001[Music] Elementary School District governing board should be called to order today, Saturday, June 7th, 2025 for a special meeting. We're at the Jerry Roby District facility. Five board members are present. We have board member Schmidt, board member Zimmerman, Vice President Kenyon, board member Stencion, myself, Michael Todd, complete item 1.1. Item 1.2 is our pledge of allegiance. Board member, can you please lead us? To the flag of the United States of America, to the republic for it stand, indivisible, liberty and justice for all. Our next agenda item is 1.3 approval of special agenda meeting. Motion to approve this agenda consistent with board policy BEDB and temporarily suspend governing board policy with which this agenda may be inconsistent. Have a second. I'll second. I have a motion, a second to approve item 1.3, the approval of special
002meeting agenda. If there's no discussion, we'll take the vote. Board member Schmidt, I. Board member Zimmerman, I. Vice President Kenyon, I. Board member Sinion, I. I also I will show item 1.3 approved with a five yes zero no vote. Next item of business is 2.1 discussion consideration and approval of the trust policy chapter 4 third read which will effective July 1st 20125 be presented by Dr. Mahorn and Miss Amy Castanos and I'm going to immediately turn it over to Miss Castanos. Good morning, governing board members. Um, today we're here to approve Can you all hear me? We're doing okay. Today we're here to approve um chap or well to review and possibly approve chapter 4 um and chapter 5. So we will begin with chapter 4. Um I just wanted to present to you the
003edits that were made from the last we did three meetings that stood as the read for chapter 2 or I'm sorry stood as a second read for chapter 4. Um and the following with the comments are the revisions that were made in um in an effort to expedite the meeting. I think I'd just like to start to say if there would you all prefer that we go through these comments or have you had the opportunity to read the comments and then if you just want to bring forth any revisions that might have been okay. So, if we could just bring if you have any revisions that you would like to this document or any questions about the revisions that were made, Mr. President. Yes, ma'am. Okay. I just have three things. Everybody should be happy
004for chapter 4. Um, so page one is just the numbering. Um, so there are essentially two policies. Uh, first I just want to say thank you, Miss Castanos. Um I felt like the you know the thing the discussions we had at the last read were reflected. So I appreciate the work that you did to put into that. So on page one there are essentially two policies with the same number. So we would just need to make sure that uh when we go to approve it that we approve you know that the trust will change the numbering essentially. Um on page uh Mr. President, I assume you just want me to list my three. Yes, please. Okay, so page 24. I'll let everybody get there. Um, number 12. I personally am still not comfortable with um
005somebody an employee possessing a weapon. Um, I don't see the need. I don't see us hiring private security as the example was given and I again think our police officers and SSO officers, you know, are not our employees. So, um, I don't see the need for that. Um, and then the last one is page 66. and it's under G. Um, and second to last sentence in the first paragraph, I would really like to cross out the word nonrenewal of employment. I'm fine with the rest of it. I would really like us to consider crossing out that word. And that's all I have for chapter 4. Can you can you say where that was again? Sure. It's on page 66 under G, first paragraph, second to last sentence in the first paragraph. So it reads um
006employees shall not be entitled to um this benefit if the employees terminated for cause or resign in lie of termination. I'm fine with all of that. Or non-renewal of employment. I would just like to see us cross out non-renewal of employment. So you're wanting them paid out if they um Yes. if they are non-renewed because I'm thinking about our administrators who do not have a process um for a non-renewal. They can just be non-renewed for any reason. Um and if we are not employing them because they have done something wrong, then that we shouldn't pay them out. That's termination. Or they resign in lie of termination. Those are all fine because um teachers and again these are only people are getting paid out if they've worked for the district for longer than 10 years because
007this is sick time payout. This is not vacation. Correct. Correct. So this particular policy it is only sick leave. This is statute and um the way that it reads it should be um resigned in lie of non-renewal or of yeah in lie of termination or non-renewal right so it's either or so they're resigning in lie of the termination or in lie of non-renewal of contract yeah I'm still not comfortable with the non-renewal uh in lie of the non-renewal because again we had many situations this where administrators were told they were going to be non-renewed and so they gave them the opportunity to resign and I don't think that was appropriate and so again this is you know what I would like to see Mr. president for me. You may. Um, in regards to this, I
008think the language is fine. Um, this is if they resign. So, if they resign, they haven't completed their contract um that they're they're signed up for. Uh, so it's not that if their non-renewal ends and then they just don't get another contract, they will still get their sick leave or their sick pay. It's just if they resign prior to their termination, their contract termination. Is that correct? So honestly, how this reads right now, there is a lot of interpretation that can be put in here. So if there is more clarification that you would like to see, we can do that. But as I read it right now, it's in lie of non-renewals. So therefore, if they resign and they're not renewed and they resign, then we are going to go ahead and um pay them
009out their or will not pay them out their sick leave here, right? And so it's not that they didn't finish their contract. It may they can finish their contract and resign and because they were not being renewed and then not be able to receive the payout. Like we'll just give the example of ED services. They all resigned in January, but they're working till the end of their contract. I think sick time payout in itself is interesting. Um, most employers do not give you any sick time at any time if you leave the company. That's a benefit, but it's not the same as vacation. And I'm quite sure statute kind of defines that as well. It's why some organizations have gone to a PTO where it's a combined sick and vacation time and then that's paid
010out. But there are very few employers um and even speaking with some other folks who work in government, the the organizations don't ever they don't pay any partis time no matter how long you're with an organization. So that's that seems to be pretty unique. It it is a bit of a perk. I think the board needs to understand that as we're acrewing this for an employee over 10 years. We don't have a fund or every year we say Mr. A, Mr. B, Miss C, whoever didn't use 4 days of sick time. So, we're going to move this money over and wait till they retire. When it comes due at the end, that's unfunded. We don't carry money over. So, that's a liability that the district carries for years and years. it'd be the same for
011a regular of a private organization. And so although it's still a percentage, sometimes it can be a rather large amount of money for folks who are over 10 years, some 20, some 25. So, um, if you're being non-renewed, I think typically that's probably because you're not performing very well. Maybe you're not being terminated midyear. You're just going to be non-renewed. So, I'm comfortable with the way the language is currently myself. members also we can um once upon a time at every board meeting we renewed we reviewed policy so policy was always under review it's always something as we make changes I think we can learn about um and make changes to policy as we as we massage these I know the trust has has and spoke that they'll be making revisions and changes as well
012as they go through these. We're still kind of on the early adopter phase of these policies with the trust. So, um I think we'll learn a little bit. I do believe that the board would have the ability to look at non-renewals and determine what the reason for the non-renewal is and and perhaps make a decision on a case-by case basis as well. Mr. President, yes. So, have a question. This is under sickly pro like upon retirement. So can you resign and retire in the same action? Does this even like make sense not renewed and retire the same? In my opinion it doesn't make sense. So yeah, I mean what we're talking about here like they can retire like instead of if they are resigning in um lie of termination they can retire in that resignation
013right so that piece is in there but um the nonrenewal portion if they decide to retire because they're going to be non-renewed. Is that a resignation? Um, but also I want to be clear that this is a part of statute. So, it does need to be in your policy. Okay. So, as far as the non-renewal portion, that's a give or take, right? But this um section does need to be in the policy book. So maybe we need to define I think there's different non-renewal. If you have a grant and the grant's running out, you're getting non-renewed. If you're just not performing well or midyear, that person may not being renewed. You're not being let go mid year. They're just being told this isn't working long term. So at the end of the year, it's a
014courtesy. We're letting you stay through the end of the year. There could be different reasons for non-renewal. So if the if the grant is running out then perhaps that's acceptable but a non-renewal I guess that could be the other way around in le of termination uh you could have a non-renewal um le of termination or non-renewal you could I guess how would I word this you would have a non-renewal in lie of termination which would be different than a non-renewal because funding has been eliminated grants ran out. Um, something of that nature. So, I guess if I'm looking at this, um, I feel like an easy way would just be to put another sentence there that says that the district will have the option at the district's discretion, um, for non-renewal of contracts. Um, that
015might suffice. I think so. Would would it be the district or would it be the board? That is all up to you all. You like if that's up to you. So ultimately I think the board is the district. We make the decisions of the district. So it would be I think anytime it says the district that is the board ultimately we're the we're the governing body of the district. But we could specify that specifically say the board. Okay. Just because we're making the decision ultimately for um like liquidated damages. I feel like this is something similar and we give the approval for a waiver when people um don't submit their year for um year notice for retirement. Okay. Okay. Members, do you have any additional comments to Miss Zimmerman's comments on page one, page 24,
016or 66? Mr. President, sir, just on page four, I think it's don't know if it's just a word that was overlooked. So, under C on page four, it says other the board. I don't know if that other is supposed to be there, but yeah, the um there needs to be a colon there. No. Okay. Okay. Thank you. That was it. Just a little housekeeping. Anyone else? I I would like to circle back to page 24 uh number 12 with Miss Zimmerman's comments. Um, I don't think that the intent, in fact, I'm in my mind, I'm 100% sure the intent is not to arm teachers with guns and rifles. Um, however, we have been recently approached by the Buckeye Police Chief suggesting that we go to private security for our board meetings. Um, we recently went
017through Alice training. Um, AD did that presentation. uh they've hired a retired MCSO deputy who ran their school resource officer program for many many years and he was very clear to say that board meetings are critical to have armed law enforcement or private security. Buckeye PD from my understanding and and um I think board member Kenyon, you may had had a conversation as well. Excuse me. Um with them after a board meeting um they are struggling with the duration of some of our meetings. We've actually lost our police officer a couple of times because he had to report to duty um and be on the streets protecting the rest of the city. So again, they've they've proposed that um the SSO program, I believe, does that not also allow for private security? I think I
018think there's a carveout for that. So we could potent the SSO. The SSO. Yes. Um so those would become employees of our district um and beyond. Well, they're not even employees. Uh I mean they would be because we're paying them or contractors. So that would be another issue. The next thing is when we talk about a weapon, um, when we went through the Alice training, it was essentially said if you get into that situation, you're on lockdown and you have an active shooter on the campus, you you unfortunately kind of have to weaponize your campus. And that is you got to grab staplers. You got to grab anything you can to start in a last resort if somebody gets into that classroom to kind of defend yourself. There's a lot of mechanism ahead of time.
019Lock the doors. We did all sorts of of things there. But but at the end um and then also a knife is a weapon. So does that mean we no longer have birthday cakes to celebrate because somebody has to cut the cake with a knife? Um because that could be turned around if if you had somebody that wanted to make an issue about it. The intent of this is not to allow every single person to bring a gun, to allow teachers to bring guns on campus, but we do have a mechanism where we may need to have employees of our district, again, not teachers in my opinion right now. Um, but private security, uh, maybe you have a substitute teacher who is a reserve police officer. Um, there's a lot of people who want to
020carry those at all times. I know we've had many parents on campus before who are law enforcement, federal agents, and they're carrying their weapon either in uniform or plane close because that's what they do. Um, so I just think, you know, we need to look at that and see exactly what it is. But if we're using private security at any time, this would eliminate that. And when we have the police department telling us they don't have the staff to provide protection all the time, we've got yet another problem. So, I'm okay with it. I think there's some common sense. This is a matter of public record. We are not suggesting that we're giving firearms to teachers who just want to carry a firearm. That does not uh that's not the intent of this in my
021opinion at all. And I guess other board members can weigh in, but uh that's just what I would caution the board on number 12. Can I ask you a question, Mr. present. May um so when you mentioned um a substitute teacher that might be a offduty police officer, were you thinking that they would be allowed to carry a weapon? State law says they're allowed to. So there's no there's no there's nothing we can say about that. They are allowed to do that. They may have an individual department policy, but that's just like the airlines can't tell a federal officer or a municipal officer that's on any sort of work duty. Federal officer can carry at any time. A local city police officer can carry on an airline um if they're transporting a prisoner or on
022official business. Um but a federal a federal agent can do it anytime with there there's nothing that can be said. Same thing here. In their jurisdiction, a police officer is allowed to carry a firearm anywhere they want as long as they're within their agency's policy. So, I think we just need to be cautious. But again, when we talk about weapon, does that mean a teacher can't have a pocketk knife, which is a very common thing? a Leatherman tool belt. You know, a little Leatherman tool that people carry on their belt that is probably used multiple times a day by some teachers who are maybe doing a little maintenance in their classroom. Uh working in a science environment, they're opening opening something with a with a wrench. Where where does this go? So, again, sometimes there's
023a letter of law, sometimes there's a spirit of law. And I think the spirit of this law is not to say we're going to have teachers carrying firearms, but there are times when we may have employees, again, private security, substitute teachers who may come in, um, SSOs, uh, who we're employing outside. Those are not school resource officers that are being brought in by the city, but we're employing those SSOs. So, we have eliminated if we say possess a weapon on district property without legal authority, we've just eliminated our SSO program because those employees would no longer allowed to be carry a firearm. And you're never going to find a law enforcement officer working in that capacity coming onto the campus. Okay. I have two things. First, when we're referring to if if a knife is
024a weapon, it doesn't require legal authority. So, I think thinking that we can't allow people to cut a birthday cake because of this or taking it out is inaccurate because nobody's asking district administration to have a knife to cut a birthday cake. Secondly, as a parent, if a substitute teacher in my child's class is possessing a weapon, one, I think the principal needs to know that there's somebody on their campus that is possessing a weapon. if that's their right. I I'm not sure of that. But um and I would personally, as a parent, be very uncomfortable knowing that a substitute teacher in my child's classroom is possessing a firearm. Mr. President, for me, you may. So, I think that this actually speaks to your discomfort. it they have to have legal authority and proper authorization
025from the district administration. Um, and I understand your concern, but I've been approached by multiple parents and staff members over the last since our last meeting when this was brought up, saying, "Thank you for making sure that we're able to, you know, with the proper channels, go through the proper channels, have the opportunity down the road possibly to be able to protect these kids. We live in a day and age where you cannot stop something crazy from happening, but you can limit the damage if you're able to intervene quickly. Um, and so if they go through this process, possess a weapon on district property with with they're not allowed to without legal authority and proper authorization from district administration, they've went through the right checks. So, I think that that kind of negates this. What
026you're saying is that we leave, we take this out so we don't have any way to defend our kids or staff if something happens. And this isn't just in the classroom. This is at at recreational, you know, football games or or soccer games or, you know, different things, activities that are put on by the district when the public is allowed to walk freely on campus. Um, I just I I I want this protection here. That way if it's utilized and and god forbid something bad happens on a one of our campuses, we have somebody there who's able to step in and limit the damage. Um I I don't want to tie our hands and say, you know, we we aren't allowed to, you know, and this is this is stuff that came to me from
027prior law enforcement people saying, "Yeah, I was a police officer and police officer response times are crap when it comes to something happening." So the best way to protect our kids, protect our staff, protect the public is to have somebody if they're willing to, if they go through the proper steps there and able to limit the damage. Can I interject here real quick? So this is not a new policy. This policy is currently a um a policy that you all have. The intent of this policy is just as you said, board member Kenyan, is to give the district the option to have a level of private security or have something. It is not for teachers to carry guns on campuses. Therefore, um there are certain ways that people can have legal authority to carry a
028gun on campus. This ensures that that legal authority does not supersede the district administration's knowledge of said weapon on campus. So the reason why this is here is to protect both sides of this argument is to knowingly we know that there are people who can carry on campus legally. They need to let district administration know that they have a weapon and that it is on their campuses. It is also to ensure that we have the ability to have private security. Nowhere was there ever an intent with this policy to allow teachers or um teachers aids or secretaries um administrators to carry weapons. I understand that the possibility is there and if this board would like like to allow other people to carry weapons on campus, I would suggest you have a policy about guns on
029c specifically guns on campus. So it would be my recommendation that we adopt the policy as is and if there is um if there is an additional policy that you would like to see that's more strict about how these authorizations are get brought I would suggest you bring that up in an additional board meeting. The reason for this is like let's get specific if we want to get specific. This is just to cover the general legal authorities um and district administration's knowled knowledge. I hope that helps. Um please debate. No, I I I agree. This is this is about the issues of private security and it is ensuring that we know that those people do have it. We're not saying they can just carry on walk on the campus at any time with their firearms.
030But again, it's not just firearms. So, I mean, it can be any object used to inflict damage. Um, it could be a stapler. You could theoretically say a stapler. You the right stapler that does roofing material and you can do a lot of do a lot of damage to somebody if it's if it's used improperly. But this is specifically designed for the times when the district needs private security, school security officer, something of that nature. Again, it is not to start allowing teachers to carry firearms on campus. If I could just make one final comment. One more um you know to Mr. Kenny I I listened you know and I hear what everybody's saying um and just for the record there have been multiple people parents and staff that have come to me that are
031concerned about this. So there are both sides in the community that can go either way. So I just want to understand that those voices are represented as well. Thank you Mr. President. Uh it's actually about page 66. Um and a possible motion. What was the sentence we were thinking about adding into that? Um I don't have it. It was something about like instructed, but it does say the board shall determine if non-renewal or shall determine if um payouts for non-renewal of contracts, sick leave payments. So employees shall not be entitled to this benefit if the employee is terminated for cause or resigns in lie of termination. Full stop. If an employee resigns in lie of non-renewal of employment, the board shall determine or shall have the authority to determine um sick leave payout. I can
032more artfully do that at for a motion. I'll attempt to Okay. Uh motion to approve trust policy chapter 4, third read effective July 1st, 2025 with the following changes. Uh on page one to re number okay the paragraphs I guess right uh page page to to re number the the paragraphs the policy numbers you good poly changes page one well I guess that' be all the policies to to re to re number the polic two number 10141 and then on page four in paragraph C should be you said a colon after other remove other Yes, ma'am. And then on page 66, um, add a sentence along the lines of the board shall determine sick leave payout or employee resignation in lie of non-renewal. I'll second. Can I just read this? Make sure it's correct. Miss
033Zimmerman. Second. Motion to approve the trust policy chapter 4, third read effective July 1, 1225 with the following changes to read number 1-41. Page 4, paragraph C. Remove the word other. Page 66, add a sentence along the line of The board shall determine sick leave payout for employee resignation in lie of nonrenewal. Okay, Kelly second. All right. Any further discussion hearing? No, we'll take the vote. Board member Schmidt. Hi. Board member Zimmerman. I. Vice President Kenyon. I. Board member Shinion. I. I'm also I will show that approve. Five yes. Zero. No. All right. Next on the agenda is 2.2 discussion consideration of the trust policy chapter 5 first read. This will be also effective July 1st 2025. Just as our staff rep is Dr. Mahorn, but I'm just going to take a guess that she's
034going to point it right to you, Miss Castiano. So we'll uh cut her out and move right to you. Is that okay, ma'am? Sure is. Okay. Well, thank you, Dr. Mahorn and President. Um so chapter 5 had we have went through let me explain the process that we went through just for public record. Um in chapter 5 we I have sent this chapter out to everyone and have tallied all of your edits that were requested into the documents. We've also spent the last three weeks getting questions answered from the trust, from our uh legal representatives, and then for myself to match statute with anything that I could possibly mass match statute with. So, there's been significant um time spent uh a little over 30 hours has been spent on the number of revisions. I know
035that we are scheduled to be here until 1:00 today. And I also can very well see that many people want to get home to their families. So what I would like to do is to go through this policy and skip the questions that don't impact the actual trust language itself, the actual language. So, if the questions because you all have had opportunities to read the answers to each one of those questions, um I would suggest that we go through this going through all of the marked redlinined versions to make sure that those are agreed upon and you know can move forward. Um and then if they if in that we've skipped somebody's questions or marking, you can please bring that up. Does that make sense? I'm sorry, Miss Zimmerman. I'm seeing a little bit of
036a confused. So, are we going to go through the red lines though? Yes. Okay. Only the red lines. We're not going to go through all the questions that are on the side. So, but if they pertain to potential red lines, we'll discuss them. Right. Okay. Right. Okay. Um and then I also want to make sure that you all receive the paragraph from the trust um explaining the process of how this was developed um and the le the amount of legal review that it went through. Did you all receive that in the email? Okay. All right. So, they wanted me to make sure that we all had that so um that we're all on the same page. We'll begin with uh page one. On page one in the attendance boundaries, Miss Zimmerman has suggested that it
037the authority be removed from the district and given to the board. Okay. On page two, Miss Zimmerman has suggested that we have two methods um that we will This is under 5-101A. I'm sorry. No, no, you're good. Okay. 5-101A. It's on page two. It is the last sentence of the paragraph that um the proposed adoption or changes may be viewed and noticed, but the notice should be provided in two ways. um one being from option A, B or C and the second method being from any of the ones listed here. So moving on to page nine. This would be policy 5-102A, enrollment requirements. On page nine, um, we're suggesting that if so, authorized by the board be removed and this just be a full stop that students in foster care will be given preference for
038open enrollment. Okay, moving on to page 115-102.c. This is procedures for enrollment requirements. Um, we're asking that for students entering kindergarten um be added to this. Any discussion there? I would just really like to see us change the word literacy coach or literally literacy specialist to who is responsible in our district which I believe is the reading interventionist. I just think it's clearer for all of us, you know, administration principles, our public, you know, the point of the policies is to tailor it to our district. And so I think it's more useful if we are using our language here. So that that would be my request. Would you be okay with me adding the word um reading interventionist to this so that we also have the language of statute? Yes. Okay. And this is a
039reading interventionist. Thank you. Do we do we not add or district authorized um only because sometimes titles change and so if a title changes let's just say in 3 years we hear me out all the way. We no longer have reading interventions. We have reading because there's a new buzzword that's come out. Now all of a sudden our policy. So a lot of times it's good to have policy set so that it flows with the title change. Otherwise we're going to go two months with a first read and a second read trying to get get the policy updated. So can we generalize the language as well to add a district authorized board approved whatever the board's comfortable with. But there could be a change of and I don't want to see kids lose. I I
040agree with your point to have that in there, but if we have a title change because the state comes back and there's a new grant that says we're going to fund reading gurus instead of reading interventionists, all of a sudden our policy is maybe out and then we've have to scramble to get that back through. So, it's the same thing. I we we've had some issues like on the uh on our emergency action plan in an emergency, contact Minnie Camarada. I'm just picking on her. Well, if Minnie's on vacation, Minnie might not be the one, you know, so we want to change that. Say, contact the superintendent's assistant and whoever that person is. You know, that that's a better way. You you even in emergency response, you don't say call Chief Smith, you say call
041the on duty chief because Chief Smith may not be the guy at the at the time. So, um I just wonder if if the board feels that that would be a a worthy ad now that I better understand what Miss Emmer was suggesting. Just to be clear though, that is the reason for the term literacy coach or literacy specialist. So, um that is the intent behind that because there could be a thousand different titles for what a literacy coach or literacy specialist is, but that's how it's defined in state statute. All right. Perfect. I think I'm good. Yeah, that's that's what I was going to say. Okay. So, are we asking to not add it in or add it in the reading? No, I think we I don't think it hurts to add that that
042in because I I agree it makes it easy for our district. It tailor it to us. I just didn't want to limit us if those titles change down the road for some reason. Okay. So, we're adding in reading intervention. So, then the the sentence will read, "The district shall employ at least one kindergarten through third grade reading interventionist interventionist, teacher, literacy coach, or literacy specialist or board approved." You know, it's interesting as I'm as I'm reading this, it says in each school, do we want to commit, you know, in to Mr. Todd's point, is every school always going to have one of these or would we have to stipen it if we weren't going to have a full-time? I didn't realize it said each school. I was thinking it was we had to employ one
043for the district. That is and this is very specific to state statute because of the third grade Okay. Testing that happens. So, there's no option to remove that and stay in compliance with the statute. Okay. Right. But I don't think it doesn't say it has to be a full-time. So, we could designate if if we had two smaller schools and we split that time between two. As long as we have a designate to that campus. Okay. I think we're meeting the but good catch. Okay. Carry on. Okay, moving on to 5-103 compuls compulsory attendance and what page this is page 12. 12. Okay. 5-103 compulsory attendance and excuse from a student attendance. Um if we go under school closures on page 12 um the bottom uh paragraph has been added um as outlined in policy
0442-101 and policy 3-401. The superintendent may temporarily close any or all school buildings or other facilities as permitted by law. Permanent school closures shall follow all applicable laws, regulations, and board approved procedures. If nobody has questions, I just Are we going to define what temporary is? For example, you could temporarily close a school for a year. Mhm. That's temporary. That's much different than temporary closing a school for 3 days because a hurricane came through and you've got to have building inspectors come make sure that the roof is safe or we've got a bad water situation or whatever may come up. So, do we want to define that a little bit more? Um, because temporary, it's kind of a joke. Again, some people say, "Oh, it's my permanent temporary fire station." There's fire stations that have
045been temporary for years. Um, so do we do we define that for a period not to exceed a week, uh, two weeks, a month, a year, whatever the board's comfortable with, but should we define that a little better? That definition is in policy 2-101. Okay. Um so and that is why we've referenced the policies. All right. Also, real quick, um before we move further into this, the trust has said that they will they don't cross reference policies. So if you all would like um I would need to have your authority to cross reference every policy and provide them that for them to upload. So, um, that is going to be something that I'll need, you know, your authorization to do, uh, because it would be a significant amount of time to cross reference all policies.
046Okay, we'll have to agendaize that, uh, for a future meeting. On page 14, um it was noted in the attendance that um truency was not defined um and neither was chronic absenteeism. So we've offered this language here. The trust wrote this policy with their attorneys. Um so this language here is offered and has been reviewed by legal. Thank you so much for asking for this. I think it is an important part of our policies that was missing. Um I just have a couple things. Um so under I guess we'll go third paragraph um where it says unexcused absences for at least five school days uh within a school year constitute habitual truency. If I could just offer just a slightly different version of the next sentence. Um the superintendent shall establish procedures to identify and
047address unexcused absences beginning with the notification of parents. Continued violations may lead to discipline of the student according to the discipline matrix and I did cross reference that our discipline matrix does have truency as you know one of its categories and or referral of the parent to a court of competent jurisdiction. So, I'm just, you know, pointing us back to that we're using our discipline matrix. Uh, essentially, you're also putting a shell in here, the superintendent shell established procedures. Did I hear that correctly? I did. Yeah. I I guess I'm just trying to be consistent. We use shall a lot in in the policy. So estab so the superintendent shall shall establish procedures to identify and address unexcused absences beginning with the notification of parents continued violations may lead to the discipline of students according
048to the discipline matrix. Okay, hold on. Oh, I'm sorry. Do you want me to just send it to you or Yeah, I just want to make sure that I have the wording correct. I'm Yeah, I essentially am using the wording. I'm just changing continued violation will lead to discipline. I'm just being specific as to how the discipline will be administered I guess. Okay. Okay. And then um when it lists um number two in each of these things it says Puma County. I assume they just wrote it for a different district. So we just need to change that to Maricopa. And um I would just delete the high school portion just because it's not applicable to our district. But otherwise, I appreciate the policy. Thank you. Oh, and then sorry, I'm on the same policy on
049page 15. It uh talks about penalties for unexcused absenteeism. Um, I would again refer us to follow our discipline matrix so that we are consistent and transparent with our parents and students about how discipline, you know, will be applied throughout the district equitably. Uh, the only thing I'm concerned with, yeah, we do need to like reference the matrix, but I think we're not going to remove anything from that, correct? Just add the matrix information cuz I just want to make cuz if this goes to court, I'm sure they wrote this the way it's written for a reason. So, let's make sure we're not removing anything, but definitely add more to it. Yeah, we'll only be adding the discipline matrix. Are there any other questions on this statements, thoughts, comments? Before we move on, I do
050have uh one I had the great opportunity to speak uh by by staff to come to a meeting with some principles this past week. Um one of the feedback I got from them was they're very concerned about chronic absence and absenteeism of out of district and out of boundary students. And I think members what I took out of that is they're concerned that there's students who come from either out of district or they're in district but they're out of their homeschool boundary and they're coming to another school and they're chronically late. Um, I know this is talking about absenteeism, but along these lines, there's several, from my understanding, there's several students who fall into this category, and the student the teach the principles feel that if they were going to their home school, it may
051be better. So, I'm not sure where that would fit exactly. Um, because this is more about absences, but I think we're going to hear that come back from them soon. I I don't know if we want to try to address it while we're doing this now or at another time. And Miss Castanos, you may know where it is. I know this is specifically more about um absenteeism, but but tardiness is is probably their bigger issue, but again, absenteeism as well because what's happening when they're out of district or out of boundary, they may not have a ride to the school because we're not doing the full transportation and and that's causing a problem. So, the the principles asked us to look at that and I assured them I' I'd bring it to the board. It
052may just be easier to do now or or maybe we can get staff to to survey them and when we bring this back for a second read or even prior to the second read, maybe you can get some language, clarify that with them and and we can get that in for the board to review. I Oh, sorry. Go ahead. I'm I'm wondering if that would fall under open enrollment. And I do think that there is um maybe it's a standard operating procedure, but you do sign something that says that, you know, you won't I'm I'm not sure of the language, so I apologize cuz my kids were in fact on open enrollment at some point while they were here. And so every year we had to sign. And so I wonder if it's just a
053if it falls under the standing operating procedure, but also, you know, is the district administration comfortable with principles basically not renewing an open enrollment for those reasons? I think so. So I think the question that principles brought up is can we basically cancel any time during the year the open enrollment especially when you have kids with I think one principal brought up 38 absences before Christmas and at what point can we cancel their open enrollment when they have so many absences or excessive tardies before the end of the year. So, we would need to reference that in this policy. So, we would need to reference um from what you all are discussing, we'd need to talk about tardiness um and how tardiness may, you know, wind up within the discipline matrix. In the discipline matrix,
054we would need to then cross reference uh some level of discipline for tardiness and up to and including the cancellation of an open enrollment. And then we would also need to change the open enrollment section within this chapter 5. So um would you like to see an addition of the truency or not truency but of tardiness added into this um truency section? Yeah, I I'm trying to pull it up, but I'm pretty sure in the discipline matrix it there is a tardy section as well. Okay, but does it include um cancellation of open enrollment? No, I do not believe that. What would need to be changed in that? Right. Um, so I will add a tardy policy, not policy, but just wording around um how what excessive tardies are. And then as we get to
055the open enrollment section, let's figure out what wording we're going to want to use um to talk about cancellation of open enrollment uh for excessive truency. But I believe truency also counting counts as tardies, right? truency council for absences only. Okay. So then we'll have to look at an excessive tardy party policy. Any other questions on um that policy that truency policy and tardy is in the discipline matrix. Okay. So so we just have to add that small piece. Yeah. So yeah, I don't know if it would be added to policy and then added to the discipline matrix, but what I found um and this is just kind of a side note is that the amount of policy cuz we're totally changing the handbook is going to need significant um rework for the start of
056the school year because it references basically all of our old policies, right? Okay. Yeah, we'll be in conversation about that as well. Okay, so moving on to I apologize. Let me see. Okay, we're on page 20 now. It is policy 5-105 open enrollment. I think 16. Oh, I apologize. Yes, you are absolutely correct. So on page 165-104 homebound or hospitalized students um we changed this section to say appropriately licensed healthc care provided instead of competent medical doctor. Um and then we have also changed under students with chronic health problems and we move from homework to schoolwork. Any questions? No, thank you for that catch. Um, but on page 17, I apologize, there's also a comment. And I know the answer, the stat, it says the statute says 3 months, but this says 90 days. So,
057should we be going with what the statute said? Because I still think 90 days doesn't say school days, doesn't say calendar days. So, you're proposing the change to be three school months. Yeah, if that's what the statute says, I think it's clearer if we're following statute. Any discussion on that? How do you define how you define three months? If this starts on May 9th, let's just say, then do you just say June, July, August 9th is three months or do you say start at the next or do we just say 90 days? That so the school months u means that if it starts on May 9th, then the next school month is not until August. So August would be the second school month and then um September would be the third school month. Right? So
058that would change it away from the 90 days because you're going have a depending on where it falls you're going to have a couple 31 days or if it's February you would have a 28 day. So the 90 So So maybe we should stick I think it's good we stick with statutes language. Statutes language says three months. I I'm fine with the 90 days. Can we just add the word calendar in there? Calendar days is very different because we're going to include all weekends. Oh calendar. Sorry. Yes, we can do that. Isn't that Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Sorry. You're I think I I do agree 90 days is probably a better way. So 90 calendar days. Could we please also discuss page 18? On page 18, um this is number five. We're talking about the certification
059date. Uh, Miss Zimmerman had asked what happened if the student is in the process of being certified as homebound. So, my concern, I know it says that this is what the policy states, but we do have the ability to change policy that it's not retroactive or is it statute that it's retro not allowed to be retroactive? Statute. Well, let me get back to you on that. I don't have that off the top of my head. I want to say it's statute, but I'm not positive. Okay. So, I just want to offer why I'm concerned about we're not retroactively. So, let's say a student is sick, right? They're not able to come to school and unfortunately they're in the process of getting diagnosed with cancer or something that would force them to be home. I don't
060think it's fair that we penalize students that they're in the process and do end up with a diagnosis. So I hear that the policy says that but my question is you know we're changing policy and can we allow my wording that I would propose would be if a student is diagnosed then it is allowed to be retroactive right that they do finally get a diagnosis um because I know a lot of times kids are in the process of things and they you know the parents don't know what's wrong yet. So that's my concern. I think that's a good idea unless statute prohibits it. I I do think that's a good idea cuz we are right. There are kids who sometimes the diagnosis is not one trip. It's sometimes they don't even start testing until the
061child's been hospitalized two or three times before they really get serious about what this might be. So, it's only retroactive upon diagnosis. That kind of goes without saying there was a diagnosis and they wouldn't be homebound anyway. It's kind of redundant. Well, and there's also the the thought of some of these students don't wind up getting diagnosed for or getting diagnosis at all because it's a mystery illness, right? And so in that case, if we're in a mystery illness type of a situation, is it a requirement of a diagnosis or just a requirement of a certification? So that's I think that's what's different for me and the why I'm asking around the language because if we say diagnosis they have to have something that's within the diagnosible realms of like uh within the diagnosible realms
062right of like what physicians can actually put down on health insurance paper. And I think yeah I'm in full agreement with you on that. Um, going back to my day life, we we would see kids who've gone for 5, 7, 10, 15 years without a diagnosis. I mean, it's called the diagnostic odyssey because nobody knows what's wrong with them. And sometimes I've seen hundreds of doctors with no diagnosis, but there's clearly something wrong. So, requiring a diagnosis may not be the right word. um certification. The doctor can write and say they're, you know, we're going through a process, but they don't have an actual diagnosis to give. They just have a list of symptoms. So requiring a diagnosis may not be the right term. Um again, these are like rare diseases, so the likelihood that
063we're going to get a kid in our district who's got this, but it could happen. And so we don't want to like pigeon hole these people and not be able to get their child all their school whatever they need um just because they don't have that, you know, code that we can pop in for for billing purposes. And I just want to be clear like I support what we're saying. I just want to make sure we got the light the right language. Uh-huh. So, I'm wondering if the language then becomes certification is retroactive and um will excuse any absence occurring prior to the date of certification because the certification is being done by the district. Correct. Like the No. Okay. Certification is done by the appropriately licensed medical provider. Okay. But then they're determining correct
064if they need to be homebound with the diagnosis or not. the physician is deciding, right? Okay. Yeah, I think I'm fine with that. Okay. Can we go back to page 17 number two on the certification process? It says, "A student who will be absent for more than 90 days must provide medical certification from a licensed medical doctor. A student who will be absent for less than 90 days must provide medical certification from a healthcare professional. It seems like either way they need to provide a letter. Um, but at the end of that where it says must provide medical certification from a health care professional. Yeah, I think that needs to say appropriate licensed health care professional because you could technically have a dental assistant and nowadays they consider massage therapists to be health care professionals.
065So you could have there that list is so long. So do we look at changing that to say appropriately licensed health care professional? Anybody that's certified in the state typically doesn't have the authority to diagnose. Um, but I'm I'm I mean honestly truly only doctors I I think in some some aspect a PA can make a diagnosis. But but a medical certification from a health care professional that could be that could be a lot of different people that doesn't put much weight. Every everybody knows somebody that can write this letter. Everybody probably knows three or four people. I can go through the entire policy and change throughout to say appropriately licensed medical provider or however we termed it in the previous. So I'll go through out the policy and change any place that says medical
066doctor or licensed healthcare provider to appropriately licensed. Sure. which then changes that very specifically to um absent for any peri. Right? So that absent for less than 90 days was just a lesser um was a lesser verification than absent for over 90 days. It might I don't know if needs to still be separate because it's a licensed medical doctor for an appropriate licensed. Okay. So like if I get I don't know how to put it. So I think there would be cases that it it might not be an actual doctor but still appropriate if appropriate that person said you need to stay home for the day or whatever. So I think it still need to be separate but just say appropriate medical on the the less than 90day one. The less than 90 is appropriate
067and the over 90 days is still a medical doctor. I mean, I I think it's again, we're doing this, but as the state continues to allow more and more um give more and more authorization to nurse practitioners, family nurse practitioners, uh physicians assistants, there's there's times now a a physician assistant a lot of times can diagnose a fracture. It used to never be that way, but now they can. And they might say, "This is a you know, if you have a femur fracture, you're probably not coming back to school for 90 days." So I think if we just make it appropriate appropriately licensed medical provider we're we're covering the basis and we can we can look at that but you say for both under and over maybe for both I caution I mean we can
068keep the medical doctor for the over 90 but definitely for the under 90 federal law. Yeah, that's why I would caution for both um because of federal law. So, I would just make sure that anything over 90 days is the appropriately licensed medical doctor, right? But the other one is professional, you know, under 90 days. If you break a if you break your hand, your arm, you go to your orthopedic surgeon. Often times, it's still a PA that may may sign off on that. I think a lot of doctors still have a, you know, a computerenerated thing that has the doctor's signature on, but I just think if we say appropriate, appropriately licensed, and the big term in that I think is licensed versus certified um healthcare professional. If you're certified, you're working underneath another
069health care provers's license. If you're licensed, then you have the autonomy to work under your own based off what the state gives you jurisdiction to do. So, if I may, a licensed medical doctor versus licensed medical physician, I think that if if we want to leave it as doctor, that's fine. But yeah, and my experience has been nurse practitioners, physician assistant, and doctors are the three that can actually diagnose. Um, that comes back to my working in healthcare for a number of years. But if we want to leave it as medical doctor, that's very specific and I'm okay with that. It's just over the 90 except for a medical doctor as an MD and you could have a DO also a doctor that can do the same thing. That's uh So would we would it
070be licensed medical physician because I mean that's might be better. I I so what what I'm understanding is for a student who will be absent for more than 90 days must be provided by must provide a medical ticket from a um appropriately licensed medical doctor and a student who will be absent for less than 90 days must be provided a medical certificate from appropriately licensed or whatever health care professional but I just question do we say in that over 90day if we say medical doctor that's an MD. There are doctors that are DOS that are not MDs, but they have the same. You can have a surgeon that's an MD. You can have a surgeon that's a DO. So, do we just say on the first one licensed? Well, I thought that's why we're doing
071appropriately licensed. So, can I make this language consistent with the Arizona healthcare cost containment language? Okay. Probably. Um, I will go ahead and make this language consistent with Arizona healthcare cost containment. That okay on page 20. Um, this is 5-105. Do we do we have some on 19? We do not have anything that would change. Okay. Well, the qu the question though is is the rank is this a ranking or is this so when we do open enrollment um Dr. Mahorn is there a ranking in which we give um preference to if there's a limited amount of space. Can I real quick? Let me um explain the difference here just so that we're we're clear on 5-105 page 19. Um what we're talking about is there's two sections and one section says the district shall
072enroll that is statute. The district the next section said the district gives enrollment preference to that is an optional. So the shall piece is a part of statute. And the second piece um that so that's not priority ranking by any means. That is just the list of um what's required by statute with the addition that you all have added with students of employees of the district. Okay. But the um and so five and six have been added by you all. then the bullet points um that are underneath that is what may happen and so that is the district preference. So that's why there's two separate. But I thought that it was statute that we had to enroll students in foster care and mckin vinto and correct. That's the part on page 20, right? It says
073the district gives enrollment preferences children who are in foster care. That is so it's also in number four. That's the McKenna Vento, right? Students classified who are um homeless. students whose guardians are the armed or yeah, students who are classified as homeless. That's the McKenna Vento there. So, I I apologize. I mixed those up. The first six are the may of the district and the last four are the ones that are absolute um required by law. The foster care, meet the classifications of unaccompanied minors, attend a school that's closing, etc. Okay. But it still says the district shall give enrollment preference and reserve capacity for all of these people that are listed. So, um I just want to make sure that we're clear that we know what we're saying here that we shall meaning we
074are we have to if we put this as shall. So, I guess there isn't necessarily a ranking needed because we're saying all of these people are going to be allowed to be open enrolled. Okay. So, we're removing the request for ranking, correct? Because we're reserving the capacity. Um, do we need to put language in here that talks about capacity though? If we say shall enroll any student and our school is full, I don't know that we can take additional students regardless of the fullness of the school. Students who are in foster care, you have to understand them. Students who are homeless, you have to enroll them. So based on that like yes we when we're talking open enrollment that's an entirely okay like for the students who are I see I'm sorry this is student
075enrollment my apologies no this is open enrollment correct so these spaces are reserved and they are priority right but anybody beyond that so people who are outside of the district that want to come in if you're full you don't have to enroll them but if you're full and you receive a student who is homeless. I understand. Yeah, we have to take Right. But this is open enrollment. So we are saying that if we are full and a sibling of a student that's already enrolled essentially. It doesn't mean it doesn't matter if they're open enrolled. It just says if they are enrolled, we are going to enroll siblings of students that are already. So if we're already full and I just want to be clear, I'm not advocating that we don't allow siblings to enroll. I
076but I just want us to be clear that is what we're saying. This is the open enrollment policy. So if we want to talk about capacity I do believe this is the policy and the maybe more in the procedure but I think we need to be clear in this initial one. Sorry that's okay. Um that we shall reserve capacity. That's the as the policy reads. And so I almost wonder if the number four and number five shouldn't be in this particular well it's hard because number one you shall enroll resident students. I think we that has to be there and then two three and six I think are where we have the wiggle room. four and five. We do not as it's listed below. But I know schools in the West Valley that did not
077renew, not our schools, I'm just saying a different district. They did not renew open enrollment of students that went there the previous year because they are so full. So I think it's up to us to determine so the priority. Can I ask for clarification just so I know where we're going with this? in the perfect world that would this policy then state what you statutoily require first, right? And then the enrollment preferences underneath that in priority ranking. Okay. I I I think that that's probably what we need to protect ourselves from what I think Mr. Todd is going to is referring to is if we're at capacity, there has to be a priority enrollment pref um I didn't say that right. I apologize, but a priority order in which we process open enrollment maybe is
078the correct term. Mhm. My my other question along those lines is it says okay I know we have to accept the the students that are you know McKini Vento and that sort of thing but does so if that child currently is homeschooled is Liberty but the parent the the foster parent or the the parent whether we're talking homeless or we're talking a foster situation any different things does that mean that they can pick any school in the district regardless or does that mean we have to enroll them in our district? So, let's just say their home school is Liberty and the and the parent says absolutely not. I want to send my child to Blue Horizon and Blue Horizon is over capacity. Do we have to take them there or do we just have to
079accept them into our district into into a school that has capacity? So specifically or specifically to their home school if you know obviously we have to take them here if it's full it's full we got to figure out something but can they just pick and choose where they want to go? So it's the homeschool of the residents that they're in. So with um fostered children, right, we have to enroll them in they their first priority is the school of origin. Okay? Right? Whichever school that they are leaving into a foster care situation and then it's on the district to figure transportation and all of that out. If they choose to go to school or if they choose that they want to be in the school near the foster home, then it is the home the
080priority um enrollment goes to the priority of the school that is closest that they're within boundaries of that school. It is up to the district if they want to move to a different site, but that's not a typical thing that happens. Usually the foster families will send them to the school that's closest to whatever home they're in. Okay. Okay. So, it's my understanding that I will go ahead. I'm going to go through this policy and just list the for your review. I'll list the shells first. Um that is statutoily required and then we will go give a priority ranking. Um my question is after the shell after the statutory requirement what is the priority that you would like to see listed? Um, so we're saying number one, resident students is a shall correct. Okay. So
081I would go in the order. Um, I think I would go in the order that it's listed. So I would go 2, three, and six as the order. Two, three, and six. Any other conversation? No, I I think as our district grows, this this becomes more of a challenge just the scheduling and everything else does. We we used to never have two school dances on the same night. We never had anything happening. As as we get bigger, we're running out of we suddenly with school eight, we're we're out of days of the week. We kind of lost that a few years ago actually. But um even with number six, students of employees of the district, as the teacher shortage continues, you may have a teacher who says, "I can teach in your district if my
082child can come there." If we make that the lowest priority, we may lose a teacher. So I I don't know what on the same on the same lines though. I hate to tell somebody who's been coming to school for the last four years or that eighth grader who's gone to their school for the last seven years, sorry, you're not going to graduate at your school because we now need to bring the new teachers child in here. As we talk about classroom capacity, I I just surfaced that to for discussion as to what we what the correct answer for this situation is. When we had one school, two schools, and we needed a total of 20 teachers, it was pretty easy. As we continue to grow, this becomes a challenge. So what's what becomes the priority?
083And and I think the order is fine, but I think it sets us up at some point that we we might lose a teacher. So great, you can come out of district or you can come out of out of school boundary, but you're not going to have a teacher this year because we couldn't let that student we couldn't let that teacher student come to the campus. I mean, I know these are really tough decisions. Um but we do know that in developmental psychology that it is important for a student to stay remain in the school that they're in for as long as possible and that it is a significant burden for the student to switch schools. So I personally as I'm looking at this priority we're ranking it looks like you all are following the
084lines of developmental psychology which again I'm just surfacing this because I I do agree but I think studies also show having a highly qualified teacher in a classroom is good as well. So instead you're going to get an emergency certified teacher because we couldn't hire this highly qualified teacher because we couldn't get their child or children into our school district. So, I just again I I don't think there's a right answer. I think there are several wrong answers. Unfortunately, and as a board, we we get in a situation a lot, but I just throw that out there for a for a process for the board to think about because inevitably I think this will come this will come back to us at some point. not to change the order that's agreed upon, but to say
085whatever order we pick, maybe we have a situation where that wasn't the best order. So, again, it's just wants to reconsider, talk about it. Otherwise, I'm like I said, I don't think there's a I don't think there is a perfect answer. I do um I do agree that I don't think there's necessarily a right answer. Um just an answer that we try to agree upon. Um but I think that with the students of employees of the district, um enrolling one student, you know, for a teacher will have much of a less impact if we leave that at the bottom versus students returning from the prior year. That's going to affect a lot more students. Um and so I think it would be easier to have room for one versus Some of our schools, I want
086to say, have 20%, you know, open enrollment students, not from outside the district, but inside the district. So, I just think if we move that down, it's going to affect significantly more students. So, yeah, Miss I'm fine with with your proposal. I just talked No, I understand. No, I'm just offering, you know, and again, I'm not saying that my ranking is correct either because I agree it it's a difficult uh decision. I'm just thinking through the different ideas and the impact that it would have to to class size and staffing. Okay, we can carry on. Okay, moving on to page five- or I'm sorry, page 215-105A. Um, this is under section A, general open enrollment. There were some uh just quick revisions added in here about resident schools um and students of district employees. Again,
087I think we'll need to look at the wording though because it says the district will reserve capacity for and grant enrollment preference to students residing within the boundaries but then returning students, siblings. I think we'll need to change that language, you know, to reflect, you know, leave the residing within the attendance boundaries of the school, but then we'll give uh preference open enrollment in priority order or something to those to that effect. So question here it it does kind of say it says as the capacity allows. So this one it says as capacity allows but the other one it says we have to keep space for them but this one says we only have to enroll them if there's space. Yeah. So, this is for the the general open enrollment. So, there are groups that
088we have to reserve the capacity for and I'll clarify that language in the previous policy, but this is specific to after we've reserved the capacity for X, then these are open enrollment as capacity allows. Good. I think that was kind of our questions too about having to maintain. So we only have to maintain for the required like the the foster and mckin vento but after that if we're capacity we don't have to accept open enrollment if they don't fall underneath those mandatory ones. Correct. Correct. Okay. And then for you know my comment at the bottom um you know and I see the response from the district. My concern with wanting to um reduce the amount of time when we update the website is so that we don't allow our classrooms to get over capacity and
089then need to look for another teacher for a section or have to pay um compensation for over the class maximum. And so if we allow for open enrollment and we're not evaluating the class size more frequently than 12 weeks, I think it could put ourselves in a difficult position because if it's posted on the website, um, do we have to enroll them because it says we have room when in reality we actually don't if we were to look at the class sizes. So it's not a you have to enroll them. If it says open enrollment available, what's going to happen is you apply for open enrollment and then that principal will look to see if they have the capacity. Okay? Right? So just because it's on the website and says that we are open for
090this does not mean your application will be approved. Part of the approval process is the assessment of class size. Okay. Moving on to page 22 and this again is 5-105A. This is section C, the priority of admissions area. And I think this is just going to need to be um the language is going to need to be made consistent throughout the policy. Um and then we were uh we're also looking at removing the district may provide transportation to students accepted for open enrollment even when not required to do so based upon the district's capacity to do so. So Miss Zimmerman is proposing that we remove this language entirely and take that option off the table. I I think we've been doing this for some staff members that either teach at Westar or Australa already. This
091has been this came up about a year and a half ago where there were some arrangements where some staff members were having their students transported down. I know Miss Camp had some special arrangements worked out. This might have an impact on staff currently. I might have to go back through some detailed notes, but I'm pretty sure we were transporting some staff members, students from either Australia or Westar. They were they came from another area and we got them down. I need to look at that. I can follow back up with you, Dr. Do we get reimbursement on that if it's out of No, we shouldn't be busing any open enroll kids. I don't know why we would be, but we could talk about that, but I remember this came up, I want to say about
092two years ago. It was became a became a little bit of an issue because we were transporting some staff members. If I remember correctly, and I I don't want to get quoted on the public record if I'm wrong, but if memory serves me correctly, we were doing this and have been doing this for some staff. It's been before I got here, but no, we shouldn't be transporting any open enrolled kids at all. Okay. students I should say we should not be so and I just want to clarify that this is for only students that were not legally required to for like McKini Vento this would I just want to be clear for the record that I absolutely would follow a statute but this is for you know these kinds of situations for foster Mckin Vento
093that's a totally different totally different um but this is just for ch students that choose to go to a different um school within the district is where I think this would apply and again this wouldn't apply to special education students or anything like that because that's covered under the law but you know due to a financial situation um I I just think it we don't need it. Okay, Mr. President, if I may. You may. So, how might this affect when I guess I'm trying to think different scenarios and we have Loretta Zumbra opening um obviously they have their boundaries but we have specific you know preschool's going to be over there and I know we don't transport the preschool kids special education well right but but um you know just trying to think of how
094you know leaving this in here, but making it not so that it's based on upon upon the district's capacity to do so, but more of a, you know, it the almost like a waiver type situation that administration or the board can approve on a certain situation. I'm I'm trying to think outside the box on this because if this is this is coming from statute, right? I'm not that I'm aware of. Okay. Um I'm just is just providing the district an option. Yeah. I just I don't know that striking it out completely because then we don't ever have the option to utilize it if we need to do so for whatever reason that may arise. But I'm just thinking if there may be a situation where, you know, we need to utilize it, it'd be nice
095if it was here and you had a some kind of a process to approve it on a case-by case basis. Mr. President, if you may I think outside of our requirements from the law to pick up the certain groups, I don't think we should be providing transportation to other students. I I agree with striking that out. So I guess what I will say is if we look at an area like Freedom where they border another district, their back fence is literally out of district and you've got 30 kids in that general area that's just outside of the walk to school zone in this day and age where we have open enrollment. Um, and this is what's starting to be recognized by charter schools all over the place as they're starting to get bus systems is
096they'll go right into your area and bring some kids over because that $5,000 $4,000 you get per student helps with your ADM. Maybe we look at a way of of even offering transportation with a fee if applicable. But in this day and age with open enrollment, I think the more we handcuff enrollment, the more likelihood we are to start getting into having issues of low ADM and that becomes a so it's always looking downstream. And as bad as I hate what our legislature has done with this ESA program and everything else, um we I I have to agree. I like what Vice President Kenyon is saying and and maybe we just hold this because I'm sure I'm I just the only reason I'm not going to go say I'm 100% sure is because if I
097do I'll be wrong. But um but I'm almost positive we're already doing this with several a I don't know how many but but a number of students that live outside of the Australia West our boundaries and we're getting them down from the blue horizon's area or somewhere up in that area. So, I I maybe we can do a little research and bring this back uh in some edited notes, but but I do think we need to be cautious just tying the hands of administration because if we've got a pocket, the other one as we open up Zumbro again, we're we're getting to the outer edge of our boundaries over there. So, there may be an opportunity to to move some students over. Not to mention, I think our buses kind of move around anyway. I
098think in the case I'm talking about bringing kids to the uh one of the Austral schools, they have to ride a bus to one school and then they pick up another bus. It's kind of like almost a public transit. You got to make a transfer somewhere to get because that bus does a reposition to the south end of the district to to start a new route and that's how it works. But to just say no might really be handcuffing. I don't know what you're in my experience um we have in a in a previous district we have allowed kids to ride the bus who weren't eligible but only if they've paid um we haven't allowed kids to ride the bus out of district but if within district to different schools but it's uh purely if
099they've paid to ride the bus. If they weren't eligible to ride a bus they've had to apply and been able to ride the bus if they've paid to ride the bus. So that that was one of my concerns is financial. And then another thing if we decide to leave this in there, I think we need to be very specific because I don't want to grant one person because it's only like a 5 mile drive and then we have somebody who open enrollment from Phoenix and now they're like, "Well, why aren't you doing mine?" Oh, because it was a teacher you approved and because I'm not a teacher you're not. So that's the only that's one of the concerns I have. So if we do leave it in there, I think we need to be like
100you're saying come back and spend some time and like really set some requirements for it. And in my previous district, it was only if there was a bus in the area. If there was already a bus in the area, then you could ride that bus. If there was already a previous established route, right, then you would be able to. I mean, I guess it's it's a with schools, it's a very bad analogy, but it's the only one I can think of at the time. And you look at um you know, the uh these days, it's about bringing students in and providing that opportunity to educate them. Um, I think their parents are making a good decision bring them to any one of our schools. My my thought, so the analogy is you see like the
101Heila River Casino and they offer free bus rides from every senior center around because it's bringing people in. There's a cost to it, but the benefit is once you get them there, they make they make that money back. So again, I don't want to mix gambling with schools. That's not it. But you just see some of these things happen where they are recognizing and and we I believe we want every possible student because they're if you live anywhere where we can get a bus coming to this district is going to give you the best education in the area. And so um and and we want those we want our schools full. We want to have multiple families coming in and new perspectives and and all those things. So, I just hate to eliminate it completely
102without without flushing this out a little bit more. I do agree though, it needs to be fair. We need to have a policy in place because I think the way this surfaced, if I remember right, was there was no policy. It was kind of a we'll just do this over here and then it came to light because somebody else asked for it. Oh, we don't do that. You're doing it. So, that's uh all right. Move on to 23. 5-106 on page 23. Um, I want to spend a moment here because there was a question about um the district who or district allowing students who are homeschooled to play sports um and what the fees are for those. Those fees cannot be different. So they have to remain consistent across the board and that is statute.
103Is there anything else on 23 president? Are we okay to move to the next section on page 265-202? Um there was this language that's offered here is uh language about defining a 504 plan. Um and I just want to note that the next two policies or the next section of policies is all IDA and 504 policies. So this is all federal law requirements. Um, thank you for adding this in here. The only thing um that uh I would offer for there's just a couple things. Um, so under a 504 plan um it says for students with a physical or mental impairment that substantially limit limits one or more major life activities. Okay, that's fine. So then the last bullet point on page 26 developed by a team knowledgeable about the student based on the evaluation
104of how the disability affects learning. I think it should not say learning it should say major life activities because that's how it's referred to you know three bullets above. So I'm just trying to be consistent that my only concern with that is that you're asking teachers that can only evaluate so teachers and professionals who can only evaluate how the student learning is impacted. Right? So they can't evaluate major life activities. They can only evaluate the learning process. Okay? But a 504 could be developed for a student with a mobility disorder that needs help moving about the campus. but they don't need help with learning. So, but it's impacting their learning environment. Do you see what I'm saying? So, we can change it. I just want to be clear that the professionals that will write a
105504 for a school are not typically um are not typically addressing major life I'm sorry, what was the language here? Major life activities, right? So they are assessing how it's impacting their learning. So if they are moving them from one section to another or how they are mobile around the campus that's because it's for the learning environment specifically. Okay. So could we add maybe in if you if you're don't feel that made you know major life activities but how the abil ability affects their access to education. I just think learning is a little specific in terms of what we're referring to with a 504. And then um continuing the language, the proposed language um the last bullet require special education services to act instead of saying to benefit from their education to access a free
106and appropriate education. But again, I appreciate the language. I think it's helpful. Question. Do you know where the the language came for for the 504 plan and all the bullets? Bullets. Yeah. So that I'm basically offer what I'm offering here is a revision of what the current policy states and something that's in accordance with the federal law. So it came from a combination of those things. So, as we move on to page 28 under educational services, um we're talking about linking into the IDEIDA policy. So, this is that link that was offered there. Um moving down the page, we are um going to the uh director of special education versus the assistant superintendent of human resources. Is this one of those places we don't want to be super specific with names or position? Well, position
107I think is okay. It's the name that becomes the if if you were to say send this as it was originally written assistant superintendent of human resources if it said send it to Stephanie Mahorn and Stephanie Mahorn was no longer here we've got a whole revision of we got to go rewrite do a first read a second read to change the policy if we just put in there director of human resources or we put director in this case now the red line of special education it's going to that person whoever whoever it is and the phone number is the district phone number. So if you know that person isn't there then or they're on vacation or you know whatever. Yeah. Right. Okay. So moving on to page 295-202.8. Um we're adding into what is this
108one? Two under section B the second paragraph. We're adding um parents into that. Moving on to page 30 under placement procedures. Um on bullet point three, we're adding in in consultation with the child's parent or guardian. Under section E, education services, we're adding in accommodations to access regular education services instead of replacing or replacing the language of special education. And just to be clear, it's because special the access to special education is provided under an IEP. So that is going to be a part of the language changes that have been requested throughout. And while I understand what you're saying of like the access to special education, that is the consistent language that is used within the 504 federal law. So this policy was written by the attorneys that specialize in that for the state of
109Arizona and they are using special education so that it is consistent with the current federal law. I understand. I just it's very hard because in a 504 it is meant for accommodations and if you're re receiving special education services like you're receiving minutes that's an IEP. So the proposed change is the uh removal of special education and um moving it to accommodation for access to regular education services. On page 31, um this is the fourth paragraph. When a section 504 plan is designed and approved instead of the word develops, these are approved. 504 plans are um designed developed by the staff level by the committee at the staff or building committee that is assigned. So on that one I apologize. So what we're saying is that all staff who work with the students shall be
110informed of the plan but not until the plan is approved. That's what this is saying. This is saying it's designed and approved. When it's approved, then all staff will be informed. That's why I think developed was there originally. As you're developing it, the staff who's involved understand what's going on. So, this just kind of limits. Yeah, it limits the So, all of the staff that are working with the students are helping design the 504 plan. Um however those actual accommodations are not put into effect until it is approved right and so the teachers are not physically required to follow that 504 plan until it's approved. So when it says here that the plan is developed that is one step in the process where everybody comes together and develop it is not a part of meeting
111the federal requirements until it is approved. Moving on to page 33 and 5-203, students with disabilities. And I'd like to go for about another 15 minutes and then take a break. Is that okay with everyone? 10 o'clock. 10 o'clock break. Um, can I ask a uh or make a comment about page 32? I apologize. 32. So this grievance and due process procedures, it seems to limit parents or students who feel unlawfully discriminated against or who have been the victim of unlawful discrimination. um it doesn't seem to be a policy to grievance if they disagree with the qualification or obviously not qualification of a student or the a placement of the student. So on an earlier page, is that uh grievance process part of the procedural safeguards that they are able to um question I guess
112the qualification or not qualification for the 504 plan. Correct. I will need to do research and get back to you on so specifically your question is so you know that that's what my question is listed on page 32 is and when it says that it's covered under 5-20A um which is this policy that we're talking about the trust answer is that it's covered in this policy but when I look at the grievance right here where we're at. I I only at least how I'm reading it and if I'm reading it incorrectly, please let me know. But the way that I'm reading it is the this particular grievance process is if you feel you've been discriminated against, not if you disagree with the qualification or placement. So if you disagree with the qualification or placement, that
113is under the procedural safeguards. Okay. So the procedural safeguards above this, the district shall develop an opportunity for parents and legal guardians of the students to an impartial hearing. So if I disagree with the placement or the 504 accommodations that were were used or um implemented or not, right? Yes, that's okay. I just wanted to clarify. Thank you very much. So page 33 um in this section what it we're asking for is an introduction. Now I um will if we agree that we need an introduction here we're we will need to have legal write that introduction. um because the copyright infringement and also the federal laws. So my question is is um the introduction something that the board wants? This is on page 33 under 5-203 for IDA. Um, I need to look back at
114this policy um that I referenced here, this IHB. I apologize. I thought I looked at the things that needed to be drafted. Um, I, you know, when I requested this, it was just something similar to what you did with the 504. I just think it's a nice um and when I look at our old policy, I see this like you know that we're comm that the district the board commits to fulfilling kind of our lawful and maybe people don't agree that we need an introduction and you know it's the will of the board but just to jump right into childf find. I really liked what you did with the 504 introduction. So, it just be something similar. And I don't know if you feel like that needs legal review because the language is so specific
115and because this is such a a hot button topic, it would have to have legal review. Okay, I'll leave it up to the rest of the board. Has the trust done an introduction for anybody else that they has adopted their policies? I would need to ask that question. Okay. Maybe you can ask that and get back to us. If they have, would you prefer that I use that pol or that introduction? Okay. And if they have not, would you want an introduction added because I would hate to have to bring this back for an additional read on read, right? Yeah, I I think so. I think you know with what you stated if the trust had already done an introduction we can start with that and make sure we're good with that. If they haven't
116then looking at legal review and trying to find figure out how to make that work. Moving on to page 40 of the same policy. I sorry on page 33 the answer. So uh you know the district shall establish and implement and disseminate written procedures for the identification and referral of all children with disabilities from age 3 through 21. It had birth. So, I understand the trust answers here because we are having meetings for students prior to age three. Um, however, we're not providing them from birth. So, I don't want to tie the district's hands and a and a parent come and say, "Well, you need to be providing services for my student." So, I don't know. I'd have to look at the child fine to know when the meeting occurs. I want to say it's
1172 years 9 months but it could be 2 years 6 months. I just don't recall. My question is is if this is what's in if birth is in the IDA federal policy, do we want to change it? Okay. So that's my question because I need to go reference statute to see if that's true or not. I mean, if it's in statute, but I don't think school districts, you know, this statute, I apologize. IDEIDA federal requirements and yeah, I mean, if it's if it's a federal requirement, no, I don't want to change it. Um, but I think the state is responsible from 0 to 3 and then the school district is responsible from three on. But the meetings do happen before the child turns three. I'm 100% sure of that. So I agree that maybe the
118word the age three isn't appropriate, but there is a very specific timeline with ASIP as to when a meeting occurs within the school district so that a child is prepared to start on the day that they turn three. Yeah. I'm if federal requirements say birth, I'm okay with it being birth. I don't know that, you know, I don't know if a situation that's ever came up where the district's been responsible to provide to kids under three, but it's I I would just assume just leave at birth and leave that there. Moving on to page 40. Uh there's a note on page 34. The second note says um B says the district must make reasonable efforts to obtain the informed consent from the parent for initial evaluation. And the legal answer is parent consent is needed
119to evaluate. So I think it should not say make reasonable efforts. I think it should say shall the district shall obtain the informed consent. And just for reference on page 35 number four it says the district must obtain informed consent. So just trying to make it consistent. page 40. Okay. on page 40 um under number four and this is same policy the district uh we're looking to remove some of the language and I will open that up for discussion if there's any discussion about the languages being removed there no okay um the other thing I wanted to ask you all about is if we wanted to put the specific discrepancy percentages um or if that felt too limiting. My reason for putting the percentage in policy is that somebody could come back and say, "Well,
120there's a just, you know, there's a 2% discrepancy." And you know, when we qualify children for special education, um you know, we are then when we write an IEP, we're federally required to follow that. And so I think the discrepancy percentage is important and it's gonna come up three page I think it comes up three pages later on page 43 that I want to compare to. So okay that's my request and uh Dr. Mahorn, do you know I know we've mentioned like the standard discrepancy model is 15%. Do can you provide me with language that I can add for the discrepancy percentage? I've got this from uh Kay Hamri. Uhhuh. The 15%. So if you would like additional language, I could reach out to her and get more specific. Yeah. Because when we start to
121add this uh 15% each way from a 100 bell curve any language that's that doesn't seem to make sense to me. Um yeah that's I know that there's like a specific language that happened. Yeah. From my understanding, it's from the norm, you know, 15% kind of either way. And I can't um pull probably the specific um the best language forward, but yeah, if we could just pull what language could be used in policy that would be understandable. Yeah, I can reach out to her. She can give me more specific. Thank you. Um, if we could move on to page 42. We're still in the same policy. Um, so on this one, we're just adding district administrators to the additional group members. And that will take us right at the 10:00 mark. Perfect. Take a uh
122about a 10-minute recess. We'll rejoin at 10:10 recess. [Music] Hey, hey, hey. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. [Music] Number one. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Hey, hey, hey. [Music] Hey. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] I want to open up. [Music] Daddy. Hey. [Music] Heat. Hey, Heat. [Music] and show us back in a session on page 43. Yeah, we just remind everyone we've got uh a lot more pages to go. We're on page [Music] of 87. So, if we can maybe continue to stick with Miss Castanos's original plan and move this along. I don't want to miss anything, but at the same time, I want to carry this meeting on until tomorrow either. I don't think so. It's uh we'll carry forward on page 43. Um speaking on on page 43, we
123want to address and make the language consistent throughout. So as we had discussed um about the discrepancy language on page 42, we're going to go ahead and add that discrepancy language throughout. Correct. So, uh, from the definition on page 40 about a specific learning disability, um, we'll just change, um, section A that a child has a discrepancy between ability and achievement um on grade level standards in one of in one or more of the following areas. Moving moving on to page 45. Um I will be adding in the class size um maximum procedures that they or the class class sizes here. Okay. I was going to say um as I looked at this I if the board preferred not to tie our hands with the specific numbers I would be comfortable if it just if
124there was a sentence added that said the board the board shall establish pupil uh teacher ratios annually. Um, and so it just ensures that we are uh reviewing those, which I think we have to. Um, it just puts it in policy. I mean, I'm open to either, but I was trying to be cognizant of other board members and not being so specific. I like not putting the specific ratios in there. Agreed. Moving on to page 48. This is the same policy ID. Um here we're adding in words but not limited to. So this is specifically talking about programs and services that are available to non-disabled students including but not limited to arts etc. Um there was a section on page 49. Um but we are going to remove that requirement because it's already covered in
125statute or I'm sorry in policy. Moving on to page 52. Um this was more consistency of language. I'm sorry. Did you um yeah, this is about uh being able to excuse a team member and I was concerned about um an administrator or the LEA being able to be excused. And so, um you know, it says it says practically the district would not be able to conduct an IEP meeting without the presence of a district representative. It it doesn't specify that in the policy language though. It says, you know, um a member of the IEP team described in 1B through 1 I. So let's see what 1A is. Sorry, the IEP team. So the 1A is a parent and illegal guardian. Okay. So it is allowing this policy as it reads is allowing the district representative
126to not attend if um you know the parent and legal guardian in the district agree. So I guess we could argue that the district is not going to agree. I just would prefer us to put a caveat that the the district administrator or the LEA is not able to not attend the meeting. I think it's a legal protection, frankly, for the district. I I think if we put it in there, then it does the opposite. That means they have to be there. It doesn't legally protect us if they have to leave for some reason. This this not saying that we're ever going to like just loud and leave, but it's protect us, I believe, if for some reason they have to not be there. Well, the IEP meeting can't be called without a district representative,
127right? So, like a parent's not going to have an IEP meeting by themselves, but could they have one with a teacher and a and a and a teacher is not a district administrator or an LEA. A teacher doesn't act in the administrator role. So, could a parent and a teacher call an IEP meeting? Then it wouldn't be considered an IEP meeting. The district administrator or the LEA has to call the meeting. So, that is the reason why the trust put this language in here. The idea permits the IEP team. That answer is because the actual meeting is called by one of these people. So to excuse them, you can't excuse yourself from a meeting you called otherwise the meeting is canceled. Okay, I I accept but I do think it's confusing. Um we also added
128in language um under parent participation that says and be considered an equal member of the team. Um and then remove or made language consistent in section two. On page 54, number three, we added in teacher who is responsible for implementing the IEP. That is going to take us all the way to page 73. This is policy 5-204. It's IDA and it is page 73. So my thought here is um it says that uh once the SPE director has verified the students parents have their educational rights severed they reach out to AD AD to assign a surrogate parent. So would we just add when the district will have a method for determining when a surrogate parent is needed and you know are we following is that statute that it's we reach out to AD or okay
129could that language just be added so that it's clear that AD is making the determination of a surrogate parent and not the district. So what is the language that you would like to add to number two? Maybe just that the district will follow AD guidelines for determining when a surrogate parent is needed in making surrogate parent assignments. Okay, moving on to page 88. Okay, on page 80 there is a comment um and it talks about how um that second paragraph oh sorry page 80 is um 5-205A apologize um the second paragraph it says students shall serve in gifted uh shall be served in gifted programs who score at or above 90 97th percentile um unless or on any okay students who score below the 97th percentile may also be uh served and I would just
130ask that we add as detailed in gifted scope and sequence so it's clear how that is determined how they're you know qualified I Okay. Page 88. This is uh policy 5-207 and we're talking about curriculum adoption. Um here we added in I just wanted to bring to your attention this is uh the approved policy that was or the uh policy that was revised and approved um on September of last year. Okay. Um page 89 curriculum adoption K8. We rewrote this language um in order to make sure that things were very specific and to address the um comments and concerns. Any questions about that language? Page 90. There is a suggestion to go from majority of all comm all voting committee members to an equal percentage. So it says procedures to encou encourage parental involvement on
131all selection and adoption committees such that parents may comprise versus a majority. We they're suggesting an equal percentage. I I don't like the anequal percentage because that means that if one parent shows up they have an equal percentage versus whoever else makes up that um versus majority. Hold on, let me reread this. I apologize. So, I think the idea, just to to give everyone a heads up, the idea behind this edit is that um a it's really difficult to get uh parents to attend curriculum meetings. Um, and then when we require that they make up the majority, that reduces the number of uh, highly qualified teachers who can be involved, right? So, if I can only find one parent to show up, then I can't have any more than one teacher there. Okay. No, I
132understand that. Okay. Thank you. And, you know, as I reread this, I even think an equal percentage is difficult. So, if we can only get one parent, then are we saying we can only have one member, one teacher? And do we only want one teacher previewing curriculum? I completely understand the intent of the policy to involve parents. I want parents involved, but I also don't want to limit teachers and staff who we've hired to be able to help preview curriculum. So, as I reread it, I just I don't even know if equal is the right word. It does say may, so I feel like it gives us a little wiggle room. It doesn't say shall. So, I'm okay with it with that understanding. Moving on to page 94. This is policy 5-210 spe special interest
133materials. Um, we removed one section because it had to do with 9th grade. Um, and then the section underneath that, hold on just a second because that might need So the um section underneath that we're removing unless teaching an authorized class described above. And then in section um 5-211 class sizes are we asking for specific class ratios to be put in here or board approved as we mentioned in the previous policy board approved. And is it annually you approve all of those? Okay. on page 96, President Todd is um requesting discussion if you should if um these groups should be allowed. So, I'll let you. Well, my question always becomes with non-curricular student clubs, that becomes a slippery slope. You allow one, you have to allow them all. Um, or at least you're going to
134be in litigation discussing if you need to or not. So, I just wanted to surface to the board because I don't think it's an issue currently. But as I say all the time, policy adoption today doesn't have much effect. It's you're usually trying to be ahead of the challenge that's going to come in the future. Um and and this may become an issue later. So should we allow non-curricular student groups on campus or should we just disallow them altogether? Well, on page 98 it says the district does not permit non-curricular student groups. Right. But then we have it here. Right. I think we just need to It's which is it? And so if we say we allow it here and we get to the next part, that's kind of my Yeah, I agree. notes. I'm
135more comfortable just not allowing them. The challenge to that maybe we have to define what that is is 4 to me that's a that is a curricular group. We have a program that's an a area. Um, I don't want to exclude the good. Um, but I remember a case several years ago, um, up in northern Arizona where they had one group on and and then it became a whole different group. And I don't even want to go into too many details because I don't want to give that bad group an idea now. Um, so I just uh just question where we should be with this and I wanted to get feedback from the board to see where they where they're at. If I can interject my two cents. I asked all the principles each of
136them if they had any non-curricular groups and the groups that they thought were non-curricular ended up being curricular. Um, one said that they last year had a chess club, but this year they don't have a chess club. Um, one principal said they wanted to start band, which technically wouldn't be non-curricular. One said they're hoping to start some kind of steam uh group, which to me would still be a curricular group, but that's it. No one had a non-curricular, but but again, that's that's great today. That's not great in five years. Um and and but your point to the chess club to me if you're smart enough to play chess there's a lot of there is some curricular activity in that I think you're really thinking and and you're moving your brain. Um you're exercising that.
137So where do you draw the line on what's curricular and what's not curricular um but again as I as I said today it's great. Today a lot of things are happening. We don't need policy. It's when somebody knocks on your door in 5 years and you don't have a policy to stop it, they can come right through the front door. And that's not may not be in our best interest. And I'm not I have no predisposed notion of what that organization may be. Like I said, my my mother served on a school board years ago and and uh they did get an organization that came in that uh cost them a lot of money in litigation. They ended up losing and uh uh and the event that took place was absolutely horrific. gonna leave it
138at that because again I don't want to give that organization any more ideas or anybody else. So it looks like the current uh policies is saying that no you all are not allowing non-curricular groups. Um is that where we want to stand or do we define is the chess club because I will tell you the members that were in that chess club greatly benefited from it when they had it a few years ago. Is that curricular or non-curricular? we identify chess club would be non-curricular, right? Which I that's so common on schools. So I'm just I'm uncomfortable saying we can't have a chess club. Um because I think that is really exercising the brain, giving people a lot of thought process. They're they're working. That's different than other organizations that could could surface. Mr. President,
139yes. I I think it needs to be defined a little more. I I don't like I'm not sure if I support like there's a blanket statement saying none non curricular students. I think we need to define a little more and what is approved or not. So on page 98 there is um all non-curricular student groups and this was the language that was edited out. We can add that back in with a couple more caveats if you would like. Yeah. Is there a way because thinking that a chess club would be considered non-curricular and you wouldn't be allowed to have it is kind of blows my mind. Like there's so many things that you learn from playing chess. Um my son's old school. It actually was part of their curriculum. They had chess lessons in their
140classroom um because it's it's so good for them. So, if there was a way in the thing that was at the part that was edited out, if we could work in that the group be able to tie it into um so it's maybe not directly curricular, but can you tie it back to something? So, chess club you could tie back to problem solving strategy. You know, there's definite benefits to it that would then benefit you in the classroom as well versus I don't even know what other sort of club I could come up with, but one that is really completely removed from an educational purpose. Um, I don't know how easy that would be, but that's sort of where my brain is going. So that we can allow students to have something like chess club,
141but not necessarily the I think the things like President Todd was referring to that just really are more disruptive. So, I'm wondering if I tie if I look back towards like the curriculum adoption section and there's some language about what's included and excluded there that I can attempt to propose some language. Can I I come up with a a proposition for the language? because I'm trying to think like clubs that could be problematic um for KA district. Um and then clubs that could be beneficial tying it just simply tying it back and this is a little bit of me thinking out loud, but just simply tying it back to a standard. I can tie absolutely any club back to an educational standard. Yeah. Right. And I mean absolutely any club. However, I think that there
142are some guard rails that might we might be able to find in the curriculum adoption uh language that might help. So, if you all will allow me the time, I'll go ahead and revamp some of that wording and we'll add back in. Okay, moving on to policy 5-213. This will be on page 103. Um, so there's two major edits here. The first being um on section C.2 um adding in national or state organizations. Um and then in section D there is conversation about moving this from a letter grade of D or better to a letter grade of C or better. And so I'd like to open that up to the board for conversation. Um, and then there's also a proposed edit on number three about good adding in good citizenship um, and appropriate conduct as
143well. When we're talking about intercolastic extracurricular activities, a student has uh, the student has a letter grade of D or better. And then we go to the next page under passing grade. It said if the student passing grade of a student is C that is what is up for discussion now. So yeah that's where I don't know to me I would rather if I may. Yeah. Um, I struggle with I've always struggled with a D. It's It's somewhere considered passing, but a D is greatly struggling. The days as we continue to prepare our students for college, for for vocational schools, all that get scholarships, the days of you're the star quarterback. So, we're going to let you slide and miss all your classes and come in with a a a low GPA. You've gone away.
144Now, in order to get a scholarship to be that quarterback more and more, you have to have pretty close to a 4.0 gradepoint average and you have to be good at the sport. I think this is falling along the lines of what we're trying to do in education as well, is continue to raise the bar. And I don't think that a C is too much to ask for our athletes to be focused on on achieving. Um I know many parents already require their student to have a C or better, but if you have a student that has a D, I think that's a low bar. It's a very low bar to achieve. C makes it we're raising the bar. And that's what we need to continue to do in education is raise the bar. And
145that that's kind of what my point was. I would rather see this go to a C for extracurricular activities. Um I know that there's going to be some parents out there that don't like that, but it's really you're it's a team, you know, these are team sports. Um, and I like that idea of raising the bar. And, you know, if they want to be involved in these extracurricular activities, they need to put a little more effort into their studies, something that they're going to be taking from their education. Um, so I would agree with raising it to a C to be consistent. And I don't know if because this is intercolastic may we may need to look at as well to be on student council to be on on the other organizations. I don't think
146it's fair to just say sports has to be a C or above but we need to continue to raise the bar and I think this is a carrot for students to continue to push to get better um because they want to be involved in all of those extracurricular activities and our primary job here is is maintaining that. Now, if they're at a D, does that kick them off the team? No. But maybe they're ineligible and they need to have a letter where they can bring that back up, you know, weekly grade check if they get into a D a D class. I don't think they should be out for the whole semester necessarily. Um, we can talk about that, but but I definitely think if you have a D at any time on a weekly
147grade check, um, or maybe it is once you hit a D on your report card, you're out until the mid the midterm. That that truly raises the bar. And I I feel pretty strongly about this one. Mr. President, may you may um so I'm kind of I'm kind of torn here. Um I believe that the high school um requires students to have a D. Is that's correct? Right. Most high schools, yes. There is D or better. So, you know, we would be raising the expectation higher than what the high school expectation is. And I'm not saying I'm opposed to it. Um, but I think this is something that would have to be very clearly communicated to our families because this would be a significant change and a lot of our students um, you know, are
148very excited about sports and this is a motivator for them. So, um I would not be in agreement of removing them if they had a D. I think that student should have the opportunity every week to have a grade check is and that is what my uh one of my additions was because I think if you rule them out entirely, they're they'll just give up. But if they feel like they have the opportunity in a week, then they're more likely to work towards that goal. um in terms of citizenship and and the behavior part, I think this is an important addition. Um but I just think it needs to be a little bit more specific that again we're adhering to the discipline matrix so that it's apply um applied um the same across the whole
149district and so it's not left to interpretation. Um, so I would uh suggest that students who engage in behavior that violate school policies and results in discipline as assigned through the um discipline matrix um may be deemed ineligible for participation. But again, then that's going to be up to the principal if we say may. And so do we want to be specific? if you've had a referral that week, you're ineligible, you know. Um, and again, I know that the the word is going to be like, well, we're tying our hands. Um, and so I'm not in disagreement. I'm just surfacing it for discussion as we think about how it's applied through our schools differently. um because I I definitely think people talk across the district when it comes to sports and um ensuring that we
150are treating each school fairly. So I I want to be careful here and I hear what you're saying on the uh matrix. Maybe we need to modify the matrix to to include you get a detention or you get something else, you're ineligible for uh you know you're ineligible. There's got to be some way where we build that in. These days, we're preparing our students for the future. And I'm never going to tell a student that they're not going to become a professional athlete because every day somebody becomes a professional athlete. Um, but what I do want to make sure is that we're raising the most highly educated students we can and also the best citizens that we have. And to be quite frank, I'm pretty tired of what our generation did younger, letting a bunch
151of, for lack of a better phrase, thugs become athletes. And every day you watch the news and you see some athlete who's done something rather unintelligent or made poor decisions and they just continue on. So if we start instilling more um civility, more responsibility, more leadership skills in grades uh in extracurricular activities, not just sports, but student council club activities, the school performances, um I think we start raising the bar and I'm okay doing it on if they if you get into a D category, then every week you're getting you're getting checks. that's fine to get them back because that is to your point that's the that's the carrot. I think using the carrot is often times much better than using a stick. So um so I'm good with that but I think uh we
152can even adjust the matrix if we need to to include it so it is equal across all campuses. Yeah, if I could sorry just one second. Yeah, sorry. Um, I mostly just want to agree um with what President Todd was saying and I think that we need to be reminded that we're in the business of education, not creating athletes. So, I understand that the athletics are a huge motivator. Um, but at the end of the day, we're supposed to be educating them, not not developing athletes, especially at the elementary school level. Um, so I'm fully on board with requiring a C and if it drops below then having the weekly grade checks. I believe that is what they do in high school at this point. Um, they have to do a grade check for their
153sports weekly. So they are on top of it. Teachers are filling those out at high school. So it would be sort of setting them up for the same thing. Um, and then just on top of there are some schools that are going to C is passing and anything below C is not really passing anymore. So, um, that that's not necessarily outside of the realm of what what some schools are going to at this point. Anyways, my only comment is that we do weekly um progress reports no matter what the grades are. That's just something that that all ADS do in all of our schools right now. Just no matter what grades, it's just weekly progress reports and that's why I just wanted to add that into policy that it's a weekly check. Um, so I
154agree. Okay. So, moving on to page 104, the same policy. Um, and in this there were some edits asked for uh removing some language. So I'll just open this up here for discussion. I'd just like to make a comment that I do think um that the parents are notified. I think that would solve a lot of issues. And I think, you know, uh I'm not sure if this is getting into the weeds too much, but if the if there was some sort of um uniform weekly grade check that the you know, teacher signed and then the the student had to take it home and have their parents sign. Like again, kind of putting the ownership on kids. Um, and if they didn't bring it to the coach, then it doesn't, you know, teaching student responsibility
155and that may be too procedural, but um, I do like notify the notification of parents. I do too. Okay, moving on to page 107. This is policy 5-215. Um, and this is just adding in the electronics 107, policy 5-210 215. Uh, moving on to page 109. This is policy 5-216A. at the very bottom, the notification and interventions. Um, we added progress reports or report cards are issued so that we're not limiting. Then page 111, that's the same policy 5-216A. Um, and this is the midyear promotion. And so there was questions about if this could be removed. Um and the answer is yes. The midyear promotions could be removed. Um the district did seem to think that that may limit um their options for students. So uh Dr. Moan, I'd like to let you speak to
156that real quick just in case there was those rare instances where there is a student who would be ready to be promoted midyear. Doesn't happen often, but it definitely happens and it could happen. So, we just didn't want to limit a student who could be prepared to be promoted midyear. I've seen it happen in my career where a student who's been promoted midyear and still still been at the top of the class in that promotion. So, I did I didn't want to hold back students. I don't want to hold back a student who's ready to go to that next grade um if they're ready. And my concern is that this is referring to students that have been retained. Oh, is that what that So, okay. That then that's my fault. No, it's okay. It's just
157that if we have retained a student, right? So, they've they've struggled to meet the, you know, standards and then we retain them in the same grade and then we promote them mid year then they've missed the learning of the new grade. So, that is my concern there. And I just not sure that's setting up students for success. And that's my fault if I misread that. So, I apologize. You may. Uh, I don't have a problem being there. I think it just allows us to do it if we need to. It doesn't mean we have to do it. Hopefully, the teachers and the administrator of that school realize that the ESS student might have picked up the fourth grade, for your example, but they're not ready for fifth grade and they're make that decision not to
158do it. It's not saying they have to, but I like it being there just for those instances that if we need to. All right. So, then moving to page 112, and this is the same policy. Um, Miss Zimmerman was asking for more protections uh for the special education students. The trust has referred to special education student protections being in the IEPs and in the previous policies. So, I just want to ask if we are making additions here or not. If the if the trust feels like it's fine, I'm I'm okay leaving it. Um, moving on to page 115, student attire. Um the conversation here was where was this addressed um for staff? Um and that would be addressed in the employee code of conduct or chapter 4 page 115-302. Um and then on page 5-303,
159this is student records. Um this is how we're distributing the not annual notifications for student records and there is concern of like what the cost to the district is. So I just wanted to surface that as a part of the conver. Yeah. And um when I got to this policy, when I originally read this and you know asked for this, I could have sworn that I read this in a previous policy and I went back last night looking everywhere to find it and I couldn't. So um I'm okay um removing essentially what I had because I can't find it. I don't know where I saw it, but I couldn't I couldn't find it again. So, and that's just honest, you know, I I I tried to check my own work and um and so I
160could not find that. So, I'm okay removing it. Okay. Page 1175-303 again. Um and this is how educ educational records are maintained. So the the trust has said we can add in section on how educational records are maintained and I'm curious what to let what level of detail are we asking for here. I'll just speak because this was mine. Um and I went back and looked at our previous policy and I really looked at how I could reward it and not copyright and I just could not do it to be honest. So um to Mr. Todd's point earlier, I'm okay right now and if if something comes up, I feel like the board can bring this policy back and address it. Um I just couldn't figure out how to do it right now essentially. Page
161118, the same um policy. So this is specifically that directory access, right? Um and so instead of putting that on the students, we're making it parent legal guardian consent in writing to release the students transcripts. I just have a question about that. What if the student is now over 18 and they need their record for some reason? They got to get their legal their parent or legal guardian. No, if they are over the age of 18, they are their own parent or yeah, Miss Castiano, just a quick question for housekeeping. Uh, I think lunch received and we're starting a new section right here. Do you want to take a break for lunch really quick? Um, and then we can pick back up. Why don't we do that? And uh so we'll pick back up on
1625-303A. Yeah. How long do you guys want to take for lunch? 15 minutes. 20 minutes. 15 minutes. Great. Going to eat fast. Let's come back about 11 11:05ish. We'll recess now. [Music] Hey, hey, [Music] hey. Heat. Heat. [Music] Happy birthday. [Music] Hey. [Music] Hey, hey, hey. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] up. Do it again. [Music] I want you. [Music] Heat. Hey, Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Hey, hey, hey. [Music] Sweet. Down. [Music] I'm down. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Are [Music] you welcome? [Music] Time is 11:09. We're a couple minutes late getting started, but we said ish, so we should be good. We'll show us back in general session. Um, moving on to page 121, Miss Castianos. All right. This is policy 5-303A. It's around student records. Um in on page 121 under a
163uh there's this is the definition for school official and it's talking about the school official including a district administrator, supervisor, instructor and it puts in there um a person serving on the board as a school official. So the question and or the questions here is for a caveat that includes like board members. Um, Miss Zimmerman, do you want to talk to this directly or So, and I looked at this policy again last night and really uh thought about how we could create a caveat and if it's necessary. So, as I think through this policy, this as I read it, it's referencing a a specific student record. That's how I read this. Um, and so I thought when is a board member needing a very specific one student, you know, their educational record. Um, and then
164I thought about uh I think it comes up later, we might have already covered it, but you know, we have to hold the expulsion hearing. And so I was like, okay, then we would need it. Um, so you know, it says a school official must have a legitimate educational interest. And I just wonder um if there's some other sentence that we could add there if we leave school board member um as part of it. Um, so I I do think it's tricky. I think probably we we do need to access um student specific student records at times. I'm not obviously referring to like, you know, summary of testing and things like that. I do think we need to see that, but um I just want us to be careful, right, that you know, we have
165a specific reason to review because you know it is students privacy. And so there is a specific reason that we're viewing a a specific student's record. So, um, if anybody else wants to chime in, I'll I'll think about if there's a sentence we could add to the second one. Anybody have any comments? Yeah, I'm I'm okay with leaving the person serving on the board in there and then that change of having must have a legitimate educational interest. Um, I don't, you know, I I think that this all spells out what it's for. So, right. I I if I if I may, I'll just say, um, Mr. I don't know if you've had the I don't think you've got to go to the legal conference yet, have you? That they for asthma. So, they do a
166thing there called Stump the Lawyer um where people ask questions and it's it's quite a interesting session. Actually, probably one of the better sessions they do at that conference year-over-year. Where I'm going with that is these trust policies were put together by a lot of lawyers who who sat in on this and sometimes when I've reviewed policy in the past and you see something what what are they saying here? It's because a lawyer got stumped sometimes. So I I think if everybody's reviewed it, it's okay to leave it in. And there's probably been that one-off time that a lawyer was aware of that a board got kind of paralyzed because they had a policy that that said something different. So when you find something obscure like this that I I don't I it's very defined.
167So there's a reason they've got it in there. I I think we could just leave it. But that's um because I feel like this was that time that a lawyer got stumped and said, "Let's make sure we get this in the in these policies when it happened." Yeah. As I read that second sentence and it says, "In order to fulfill the to fulfill the officials professional responsibility, I'm okay. The next one is on 5-303B, page 124. This was just some clarification language in the third paragraph down um adding or referencing the cited within the annual information. Um and then for the fourth paragraph under directory of information we are unless release of information was not signed or authorized annually. Moving to 120 page 128. Can we go back to one page uh 126 please? page
1681265-303.C. So, you know, the part that's highlighted, it says, "If the school principal decides not to amend the record as requested, the principal shall inform the parent or legal guardian um of the decision and the parents legal guardian or uh right to a hearing. I just feel like there could be a step in between here um that you know doesn't force us to go right to a hearing which could be costly. Um and when I looked at our previous policy there are different uh steps. So, I was just, you know, for discussion. Could I understand that it meets the legal obligations, but could we add a step that it could be appealed to the superintendent or, you know, something that would allow a step in between the hearing to not make it so drastic? Mr.
169President I don't think the hearing has to be like outside cuz the next step is like it says the superintendent can conduct the hearing themselves. So if if they appeal it to the superintendent that person technically could hold the hearing as the appeal to it. Moving on to page 128. 5-303.D has been removed based on the age requirements. It's for grades 9 through 12. Um 5-304 on page 128. We've added in um the discipline the reference to the discipline matrix. page 1295-305, student code of conduct. Oh, sorry. Um the the policy before. So, it's it's still on 129, but it's 5-304. the question about um like uh drug and alcohol searches. The the district has an adopted drug and uh alcohol testing program blah blah blah. And the question is we don't have one. So
170it's saying that the district h has adopted one but we don't have one. So I don't think we can say that. Do you want to remove that section? Well, I know the the the question will be like, well, if we have it in the future, um I So maybe it should could say um I'm not sure, but I don't think we can say it has a program if we don't have one. What if you just change has to? Yeah. Yes, that's fine. Is there a time that we would ever This is for students, correct? It is. Is there a time we would ever do a random drug test on a student without I mean, I don't even know when we would do that. But again, back to the last one, obviously, some lawyer got into
171a situation at some time and put this in there. I mean, I I mean, as you can see, like that was my question, too. Is this something that we do? Cuz it seems crazy to me. And then I also think of the conversations that I've had with friends whose children are in seventh and eighth grade and some of the things that are happening and then it's not as crazy anymore. Um why this may be needed at some point. So removing it completely might not be the best choice because we might get to a place where something's going on and we really do need to have the ability to search or look in what however it may be. um but changing it to may adapt and then district personnel would be authorized to conduct searches just
172changing the wording so that we could do it if we needed to even though we don't currently agree. Yeah. Is it okay to leave the language with the district personnels are authorized to conduct searches that conform to the requirements of the program? Like if we leave that as it is and then just put may adopt. Yeah, I think that's fine. Okay. And are we okay saying the district may adopt or should it say the board? Are you going to authorize a superintendent to develop that and then adopt or I think it should say board but that's just my opinion. I feel like somewhere in this maybe we just need to define the district. So again, if the district gets into litigation, it's ultimately the board that's into that litigation. So district and board, maybe we
173need to just define what district and board is, but ultimately my understanding is the district is the board. We are the authoritative. We're the we're the organization. So maybe somewhere in these policies, we should just clarify in definitions what the difference between district and board is. or is there a difference at all? I mean, they're not used interchangeably. They're they're definitely like the district and the board separately throughout the thing. So maybe yeah, maybe a definition somewhere. you know, the district includes this outside of the board and the board is this or something like that because um yeah, just to make it fully clear because they are definitely two different two different entities throughout the policy. Different people wrote different sections so the words aren't similar but when I read this as it is the
174district has adopted a random drug and alcohol testing program. I realize we haven't done that but if you read that it's like well well who adopted that? I don't think the superintendent could adopt that without board approval. So therefore, the district is the board. Um, but I agree with you. There's spots in here where it does say the board. So I I think standardizing that throughout and maybe I don't think it came up as much in the first couple of chapters, did it? Where we had big variations come up a lot in chapter chapter three on because we define the governing board, the roles or responsibilities in chapter one. I don't think anywhere throughout the policies and I'll have to check to make sure that the term district um has been really defined. Okay. To
175me it seems like it's universal but it is being written differently. Uh a little further I'm sorry a little further down that page on 5-305 student code of conduct. We're asking to change um from the violation of school policies and procedure. A student shall not violate any district policy regulation or rule um changing that from governing board. And then underneath defiance of authority, we're choosing or we're um editing obey to abide by. So I just wonder there did we just almost do the exact opposite what we're doing up above where we changed governing board policy to district policy. I think as I remember that you know across this chapter that it it says district policy. So it's just trying to make it consistent. I agree that we just switched it. I I hear what you're
176saying. I in in terms of referring when we refer to policy I feel like it normally says district policy across the chapter right across all of the chapters but when it has to the reason why we changed it up above the board has adopted is because of the term adopted right and so the board has to adopt and in this case sorry going back to the one where we we're now saying district policy instead of governing board policy like I would read that if it said governing board policy thinking about the policies that we follow as the governing board versus the district policies that are determining what students and staff are following. I that's just would be how I would read it. So district would make more sense to me in that in that sense.
177So along those lines though my next question is the governing board writes policies rules I don't know that we write rules we write policy there could be rules that are written by principles um I don't know that every rule on every campus if a principal enacts a rule that that comes to a board approval so does that In this case, well, I can blow off principal Smith's rule because this says so maybe that's maybe any district policy, regulation or rule. Maybe that is the right word there because it's any is anything. Okay. On page 131, this is under policy 5-305, which is student code of conduct. On page 131, we're asking for um different definitions for cyber bullying or clearly more clearly defining cyber bullying um and bullying. Uh, Mr. President, may I? You may.
178Okay. So, I did um look at this um as asked to kind of uh have some proposed language. Uh when I looked at our old policies, I felt that this felt a little limiting to me. So, I did try to be careful um and not copyright or anything like that. So, um I'll just read what I have and then um I did email it to Miss Castanos ahead of time um if the board so chooses to use it. Obviously, if they don't, then that's she won't need it. Um bullying is when a student or group of students engages in behavior toward another person that is unwanted, repeated over time, and has a negative impact on that person, including but not limited to physical or emotional harm. The act of bullying can take the form of
179many different means that includes but not limited to exert or attempt to exert power over a person action or actions that contribute to a substantial risk or cause injury, mental harm, degradation um or social exclusion. And then for cyber bullying, I said cyber bullying encompasses any act of bullying carried out using electronic technology or communication devices. It can incur on school computers, networks, forums, and mailing lists, or other district-owned property, as well as a student's personal electronic media and devices. So, that s that cyber bullying one, Miss Castanos, you'd probably have to see if it was altered enough, but it was hard to change, you know, because that's where those things occur. that cyber bullying direct from ASBA policy. The cyber bullying um definition came from federal. Okay. So it should be okay. Okay. All
180right. Um one of my questions though is with this the cybering bullying definition. The state or the school doesn't have any authority, right? Correct. if the cyber bullying occurs on their personal devices off school ground. They they do I I'm not sure if we're actually allowed to because it didn't happen on our property or our we I lived a personal case of that with my daughter and the school did get the school was instructed to get involved with it. That would be uh a question for our attorney or for the attorneys because I'm not sure what the actual legal authority is, how far that can be pushed or whatever else. Um the reason why we added cyber bullying into the definitions is very specifically that um all of the equipment that is used for the
181schools and all of the harm that does in this the impact. But as far as what the legal authority is of the school, I'm not sure. If it disrupts the school environment, then we can get and do get involved. And we have had several cases this year that do disrupt the school environment. So even if it's on a student's personal phone, which it usually is, then we can and do get involved. I understand that, right? We need to have the policy. But my question is even if it's on the student's phone, but if it's never brought up on the school property, right? If it's happening at home, I don't know what authority we have. Yes, we do. I've had several conversations with our legal then. And yes, I think one of them too like in
182the junior high worlds, uh sometimes there's a fight in a park next door to a school after hours, the school still takes some action on that and issue suspensions or or expulsions. And usually it's back and forth uh texting and threats and things and bullying on on their phones that spills over during the school day. And there's conversations, there's threats and things that still happen during the school day. So, and I think that the key word is that, you know, it impedes their access to learning because they're not able to focus their concern for their safety and things and it continues on. So my question is, do we want to take the definitions offered by Miss Emerman and add them in to this section, replacing what's currently here with the um definition she offered? I'm
183okay with them being split up um and having them come back for the second read so we can look at them again in here. Yeah, agreed. Okay, moving on to page 135. Can we talk about 132 for a second? Sorry as I as I read through this just one moment so that we can get many the policy number. It's 5-3 05 student code conduct page 132 and it is number 30. So sometimes you read these I just know sometimes we've all spent a lot of hours reading this as you as you go back through this you start thinking about things. I made a recommendation that we delete students shall not use shall not record or transmit speech or other communications of other persons without those persons express consent. Um you know that was again this
184goes back to my thing. This was put in by lawyers um who reviewed this a lot. I'm sure there's a reason that's there. Um, also at the top where it says um, a student shall not use a cellular phone. So along the same lines of a few years ago, we had the student using their Apple Watch to text and call their parent all day. Technically speaking, today the term cellular is used all the time, but there's there are no cellular devices in existence anymore. That technology is long gone. And so you really your iPhone, your Droid is not really a cellular phone. Um, so I'm thinking maybe we say electronic devices uh and we just keep it at that because cellular technology is long down the road about 20 something years ago it went away.
185Um, we still use it as Kleenex tissue but we had that same argument with the parent that your policy at the time said cell phones that's not a cell phone that's an Apple Watch and that again spirit of law versus letter of the law. I just think it saves us time down the road if we don't have to get into that discussion if we can avoid it. I think so it says and you do have I think some right to privacy in an educational facility. So I'm not sure that we should have people recording and transmitting that potentially even gets us into some fura issues for the district. So, I I think I probably read this when I made that recommendation at 2 or 3:00 in the morning, and I'm thinking if the lawyers have
186it in there, there's a good reason for it. Uh, I also question the, you know, recording because Arizona is a one consent state in terms of recording. So, my question was, do we have the legal authority to prevent that? and we we may on an educational um you know so students do lose some of their rights as we've you know seen. So it's just you know make sure we're following the law too I guess. I mean I'm confident if it's in here it's been written by enough lawyers from the trust and reviewed that it's legal. Um, but I am concerned now of my original recommendation to remove it just from the standpoint that I'm sure some lawyer was in a situation and that's why this is this is in there. Okay. So 5-306 student discipline
187on page 135. Um there were edits added in here. Well, let's start with number three. We have um added in language around the discipline matrix um and then added in the learning environment. The next section teacher removal of a student from the classroom. There was um edited language added in here. The language um previous that was in there prior prior that is crossed out that is directly from the original statute. So, I just wanted to make sure like which language we wanted to go with um because the language under one. A on page 135 um that was struck through is the original language from statute that's directly from statute. um you know, offer my thoughts just because this was my um you know, edit and um I'm okay with going with the statue obviously. Um
188but the the the part I guess that concerned me was that with the um interfered with the teacher's ability to communicate effectively with other students and I just wanted to focus with the ability to provide effective instruction. And I just thought it focused more on the learning aspect. Um, and I I understand that it could be um understood that communicate effectively would allow them to instruct students effectively. So, I'm okay with going with the statute if that's what the board prefers. Yeah, I'm okay with the statutes language. Okay, moving on to page 136. Same policy, suspension or expulsion of students. Um there was specific statute statutory language here. uh the use of possession of a gun and then we are asking to remove um excessive absenteeism from so a student may be expelled for continued
189open defiance of authority, continued disruptive or disorderly behavior, violent behavior that includes the use or display of dangerous instruments or deadly weapon as defined by the ARS, use of a possession of a gun or excessive absenteeism. So um the excessive absenteeism is in the statute. However, um it's requested to be removed. I I don't know why we would remove it. I think it needs to be in there. Um there's also underneath that number two, if a student has reached the age or completed the grade after which the school attendance is not required as prescribed, that is um for students who are age 16. It is possible to have a student who is the age 16 in 8th grade. While that is highly unusual, it does happen more often than we would imagine. Um, and then
190on number eight of that section, we added knowingly. Um, so knowingly for submitting knowingly false reports. Page 137, suspension and expulsion hearings. um just adding in language that we are in accordance with state statute and district policy and um removing the sentence that states in schools that do not have a superintendent or principal. As Miss Zimmerman stated, we do not have any schools that have that don't have a district principal or a superintendent. This um language is actually meant for our one room school buildings. On page 138, same policy under discipline, suspension, or expulsion of students, um we're adding in the term individualized education plan. We'll be moving on to page 143. And this is 5-306A procedure for student discipline. Um we're just changing language here from demand to request an open meeting um all
191the way at the very bottom just to keep consistent language. page 1465-306, procedures for student discipline. I think it needs to actually go back to the board because on page 140 the answer was that um statute hold on sorry that uh statute says it's the board's responsibility. So, um, we need to go back to the original language. Thank you. Okay. Page 1545-41A. On 5-41A is police interview notification and student interviews. There was language added to section C interview by school staff say stating that school staff shall consult with the district administrator and notify parents or legal guardians unless the parent or legal guardian are subject of said investigation. page 1555-402 uh department of child safety interview and custody and um instead of will request we've just changed the department or the DCS I'm sorry department
192of child safety custody of student that the staff shall um have the DCS worker fill out a form. Can I ask a question really quick? Back to 154 where it says school staff shall consult with district or school administration notify parents legal guardians. That's doing it that's an interview by school staff. Okay, that's not uh prior to engaging any interview a student under a peace officer's direction. Okay, it's it's there. Never mind. I misread. Thank you. Sorry. page 1565-403 immunization and communicable diseases we are just adding in the relevant statute um ARS15-873 on page 158 policy 5-43A A we are um adding for consistency of language we're adding in a number six that makes full disclosure of the requirements and exemptions for immunizations. Um and then standards for documentary proof which is section C. Uh
193we're referring to the immunization documentation versus the records. Meaning if someone files a waiver that will also suffice. Moving on to page 159 159 5-44 administration of medication. Um, Miss Emerman has asked that medication be removed just because we define um over-the-counter uh and prescription medicine like they are defined separately and so I think they should be defined separately and not combined as this one is here. So, this is the same policy. It's 5-44. We're moving on to page 163. We're looking to remove the language that the board recognizes that the that the prescribed annual training is optional. And moving on to page 167. And this is the same policy. Um and this is the self-administered. So under number five, it says adding uh in consultation with parent, legal guardian, and medical professional. The district
194may withdraw students authorization to self monitor. Moving on to page 178, 5-46. This is restraint and seclusion of students. Under number two, we're asking to remove uh the words to comply with a reasonable request and add in for the purpose of preventing harm to themselves or others. So, this is um the district's ability or staff's ability to restrain a student. Moving on to page 182 5-48. This is hazing prevention. Um, and we are asking to remove the very first paragraph that says, "This policy shall not be construed to apply to customary athletic events, contests, etc., If I could, this kind of goes back to what President Todd was saying earlier. Um, do we know why this would have been in the policy to begin with? Because there's probably a good reason for it and just
195removing it. I don't Yeah. Mr. President, if I may. Um, so the reason that I have a concern with it being here is because it falls under things that we are prohibiting for hazing. And so it's anything that's customary to athletic events or contests or competitions shouldn't fall potentially fall under the definition of hazing. So, anything that people are doing in regards to athletic events or an activity, if it doesn't if it doesn't concern us that it's going to potentially fall under hazing, then it would be allowed. I just feel like it gives a little caveat that feels concerning to me because it falls under the specific part that is prohibiting things, right? as I read this. I mean, during the event of a game, you know, let's say we have a football game and
196the kid gets roughed up because it's football. Um, or even in volleyball, a couple kids collide. Was that on purpose? Was it not? Could that be considered hazing? You know, I I think that this is actually protecting the kids during the actual game, if I can if I'm reading it right. um that they can they can play to their best ability and not potentially be, you know, labeled as hazing um just because there was an accident on the court or something happened there. I think that that's probably where this came from. But yeah, so if we'll take for instance the big women's basketball controversy that's happening right now, right? that would that would be protected under here. So, it cannot be considered hazing because it happened within a competition of a sport. So, um just
197for reference, there is if two people are playing basketball and they are taunting each other, this covers them to make sure that they are not defined as hazing for taunting, right? It's customary. It's something that happens in, you know, sports, this and that. Those the customary way, right? not over the top and all of those types of things. So that's what the provision is allowing for. So in regards just because of that, I'm okay with leaving this in here. That way our athletes can play to their fullest ability and not, you know, not always be necessarily watching their back, we'll say, um, of of limiting how they play. I would agree. I think I don't think there's any harm in leaving it in. Again, the lawyers have put this here for a reason. Um, and
198to talk about what's happening in the women's basketball. I personally think there is some hazing going on there that they're trying to hide behind. It's just basketball. Almost every sport has a rule on taunting on sports sportsmanlike and it's becoming more and more enforced. The advisories I get in baseball are constantly don't don't put up with it at all to to the point now where even you know Major League Baseball has this going right now where they did some review of the strike zone during spring training and now in the regular season they're not allowed to do that. If a player even makes that signal they're immediately ejected. There's no there's no discussion. I I think this if it's not an issue, having it in the policy won't be a problem, but if it becomes
199an issue, having it in the policy will will protect everybody. So, I would be in favor of leaving it. Okay. So, moving on to um policy 5-49 on page 183. Um I want to describe a little bit about the this policy and some of the information that was given to me by the trust. I met with um Jennifer Mlelen um at the trust to discuss this policy in particular. She wanted me to know uh uh you'll note at the very bottom there is definitions relevant. So the definitions for hazing and bullying within 5 uh 409 which is this policy are based on case law and OCR findings. Now the um definitions that we just described in 5-408 are directly from statute. So she wanted me to make those distinct distinctions. So the definition from harassment
200above would apply more to 5-408. Um but when we're asking for these legal definitions that are provided here, those are based on OCR findings and case law from the Arizona Supreme Court. Uh Mr. President, can I ask a question? Sure. Okay. So, um the bullying part when it says it is, you know, this is uh obviously my request to have this when it's not bullying when a students of similar age, strength, and size quarrel or fight with each other. um a student acts aggressively towards another student in the absence of an imbalance of power. So the way that I read this is that it's not bullying if they're in the same grade or and I I'm not sure that I believe that to be true. So, the way that this is written and the way
201that I would interpret it myself, um, these are acts of assault, not of bullying. Right? So, they're the students are similar age, strength, and size, and they wind up in a fight. Bullying would be a prolonged God bless you. Bullying would be a prolonged aspect, right? So, we're talking about something that's happened multiple times over history. But if it is a fight instead of that being bullying, that would be more along the lines of like what the district has for assault. And I'm not saying that we should arrest children for bullying by any means. So, please or not bullying, but for um fighting um a student who provokes another one into a verbal or physical confrontation. These are momentary things that happen, not prolonged instances. Thank you for clarifying because I I I completely see
202that. Um it's it's maybe the third bullet that I find uh and so is that it's just referring to a a single instance of aggressing uh a student acting aggressively. Yes. Is that how you read that? Yeah. But when you're talking about the imbalance of power, right, you're talking about like um that that can get really, let me try and find words that are better suited for this. When you're talking about this level of imbalance of power, whether that be from like a social construct or, you know, like I have more friends and I'm going to use my friends to then cause this level of harm to you or provoke you in this manner. That's bullying because now I've gotten the invisible they, right? All all of us think this way or all of them
203are doing this. All of those types of conversations. That invisible they creates an imbalance of power and then defines it as bullying. Okay. Um, with that explanation, I'm fine with not removing it. Okay, on page 184 in that same we're just talking about a knowingly false report again on page 185 um policy 5-410 intercolastic under intercolastic athletic activities on the Third paragraph. Um, we are adding all children. Hold on, let me read this again because it's not Yeah, that is not pertinent or relevant. I apologize. I will delete that. Okay. Um, so we were a we're asked to add in annual physicals, which is the language underneath. No student may participate um in athletic activity unless the district has on file each school a school physical examination clearance signed by a licensed health care provider.
204Do we want to move that to appropriately licensed healthcare provider for consistency? Um, and then under 185, uh, providing annual concussion training as stated by law. Scottianis, if you could just read that one real quick, the red line provide annual training for that educates. Maybe we need to fix a little bit of wording. Yes, thank you. Will conclude our first review of chapter 5 schedule till one. Is there any other questions considerations for chapter 5? I don't know where there there's just a deal with concussion training. Um, first of all, Arizona has probably the weakest law on concussion training in the nation. However, on school grounds, it is required. And what is most important is that doesn't just apply to schools. Though the statute, which I think is 15341, also goes on to say a
205group or organization that uses property or facilities own or operated by a school district for athletic activities shall comply with the requirements of the subdivision. So, if we lease baseball fields to a club baseball team, everybody that's a part of that organization, as my understanding, has to participate in annual concussion training. I don't I don't know if that goes in this policy or if this needs to go into our facility use agreement, but if somebody's doing an open gym such as the city of Buckeye, all of their people in in most states, if you're doing youth sports, everybody's required to do concussion training. Arizona has restricted simply to school grounds irregard or sorry regardless of whether or not it's a um school function or a private function that's taking place on school property. So I
206I don't know if that fits here or if it just goes in our facility agreement, but we we need to address it because I don't I don't think it's in there. we might want to look at um chapter three as well because that facility use agreement that's in chapter 3 would be directly impacted by that. Right. And it may it may be easiest to just put it in the facility use agreement. It's law. So I don't it could I think you could probably just go there. We may need to approve that but that might speed us up from having to do another few reads. Mr. President, you may sorry to bring this back up, but on page 183 and 549 talking about the definition harass or saying harassment, intimidation, bullying, and prohibited. Um, earlier we're
207talking about it carrying over to personal electronic devices, but this one only says school stuff. So, I don't know if we want to make this match the last statement we were making about bullying and harassment. 5409. What paragraph? First one. So, we're talking about if it this says it has to be on school equipment, but earlier in the meeting, we were talking about it that we have a responsibility even if it wasn't on school equipment. So, we just need to make a match. So, I'll make the con the language consistent in 5-49 and 5-48 will have consistent language or I forgot which chapter it was now that you were talking about and you came up with the definition the it's on page 131. I don't know the policy but I know it's on page 131
208when we talked about cyber bullying. Yes. Thank you. So cyber bullying needs to match here because this is saying it's only on school computers and networks. If we're saying they can use on their personal devices for cyber bullying, I'm guessing that should fall under the intimidation and bullying paragraph. Also, it says through the you this 5-409 says through the use of electronic technology and electronic communication. Yeah. Yeah. There probably needs to be some additions there. And then the only thing I wanted just to highlight was um it's not really a change or anything. I just wanted to highlight this that on page 24 we have 5-107 is the Purple Star School program. Um that's something that I don't believe our district has done or have uh currently, but I I love that program reading through
209it. Um I think that that's that'll be if we can one day implement that in one of our schools or multiple of our schools that Zumbra is doing it wonderful. Zumbra will be doing it already good this year. Can I ask when um we'll be doing the next read of chapter 5? That was going to be my next question. When would you all like to do the second read for chapter 5? As soon as possible. I think we we've got to get this done by the end of the month and I would like to have it implemented in time for uh staff to be able to be familiar with this. So, um I think this might come up here in a minute under our um future board of topics and upcoming board meetings where we
210can discuss it more. But uh um we we also have superintendent search process coming up. Um so let's if we can let's just close this topic. I was really thinking we're a little ahead of schedule. If you could go back to page one and we could review all your changes so we make sure you got them all. We can spend the next three hours. No problem. Joking. Uh but uh Sencion just kicked me under the table here. So we'll we'll move on. Uh I'm going to get punched when I get out. So we'll have our first uh bullying violation here as me bullying them thing. We're going to stay three more hours. Uh no, let's uh let's move on to 3.1 board comments and agenda topics. Um with this and talk um board members, we
211have uh just to let you know um it was a request to get the ASA to come on our Tuesday board meeting and I was able to get that worked out. So they will be here Tuesday. As a result of that, that meeting is going to start at 4:30. I might be jumping ahead here a little bit with 4.1. So, they're going to these two topics are going to combine a little bit. Um, Miss Zimmerman, you had wanted to try to have an interim in place by July 1st. In order to do that, um, we are going to I'm just going to say we should plan on meeting um, hold your calendars available, I would say, from the 17th through the 30th because we don't know where that's going to apply yet. Um, Miss Castanos,
212how much time do you think it'll take you to have this ready uh to come back for a second reading approval? Um, we'll probably need about 3 days. Okay. So, if we uh schedule the meeting for How long do you want to review it, though? Well, that's what I'm thinking. So, if you get it back to us midweek, let's say if you have it to us by uh June 11th, 11th or 12th, let's just give you a little buffer time. Um then if we have a meeting on say the 17th or 18th and I'm hoping we can combine maybe some superintendent work along with um the approval of this at the same time. Okay. So you're looking at Tuesday or Wednesday the 17th or 18th? Yeah, I think the 18th would be safer uh to
213do, but yeah, that's we could do the 17th. What's your schedule? What what works best? I can do either day right now. I just need to know ASAP. Yeah, the 17th works best for me. Okay, we'll shoot for the 17th. Um, okay. Sorry guys. I know these are kind of getting mixed up, but I'm just it all it all plays together between 3.1 and 4.1. Um, so we have that. Also, um, board members talking about board comments. Just a few things. uh meeting with the principles. The principles have asked that we um and I I shouldn't say they just asked it was kind of a discussion came to the idea that it would be a really good idea to have a roundt a special uh workg groupoup meeting with the board and the principles um
214to talk to them. I think we've had the opportunity to do that under the the past administration, but I do think it's important and currently Dr. Horn is is our top administrator and she's she's agreeing to it as well. Um so the trick beycomes for that. Everybody's back by July 14th. So we thought it would be best to do it after then. Um they really wanted to do it before the school year started and some administrators uh new principles coming in won't technically start until July 1. most of them that are coming on board are starting to show up early. Um, and those that are already on are working throughout the year. So, I don't know when we'd like to have that meeting, but I I committed them that I'd bring it forward to the
215board for a uh discussion hopefully to to agendaize that. Um, but I think the sooner the better we do that. It'll help us plan some other stuff that's coming up. So, we could potentially do it um at the same time or another time. I guess that's um Mr. President. Yes. Um I think, you know, it's a great opportunity for us. Um I was just wondering if we could do it on the same day as our July 14th meeting just earlier. We could. Um, yeah. I mean, that's we we could do that as long as they're available, but I think What time are you thinking to start it? Um, I'll leave that up to the board. Um, but it would just be my request that we do it on the same day as the board meeting.
216I'd like to give them plenty of time. I don't want to cut it short. So, I'd rather I'd rather start it early and have a break in between that a potential break in between that meeting or that roundt and the general meeting. But uh I think it's a very very positive sign that first of all they asked the administration to have me come to a meeting. Secondly that they're they're wanting to sit down with us and talk. Um and they've got some great ideas that that we can all hear from something I I think it'll be great. So we can ask staff if you can communicate to the current principles to come in and we'll just sit around and and have a very um broad-based discussion. Uh, so we'll you can do that. Um, if
217you'll just let me know the start time. Okay. That's all. Yep. Our board meeting scheduled to start what time that day? So you guys want to do 3:30 and then that also lets them because they're working that day. So we could have them in at 3:30 and we can they can stay for the meeting or they can go home afterwards. Does that work? Okay. All right. So, we'll do that for July 14th and staff if you'll get that out early to them maybe Monday or soon so they can plan for that. I think that's uh it's important and and maybe you can ask them if there's any topics they want to for us to try to address or discuss and and board members, if you have anything you want to talk about as well, that
218would be good. Um so, we have that one. Okay, Mr. President, sorry. Yes. In regards to that, um, because they're wanting to meet with the board, uh, do you feel like two hours is enough, too much? Is that something that we want to reach out to the principles and see what Well, I think it'll be enough based off the conversation. Honestly, um we met with them uh this week and they really did not um bring up anything that was surprising uh or their their questions. I don't think they were bringing up issues so much, but um they they're a good group. Um but I think if we do two hours, I'll be enough to get things started and we don't have too much dwell time. Honestly, I think we'll be done a little bit early.
219We'll have a break between them. I don't want to pressure them to be done early, but I I think I'm thinking closer to 90 minutes may be satisfactory the first time. I would like to believe that this will be the first of several meetings with them as they have questions and we no doubt not going to have all the answers. Um so we'll need to come back and and keep that dialogue very open with with them. Um we just had some basic questions that that they had that uh I was honestly kind of surprised they were coming up. So it's evident that for many years the communication has not been real great [Music] um with them on certain topics. So um I think 2 hours will be good and they just asked for the opportunity
220to get in front of all five of you. Yeah. So we're bringing that message forward. Um okay. Agenda topics. Um are there any other agenda topics anybody has? Mr. President earlier um Miss Castion asked us to authorize her to do the reference the policies. Yeah, we have to bring that up on agenda topic so we can I mean I guess in theory the superintendent the board president has the authority to seek legal advice without board approval. So I can do that. Um I can I can print that. I think that that'll be fine. I'll make sure legal counsel on Monday that I can do that. If we need to bring it back, we'll do a quick virtual meeting with a a special meeting to get board approval, but I believe believe under statute that superintendent
221or the board president can get the legal. Could we just add it to the meeting on Tuesday? Yeah, we we could do that too. I we still have uh Yeah, we still have posting time for that. So we can add that if if you want to do that or we can get her started on Monday with me giving her myself or Dr. Moore giving permission. Can you just ask legal if you can do it on your own and if you can't then just the agenda. Okay, we can do that. Yeah. And I think if it's a cost that we didn't account for that we should have a discussion possibly. It's every single request for legal review is a cost. I know. But she said it was going to be a significant like we already knew
222we were going to do the policies, right? I mean that was already board approved. So yeah. So okay, we'll find out what you want. We can find out what we think time is going to be on that. Okay, let's just tentatively put it on the agenda for Tuesday. If we need to pull it, we can pull it, but we'll add it. if you could do that authorization to have legal right the preamble to that section. Okay. Any other agenda? I don't think that was for the Sorry, I want to clarify what you said because he just um Mr. Todd just said the preamble, but I thought this was the cross reference of policies. I thought that's what you said, Mr. Kenyon. Did you want that or did you want the the introductory? I thought you
223were talking about that introduction that we were talking about. No, I I think Miss Castion, I think I think you know what I was referring to. Yeah. So, it's been requested that uh throughout the policies that we cross reference every policy. So, basically, if it um if something in chapter 5 refers to chapter 3 and chapter 2 and chapter 1, then those all be listed. So, the trust has said that they do not do that. For me to do, it's going to take a significant amount of time. Um and that is what I was asking for. So currently my current um scope in the contract that I have would cover that but before I add that additional cost I'd like to have the board's approval that we definitely need to agendaize for Tuesday. My apologies
224that completely misunderstood that and then and then the second thing was the review of the discipline matrix in regards to the tardy and open enrollment. Um, just having that on there as well. Do you want that on Tuesday and we're going to have a pretty long meeting on Tuesday with budget and everything else or do you think that can wait? I guess I mean it because we're we're going to be use utilizing it in our policy. The sooner we can get it to Miss Costiano, she can get it in our policy. But if Dr. Mahorn could send me that. I will um make like some revisions like quick edits and suggestions for you all, but I don't think we need to have that completed until July 1. Okay. So, I I don't know that it
225needs to be agendaized. It just needs to be from administration given to you and then that'll come back on the second read. Okay. Okay. Perfect. But if we are changing the discipline matrix, that would need to come for board approval. Correct. I believe so, but I don't I don't know that we were we were changing the discipline matrix at that point. We this was just referring to the discipline matrix and making sure it's um kind of in the areas where we talked about in regards to tardy and open enrollment and then if there's something that administration thinks needs to be updated or changed that can come to us. Okay. because I I thought the discussion was that um we were going to add the possible removal or um I'm not using the right word. So
226the this mind if I help? Yeah. Okay. So, what my intent is with the discipline matrix is I'm going to look at it and see if I can align the wording of the trust to allow for the trust policies to allow for the removal of an open enrollment authorization or if I need to make the adjustment to the discipline matrix as well. If I do need to make the adjustment to the discipline matrix as well, you guys will review that in with the chapter 5 that comes back for second read. Then once we do third read, we can put it on the agenda to review and approve chapter 5 and the discipline matrix on the agenda for the third read and final approval. Okay, thank you for that clarification. Do you think we'll need a
227third read for chapter 5 or do you think we'll be able to do this on Tuesday? I honestly believe that we would be able to do it on Tuesday um in the second read. Okay. So, I would just ask that everybody give me if you have additional edits that you get those back to me within, you know, a reasonable amount of time so we can do that prior to the meeting. 1:00 this afternoon, that'd be enough time. No. So, if I send it on Thursday, then if I send it Thursday 8 a.m., I'd want it back by noon on Thursday. Perfect. Yeah. No, just kidding. Um, but if I could have it back by that Monday, so that I can make whatever revisions. All right. Um along the same lines uh for agenda topic um
228I would like the board to look at considering putting together a communications task force of how we communicate with our teachers, our staff. Um another thing that was brought to my attention um was that the strategic plan has not been communicated with um the staff that we adopted. We spent a lot of time and money to do that and it was not done. Um so so clearly we've got some major communication gaps that are still happening. So I'd like to get that agendaized. does not need to be for Tuesday, but I would like to try to move that fairly quickly so we can create a committee that can start looking at how the best way we can improve communications to everybody. All right, again 31 and 41 are a little bit combined together here. Um
229I already updated you the ASA will be here Tuesday at 4:30. And um uh the other thing that I would like to talk about, we're doing budget. Um remember this is not a final approval and the budget does move. But I would like to suggest that we have a couple um and by a couple I mean probably more than a couple meetings quickly open for teachers, staff, and community to come in and look at our budget and continue to make sure we're on the right path before we um before we do that. Our current finance group is um doing some really exciting things finally. They're now able to do that. And uh uh I think it would be good to uh to have them also be able to communicate with staff. And when we talked
230to principles um it seems like they they got about we spent two and a half hours. They were pretty amazed that some of the budget things said, "Oh, we didn't realize that the district lost money. Oh, we didn't realize this. We didn't realize that." And I think that's going to help our our community, our teachers, and our community as well. So, I'd just like to ask that we look at agendaizing some budget meetings. Um, it's late, but we can always revise our budget and and make it better. That's it's just like a household budget. So, I would just ask that we start working on getting some of those scheduled as well um before the school year starts. Um, Mr. President, can I ask a clarifying question? Yes. Um, I just want to clarify that on
231June 17th is the plan to bring chapter 5 to a second read and approval or potential approval. Correct. Uh, yes. Okay. I just want to make sure I write that down. So, yeah. Okay. Thank you so much, staff. You have that all written down so we can get it agendaized properly. Miss Cameron. Okay. All right. Good. Uh, anything else for the good of the order? Upcoming board meetings or agenda topics? All right, we have uh members. Thank you, Miss Castanos. Thank you. I thought we were going to be here till six o'clock tonight. Um Miss Zimmerman, Miss Schmidt, Mr. Kenyon, Mr. Sincone, thank you very much for your time on all of this. I know it's a little painful reading this over and over, but thank you. We'll go to item 5.1. With all business
232conducted, we'll adjourn the meeting at 12:17. [Music]