001Good evening everyone Good evening. Good to see you all We have e policies G policies and L policies to review tonight Just to remind everyone that the first attachment is our annual policy review schedule And you can see which ones we covered at our first work session. This is work session number two We've got about 27 policies this evening. You can see the breakdown for the remaining two work sessions for the year To get started, we will start with one e-policy and its associated regulation. This is an ACPS-generated revision, and we have brought this to you this evening because some of our safety and security personnel are contracted employees. And as a matter of course in their job, they must use ACPS vehicles. But currently our policy does not allow them to do that. So
002we have revised this to reflect that. Any individual who's conducting official business on behalf of the school division is authorized to operate our vehicles, and they do not need to necessarily be a direct ACPS employee. Moving on, the next policy is GA. Sure, absolutely. So how does that work for insurance purposes if they're not an ACPS employee? But operating our vehicle. I reached out to our head of safety and security, Mr. Jamie Bartlett, and he did look into that and he said there are no coverage issues or concerns that the coverage still applies. And I also looked around to other jurisdictions. They have similar language. It's individuals who are operating on behalf of the school board of the school division in an official capacity are authorized to operate their vehicles. So it's in alignment with
003other jurisdictions as well. Okay, next policy is GA This has no textual changes It's just that we had to update the legal references because the applicable section of the Code of Virginia was updated And so you'll see no changes here. It's just affirmed Next is policy GAA, which is staff time schedules. These revisions reflect the amendments to Board of Education regulations that became effective in January of 2018 regarding planning periods and comp time. Sure. I have a feeling, I have the words. At the very end, I'm just going for my notes, they define the work week. From 12 a.m. Monday through 1159 p.m. Sunday in other words the work week is seven full days and that's because Why is that how the work weeks different? And that's why I thought it's a dumb question Uh,
004no that it's not a bad question at all. It's it is how we have our week defined in time clock When our seven day period starts and ends With regards to the GAA so it talks about how every teacher should have at least 30 minutes of planning time do they is Did I understand correctly? There's no policy around lunch. So like even like the teachers the professionals are not guaranteed a duty-free lunch So this is actually a discussion I heard you all touching on earlier and that we've been having them at the staff level as well about The fact that this policy does not spell that out and so we're going to work on developing a regulation That'll come back to you as GAA-R But as Dr. Wilkins alluded to earlier We need to take
005a comprehensive look at every category of employees so they are all covered. And we've looked at some policies from other local jurisdictions, and they have quite comprehensive regulations around this that really lay it out. So that's something that we'll work on developing. Okay, next. There are two policies together. There's GBB, which was formerly called Staff Involvement in Decision Making, and then there's also BG slash GBD, which was called Board Staff Communications. Now, BG-GBD is one that we have not reviewed in at least five years. So it came on our radar because of that. And when I was reviewing it, I realized that GBB... And the second policy really belonged together because GBB discussed employees sharing their ideas, concerns, suggestions with administrators and the superintendent. And then the second policy discussed employees sharing their ideas and
006comments and suggestions with the school board. So really these all belong together because you're talking about staff communication and you're also touching on the newly developed ACPS employee feedback protocol. and our general, not just employees, but our feedback protocol for the community as well. Now, these are staff policies, but it also applies. So we've updated the language to move the language that was in GBB into the second policy. So the second policy now addresses staff communication through staff channels as well as the school board, and it also brings in the language to reflect the new protocol that's on the website. I'll ask you a question. I did kind of have this question when the communication protocol was rolled out. So, you know, for parents, it's like you go to the teacher, the principal, the department,
007and the superintendent on and up. And then I noticed for the teachers, it's like you go to your supervisor, NHR, and it just kind of stops there. And I was wondering, you know. Where is there I guess is it defined in the employee handbook or like what is is there a process beyond HR? Like how does that where is that spelled out? for staff Defer that to either dr. Hutchings or dr. Wilkins I think the answer is that when it says it stops at HR, it means that you're at a level that provides comprehensive assistance. So it would be on a case-by-case basis to address that particular concern. So I think that's why it's best understood that it stops at HR, knowing that we're going to take the appropriate action to resolve the matter, whether
008that's taking it back down the chain. And resolving it there or taking it up the chain, which obviously means that to the superintendent's level. Okay. Next is policy GBEB. This, you see there's no textual changes, but there's a new section of the Code of Virginia that was relevant to this policy, so the legal references were updated, and then we also cleaned up the cross-references as well. Following that is policy GBI, staff gifts and solicitations. This policy, although we reviewed it four years ago, the SBA has not reviewed it since 2006. And you see prior to that, we hadn't looked at it since 1998. So this revision reflects... the most recent update by VSBA, which like I said, they had not touched on it since 2006. So you see some new applicable code sections and Crofts
009references. But also we felt that this new language was important because if you think back over this past year with the college admissions scandal, some of these minor changes in wording can have an impact and we felt that was important for those to be reflected as well. I'm curious about this exchange of gifts between students and or parents and staff shall be discouraged. I'm curious how that's enforced because I know at holiday time what I've noticed is that some parents will give gifts and sometimes parents will pool gifts and so there's also inequity in gift distribution and this kind of thing. I recall a few years ago hearing that Arlington had put Arlington Public Schools had put a $100 limit on gifts, but I'm just kind of curious about you know This issue of how
010is this actually enforced because I've never seen anything about that So the previous language said that the exchange of gifts between students and staff was discouraged We added the language and or parents with the recognition that the gifts are largely being funded by and coming from the parents. So that language is to make it more realistic. But Dr. Wilkins and I actually had conversations about this. I don't know if he'd like to address it, but we brought up this very thing because we knew this question would arise. So the only thing that that I would add is that it's an issue of what it does to compromise kind of the teacher-student relationship And whether or not it creates some sense of favoritism to a student based upon the gifts that he or she has received
011so It's certainly an area that that merits Good thinking but part of why some some divisions have put a specific dollar limit on is to prevent just that because there are inequities as far as who can congratulate a teacher or who has the resources to do that versus someone who does not. So we appreciate your interest in this particular policy for that reason. I think that we should consider revising the policy because I do think that it is difficult to monitor that no gifts are being given. I mean, because I do know that we have room parents and everybody contributes $5, $10 or whatever, and you give a gift card. And I think that if we know that that's happening, then we know that people are violating the policy. So I think that we need
012to, unless we are the board is opposed to things like that happening, I think that we need to make a revision to this policy to state up to a certain dollar amount so that we know what it can't exceed. Because I really do think it would be difficult to say no gifts and nothing. How would we monitor? I mean, like, how would we really monitor that? And that means we would be knowingly going into this, you know, knowing that people aren't following the policy. Like, and we're just saying, oh, well, it's no big deal. But it is a big deal because it is a policy that we have. Right and in recognition of the reality. I mean that is why the language was not changed from discouraged. It does not say prohibited It says discouraged.
013I mean you don't want to encourage a culture of one-upsmanship But we recognize the reality So just a clarification for us. So this language as is will keep us in line with the appropriate state regulations. We can go back. I'm just curious if we did get to that level of detail, would that live in a reg underneath or would it actually live with a dollar amount live up in the policy itself? That's at the board's discretion. Got it. That's at the board's discretion. I have not up to this point. Heard the desire to make it more prescriptive than it is now, right? That would definitely be a new Requirement right, I guess I'm just saying but it could it could theoretically live in absolutely, right? Okay I think my comment about that is that actually
014limiting it, then you'd have to decide is it per person or is it per group? And I think you could actually unintentionally make it less equitable because if you're getting above the $100 because it's a group, at least it's from the whole class. And yet if you go to the individual, if you have that limit, then you might end up breaking that practice apart. Does that make any sense? Because you would easily maybe go over the 100 as a class, and so then you might just kind of, you might have unintended consequences of it. So I would just, we don't need to dwell on it now. And my understanding is the intent is, you know, we don't want to say a culture of having to give gifts is encouraged. So we don't want to encourage
015that, but we also recognize the reality. And the desire to say thank you. Okay. Next policy is GBLA, third-party complaints against employees. This has some minor changes related to some new statutory codes, some new provisions that were added regarding the disposition of records of complaints. And I don't know if there are any questions about this one. Okay. Next is GBOA. This is a newly proposed ACPS policy. This just came to my attention in the general policy review of the G policies. This is actually not a new VSBA policy. They have had it for years. For some reason, we never had it on the books. It's purely a statutorily driven policy. It merely lays out that ACPS may offer a deferred compensation plan, and these statutory sections govern the participation of ACPS employees in the VRS
016deferred compensation plan. It merely lays out that we offer this and also that we notify our employees annually about it. So how can something be on VSBA's books but not be on ours? And are there any others like that? So VSBA does have some optional, well, first of all, They are advisory exactly they are model policies We subscribe to their policy service to help Maintain our compliance since we do not have full-time staff that are constantly monitoring all of the changes in the law or in regulations so they are advisory and Some they even recommend as optional depending on if they apply to your school division or not But as far as this one is concerned as far as I can tell it was merely an oversight it's and It's not that we're precisely out
017of compliance because we didn't have the policy the policy is merely stating that we have a program that we have and that we Let our employees know about it, which we were doing. We just didn't have a policy that stated that So I like this policy because I always like anything that adds to transparency and I think if we're doing something we should say we're doing it I'm just gonna ask I want to go back to g-belt gbla When when is it that we should have a regulation? to a policy. Because I'm thinking sometimes when we have policies where our staff can interpret it one way and then somebody else can interpret it another way and it can lead to some type of legality, and I'm just looking at the third party complaint against an
018employee, because you can interpret it different ways, we could have administrators doing different things in regards to a process. That could make us vulnerable So when when is it appropriate to say we need to have a regulation? Essentially it's just driven by a request from either the superintendent or the board Okay, next is GC It was formerly titled Licensed Staff. It's now proposed to be retitled Licensure Requirements for Staff Members. This is driven by an amendment to Section 22.1-299. and essentially what this does is that just says that the superintendent may request an extension of a teacher's three-year provisional license for up to one year. You may request that to the Board of Education, and also the school board may waive licensing requirements for teachers who will be CTE teachers if they're in the process
019of getting that CTE. Certification or endorsement. I can read. Mm-hmm. I just I'm curious and you might probably don't have the answer to this But I'd like I'd be interested to know how many provisional license employees we have some time and we have an HR report Next is GCB In GCB, we have merely updated the legal references, and there are some minor textual changes to reflect those amendments. One section of the Virginia Administrative Code was repealed, and a new one was enacted, and this merely lays out that the board may utilize prototypes of contract forms that are provided by the Board of Education, or they may develop their own contracts. Policy GCBB. Again, the cross and legal references have been updated. There are no substantial changes to the text. Sorry. GCB, I did have something
020I thought that we should inquire about. Maybe this is for Dr. Wilkins. I just thought about it now. I would have told you this before this meeting. I know we had recently conversated. That's what I'm saying. I'm surprising you right now. These are those ideas Dr. Mozingo was talking about. It is. Whatever. But I know we get some questions about that 90 teaching days with substitute teachers. And I found this out from my chat and choose session where I talk to teachers or staff members. And they said that sometimes when a teacher's out long term and we have a sub that's in for 90 days, and if that sub does not have a license. then we have to go to a different sub because we can't issue a contract to somebody without a license. So
021then they have a new sub for maybe 90 days, and then... You know, we can't issue a contract to that person. So we end up causing ourselves to have different subs coming through because we may not, you know, look at hiring people as subs with a license. So, for example, if we hired a sub with a license and they're there for 90 days, we can actually extend a contract to them and they don't have to go home, you know, or start another another assignment. They could stay. in that classroom. I'm just thinking maybe that's something we should think about when you're over a certain number of days. Maybe we require a license so that you don't have an unlicensed person. But 90 days is a long time for somebody that's unlicensed. But I know we're
022not breaking the law by doing it because the law allows us to do that. But I just think it's something we should... Just look into because there could be, you know, some learning loss that could happen. Depending on who the sub is, I mean, it could be. Okay, we'll do that. No more surprises. Okay, I believe we're on policy GCBEA. Leave without pay this just has very minor changes vsba had not reviewed it since 2014 so it was on their five-year cycle So we reviewed it as well. I'm trying to bring some of our review cycles on these minor changes into alignment with theirs So we're just cleaning up our references Next is GCCB employment of family members. This will look familiar to you because on November 14th and then you approved on December 5th
023policy BBFA, which had the exact same statutory provisions in it, and essentially that allows a family member of the superintendent or of a school board member to be hired so long as either the superintendent or that board member certifies that they had no role in the hiring and that the hiring was on merit. When it's the superintendent's family member, then the chief human resources officer also certifies to that effect. And when it's a board member's family member, the superintendent so certifies. It's the same change that just applied to both policies. The board policy you saw before, now this is the personnel policy to apply to the superintendent. Okay, next is GCDA, Effect of Criminal Conviction or Founded Complaint of Child Abuse or Neglect. This, again, is driven by enactment of Acts of Assembly Chapter 833
024back in 2018, and so we are bringing this language up to date, specifically discusses very, very narrow provisions in... Very very narrow circumstances. I should say under which the board is permitted to Employ a person who has been convicted of a felony Those are essentially temporary provisions That's why it's an act of assemblies chapter and it's not part of the Virginia Code And it also discusses the penalty for making a false statement regarding finding of child abuse or neglect Next is GCG professional staff probationary term and continuing contract This was updated to remove some administrative code references in the legal references to local teaching licenses and No major substantive changes here at all a GCL professional staff development Again, this one has had the references cleaned up just so that they are They reference the
025ones that are applicable currently. The new one that was added is 22.1-276.01. That is just to include the fact that bullying has actually been defined in the Code of Virginia, and it points folks to that reference for the official definition. Okay, GCN. This was titled evaluation of licensed staff. We have retitled it professional staff annual evaluations because we realized that it applied to more than just staff with licenses but all professional staff and When we use these terms licensed staff and professional staff professional staff is referring to categories of exemptions within the Fair Labor Standards Act, and that's why that term is used. The policy and legal references have been updated to reflect the updated guidelines for uniform performance standards and evaluation criteria for teachers and principals. Beginning the first paragraph of the policy we
026have added some language because we found that in this policy GCN and in policy GDN Which is the equivalent policy but related to support staff? You had the language you had language that didn't match policy GDN said that Staff all staff are evaluated annually this one said all and all evaluated regularly they need to match up and reflect the board's intention and the school division's intention to provide the supports to employees that a regular evaluation, annual evaluation provides. So that language was cleaned up in the first sentence and then different paragraphs were just created to break out the different evaluations between either professional or licensed or teachers. You'll see the same Changes in GDN. I'm curious about the evaluations the language change So we went from saying that every employee of the Alexandria City School
027Board will be evaluated But I see that we changed it to it is now our intention that everybody be evaluated and I was wondering why that switch had to happen because to me the change seems to suggest that it seems to take some of the The urgency that we really want for these evaluations like you want evaluations every year. We don't want to just say it's our intention So I'm wondering is that was there a reason for that change and does it reflect anything different like statutorily? So I'll let dr. Wilkins speak to this we we discussed it we sort of tweaked this language What we wanted to convey is the sense of urgency on behalf of the board to have annual evaluations while also recognizing some of the framework that is still being built
028and and some of the Groundwork I should say that's still being laid to make sure this is happening for every employee across the division. I don't know if you want to speak to that dr wilkins so what we didn't want to do was create a condition in which we're immediately out of compliance and so we were trying to find some words that would provide some strength that says, yes, we understand that this is something that must be done, but provide at least some flexibility to get there. So, for example, we know that we don't have every employee getting an annual evaluation, and it's going to take us some time to get there. So we were just looking for some language to provide us a bridge between, you know, the goal and the gadgets that are
029required to get there. And not only are they not, everybody's not being evaluated, but we don't have the evaluation tool to evaluate. So some people don't have an evaluation structure. So we have to develop them. And we can't use, for example, a teacher evaluation or a paraprofessional. And we've been trying to use other evaluations and tweak them to work with a particular position. But we really need to have. an evaluation tool that addresses the role that person is responsible for within the school division but we know that is going to take us some time to get done i i don't want to belabor the point too much um but i i do i i think heather's comment mr thornton's comment is well taken i i think you know We've had the policy for a long
030time and we've frankly been out of compliance for a long time and and even as an attorney I think it's important for us to Not just be aspirational and unless we're in a world where we have someone as great as Jennifer making sure that we're Constantly evaluating the policies every year. I'm concerned about a policy policy change here. That would be a bit of a regression I don't think there's a problem legally with board policy that's saying you know we believe you know every teacher should be evaluated and and certainly I I would not think you know maybe that's a question for the school board attorney but I think watering down this policy at a time when we're really trying to get this right um is something we we want to maintain so so i
031i understand the the rationale but i i don't think from a legal perspective it necessarily gets us into trouble if we're out of compliance and i think you know the school board policy should reflect what we want to achieve you know in terms of in terms of uh you know evaluation I appreciate that and I think if that's the board's position I think that you know we would agree to the language that you suggest again the intent was not to avoid a responsibility to do it but just not to make us a meeting violation right so to your point and given your expertise as legally if it's sufficient to state that and allow us the flexibility to get it done, then I think that the language can be changed accordingly. I think we should inquire
032with our school board attorney as well just to see what type of legalities come out of that because if a teacher or any staff member wanted to contest some type of non-renewal, Do they now have a case and now we're stuck with a situation? Because like we just need to look at the implications is what I'm saying of it So it's not just about and the thing is we definitely don't want to avoid the evaluation piece I mean, it's a part of my evaluation that we work to getting the evaluation tool in place but some of the discussions that I even had when we were developing my my evaluation was that How could I have an expectation right now of all when I know? We don't even have a system for all, and I felt
033that was unfair to me that I would be held accountable for 100%. We don't even have a tool to do it. So let me make the tool and then hold me accountable because now we can actually follow through and administer these evaluations on an annual basis. I think... Oh, sorry. I just wanted to say offer a compromise because we're actually not... It's January. The five years is in December. I don't know if that's going to give us enough time. It seems the worst possible thing is to change it now and make it seem watered down. Or change it now maybe and kind of renew this thing but not be quite ready for it to be implemented properly. So I don't know. Another thing, is it possible maybe to bring it back after? The year be
034significantly different I asked in terms of being ready Well, I think we're really on a legal question and to dr. Hutchings point I think we should confer with board counsel on it The the situation that he is is bringing up is one in which let's say we use the evaluation system or a report to discipline someone Right, but it's since it's not being applied across everyone then What you do about the person who doesn't have the evaluation form completed? So I think it's a it's a question that we need to refer to board council and get some guidance on I don't think it takes that long necessarily, you know Six months or so But I do think it's it merits a review by board council Next is GCP be resignation of staff members this change
035has been made because a the relevant section of the Virginia Administrative Code that was cited at the bottom was repealed and the new language was added to reflect the One of the requirements of the section of the Code of Virginia that is cited there Mainly that teachers who are under a continuing contract status must provide written notice Non continuation of the contract by June 15th each year. That's part of the code The code actually says that either party must give notice by June 15th each year and you see that there is a Way that a teacher could request release Here and must give two weeks notice etc. So that new language is added to reflect the text of the of the code there Okay I have a question about that. I know it's not the
036part that hasn't changed, but thinking about practice, the teacher has a week to withdraw the request, and the superintendent's going to notify the school board after that week, and we have... It's not the way we do things. So is that... I mean, we basically get the reports on a monthly basis, and we don't... It's not really our... We don't reverse... It is. It's not referring to any resignation. It's referring to resignations after June 15th. Typically, that puts school divisions in a bind because we don't have any, there are no pool of candidates. That's why it's more difficult. The goal is that we're trying to get staff, if you're going to resign, resign before June 15th and not wait until the summer or right the day before school or things like that to inform us. So
037this is not for any resignation. Right. I guess I just feel like I've in four years never seen that, and I'm assuming there must be people who resigned after June 15th. So I'm just saying, right, I've never seen, I've never been informed about, I don't think, having some discussion about it. But anyway, that's not for now necessarily. I guess this is really statutory. It is. So it doesn't matter, but I'm just saying that, and I know there have to be one. Just a brief comment. Yes, from a legal perspective I think that you know the the point of the spirit of this policy is if you know after June 15th the Superintendent is caught in a lurch because someone resigns right before the start of the school year then This you know that yes that
038maybe there shall be a notification and that hasn't been done But unless there's like a superintendent recommendation or concern that that you know would require board intervention you know, there's not really a need under this policy to consult us on it if the superintendent doesn't feel like their the vision's caught in a lurch Yeah, I mean I I'd be clear I don't want to necessarily get that in my vacation I just find it weird I'm not like I'm not saying to you that I there's some power that I've lost in this I'm just kind of finding the whole thing weird The reason why you you so you haven't gotten one over the summer is typically the board is in recess So what you all when you see them you see them when you come back
039in August, but they've already happened So the superintendent there is another policy that allows the superintendent to accept resignations too. So unless there's an issue, it may be like, you know what, we can't find any math teachers, you just got to stay with us. You know, like, you can't leave, which I would, you know, I never say never, but you know, if somebody wants to leave, I think you should let them go, right? Or they're not going to really be successful during the year, give you what you need, or be productive. But I think that the reasons why board members may not have seen them over the summer is because you'll typically see it on the employment, the HR report that comes when you come back, so it already happened. Because there are people that
040you'll see on there, but it'll say June or July or other dates when we were not in session. Yeah, I just think it's weird if you were to say they wanted to leave and they and you let them leave that we would be able to say no, you can't let them I just I Must be I just I just not getting this but anyway, but we'll keep continue. Sorry Okay, we're moving on now to our L policies. That was the last G policy last personnel policy The first one is LBD, home instruction. This has some minor revisions to reflect the amendment of 22.1-254.1. Primarily, it allows some additional options for parents of students who are being homeschooled, some additional options to show evidence of progress. There's some additional testing. scores that are allowed to be
041used now. The state has expanded which scores can be used to show evidence of progress. And also we've just added a line to reflect that our annual schedule of testing for students who receive home instruction is posted on the Department of Accountability's website. Okay, next we have Policy LC and Regulation LCR. These are regarding charter schools. And because I've received a couple of questions on this recently, I would just like to give a brief summary for the benefit of the public. I just wanted to mention that although ACPS has had this policy since 2002, actually the applicable sections in the Code of Virginia have been in effect since 1998. And what those sections of the code say are that any person, group, or organization may submit an application to the Board of Education and the
042local school board to apply to create a charter school. And that the Board of Education and local school boards must review these applications. And that they must make their... their procedures for receiving applications, reviewing them, and ruling on them, they must make those public. So we have these requirements from the state. We essentially must have this policy, and we must make it public. Now, we have not had any applications for charter schools, nor do we anticipate any. However, we are required to have this policy in post-hour procedures, and they must be in alignment with the state requirements. So we have this policy and the regulation. There are some statutory updates to both. On the Charter School Policy LC, there are several sections of the code that have been amended. They address things. You'll see the
043textual changes in here address things such as the review and reconsideration of applications by the board, what happens if a school board denies or revokes a charter school application, that the board would have to provide the reasoning in writing and post it publicly. There's a provision in here for children of active duty military members that they would be able to participate in any lottery for a charter school. There is a requirement that upon approval of any application, a subsequent contract must be written within 90 days. And also some provisions merely stating that charter schools are subject to federal and state laws. That is the extent of the changes contained within LC and then LC are the regulation Merely lays out all the requirements that are spelled out by the state everything that must be included
044in any kind of application for a charter school and These have been updated to reflect the amendments to the standards of accreditation any questions on those Okay, next is policy le B. It was titled advanced college placement it has been retitled advanced and alternative courses for credit and this change has been made to reflect the fact that ACPS may enter into agreements with institutions of higher education who will be Providing options for students to take courses as part of the CTE curriculum and it spells out some of the requirements that any agreement that the school division enters into with these institutions of higher education Must spell out the options for students related to s or CTE Credentialing as well as what the actual credentials certifications or licenses are that would be offered. Okay Next we
045have the regulation that is aligned with this policy le B dash are the title was merely updated to align with the policy And the legal and cross references were updated to bring them up to the current the current references Okay, last one Policy li relations with educational accreditation agencies some very minor changes They're essentially one section of the Virginia Administrative Code was repealed as part of the amendment of the standards of accreditation in January 2018 and so we have made those changes Thank you Okay, all right, so thank you everyone And just remember that the Thank You Jennifer Here the ad deletes are due next Tuesday by noon Yes Well we get the isn't there a form we're gonna get yes, we need to maybe Mr. Turner is the form for the ad deletes. Oh,
046he's he's hiding behind the column now. Oh, he's at home