001that you want to send in to get put on the agenda that you copy everybody here. Well, it would be Sharon. >> Yeah. >> Or both of us. We're both going to >> Or both of you. >> She's late, but I'm >> Okay. Why don't you We um If you have an idea, you know, I want to look at a policy. Um just send a note. I'd like to put this on the agenda. It'll get on the agenda. Copy everybody. We'll all know about it and it'll end up on the agenda. Um I also just want to state out loud I hope this is a collaborative space where we can just puzzle through policy decisions. Um I know that there's a body of work where every year we look through the policy handbook and you
002know look at the things that are amended in 1971 and try to make an effort to update them. Um coming uh further down the line there'll be there's like a a look at some of our policies that have have to do with our employment language. It's just they'll be updated to be a little bit more friendly and less you know paternalistic and more in line with 21st century practices. Can I make one plug for staff support? Yes. To pass. So if there are policy changes that you are contemplating, we're happy to help you know kind of start with the objective and then figure out where it might go in an existing policy or how to amend or to provide drafting support. So you all make the the decisions ultimately on all of it, but starting
003with the what are you trying to solve and then help we happy to help support draft language review. >> Awesome. So yeah, so it's I think it's a great idea always to say like what are we solving for? Actually, that leads us to our uh draft field trip policy, which I thought rather than um to your point, rather than reading through and have you both had a chance to look at that and compare the two, if we could figure out as a committee and with Director Wong, um thank you for joining us by the way, with Director Wong's um input, you know, what are we what are we solving for? Um what is the objective of the policy? And that would be for any given policy too, like what's the objective? What are we solving
004for? So, one of the things that we're trying to solve for is I think every time we've seen a field trip uh come through, it feels like it's needless oversight where it's a function that we could completely farm out to staff um given that there's guidelines that are followed and approvals depending on what the what the field trip is. Did you want to add anything? Um, Eddie? >> Yeah. Are we? Um, I just want to note really quick, I have a weird schedule today. Right around five. Um, I'm kind of the soccer mom of the family. 100% figuratively, probably 50% literally. Um, I have to take my daughter, so I need to kind of step away for a sec at five and then be back. So, hopefully I can do most of the discussion before
005then and then um I'll join soon after I drop her off for any further discussion. But yeah, I I want to kind of I brought this up because um in countless conversations with a lot of school principles um pretty much uh unanimously have very strong feelings about the field our current field trip policy um about how uh cumbersome it is, how it actually I had some comment how it actually disinvent it disincentivizes field trips. Um I think it's important to kind of know a little history behind it. So our current field trip policy was actually drafted a few years ago and it started uh the the the cause the what started the whole thing was it came from a single parent complaint about um a field trip at a particular school that happens yearly. Um
006while I don't disagree that there are some issues that need to be resolved um what's best practice is that those issues are resolved locally immediately um with the school with the principal etc. But instead, the path that was taken was a fix that was applied to the entire district and and it it kind of created a situation where it actually created more cumbersome and more administration for everybody and in fact put a lot of um especially a lot of our DI capstone projects in danger of no longer existing or being able to to function properly. Um on top of that the the the field trip policy is also viol violates a lot of what's considered best practices in terms of policy and you know and what's considered best practices in policy is that you know
007you set the direction and then the ad and this uh subsequent ads is what shows the how. So the policy is the the direction, the why, um, and the AD determines how. And the reason it's done that way is because things change, right? Um, what may apply 10 years ago doesn't apply today or there's different things today. Um, and so, you know, like self-driving cars are coming around probably someday. How does that change things? Or buses. Um so uh what what I want to capture in this uh policy this updated policy is keeping the um the why of the old policy which is basically um you know most important to me striving to making field trip experiences equitable and accessible inclusive for all students. Um tell me if I'm going too long but I just
008>> Yeah. and also safe, right? >> Also safe. And that and I think uh in consultation with kind of uh district leadership, you know, I think the the quote I like to quote is like a field trip policy should just be about field trips and and that's kind of where this is going. And um the other thing I also put in here is also more um feedback and consultation from school administrators. So if you look in in field trip approval process, you know, I I don't want to diminish anything. I want to actually elevate that our risk management department uh does a lot of things and they they are uh uh to be applauded for how much they have to take on. Um and but this gives them a lot of flexibility to actually be
009a part of writing the approval process. Um but it also gives a lot of um say to our school administrators. And the the reason I put this in there is because when things go wrong on field trips, the first people who get called are the principles, right? That so they get the feedback or when the when the kids come back um you know and the teachers and the the principles give feedback, it usually goes straight to the principles. So usually the principles are the ones that are um the most knowledgeable about what is needed and and frankly what isn't needed. And uh and so that's why in B I wrote that um you know these approval procedures not only should be developed in consultation with school administrator but um school administrators can also um um
010uh ask for an exemption for or or uh alternative proced uh approval process if there's like special case scenarios and stuff like that. So, I think uh that that was kind Sorry, I got the wrong one put up here. Yeah. So, that was kind of um the point of that and and so yes. So, there it is. Uh talk away. Let me know uh what I got completely wrong or whatnot and um happy to discuss. Thank you. >> Uh thank you, Director Wong. So, um I think what I'd like to do is like for ne in terms of next steps, if it's okay with other committee members is go back to staff and have them look at um recognizing what our objective is. Our objective is to minimize this like undue oversight to work with
011uh building administrators and risk management to come up with a process you know and I think it's kind of a tiered process that's spelled out like you know if it's just to Oaks Park there's a process and if it's overnight it's another process if there's travel involved etc etc does that sound um rather than spelling it out in the policy again we want to think about what the object objective of the policy is to reduce oversight I mean from the board and to put it back on kind of on staff. >> Um I just wanted to make sure with director Wong if does that capture >> Yeah. And in fact this is the the reason I wrote the policy this way is because it allows the administrative directive and risk management to be the ones
012that write the AD the the appropriate procedure. It gives a lot of power to them. the how to >> and how to do it, right? Um if you look at the old policy, it's very prescriptive and it may not be best practices anymore. Um and in fact, in terms of policy, it doesn't follow best practice. So um having such a rigid policy creates a lot of um just a lot of burden and especially when we're talking about um lean times where we have less staff. uh administrators are asked to do more uh with less and having be able to be responsive to them and take something off their plate that is they feel is unnecessary um I think is a huge move and you know one of the reasons I also ran for the board
013one of my I just want to be completely out there is that you know when I was working in the district what I hear over and over from um not just my fellow teachers but also school principles is that um you know I think it's getting better today but back then, you know, I'm talking about 8 10 years ago, um, a lot of them felt that um, they they didn't feel very supported by by central office. Um, it felt like, you know, the the the role of the central office is supposed to support our schools, not the other way around. And, uh, the old policy kind of reflects what I what I had trouble with is a very top- down approach, a very, you know, very managerial top down authoritarian type of uh, mentality. And
014I I wanted to kind of fix that and kind of change the culture of our policies and that we should be supporting our schools and um yeah, and that that's kind of a huge impetus for me. So, thank you for letting me blab blah blah blah. Please cut me off if I talk too much. >> Thank you, Director Wong. >> So, I guess I have a question with your um suggestion. If we do it this way and send it back to staff, what happens next? cuz um my thoughts about this in the law if you go to change a policy or law you redline through what you're changing so that people can see what's being changed and this entire thing would be redlined because we're getting rid of all of it >> and we're replacing
015it with something that >> frankly is much much more bare bones than what is there >> and so I would like to know specifically what is not a best practices um and I'm also looking at the current policy and seeing that anything that happens during the school day doesn't ever come to the board. So that doesn't feel authoritarian. It feels very principal directed. And for parents, if their school is looking at having the children leave the state, I mean, frankly, the policy concerns me if we're allowing people to just go to Washington because there's implicates federal stuff if things go wrong. But the current policy seems that it only involves oversight if kids are traveling a very far distance or going overnight. Both of which seem like they should have some oversight. So, I guess
016I'm I'm not Yes. >> I want to know what would happen next. >> So, as to your red line, yeah, I think common practice I know in this committee is to have a redline version uh so you can compare both. Um and I think that we could arrange for that. Um >> well, I think the whole thing would be redlined because there doesn't seem to be anything that it's not like we're just redlining a couple words. Like the whole thing would be gone and we would be replacing it with something. >> Yeah. >> Respond to that. Oh, >> yeah. I'm curious. Yeah. >> Um, I did start trying to redline the original one. I ended up crossing off almost everything except for the first paragraph. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> And and so that's how
017it started. The I also want to respond to the the issue about um when if it's required for board approval for travel that's over, you know, because the original one says uh the board needs to approve any travel over 150 miles. um what actually ended up in practice was more administrative. I think one of the the reasons for that was to try to oversee to make sure that um uh opportunities for travel and field trips were equitable across our district. And I completely agree with that, which is why I put in 2B, the board of education may request an annual port field trips. The reason that it didn't work out very well in these last few years is because a the board only saw um travel that was over 150. It didn't didn't see travel
018that was 100 miles or 120. And not only that, but a better way to see uh whether field trips were equitably being um offered is for an annual report actually to see all the field trips um instead of just one by one by one or the ones that come before us. So in effect it didn't work out that way um what we saw. And then the second thing that created a huge issue was that in order to get before the board required so many steps for schools to take that it became just really administratively burdensome uh especially because boards you know typically we don't vote on stuff we only vote on stuff once a month. So to get all the stuff planned once a month ahead of time or or sorry months ahead of time
019when things often change and not only that but it also requires things like for example travel plans sometimes change last minute or whatnot and it it also led to certain things with like increased ticket prices for example because of um the cumbersomeness of of the approval process. So we tried it for uh five years I think five six years and um it didn't work out that way. I mean, in terms of like the the hopeful benefits of it. And so that's why I think it and again it doesn't say that we don't have to do it that way. That's why it allows the administrative directive to define um how things get approved. >> I I think to just it's a really good discussion about robust process and board approval, right? And I I think it
020the the AD would never tell the board what it has to like the the staff wouldn't So if you all decide no board approval, it's probably no board approval. But what sits below that is a pretty robust process to vet the itineraries, the chaperons, background checks, insurance coverage, the lodging, the comp I mean there's uh and and that may be able to be streamlined in some other way. I think student safety and compliance with all of the many many rules about what happens when you care for children would still be in place. I think one of the big changes, not the only change, one of the big ones, whether the board approves that or not. And and there have been varying I I I agree with Director Wong's history on that. I think there were
021some board members who wanted it that way because they wanted to approve the field trips and there were others who want used it as a proxy for visibility on the equity front and there were different viewpoints. >> Yes. But the um I I would say the ultimate sign off by the board, you're looking at a collection of um you know records about it, but I I'm not sure what the what the ad is in terms of approval. We've never seen them denied because of something that's in >> the submission because it doesn't go to the board unless it has all of those things satisfied. So it is they did create it does create a different administrative layer and a time layer for the those the folks traveling and again I'm not here to have an
022opinion one way or the other. I'm just trying to like create the playing field of all the conversations we've had. >> Well say an example that could be that just in terms of board oversight uh team that wins um constitution team wins their state final and they qualify to be on a plane in two like a week and a half. But that that misses a board >> special meeting just to approve, >> right? So then we're gathering board members to approve that. Sometimes it's just like a calendar issue. So clearly there's no planning ahead if a team wins something and you want them to win that thing. Um but or a basketball qualifying something. I don't know. But that's the one thing in terms of time I I'm not advocating for anything but just an
023example of something >> I can say I've we get a stack of paper. It's got the basketball coach's name and it's signed off by multiple people throughout the organization and it's we've never denied. So it doesn't seem like it adds an additional there's no additional like safety level that it comes to the board. It's it's just a time a little bit of a time burden because it's already been all completely approved by the time it goes to the board. So it seems a little bit performative as well in that way. It doesn't add any additional safety that we see it. It's just that we see it. I don't know if I'm interpreting correctly. >> I think there are different viewpoints and depending on the board composition at the time. I mean, I think they're I
024think it is accurate that that I I don't recall a board denying because they were concerned about the safety or that that's the wrong chaperone or that's not the right flight or things like that. So, >> that's not what I meant. Sorry. And I frankly the idea of this policy as it stands allows a school to go to Vancouver without anyone overseeing which in my mind as a lawyer triggers just laws when you cross a state with children. And so there's some things in here that may actually concern me with principles just being able to take kids to Vancouver or um Battleground or somewhere without any oversight. But that is a separate issue aside. Um when I was talking about safety, I was thinking about that because we're crossing state lines kids without any approval
025other than just a principal saying let's go. >> Um my thought is not top down authoritarian. It's the transparency idea that the community is seeing where our schools are going and what our kids are doing and the community is getting to say I mean I can't imagine anybody would say a basketball team won they get to go to to nationals or a constitutional team won they get to go to to whatever nationals but they still get to see it and I think that's the part that um I like the oversight for because I as I understand the history of this which was amended in 2019 but it's been standing for 20some years is because there was a lot of inequity and lack of transparency for the community in seeing what other schools were getting to
026do >> and if the board is approving and it's in it's coming in a consent agenda um the community gets to see they get to ask questions maybe they get to have thoughts about we could do something like that it like sort of can spark thoughts and transparency and openness and so that that'd be where I'm coming from um in the idea of replacing it entirely. Um I guess my question is is there a better way to achieve that transparency? I don't I would be really surprised if there were community members that were like following our consent agenda to look for the field trips to get that visibility. But if we have a meeting where there is a report that's shared, it seems like that um achieves the transparency and community input portion and in
027a more accessible way than one one document within the consent agenda. Um because then if they were doing a report on it, that would be before the full board. Um, anybody watching would like be able to see that full report happen? >> I I guess I would be in favor of seeing a report to kind of look at communitywide, but you when these reports when these um approvals dribble in, you can absolutely see I mean some of our schools have international travel, many of them don't. So, you can see the inequity. Um but in terms of like the burden of having to wait for the board approval I think is something that the administrators would love to see and um yeah I I just you know you see these reports and you see who's going
028to basketball tournaments and constitution and the Jefferson dancers and international travel. So, I I would I would benefit by seeing an annual report and for those equity reasons and for transparency with the community, but I don't feel like I have to rubber stamp, you know, as a as a member of a governing board every every field trip. And it looks like um Eddie, you have your hand up. Um, yeah, I just want to quickly respond to I mean that's that's why the annual report I mean we've we've had a few board members from the the past board admit that oh yeah, an annual report would have been better in terms of trying to figure out if there's inequities and things like that to figure out um and that's part of our duty especially if we're
029prioritizing our board goals um to making sure that that these things are done equitably. Um the the big response I want to make is that it let's just say worst case or best case scenario worst or best that you know we just approve this uh proposal as is right um that doesn't mean that suddenly principles can just do whatever they want um our risk management procedures are still in place um we still have plenty of ads from the old uh uh field trip policy that would probably apply to there but what this does say is that the district needs to determine the approval process um and either through the AD or the appropriate risk management procedures. And so it it it is already I mean what we have in PPS is pretty robust um in
030terms of of safety and oversight to make sure our kids are you know all the check marks are checked off before they go. Um so I just want to respond to that. Um it doesn't it doesn't limit that in any way. In fact, I think it actually makes it could possibly make it more robust because um now it can easily adapt to, for example, new extenduating circumstances. Like for example, let's say there's a trip that's not 150 miles, that's maybe 50 miles, but it's to a more dangerous place, you know, whether that's like hiking through a canyon or something like that, right? Um then that allows more kind of flexibility in terms of like, oh yeah, our old rules don't really apply to this. we need to kind of adapt some some you know new
031uh extenduating services circumstances that we didn't think of before. So I I I I just want to put that out there that um this potentially could actually make it more robust. Not but what what it does do is that allows the flexibility to be um uh kind of responsive to what our schools and what our our school administrators need. Thank you. Um I guess back to my original question. If we send it to staff, I'm not ready to to say send it to the full board for first reading. Um agreed. >> In part because I just got it yesterday. >> I know it's been I'm sure it was in existence longer than yesterday. Maybe. >> Yeah, it has. But that's okay. We're >> Yeah, but I mean >> I'd rather do it right than >>
032Yeah. Like I would Exactly. So I would rather be able to read it and understand where the differences are um and what they are. >> Um yes. >> Yeah. So I guess what would be the sending it to staff what would happen next? It would come back to policy. >> So we could do a number of things to support the process. We could prepare a summary of the differences what changed which might we'd be happy to do that. when we have direction from the committee about going forward, we can help draft the proposal that would go to the full board. So I mean I think dealing in concepts instead of specific sentences is helpful at this stage. So shall we prepare that summary and circulate it and then >> I think that would be helpful.
033I mean, I don't know about you. I think it would be helpful to have a summary of what the differences are and we can bring in some of the elements of the AD that currently exist that have a lot of the robust risk management and other processes built in that might provide some context >> for that. That's okay. We'd be happy to do that. >> Yeah. I think also um you had said oh when it comes time I mean I I definitely don't feel ready to draft something to send to the full board because like I said I looked at this and realized it was a complete >> um substitution rather than slight >> finessing. We couldn't either because you three haven't decided anything yet. Yes. So the first step is for you to consider
034and then you know >> figure direction to staff and then we can draft to >> in in furtherance of your direction. >> I like that. Um so and in the in uh future whenever we have amendments they will come redlined. Good. >> So they'll be able to see uh where the changes are suggested and who suggested them etc. >> Um okay. So Eddie, does that satisfy for you? We're just going to send it back to staff to prepare a summary of where they uh the policies are alike and where they're not alike. Um and bring in um elements of the administrative directive as well, >> which is an 11 or 12 page. Yeah. So we can help get the full context. Would we have >> that would be great. Okay. >> Yeah. I wouldn't have
035it any other way. It would also be nice to have uh risk management or maybe someone from risk management to to also talk about it as well. >> Oh yeah, if we could invite that's great. We'll >> bring Kristen Wheeler, >> right? And do we need to hear from principles or building administrators or no? It sounds like we've heard. >> I think I think we should solicit some input from administrators that that had to deal with this because I >> again, you don't have to, you know, don't take my word for it because I I a lot of these conversations I had with principles, you know, came up casually. It wasn't like we formed about when it when it was brought up there was kind of overwhelming uh >> let's just say let's say dissatisfaction
036to put it kindly with the current policy. >> Okay. If we can if we can solicit some input I think that would be great. That way we cross all of the tees. We dot all of the eyes. We have people included. We want people to feel supported in their work. And just so that I solidify my thoughts um to some of the repeat travel like we're hoping a PPS school goes to national constitution team annually. >> Yeah. >> There could be fixes that don't affect the overall um policy by simply saying this can be re you know this is approved annually if it's already approved once right. So basketball, someone in PBS hopefully is going to move on to states they get to go and it's down in Medford so they don't have to go
037through the approval process or someone's going to go out to DC or no like there could be something like that >> like a standing approval except that the players change the players change every year the chaperoons change every year sometimes the principal I mean >> yeah the things approving are really granular like is it a sufficient housing like if the con team's going to go to the coast it's a hotel versus a rented house where the shops. Do they have are the background checks in and completed? So it it the the the place is repeat, but the the >> Yes, that's what I'm saying. Like maybe that would be sort of an exception like you don't come back through this process >> if it's if you're going to LA. >> If it's just con team
038n nationals, I think they would always want to make sure they had all of the component parts vetted for insurance and consents and background. >> She's saying the board. >> Yeah, the board. The board. Yeah. I'm just saying like um to the idea that to the point that like oh the kids won basketball and 3 weeks from now they have to go to nationals. Well last year they went and last year it was approved and so it could be an exception within a policy to overcome concern that there would be timeliness issues because we only vote once a month. That's what I'm thinking. like every annually we hope a PPS school is going to go to Conlaw Nationals and so when they get to Conlaw Nationals they have the automatic stamp of approval per the
039exception like this is a >> regardless of the school regardless of the the team or the players it's you know PPS of PPS school going to Conlaw Nationals wherever it is and whoever's going >> like stamped like I mean >> you mean but you're meaning for the board approval not for >> the board approval I'm talking about our like yes board approval, not the policy. The policy could be amended to say you don't have to come through board approval. If you find out Tuesday night at 9:00 p.m. that your team won the basketball championships and you're going to Nashville 9:30, you can start looking at tickets because you've already got the board approval through the exception in the policy. Like that's how I'm thinking it would be. But the draft is taking out the need
040for board approval. >> Yes. Entirely. That's the objective is to to move it off of the board agenda and >> have staff. But I think I like what you're you're trying to like how can we economize here? Um I think so one of the object one of the objectives I think I heard is that we want to reduce >> the time burden on and and the administrative burden on having us look at every field trip. >> And Eddie, you have your hand up. Uh >> yeah, thank you. Um, I also want to also request, can we have the policy that was before the 2019 revision? So, before this policy. >> Oh, yeah. This Yes. That's >> And the reason I asked her that is because, um, I'm just going to be blunt. Uh, this 2019
041policy was specifically targeted at Asian DI programs. >> Yes. >> And the Asian community has been feeling a huge burden from this policy being targeted by them. uh creating a whole burden you know a lot of extra layers of of just kind of unnecessary work and burden and expense. It's been increased a lot of expense. So and not only that but the results from this 2019 policy uh not directly at least we haven't really seen any increase in say like the equitable distribution of field trips or or safety you know we don't have those numbers like oh yeah are field trips safer because of the the 2019 policy. So I would like to see the um if it was possible to get the policy before the 2019 revision. >> Um >> we can find that.
042>> Yeah, because I mean I when I was a teacher then it it worked fine. Uh people kids were safe, things were being appropriately. So I I think it's important to also kind of look at you know what's the reason for keeping this 2019 I'm just going to refer to as a 2019 policy. >> Yes. And there's one component of it that we haven't touched on just for context and it was that change that was concerned with um trips that were of a certain duration and kids who didn't go what is the curriculum back. So that was that's the curriculum we'll highlight that just >> yeah I mean >> that was the component part about who stays and who goes and what it what it means and that's just the what the issue was as
043I >> yeah it was a it was a single parent a single family that was curious about >> what about my kid that doesn't go on the trip so >> um I guess if we're as part of this summary then I would love to that the list of all trips that are that happen. This annual report that could be created for us presumably has been created. There's a list somewhere of all the trips that happen. I would love to see them for the last let's see if we had 2019 that's 6 years ago. I'd love to see them for the last 12 so we can 10 or 12 so we could see >> 12 years >> like at least 10. >> I don't know that we'll have them. I actually I >> can we just
044look is what's the goal is the goal just to see >> like pre209 and post >> um >> to look at >> well like the what other trips are happening >> districtwide is has have we seen since this 2019 have we seen an explosion in schools doing more stuff? >> No. >> Okay. >> Um but I think it'd be helpful to go back a couple years and just get a list if we could >> let me see the data we have. I know that a certain tracking was implemented with the equitable field trip fund that the board created a couple years ago. I I honestly just don't know what was available or not before then, but let's see what's what we have and we'll report back and bring what we do. >> Yeah. Yeah, because
045if there's I mean it would be interesting to see if 2019 to now has there been sort of a bigger scope of field trips districtwide or have they kind of been the same? >> We have co in the middle. I mean that's this is a big magnet to the copus in that range because it just shutting things down for >> a while. So I mean we'll but let me see what we have and we can see what the dates. I'd be interested in seeing that, too. >> Yeah. I mean, I'll I'll finish my thought by saying if they look exactly the same as pre209 and the field trips were as robust then as they are now, that's going to change how I'm thinking about everything. >> So, um that's what I would like to see
046like what was happening. >> Great. So, is that good? Um we have one more thing to discuss and that's the plan to review current policies. I touched on a little bit earlier, but that's where just as best practice, we look through that manual to see things that are outdated, look for outdated language. Um, and just so you know, at the end of every policy, there's a you can see when it was last amended. And it's kind of interesting to go through our policy manual and say, "Oh my god, that was 1987. It was a different world. There was no internet when this was amended last," for instance. So, um, the other thing I want to bring up again, uh, you know, we're we're we've got looking at old, uh, current policies. We also have an
047opportunity to look at new policies. And I don't believe we have an AI policy. >> We do have an AI. It's embedded in the an AD on acceptable use. I'd be happy to circulate. >> That would be great. Is that um, >> so yeah, I I haven't seen that. >> It was done over the summer. >> Okay. Good. So it's like >> well yeah and I think the shared with us >> I think it was yeah >> yeah it probably was but I can recirculate it would be fine. >> It's in the inbox somewhere. >> Yeah. The thinking on AI because we talked the policy committee talked about an AI policy early on because it's such an active landscape to director Wong's >> statement before about high level >> and and that the policym process
048as it should is deliberative and takes time. the ability to adjust in an ad to changing technologies and practice to be nimble for what happens in the classroom. Um we we we went to that acceptable use place to embed some pieces. I'm sure it's not done by the way. This was the first >> okay >> um the the first shot at it with it's it we've talked about it three times today literally and I'm not even like at the head of AI district and so it is >> there's a lot of work. So, I think it's a good it's a good conversation to have. >> Yeah. I'm interested in what um you know, we're hearing from students and some parents have questions. >> Yeah. And the research is constantly emerging. >> It's this is good,
049this is, right? >> It's just fascinating. It's really fascinating. Um so yeah our current policies again the human resources policies we want to make the language more 21st century you know less paternalistic uh more you know bring the language up to date >> um and that'll be probably ongoing um I think is that Sharon will be doing take the lead on that and try to bring them in >> in tranches yeah we've tried in the p in the past a lot of our policy amendment I'm sure you'll look at it and go really you guys have done I mean it's amazing how many have been rescended just really outdated about >> girls and boys having different expectations for PE I mean like really old stuff >> but yeah I mean it's just it's really remarkable
050so >> we've done it on an individual policy basis most of the time and I think Sharon's approach for this is really smart to take it in bigger chunks >> that's that's less about substance although there will be some substance I predict But it's more about the cleaning up the tone and reflecting the culture. When you read a policy, people who read policies are trying to get it right. >> I feel like that we are all in this together. >> Yep. >> Good. Good job. So, >> so two two questions. Um, it sounds like someone else is going to send to us what we should look at, not that we have to go through and look at. True. Okay. Good. Um, and excuse me. >> To your point earlier, if we have a policy idea,
051should we draft something and then send it out or >> you could >> Okay. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Or or talk about the concept. I mean, I will say just from a >> interesting >> Yeah. I lots we've done it lots of ways. I think sometimes starting with specific language, we get >> mired in the language instead of the objective. >> And so starting with the objective and thinking through what do we want to have it do? and we meaning all of you and us helping to >> and then putting the language in it. >> I mean I will if director Bern Edwards is watching somewhere she and I have gone back and forth. She loves to start with the language you she chaired the policy paper and I kept saying really like if what
052are we trying to do and then let's get the language to go. So they're both both sides work but you just get >> get some remnants of language that doesn't move when it should. >> Yeah. for drafting preferences, but we want to get the the policy substance right, which is what you all want. >> I don't know if that's too much commentary. >> No, I think I think that's fine. So, does that make I mean it makes sense to >> if it you know I mean I I like writing and so I sometimes like to start by writing. It helps me organize my thoughts. Um but I guess I was inviting committee members to send in you know for instance I'd like to look at the dyslexia policy. I'd look to like to look at
053the safe routes to school or transportation, you know, related policy. Okay. >> So, ideas, I guess, and objectives and then we can talk about more language. >> Another good reason to start with the objective is sometimes the something is covered in several different policies that might be good for you just to know. >> Yep. Oh, or there's work that's not in a policy, whether it needs to be elevated to a policy or it's actually covered in a in an AD or the employee handbook or a different manual that's all binding. None of it's discretionary. It's just not a lot of work. So we had a really great experience with director Sullivan last year who had a question about something and so we said well let's set up a meeting and and um the senior team
054member from OTL came and they talked through what it was and what the work plan was and just sometimes that information about where it is and where it sits like okay we don't we've been watching we like updates but we don't need a policy right now. So that's I had a similar experience just this week >> where I was like, you know, I want to dig into um our dyslexia policy. How do we deal with dyslexia? You know, you go to a conference, you learn that there's like 20% of the population has dyslexia. And um staff was able to walk me through um what the state requires and how PPS is exceeding what the state requires. and testing is actually happening not just once per year but three times a year all the way up
055I think through 17th commune. So it was all news to me. So >> So then if um so if I have an idea for a policy rather than just saying I would like this on the next agenda and then the next agenda then we say now we're going to send somebody to write it >> like yeah reach out to Sharon. >> Yeah. And then it could be written by the next like if I sent it out today, it could ideally be written in advance of the next policy committee so we could talk about it there. Okay. Okay. Somebody can write it. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Got it. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Does that make sense? >> And I think that's all we have on our agenda today. So we have no public comment. >> We
056not have anybody sign up. >> Thank you. And the other thing I just want to um it's really important to me to hear from people and so we've we're going to keep the public comment up on top. So >> if moms come in and they've got dinner on the stove, they can come in, give their comment, leave. >> Um, >> I prefer to have it at the top, too. >> Yeah. Excellent. And keeping it to two minutes. >> That's great. >> All right. I think we are journed. >> Great. >> Thank you.