001[music] I will call the policy committee meeting to order. Um, number two on the agenda is the pledge of allegiance. Lu Stanford. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right. Public comment. Uh number three in the agenda is there public comment period number one. Seeing no no one signed up for public comment number one, we'll move on to the discussion. All right. Policy cover page. >> There we go. Okay, [snorts] thank you Dr. Wear. Um, for just for for logistics sake, we do have a cover page listed here as item A. And that cover page, M. Moyer has opened that up on the screen really just kind of takes
002um [clears throat] each of uh the members here through a little bit of a chronological order of what we hope to attempt to achieve the night tonight. um through this meeting and going through policies, you'll see the color codings that are there. If it's listed in blue, it's still under review. If it's listed in red, uh the policy is simply outofdate. And what what we mean by out of date is that it's beyond three years. We've set a three-year look back and we want to make sure that the policies themselves are as current as they can be. Um, however, if it's red, it's out of date. But there are no new updates. So, we we we are suggesting that um that we can take a look at that and redate that that we have reviewed
003it on on such a date um as the board so chooses. If it's listed, if it's colored in green, there are some recent updates to the um the actual policy or the administrative regulation. If it's in purple, um, we want you to consider that for possible adoption. It's typically something new that's come out of PSBA, whether there's been law changes or there's been some updates to some of the formatting um, of the policy and language of the policy itself. And if they are um, colorcoded in black, the policy is inside the three-year. And we just want to note that as we are doing through our policy committee just a chronological um look at each of these and some of the policies themselves are within three years that the the district has reviewed those um currently
004inside that window. So that's a little explanation of the cover page there. Um we'd like to start with item B which is policy 004.1. We have brought that back to the board. Um, there were still some changes that we uh want to make sure that we're clear on and I believe Ms. Kratz, you had some considerations that we may want to look at and adopt. >> So with that, >> it's the second paragraph under participation. >> It says student representatives shall work together with the assistance of the student council adviserss to prepare a brief report. They do the report themselves. They don't get any assistance from the student council advisors. >> Okay. So, if we were to exclude language to prepare a brief report with prior approval of the building principal and representative board member,
005we can eliminate that. Okay. >> Yes. >> And pretty much end it with brief report period. >> Yes. >> Okay. Is that it in terms of the cleanup? I know we've been through this policy a couple different times. >> Yeah. >> Okay. All right. We'll make some of those changes to that and um take that to its next stages as well. All right. So, that takes us over to policy uh 105 and that is um curriculum policy. This was originally adopted in 2015. There is a proposed update. Um members have been given the proposed um language to to this as well really defining curriculum and the guidelines surrounding curriculum. Some of the pieces that are newer to this are um provisions for special education observances to comply with both state and federal laws. And you
006can see a number of those things that are listed there on the second page of the proposed um policy itself. um some of which is continuous access for all students, ELLL's uh program for English language, compensatory uh ed programs pursuant to laws, etc. So, this policy is really updated in just some of the languages that apply to both federal and state law probably were not in place at the time back in 2015. So, here we are, you know, a decade later. Um, hence the reason we want to maintain a at at minimum or a maximum a three-year look back window with with all policies as best we can. Any questions with regard to 105 and the proposed and we do have this evening with us Mr. Stout, assistant superintendent, um, along with Mrs. Petri, our
007uh director of OTL to answer a lot of our curricular type questions that we're going to see here in the 100 series. Anything that we want to talk about with 105. >> We okay with that? >> Nope. >> Okay. Okay. All right. All right. So item D 105.1. This is the review of instructional materials by parents, guardians, and students. Um, again, there is no um no new update to this. The last time it was um reviewed was back in June 11th of 2024. We've looked at that um and nothing's being suggested via PSBA at this time. So again, uh I would suggest that we um move that forward unless there's any questions with regard to it. >> Yes, I have a question here. Under guidelines, uh third line, a teacher may share up to one
008week's worth of less lessons. Why the word may? Shouldn't it be shall shall? >> Uh that's a it's a good >> second. Uh first bullet, sorry. First bullet. Uh if the parent and guardian requests additional information regarding the lesson, the teacher may share up to one week's worth of lessons. I'm wondering if it's um that they might not need the full week's worth that but it's up to a week's worth. So, they wouldn't be sharing necessarily a month's worth, but they would share up to a week's worth of a week's worth of um materials. >> Okay, let's take a pause for a second. We lost audio. I think it's all the way around. >> Now, we back off. >> Okay. >> I think the reason it says May is that um they may share up
009to a week's worth. So, it might the request might not require a full week's worth of contents or resources um depending on what their request is asking, but it would be up to a week's worth of materials. Okay. Um Is this one? Yeah. Uh second thing, is there an appeals process to this? If a uh uh parent were to appeal or to um question the process, right, it goes to the building principal, then the superintendent uh or director of teaching learning, then the superintendent, and those are denied. Is there an appeals process? Uh is it is it board app do they come to the board to talk? Uh, is it the end all beall at the superintendent? I don't see an appeals process. Is that an is that a test? Okay. >> To clarify what
010you're asking, um, are you are you saying if they are denied, but I I I guess what what are you look what are you asking about as far as an appeal process? >> So So if [clears throat] a parent were to come up and um ask for >> Is that on? >> Sure. uh if a parent was to come and ask um you know regarding um some sort of uh you know information like curricular wise whether it be a unit a lesson a unit a video um it would go to the principal correct and if the principal denies that request then I guess it would go then to director of teaching learning then it would go to the superintendent is that correct and then if those are all denied moving forward is an appeals process.
011Now it's on. So in this policy there is not a former or a formal appeals process in that within our you know other policies that we do have a complaint process things of that nature it naturally works its way through a system of which um if we want a if we want to include some sort of delineation of the process that that takes we can list out that process in here and and make it a little bit more clear. I think the guidelines kind of speak to it. It does work through. If you look at the guidelines, it really takes it through through the director of curriculum. It doesn't it doesn't end with superintendent or board, but there's there's a process that's that's in place there with regard to those those types of things. Um,
012so yes, I mean, we can we can do that. The idea behind this is also the board is already no doubt has approved the curricular materials that are that are being used here. So you've given authority for the for the administration to delineate those materials and those processes. This is more of where those individuals don't necessarily agree with something that's that's part of that, but it's already been board approved. So it would be something that would be already coming back to um you as a board that's already been approved by you as a board. Right. Right. >> But the concerns could certainly be heard in >> and that's what I'm looking at concern. So, um, if you would like us to put something in there that would delineate the the that process, we can certainly
013do that. >> Make it a little cleaner for for some parents just to understand. >> Okay. All right. We'll try to put something in there that will delineate the process of of that. All right. 1052. So, uh, [sighs] again, exemption from instruction was revised in 2024. Since that time, and it's just a short while. There has been a proposal to that. You can see the proposed um, policy that exists there. We're recommending like for instance if you look at the top um half of the policy at the beginning where it says to select the first two options or the third options third option. We're suggesting that the third option be checked on this policy and then as we would reconfigure the policy itself the other two pieces would go away. And Mrs. Petri if you
014want to explain a little bit behind the selection of that. >> Sure. So if you look at uh at the top where it says authority um it notates it notes that um this would be in specific instruction that conflicts with the sincerely held religious andor moral beliefs. So because that is the authority of the the reason that a a a parent will be making this request for exemption, we felt that it didn't need to be repeated again uh in those two bulleted items that the statement the rights granted by this policy are granted to parents and guardians of students enrolled in the district when the students are under the age of 18 and the students themselves when the student is 18 or older. Um, we felt that that met the policy guidelines that were outlined
015in the authority section. >> Any questions to that? >> So, is that just saying that when students turn 18 that does that mean that the parents don't have that right anymore? Does it transfer or does it add? >> Parents still have the right. it adds. So if a student felt that they it was something that they um had a had religious or moral um beliefs against that that they would be able to bring that to their the school's attention, their teachers attention. Um they would they would be able to do that for themselves. A parent could as well. It doesn't take that parents rights away, but it allows the child to also speak for their beliefs. >> Now, if this is an emancipated uh 18-year-old, how is that going to work? that that obviously they're
016they're not with their parents or legal guardian, right? They're they're not making educational decisions >> on their own. >> In that case, we would follow whatever legal documents that we had regarding how we would manage that that situation. So, it really would be a case-byase basis and in that student's individual file, we would know what that those steps are for that child. >> Okay? So if I'm understanding this correctly, the option number three um encompasses options one and two with the uh where was it? Um the moral belie and moral beliefs. Now um religious beliefs are protected under the law. Moral beliefs kind of add another layer to that. So what what is the thought process behind that? >> Well, I just think um just being respectful of that that we're not asking someone for
017their to um disclose their specific religious beliefs, but they fall under similar umbrellas. Um, so we're making sure that if someone felt that it was not morally what they believed in that that would be something that we'd be able to have that conversation about. >> Okay. I guess where I'm getting at is moral is more um subjective in ter you know it's left up to the interpretation of whoever is hearing that um complaint that that question. But like I said, I'm just I'm just asking the question to see how we're how how we're thinking through this. >> My opinion of that would be such that um just like with standardized assessments and um religious beliefs being one of the opt out um it's allowing the opportunity for somebody to verbally state what their specific concerns
018might be and it is left up to interpretation. So, it little grreyness there as far as the clarity goes, but um it does not force somebody into making a religious um statement to opt out of whatever it may be. >> Okay. I'm I'm just concerned, you know, if things start to uh you know, come down to reading this policy, making sure that we have, you know, black and white clear guidelines to that. Uh because again with being things being left up to interpretation um just not sure you know how that how the chips may fall you know if a lot of parents are starting to uh you know make concerns question questioning making concerns um how are we fair and equal >> you know I think we have to also consider you know we're we're
019we're responsible to the standards that are created by PTE so it's listening to any concerns that somebody may have as it relates to the standards that are issued through the state department of education. We do that already like you know one example again Mrs. Petri said is the testing component. We don't question those religious and and andor moral beliefs that come behind that. There's an allowance for that exclusion from that that that particular testing. um you know we do have conversations with folks in regards to those data points that we're then not able to necessarily see and and have um for that there isn't necessarily a responsibility of a replacement assessment at that particular time here there is and I think if we start to see a propoundonderance preponderance of individuals and families that are
020coming to us with moral concerns with regarding our curriculum now we've got deeper problems probably inside of our curriculum themselves. So, I think that that that is a pause for us if we're starting to see those types of situations occur more regularly that we probably have something more flawed inside of our our design of our curriculum as it relates to trying to meet some standards than it is to whether or not I don't know that you're ever going to get a definitive um way in which we're going to reasonably be able to look at this um making it so clear on on either side, right? This this is more a policy that says and gives the authority for the district to say, "We understand there's reasonleness to looking at curriculum and you as a family,
021you have rights as well, and we want to make sure we're considering those to have those conversations. And if there is a large enough concern that we can come to an understanding with, then we'll we'll have some other complimentary types of activities that we can do differ from this." Sure. >> Um, and I I I think that this policy isn't necessarily made to try to figure out it's completely right or it's completely wrong. I think it's really trying to uh meet people where they are in terms of their understanding and their reasonleness of what their and allowing their opinions to occur um inside of what their children are exposed to. We have to be able to certainly say we're delivering this curriculum in this way and these activities in this way because we believe it
022best needs meets the needs of students responding to the standards that are there making them most proficient um in in in their ability and skill sets and knowledge of related to the standards. However, we understand your concerns and here's something else that can be a replacement for that. And like I said before, if if we get into that cycle where we're seeing this in one area, then we've got a bigger flaw somewhere else inside of what we've developed. Correct. >> Sure. I I just don't want this to turn into a slippery slope, you know, as we move forward. >> Yeah. No, I I I I understand, you know, now that again through conversation and talking through it, I now understand why number three would be the best choice >> because because again, just reading it
023uh without the the dialogue behind it was, you know, the opt out. I have right here in my notes, the opt out um is confusing, right? The board must choose one of these three, the first two or or the third one. Yeah. Yeah. >> So again, it was very very difficult to, you know, see in black and white um without the conversation behind it. So thank you. And again, some of the added other added pieces, the bolded pieces there at the bottom. Um, you know, and as we move forward with the possibility of this being an approved policy, again, making sure that we're giving direct notices, making sure that this policy is shared at the beginning of the school year, which it is, so people are understanding of the the types of of pieces when
024it comes to the authority and their own rights as a family. um procedurally. The one big piece also um that you see in there is the exemption from dissection activities which again comes in and and you know is involving um famil family's beliefs as it relates to um capture or harm or their feelings related to animals themselves. So, this is a piece that's been added in there um most uh most most notably as well. And we do have um other ARs that will apply to this as well. So, those are some of the ads that are part of this proposed. And again, this is just within the last year and a half that this this updated proposed policy has come out. Anything from anyone with regard to it? 1052. All right. So, we'll do a
025little work on that and checking that off, getting rid of some of the things that don't aren't needed in that for for that particular policy and bring that back to you then as well. All right. So that takes us into one uh what are we on now? 1052 AR1. And um [clears throat] again for procedural purposes, PSBA has issued a kind of a standardized form for exemption allowing them to fill in rationale, reasons behind things of those uh those nature that would allow us a little bit of a starting point for conversations about next steps and if there is an exemption granted from from the particular instruction. Mrs. Petri, you looked through this form um pretty closely. Anything that that you believe should be changed or not? >> No, I think they're they're pretty straightforward
026as far as communicating the the reason and the topic specifically that they want their child to be exempt from. So, it allows um an opportunity for the parent or and guardian to express their concerns. >> Now, just as a point of clarification, can we give them this this form? Will we with with the PSB low or do we change this to to us? >> Once we would adopt the policy, we would revise these with our our letter head. >> Sure. >> Yep. >> Okay. Takes us to 105.2 AR3. And again, this goes back to 1052 policy 105.2. two um which did include the dissection piece to this. So again, anything there, Mrs. Petri, that you want to speak to or Mr. Stout? No, it's in align with the policy recommendations and allowing that opportunity for
027parents to be informed and then again uh something that to be considered 105.2 AR4 this would be the notice. So this is something newer that we have not done in the past. If the board wants to consider including this a notice of that dissection typically it's been a little less formalized in this this would be a notice that you know let's for let's say for a biology classroom a teacher would be coming up on a an experiment that might have dissection in that. These notices then would be sent to students um allowing them to understand um that this is going to take place and um you know what the parents and students have in terms of their rights behind those. >> I think it should be noted that it's a three-week notification as far as
028what the actual policy states. >> Okay. making sure that we give three three weeks notification of the prior steps to that being a part of the opportunity that's happening in the classroom. >> Mr. Stout, that's in 1052 where it notes that or does it noted on that actual AR? >> Yeah, it's actually um in the the exemption from dissection activities in 1052. The district must notify students and parents and guardians of the right to decline participation in such activities at least three weeks prior to the start of the education project. down at the bottom of the it's in bold. Just think they need to align if we're putting that on the on the AR that >> Yeah. And that's on the the newer proposed. >> Correct. >> Yep. >> Got it. Anything you want to
029discuss with regard to this AR? Okay. Okay. Takes us down to 10 5 three animals in the classroom. So currently we have um policy that was adopted in 2015. There are no new updates. Um I am suggesting to the board that we take a bit of a pause with regard to this policy. I have seen some um in my estimation some more in inclusive and um a little bit deeper thought policies when it comes to animals in the classroom. Um, you know, we're in the era of service >> uh animals and there's a lot of considerations that need to be made when it comes to um students and the intersection of animals and um allergies and all the other things that that relate to this. Uh I we currently have a policy that's active. I
030I don't think it has a lot of meat to it right now. Um, I'd like to bring some policies from some other school districts forward to you so we can make some comparisons on this particular um, while PSBA doesn't have any updates, um, some other school districts have have done some pretty deep searches and um, more inclusive policies when it relates to this. So, I I would suggest a pause on this. >> Sure. You're thinking like therapy dogs, those kind of Okay. I think we need and that's not the necessarily the crux of animals in the classroom, but I think it we need to be inclusive of all those. >> Sure. And I was not when I read this, I was specifically thinking um you know the turtles in the science classrooms and the snakes
031and lizards and whatnot. You know, I I was not thinking um like therapy dogs and uh >> service animals >> in this policy. >> Yeah. I think this becomes our opportunity now to be a little bit more inclusive and a little bit more attuned to the time period. Again, this is a decade old policy and I think we uh we need to be there and we're not >> I think it would be good to do that too. Take a survey and see what the other school were doing. >> Yeah. Um I actually started getting my hands on a couple of policies that we'll share with the board at our next time that we get together. Um just to share some of these with you. So is that like if there would be a conflict between
032a student that needs a service animal and then a student that has severe allergies >> to that animal? >> So they would have processes and procedures that would look into those components to it. Um steps that need to be taken, clearances that need to be had and and so forth. I think this is pretty minimal and I think from a liability standpoint I'd like to be a little bit more inclusive of some things. All right. So, we'll take a pause on it. Okay. 106 guides for planned instruction. As you see there, this is again was adopted in 2015. There are no current new updates. um as part of this um Miss Bri, Mr. Stout, any conversation like you'd like to have with regard to this? >> No. And as we reviewed this policy, we didn't
033see any need for any changes at this time. Um and if there were other recommendations to review from PSBA, we certainly would do that. But we felt this was in line with our our current practices. I didn't I didn't see anything of issue in this. All right. Texas policy 107 and again it is a policy that's out ofd. It was adopted in 2015 but again there are new no new updates to it. Again Mr. Stout, Miss Petri, anything there? We've talked about this and feel like this meets the the needs of our adoption of planned instruction. Okay. Policy 108, adoption of textbooks. And again, this was proposed or excuse me, adopted back in 2015. Um, there is a proposed uh policy from 2018. Again, an older policy, but it's still more current uh that aligns
034with um that PSABA offered back in 2018. You want to talk about the two two policies, the one current and the one proposed? >> Sure. I think the biggest difference between the two, if you look at the one that's recommended from PSBA, is the bold pieces of looking at in print and digital format. We know that there are multiple formats that we're looking at as far as um the the textbooks or resources that we're using for instruction. Uh so I would suggest that we do adopt what was recommended from PSBA in 2018 to include that information. Any [clears throat] questions on any of those? Okay. All right. So, we get into the 108s. Um, here we have an AR and again for purposes an AR is administrative regulations. And ARs are traditionally inside or attached
035to policies so that administration can then completely carry out what the policy is intended to to oversee. So AR um gives it gives the guidance and oftent times there's other more informal uh things that we utilize inside after you know that's inside of the guidance here. Uh but this is a process. This is our current 108 AR0 and this is for the disposal of textbooks. Um there was or is another 108 AR0 um that was proposed back in 2018. They don't align. But what did we find out with regard to this? Mrs. Petri >> I think if we look at our policy from uh adopted in 2015 and last reviewed was related to the disposal of textbook textbooks and those processes that we would take. Um I think critical things when you look at the
036review um really looking at the they they note in here that textbooks with copyright dates older than five years will be reviewed for their continued sustainability um suitability excuse me. So, I think that piece um is is an important part of that curriculum review process that we've talked about, making sure that our resources are uh are up to date, have accurate information, and are revised. Um but making sure that that 5-year plan is in place, and if it wasn't, we would follow uh the the steps in 108 AR0 outlined in our current board policy. So based on this though, this is suggesting that the uh 2018 now replace our AR from 2015 that was reviewed in 2018. Is that correct? The disposal pieces are not necessarily included in this AR. >> Correct. the the the
037new AR they are not included in there. So I think that's something we would need to consider is that are those processes something that we make sure that we are outlining. Um you know certainly instructional materials that are no longer valid or used can take up a lot of space. So those are things that we want to make sure we follow that process to make sure we are being responsible with our um facilities as well. So, I'm not sure if that's something that we would want to be modifying, adding um if as we look to adopt that that recommendation. Yeah. And I think it's something we'll have to really talk to our legal department about because the disposal the current policy that we do have pretty much just defines the disposal process, which I think
038is very important. So, somebody um and again, you can imagine in a school or district our size going through those processes of disposal, somebody needs to be able to turn to clear instructions as to what to do. We can't simply just take books and >> hand them over somebody or throw them in a dumpster or anything like that. There's a proper procedure to that. The the uh proposed one really doesn't define it, which is a little concerning to me. Yes. Um with regard to it, I do agree with um it better outlines a process for adoption of textbooks but not disposal of textbooks. >> Correct. And I think an important piece on our original policy that we need to consider is thinking about the the textbooks that are acquired by federal funds also have some
039very specific federal regulations to be able to make sure that we're following. So, we want to make sure we're including all of those pieces when we're looking at that. um revisions. >> Yeah. So, um what I'd like to do is pause on 108. Um the ARs for 108, AR1 and two are something that we are still in the midst of trying to get some feedback from our uh curricular teams and in fact actually some of our publishers there. these two um newer AR one and AR2 um as you you look through there's evaluation forms for textbooks attuned to those and so forth. I think one of the things that we need to be mindful of when we just simp if we were to simply just adopt this evaluation form by PSBA, this is a global
040form. I don't know that it really meets all of what our cultural elements to our books are. Um, so I've really tasked Mrs. Petri to get back with her curricular folks to look through this to kind of redline through each of these sections to decide whether or not some of these are um relative to what we would be looking at when we look at textbooks and actually going back to some of our publishers that we've purchased more more newly some materials with to say you know how does this evaluation form fit with some of the things that are you know possibly involved in some of your um components of a textbook itself. So, um I'm not sure we're we're far enough along with AR1 and two in the 108 section um along with the the
041108 itself to really give you enough information today to to have a full discussion on and then maybe there may be some things that that that some of the members have that are concerning to them um that you would want us to look into as well. >> Sure. when a book vendor comes in like is it uh Goodart Wilcox comes in gives you you know we're looking for a new science textbook or something like that. Um, do we take do I guess I guess what I'm asking is do we take a couple uh samples then give them out to the teachers, let them review them for two, three months um and will they then take this form and evaluate it themselves or is that done by a team or do they evaluate it themselves first
042then bring it back to a meeting where a committee is formed and then discuss out like hey I like this about it this is where falls in Yep. >> to this. >> Yep. So, yes. Um, so our curriculum review teams, that's part of their role. So, every single teacher might not look at every single text, but there are teams of representatives K to 12 that are able to look at those resources when we go through a curriculum review cycle. um key things, you know, is conducting a needs assessment of our current resources and in curriculum aligned to the state standards and and looking at where are there pieces that we need to consider when adopting a new resource. So really establishing what it is that we need so that we can develop a criteria for
043what we're looking for in resources as we look at the different options. So um they are all the the K to2 team is a part of that process and then being able to make a recommendation to what is the resource that we want to pursue and really with that horizontal alignment across grade levels but then also the vertical alignment. So if we're adopting a resource we want to make sure that the progression of skills are aligned from one year to the next so that we can see our students show that growth that we're looking for. >> Sure. And most recently uh it was our science team because we did adopt new science materials. We use some of our professional learning time and the um departments got to work together as a whole uh and really
044have dialogue around that which was kind of exciting to see to really do that analysis. So it was really good um dialogue to determine what their needs are and which program they felt was most effective to meet their needs. the rub the the I'll call it a rubric or evaluation form that you see with AR1 is something that would be given out pretty early when we're looking at the books themselves. When you think about curriculum review cycle, you start getting into year one. You're starting to do your you all of your needs assessments. You're surveying. How does the your curriculum match the current resources? What's your data suggesting? Year two, you're starting to then start to look at possible resources and the teams will look at those resources. So this would be kind of a
045year 2 evaluation form used for a lot of the things that publishers would send to you that would put in front of you. Year three then you'd narrow that down to working on some pilots. So this isn't necessarily a form that would be used during a pilot program. We'd be developing some deeper rubrics >> that would be involved in pilot programs um with some of the selected resources that come out of you know that evaluation in year two to make determinations and recommendations to to whether or not we move forward with you know the purchasing of that and into the years four, five and six. I think an important piece before even bringing in any resources is looking at page three and five references accessibility and we know that um looking at the the new
046federal regulations with uh digital tools and accessibility, we need to make sure that any publisher that we're reaching out to and is providing us with digital resources that are meeting those accessibility guidelines. So that checklist is really a a a check before we even can bring a resource in to make sure they are following those expectations. >> So essentially for 108 and it's and it's associated ARS um that's something we're going to do some more work on. We will bring that back to you at our next um policy committee meeting to be able to share more detail and possibly some suggested resources for the ARS that we could utilize and for your consideration. So, if you would just give us some a little bit more time with those. All right. And that takes us to
047109. And again, this is a policy that was adopted back in 2015. There is no, this is our current policy. There is no additional resource or update to to this particular policy as it relates to resource materials. Miss Petri, Mr. Stout, we're okay. Okay. And again, last revised 109, the AR um is our current and active. It was reviewed, last revised in 2023. So, it's kind of right on that cusp of that three-year. We wanted to bring it back to you, see if you had any questions. Okay. So then the AR excuse me 109 the AR1 again um is our current policy uh as it relates to the selection of supplementary texts and resources. And again this was last reviewed in 2023. So, kind of at that edge of the window of review, uh we
048wanted to make sure we had this back to you um again for you to take a look at. And then lastly, we had policy 110. And um again, uh out of date, there are no updates to 110. It's our active policy. It's our instructional supplies policy. And again, it's pretty standard um when it comes to an instructional supply and the guidelines with regard to those. anything? >> I had nothing. >> Anything with regard to those? Okay. All right. So, what we'll do is um most especially with the 108s and and their their associated ARS are the the textbook adoption pieces. We're going to get some more information for you. We'll make some of the changes. um that you asked for in a couple of these policies. We'll bring those back. We'll bring those back to
049a future committee of the whole meeting. We can talk with the entire board about those and you as uh committee me committee members um can share some information related to each of the policies at that meeting um so that we can review those with the full board at that time. We'll exclude and keep away those policies that we still have some work to go on. Um and do so. All right. Any questions? All right. >> All right. Moving on. Uh number five, public comment number two. Uh no one has signed up for public comment number two. Uh upcoming meeting dates. Do we have those? I didn't >> not print those out. Do we have our >> our update our upcoming policy next policy committee date is um April 28th will be our next policy committee
050meeting. >> Very good. All right. Item number seven adjournment. Do I have a motion to adjurnn? >> I'll second. [music]