and their parents. So, that an 18-year-old student with disability has an opportunity to examine all student education records in accordance with federal and state law. So, I don't understand if it's Oregon law, is it is it separate from federal law? I don't understand that. Is it there's no there's no downside to adding federal because I think particularly with when you're talking about students with disabilities, it's more federal law than state. Yeah. Okay, so it could be at that line. at federal law, yeah. The section six Yeah, and Yes, oh no. It's not on there. It it is actually six, but on my copy it says seven. It's just two is removed. I didn't
055renumber. It was probably done in Word. Word and numbering doesn't get it. It's So, okay, so we're going to add federal, so it's implicit. implicit This one's been revised a lot. It's like um And then are we also going to work on the parents of students with disabilities to include We can Yeah, you've got that. Okay. Thank you. District performance audit auditing Again, this is being considered and discussed in the audit committee. Um but any changes would have to come through us and I don't Yeah, I wondered about that. I wanted to talk about that because if it's in the audit committee, which is three board members, and it then comes here where there's two more board members, we're then running it through five. I don't know why it wouldn't just go to the full
056board from the audit committee. It needs to come to the policy committee cuz it's a policy change and I we the redline we haven't seen the redline yet. Right, no we didn't. So, it's also like a staff directed. So, yeah, they're going to discuss it there, but it needs to come through if there's any change or any I think there's what I've heard from our internal auditors there are some substantial changes being Okay. um considered. And and and yes, there's three people there. There's three people here, but we need we need it needs to come through this committee. They don't have the authority to make the changes. Mhm. But what happens if So, what would we I'm on the audit committee, so if we move it out of the audit all three of us move
057it Do we move it out of the audit? What happens? I guess that's what you're asking. >> question. Yeah. I I understood that they didn't have the authority to do policy changes in that in that committee. Well, your policy on policies is what would govern, so we'd go back to read that. >> It it says I've looked at this language and it says the committee, but it doesn't say the policy committee. Okay. So, it suggests the best reading I could give you is it suggests that it should go to the policy committee that policy should go to the policy committee. Mhm. But it to be candid, it doesn't say the policy committee. So, what I would suggest that if audit looks at it and does whatever audit does with it, it could move it to
058the policy committee. It could say our input is all incorporated and give it to policy committee, so the policy committee could conform it to how all of the other policies are. And that's the one suggestion I have, which is truly a suggestion. It's not in your policies, but the one thing we're doing this year very intentionally is conforming all of them to one another and cross-referencing. And if we pulled one out and it went this way straight to the board, there's no reason if that legally if the board did it, the board can take up a policy by itself Yeah. Um it could do that as well, but my suggestion is to incorporate it with the others. So, two questions. There's nothing preventing legal from putting it in the same structure from audit committee, right?
059Like I haven't seen it. If audit committee sees it and we're What did What was the word you taught? We're auditing? Conforming them. Yes. I mean, you it could be conformed before audit committee >> told us to, we could do that, yes. If the board is telling >> That's audit. Um if audit committee sees If that would be a really good question to ask to your policy on policies. >> Staff won't do it. We won't The board wants us to do it. So, then my second question is what happens if three people in audit say we like it and it comes here and it doesn't move out. You have three board members who have said we like it. Yeah. I don't know that policy can stop it. Right? >> Well, the question is what is
060What is it that I would have to go back and say what did audit do and look and see what motions were made and my hope would be that the that they would make a motion to send it to policy and then if it gets stopped, they can make a motion to send it to the board. Yeah. In the end, it's the seven of you all who have the authority on boards on Excuse me, on policies. So, I don't I don't know anything about it and I don't I mean, I I'm aware of it, but I don't know how it will play out and I don't know. >> Yeah, I guess we'll see in audit. It'll just see how it goes out. So, and I've talked to our internal auditor about it and we had
061a meeting scheduled a week ago today. I'm sorry. Yeah, a week ago today and unfortunately, we had to cancel. Um but that's one of the topics that we're going to talk about. Okay. How to move this forward and actually also what the changes are because um you know, it's it's kind of an interesting situation cuz the board actually manages that role. Yeah. So, we want to make sure we get it right. And one other thought I would offer and I don't say this with any degree of territoriality, but what you get what we bring to you has legal review before it comes to you. >> And that wouldn't isn't happening or I I don't know. Maybe it naturally Anyway, you I would My my recommendation Let me put it this way. My recommendation is to
062ensure that however that happens, whichever committee it goes through, that you do get legal review for as well, which can happen a myriad of ways. >> Right. That's the one thing I want to say that that I is a legal Yeah. Like the Yes, I Yeah, I agree that you not looking at one that can stretch the board Right. >> without legal review. Yeah. Yeah. And And our practice has been like on educational policy that um like if it's discussed in teaching and learning, it still come to the policy committee. Um I believe that's correct. I'm not sure I've been here long enough to confirm that for you. I'm trying to think if I I think the practice has always been to take it to policy committee. I'm sorry. I'm sitting next to somebody who
063would know for sure. I should have let her answer. All right. So, anyway, this is what I mean. And is that is what I described accurate about policy? Comes to policy. I'll I'll make a request again for the redlines so we can get them here, but today's the purpose was just to broach the topic and not to make any decisions one way or the other um except to say that yeah, we we'd like to see it we'd like to see it here. Well, I guess I'm going to see how it all plays out. Right. I mean, if it should see maybe we don't need it to go here. I don't know. There's no policy decreeing that it must come here. I don't know. Like I guess I have to see how it all plays out
064having not seen it and having not had the meeting yet. So, I don't I don't know how it's going to play out. I think I would offer two pers- two thoughts to consider. One, I don't think that that's been the practice of this board, so that would be a variant that you need to consider. Okay. And then the other is what I said earlier, which is making sure that it conforms, you know, policies are treated as a whole for lack of a better word. Well, that makes sense. No, that makes sense. I I also um I also spoke with our internal auditor and had have requested that that we follow the schedule from this committee and that's to do the tranches and that ties into a different tranche. >> What number is this? One or
065two? >> a tranche. So Oh, so it's full board anyway. Yes, it's full board anyway. And so it's um So they're doing one with the full board. We're going to do section one with the full board. That hasn't been scheduled yet, but I I've already given the internal auditor a heads up that it would be by the end of the year. End of 20 End of school year or end of 2026? >> Yes, the end of the this I'm sorry, the end of the the academic year. June 30th. Okay. Okay. So then we can We have already as a board decided that we're not taking up one in policy committee and we're going to take it up entirely with the full board and this is part of one. Yes. >> Then it should go to
066the full board. It doesn't need to come here. We've already decided that. Right? >> Well, I think that there probably needs to be some discussion at the audit committee. And there probably needs to be some discussion here, too. I think it I I don't I don't think it hurts to have them both. Also um to present to both. On retreat, too? You guys want to Well, so talk about structure. Yes. We'll see. The the hope is that on our retreat that we talk about this is I believe on our next retreat agenda. One? I mean section one. Yeah. Yeah, cuz there's a lot of interest in people um you know, having some input into this. Like I think it's really important um but I also want to just respect the practice that we've had um
067former boards um to to bring any policy changes to the policy committee. Just out of respect and out of like practice. >> Totally, but this board Haven't we as this board Haven't we decided to not have tranche one come through policy? So, why would we have a separate decision for part of tranche one? I I don't know That's what I'm missing. I I just I I I just spoke with our internal auditor and asked that um we can't tell her what to discuss or what not to discuss um in her committee. We've asked as as a courtesy to bring it to this case. So, I don't know. And this is Oh, and I've also said that this would be discussed by the full board. So, maybe it doesn't need to happen conversation in either sub
068committee. I don't know. That makes That last part makes more sense. Like if if we've already decided as a full board to deal with all of tranche one >> together. >> 1.60.040 should Except the senior internal auditor would like to discuss it in the audit committee. Well, so That is not coming from the board. That's coming from staff. Okay. All right. Perfect. I think with that, um we can talk about other business um and future agenda items. I just want to say that we've had um a couple requests um one is the climate policy and the clean air and that I believe is um being looked at and that one does not have a like please by the end of the year. Um we have the foundation policy. It's been requested that we do something
069by the end of the year. I don't know if that's going Um and there's one more you don't have to bring this. At least those two, foundation and uh climate policy. Is foundation different than what Dr. Sullivan asked for? Uh we'll be discussing that um tomorrow. It's on our agenda. But is it Is it different? Is it No, it's the same. Does it need to be something different than what she's asked to do. >> No. Tomorrow we'll have a discussion. It's just a discussion. It's not like an action that we do, but we'll have a discussion to see if there's interest in putting a pause or or something else. But until that happens, like we don't have to separately do anything in the calendar I'm just I'm just bringing up two items that have been
070brought to my attention. I'm just trying to air them out. Got it. Okay. And um are there are there future topics anybody else would like to hear? Future topics? You would like to see your ideas? Other business or future agenda items? I would love We've heard public comment. We've had a lot of written comment. We've seen a lot of articles and LA Unified just did something pretty bold. And I would love to talk about screen usage for our kids. That was the third one. Yeah. And what that looks like. I mean, we we know that there's um preschools that are 100% outside. Yeah. Um because we know how important nature is. Right. Yeah. So screens. Yeah. Thank you. That was the third item. Yeah. So there's Yeah, we've gotten a lot of testimony. There's some
071organizing happening. Um some parents organizing around um excessive screen time in preschool and a desire to have a human being in front of them with a whiteboard or people, but they would like more um you know, human interaction and less screen time. Thank you for that match. >> [snorts] >> With that, I think we're adjourned. Thank you. >> [clears throat]