001Good afternoon. Hello everyone. Welcome and uh welcome to the Today is December 3rd, 2025 policy management committee uh meeting and I would like my board member start out with board member introducing themselves. Good afternoon, Brenda Wolf, District 5. >> Good afternoon, Carla Sylvester, schoolboard member at large. >> Good afternoon, Anuva Maloo, student member of the board. Good afternoon, Julie Yang, uh, District 3. Uh, really glad that you are joining us here uh, online. Hopefully, we'll have thousands of people online. I would like the staff to introduce uh, yourself first. >> I'm Sally Davis. I'm the supervisor of policy and regulations in the division of legal services. >> Good afternoon. Leslie Turner Pival, legal director in the division of legal services. >> Good afternoon. Kayn Connelly, chief talent management officer. >> Thank you for being here.
002Um before we jump into today's topic, I want to ask my colleagues if to see if there are any questions or concern regarding the information summary from September 16, and or the November 17, 2025 meeting. >> No comments? >> No. Thank you so much. And so let's dig in. Today we really have a full agenda. Uh and we're going to very exciting. We're going to take a look at some initial uh drafts of new policies. So, here's a preview of what we will cover today. Uh discussion of policy GCC uh which is background screening of MCPS employees, candidates for MCPS employment, contractors and volunteers. This is a new policy discussion of policy program evaluation. another new policy and discussion of proposed amendment to policy BFA policy setting and after completing the those three we will
003review the public comments received on three policy policy DAA physical responsibility and control policy DIG operating fund investments and policy GI funding retirement and pension system. Finally, uh the committee will receive an item of information on MCPS regulation which have been approved by the superintendence office since our last committee meeting. So that is the overview for today and if there is no initial questions from my committee member I'm going to have the staff start the review of policy GCC um on background screening. Okay, go ahead. Thank you, Miss Yang. As you mentioned, we're here today to bring forward a new background check policy at the request of the policy management committee and in coordination with other requests from the Montgomery County Office of the Inspector General. The policy establishes the requirements for fingerprintbased checks of
004national and state crime databases and also sets forth guiding principles for additional safety measures beyond background checks. >> All right, so let's start today. I'd like to frame the discussion between the front of the policy and the very back of it. So looking at the very front uh line five, this is the list of related entries and this is a list of related board policies and regulations that have related topics that state for example ACA is the board's commitment to non-discrimination and equity. CO ARC. These are procedures required by the state of Maryland to address uh individuals convicted convicted of offenses of a criminal nature, sexual criminal nature when they are on MCS property, MCPS property. GCCR A is an existing regulation that deals with Maryland law and it requires staff to self-report arrests, convictions,
005prosecutions. IRB is our existing volunteer reggg uh which has been revised in parallel to this process. and then GHC and GHC which are the uh board's commitments and then the implementing procedures for the prevention of child abuse and neglect. And then I just want to point out at the very bottom of the document there is a body of law. These are the related sources at lines 101 and beyond. There is a body of federal and state law that also governs this with a number of very specific procedures. So we are couched within that um those two frameworks. >> Okay. >> All right. I'll turn now to Mrs. Miss Connelly. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Sally. And I'd be happy to um go into greater detail in response to any questions during our discussion, but wanted
006to point out the four main sections of the policy we're bringing forth to you today on background training. Uh the first position statement starts at line 25 and defines the categories of individuals who are subject to our district's background screening requirements, including MCPS >> MCPS employees, MCPS employment candidates or applicants, new hires into our system, contractors, their subcontractors, and independent contractors. and then volunteers who do certain tasks. The second position statement starting at line 38 establishes five components of our district's safety measures. >> Um background checks, then ongoing monitoring through the FBI um program RAPback >> uh that flags individuals who are subject to certain kinds of arrests and prosecutions. And then we reach out to former employees of uh employment candidates or former employers of employment candidates that were considering uh for MCPS. And
007then mandated reporter training to recognize and report uh child abuse and neglect. And that is um uh related to the fifth the verification conducted by uh the McGomery County Child Protective Services uh team to check if there have been any reports about an individual related to child abuse and neglect. So together, these five uh safety measures really structure our and set the set the guideposts for ensuring uh safety and and welfare of um our our students. >> Could you just repeat those five again for the public? >> Yeah. So the first the background checks, then ongoing monitoring by a program called ratback, >> which is a program run by the US uh Federal Bureau of Investigations that flags individuals who are subject to certain kinds of arrests and prosecutions. >> Then we reach out to
008former uh employers of candidates we're considering employing at MCPS. uh then mand mandated reporter training to recognize and report on child abuse and neglect >> and then finally uh fifth the verification conducted by McGomery County Child Protective Services. >> Okay. >> Then the third position statement relates to the overarching principles that really shape uh and ground our screening processes. Uh the first family engagement. This is very important because the board uh is committed to family engagement and has set these commitments forth in in policy. And one of the main statements of that policy is that MCPS shall seek to remove barriers that may impede uh our parents and guardians active participation in their children's education. And this includes visiting and volunteering at their children's school. Next is the expectation that information shall be held confidential
009and released to only those individuals authorized to receive it. Next is the board's commitment to non-discrimination and that screening requirements shall not be implemented in a discriminatory manner. And then finally is the principle of ethical conduct affirming that an individual who provides false information or willfully fails to disclose the required information may be subject to discipline including termination or denial of employment. Then the fourth section I'd like to point out is section C starting on line 76. Here the board directs the superintendent to establish the specific procedures to carry out the commitments stated in section B. So together sections A, B, and C establish the umbrella of requirements and guiding principles and affirm the board's commitment to key values uh to guide the implementation of our background screening and training requirements in MCPS. And with
010that, we're ready for discussion. >> Okay. Thank you. Um I I appreciate um this uh draft uh is very clear with purpose, position and uh implementation strategies. So I appreciate that very much. Now I have a question. When reading through the language of this um draft policy, some place we use shall, someplace we use will and when I read other MCPS policy too that that appears. So in B line 25 we say MCPS shall. Okay. Then in line 54 these measure measures shall. But when we come to line 7A then he said the superintendent of schools will. So I'm not uh law by training. So can we share why sometimes we with shall why sometimes we use will and what are the differences? >> There isn't an intended difference and we can certainly clean that
011up before the draft comes back to the full board. >> Okay. And um that will be great if you can also take a look at some of our other policy draft too. I noticed that um inconsistency throughout. Um my other question is also about word cho choice. Um on line 20 it says to set forth guiding principles. Okay. So um I understand what we we meant. guiding principles if you Google it um guiding principle is fundamental framework that influence and guide decision making you know they have a whole definition there but for me a policy is not a it's not just inference and guide decision making it's a oversight guideline it's firm that's what policy is so I'm wondering am I reading this correctly? >> So if we go to the section on um let's
012start at page or line 54. So, confidentiality, um, ethical conduct, non-discrimination, >> um, a commitment to family engagement, >> those are in the writing were thought of as principles, key principles that you have affirmed in policy. >> Okay? >> And those are principles that you are asking us in this draft >> to apply across practice. So the what, the why, um, that's what that's intended to reflect. >> So may I suggest I I I think that is a good explanation. May may I suggest to set to set forth guiding principle and oversight guidelines uh, for requiring additional measures beyond fingerprinting. >> Would that work? >> Okay. Thank you. I'm going to see if my other colleagues had comment for policy this policy uh background screening. >> Yes, Miss Sylvestri, >> could you remind us um
013this is a brand new policy why we didn't have a policy before? Well, that's part of why I directed you to the related entries and the body of law governing all of this. We have been operating within that body of law without a policy that captured it all in one place. But part of the direction from the inspector general was to explicitly create a policy. And part of what the work group has had has been um doing is bringing guidance that was in a variety of places. For example, there was extensive language about contractors in contracting articles and the financial manual and other places forms. There was existing procedures about background check requirements for um volunteers. there was existing compliance training uh required by the board's policy on preventing child abuse and neglect and the
014accompanying implementing regulation. So the pieces were there. This is bringing it together, clarifying, making sure all the pieces fit together. It's not that we've been operating without. We've had the mandate from federal and state and we've had a variety of implementation tools. We had to bring it together and so that's what this project is about. >> Okay. So the the intended outcome is that um staff will have clear guidance in terms of what they're supposed to do and things will less likely to fall through the cracks or who's responsible for what. Um and they will have as I think there's a corresponding regulation that goes with that as well. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Seeing no other lights, um then I need a motion to forward policy GCC to the food full food board for
015tentative action. Um >> motion def. >> Second. >> All in favor raise your hand. That's unanimous from the committee. So, we'll move this to the full board for tentative action. All right. So, next up, um we'll move right along to review policy, i.e. academic return on investment. We settle on the name. That's good. Thank you, Miss Connelly. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. Joining us now at the table is Dr. Kesha Addison. So we are bringing forward a new policy ie academic return on investment developed at the request of the policy management committee. The key purposes of the policy are to align prog programmatic investments with district strategic priorities and equity goals. Establish systematic and transparent reporting to the board and the and the community on the efficacy and efficiency of district instructional programs
016and to provide an overall framework for assessing academic return on investment. Dr. Addison, >> good afternoon. Um, so thank you. I do want to start first with a little context. One of the reasons that we were seeking to develop this policy is because we already engaged in program evaluation studies. We have a program evaluation framework, but we did not have a um intentional policy that supports you all with board governance as it relates to um ensuring how we bring programs, initiatives forward as part of the program evaluation agenda. And so the intent of this policy really is to support an intentional process for us as we bring forward programs based on your feedback from um a few committee meetings. Not only this policy management committee meeting, but we also had the fiscal management committee meeting
017yesterday and then the full board conversation regarding the um program evaluation agenda where your interests as a board were to ensure that we had some type of systemic systematic approach to bringing forward program evaluations. And so this is intended to support the what and the why with regard to um what is brought forward to you all as a board and why. And then that how piece in terms of how we engage in that program evaluation work is intentionally um not included as part of this given we already have the program evaluation framework that was developed I want to say in the 22 23 or 2324 school year. Um, and so I do want to intentionally bring your attention to section D, the implementation strategies, because I'm hoping that this is where um your interest as
018committee members is upheld and it supports what your interests are. I will admit that with yesterday's um fiscal management committee meeting I do see an opportunity to increase what is embedded here because there were some things raised there yesterday that are not yet in this policy. So for example, one of the things that we discussed >> um is intentionality around a process when program evaluation studies have that stoplight designation of yellow which means maintain for one more year, right? what is that intentional next step around that and I do think we might have an opportunity to build some of that into this policy. >> Okay. >> Um I'm going to pause and just allow you all to uh ask questions. We can get in discussion around this draft right now. >> Okay. So, okay, Miss
019Sylvester. Um, Miss Yang, we talked a little bit about this, but um, I wanted to get your feedback in terms of what when you >> think about this policy, what do you hope to get out of it? Um, I mean, Miss >> Yeah. So as a school system we do program evaluation and and I think this is having this policy is really to cif codify our intentionality of what program we are uh evaluating. why we are putting a program to evaluation and also in the evaluation process. Um the return of investment is something that you know we need to as do of taxpayers money and uh as uh budget comes around that we need to manage it that we want to be most strategic uh in deploying the resources we have and that is why
020I think having a a policy so that we uh uh we always say hey we look at this that these are the uh these are the guideline these are the oversight guidelines we use when we uh evaluate what to evaluate and and what we are seeking to get out of the evaluation I think that that is what the policy is intended to do >> and as I shared yesterday in fiscal management I think that the public >> um also would like to see that we are >> right >> more focused on return on investment >> and in my seven years on the board >> different superintendants have used the program evaluation >> work in different ways um you know Dr. Smith was it was was a very internal thing. You all produced your reports. They
021saw them. >> I don't know that maybe I forgot but maybe I didn't I don't know remember if I read them or I got them at all in the first few years and then different superintendents have used them. I think the consensus now is that the board wants there to be you know more public showing of the program evaluation work for the return on investment. uh because you know we want to show people that we are looking at what's working in a such a big system with a big budget and we are cutting things if they're not working or we are repurposing things if they're not working and we do know what works and and so forth. So um I think because of all this the different ways that it has been used and the
022the the need that I see for showing the public that we are you know using the tax dollars effectively and we are seeing what works and what doesn't work and acting on it. I do think that there is a need to codify this work for the future. >> Yeah. Miss Wolf, >> I want to push back a little on my colleagues because I do think it's important that we use our funds wisely. I think we're all in agreement on that. But we already do program evaluations. The real issue is either either the program is working or it's not working and how long are you willing to allow before you see results. I don't know that we need a policy to define that because depending upon the program, you might want to structure it and look
023at different things. So my question is, could you first go over what these policies are at the top? Because I'm wondering, are we just really duplicating stuff? >> So I'll take that one. Yeah. So policy ABA is the board's commitment to community engagement. >> Community engagement. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Policy ACA is the board's uh commitment to non-discrimination, equity, and cultural proficiency. >> AC is the uh regulation of implementing procedures. >> Um IFA and if uh address the board's role in curriculum. It's what I mean. >> Curriculum. >> So, they are not directly about program evaluation. >> I I wasn't quite finished. >> Okay. >> I know they're not directly about program evaluation, but they talk about what you're looking for and what you're trying to accomplish. And I think that when you
024set up a program evaluation, you set it up based on what you were looking for to start with. So, I'm not sure that I need a whole separate regulation on return of investment because it's either working or it's not working and you just need to decide how long you're willing to let it float before you decide to pull pull it. I just I it it seems to me like it's just fluff. I'm going to tell you, >> Miss Yang. Um I think that what I'm hoping for is that no matter who is here on the dis or whoever superintendent >> that the program evaluation is used to show the public that we are evaluating what's working and what's not working >> because different superintendent that I've seen have used it differently >> and I think
025it's a val very very valuable thing and I'd like it to be more public facing and Right. >> The need to codify that I guess is what I'm looking >> I I hear you. But I'm wondering could we do that through the regula the curriculum one >> because it's curriculum. We're evaluating some aspect of curriculum >> rather than having a whole separate policy. I mean because as it is, you know, we've got hundreds of policies. But what's really important is that we're looking at the curriculum. So if you want to figure out what's working and what's not working and how to look at it, it should be a part of that I would think. Now, you know, >> yeah, there are a lot of curriculum evaluations, but there's also I remember seeing it last night,
026the the use of the assistant principal in schools is one evaluation that recently APAB participations. So I think it goes beyond >> but I think you're not understanding what I'm saying. I think we could put some of these principles in the curriculum policy because if you want to standardize it, just put it in as the curriculum as part of the curriculum selection and review. This is how you want to want them to look at it when they evaluate. I just don't know that you need a whole separate policy because you really have got the policies. >> Miss I'm curious because this is going to help with just my understanding of this. So when we're looking at implementation strategies and we're looking at um assessing program costs and student outcomes, if it's just purely curriculum based,
027then is that not including, you know, the amount of time that students are putting in, the amount of time that um teachers are putting in all of that or is it just purely financial costs that they're evaluating based on that and then return for that? So if if we look at this draft, it's not purely just the money. That is one um >> and we're not just evaluating the curriculum only within >> not and it will be uh uh resources, teachers and and and and yeah. So >> I do want to ask them just the specified a bit more in this because I couldn't tell based off that fully >> that it's just that >> and and that is a a really good good point because um when we look at just this year's um
028things on our evaluation list um there are curriculum related items but there are also items of how we use our staff. Uh there are also uh uh strategies that we have um that we have uh evaluated uh before. So it would uh it would not be what I'm saying uh just curriculum or just uh cost to curriculum. I'm just bringing that up because specifically for line 56 it says like financial investment rel relative to academic outcomes but it doesn't include anything about timing or any other various things that go into programs. So >> I I do want to add and I think this is um where I hear all of your interest. >> Some of what you just um indicated Miss Maloo is a part of the weeds of what is identified in a program
029evaluation study. One of the um things that we have more recently ensured is included in our program evaluation studies is an aspect of the fiscal implication of the program or initiative that is being examined. Um but other data collection efforts could vary in alignment with what Miss Wolf shared depending on what the focus of the program or initiative we're examining. So, I think I was trying to be intentional to not go too far into the weeds that would infringe upon the program evaluation process since that is well established in the district. Um, and I just want to we've been engaged in program evaluation since the 70s. Um, like shared since shared accountability first came and I do think the challenge has been for all of the program evaluations that we have done over time. >>
030Um, we don't have an a strong enough process. I think more recently we've developed that process where it is more public facing. But um most people, even our internal staff are like, "Hey, I didn't even know you had this website that had all of these reports." And so I do see that as the opportunity to ensure that the public um understands that we are great fiscal stewards in terms of our examination of these programs and our recommendations as it relates to continuation, sun setting, and things like that. >> And um understand um >> I still have my light on. >> Go ahead, Miss Wolf. I I I'm still having difficulty with what is different about this because some of it seems a little I mean I'm looking at the language that you proposed. I don't
031know that they have it in front of them. >> That that is not in the draft at the moment. >> Okay. Okay. Then that's what I want to respond to. >> Yeah. Yeah. That's not in the draft. That's um my questions to the >> I didn't know whether they had that. >> No, no, no. They don't have that. This is the >> I got the draft. >> Yeah. Um, one of the, um, m Dr. Edison, one of the things as I'm looking at the draft, I'm wondering um, we do big evaluations, right? We have this yearly evaluation plans. Um do we do one of the things I think in the world of accountability we is uh the continuous uh evaluation that's how it gets uh better as we do continuous evaluation feedback how tell me
032how is that done now in the system and how do we reflect that um that that is our ongoing effort, right? It's not just every program. It's because you can only you mentioned it's like a dissertation. You can only handle that many per year. >> So how we codify there will be ongoing effort of evaluation. So I I do think and it's it's not in this policy. It is in our process, our program evaluation framework process, okay, where we shared when we first and again I think it was 22 23 school year first shared our expectations around what happens once a program evaluation study is completed. And that's why we have that response to the recommendations document where the program manager whoever's in charge of that program first responds to any of the recommendations that
033come from the study and this is our opportunity and I think what I'm hearing you share is what's the accountability mechanism around the followup and that's where we have room to work on that. that's our opportunity to really be more intentional around what happens next because when you look at the response to the recommendations document, it is in um I want to say I think it has four columns. The first is whether or not the program manager and team concurs with the recommendation. They provide a description of that recommendation. They um provide where they are with implementation related to their response. So full, partial or not yet started. And then there's a column for timeline. And so I do see that we have an opportunity to to really revisit that particularly for um studies that
034again have that yellow designation like what's the followup and even studies that have a green designation with the stoplight there are recommendations and so I think building in that intentional process to return back and that expectation of year one like after one year what's the followup in alignment with that timeline and accountability. So um you are thinking about that. So when we look at it so we in our school system we have policy we have regulation and you say we have a framework right >> um that you're thinking that we need to come up with uh ways to follow up and so how does it so I so my wondering is what makes something a framework what's a framework and a regulation Right. And and what is the accountability measure of like it's a policy
035we have to do it because it's a policy. >> If it's a regulation that's also it's a it's a guideline that you should so when it's a framework then what is the accountability measure for a framework? Well, I I will share that we um that was just an internal decision to title it the program evaluation framework for how we engage in program evaluation studies and intentionally came to the board public facing which that public facing presentation allows us to be held accountable as well by our community those who we serve those who are looking for us to serve students and so I I wouldn't want us to get hung up on the name of the framework in this sense because we have clearly articulated what is expected as part of a program evaluation study process.
036All of the steps, the expectations and I will share um when I like once our reports are completed and we reach out to program staff, it is very clearly articulated to the program manager who has solicited this here's the expectation based on our program evaluation framework based on the expectations of the board. So we while it might be labeled as a framework, we treat it very much as you know a musto. >> I think the opportunity again for us is the followup in terms of that response to those recommendations so that we're circling back to you all like what is the update based on those responses that really I think is the gap that we have currently >> um with regard to what we provide. So Miss Sylvestri in your physical management committee so this
037is a topic that and and something you have identified right you have identified so uh is that something you will in your committee will follow up on how this will be uh resolved or implemented >> I mean I I had envisioned at every fiscal management committee that we would look at the program evaluations as are coming out of Dr. Edison's office. >> Um, and she is developing a rubric for us to be able to make to ask some critical questions about the return on investment. So, um, and I can't rattle them off the top of my head, but um, just so that we can do a more careful analysis on return on investment. Um, you here's what the evaluation said. Is it having econ academic impact? What is the additional cost compared to related programs?
038It's on a yellow. What's the plan for >> acting on it? Um, you can't just sit in yellow and no one's doing anything. That's not a good use of tax dollars. >> And so, um, >> so that independent of the policy work, that's what I had in mind for the committee, the fiscal management committee, uh, work for the rest of the year. Now in terms of policy work, Dr. Ellison, I would like to have your input. How can we capture that all our program is on a continuous improvement journey or you know we have program managers for for many things that is it the system's expectation that they look at it uh constantly or or or uh provide support or ask for resources or or you know how do we um in this we have
039a a if we have a program evaluation policy how do we capture that spirit that we do ongoing um and that's an expectation of the system I >> I will share that we um we espouse this expectation of ongoing progress monitoring. >> Um when we even before I think we brought forward the program evaluation framework to the board and the community um and I I would be remissed. I know Dr. Taylor definitely expects all of us to be engaged in ongoing progress monitoring to understand >> what is happening in the district across um all of our performance metrics in alignment with our strategic plan. >> And so I do I would say we have we have everything that we need okay >> to um align to what your thinking is. I again see the opportunity
040as we need to be more intentional around that followup and the accountability. >> So part of it is my team following up. Um we can do better with that in terms of after the recommendations and we review those timelines that intentionality of checking in. Um, we developed a guide for program managers around how to engage in that ongoing program monitoring because as you've heard me share before, we are a small but mighty team in shared accountability in terms of program evaluators. And so, um, helping build the capacity of program managers in terms of their understanding and how they look at their data and that ongoing monitoring is another piece. So, we have like a I think it's a two to three-page document that provides guidance in that area. I I um we have to figure
041out what does that look like in practice and how do you all as a board see it because a lot of the time it is internal >> monitoring that isn't public facing after that report happens. >> Okay. Okay. So yes, Miss Wolf, >> I actually like what Carla said and I think the fiscal management committee >> is really the place for this when you were those things that you were just describing as a rubric that you were developing. >> That to me makes the most sense. Now I could see you taking that rubric and putting it into this policy. >> That would further define it for me because as it stands, >> it's just saying what we already have. But I do like the idea of the rubric and I would like to suggest and
042I don't know how the rest of you all feel about it >> that we bring this back for another revisit after you have a chance to think about >> how you might be able to incorporate that kind of rubric into this policy. So it might be after you have another fiscal management meeting on it to see what you think works for you. >> I actually think that's a great idea. I really do. I really do that will give it more substance and um Dr. Edison and also um I provided some notes to you and I was thinking you already have a program evaluation framework. maybe take a look at uh these suggestion I have in looking at uh when we look at the cost of that it's not just the monetary cost is the staff
043it is the space it is uh the support you know there are a lot of costs associated and when we look at the outcome maybe it's not just academic outcome there are some other outcomes you know depending on the what the program is that maybe that's already in your frame framework or if it's not your frame in your framework maybe there are places that uh that uh these things will will fit that we will be very conscious about uh these uh all the elements that goes into it >> and and I would say that um for as specialists work on program evaluation plans >> they are um guided heavily around what is the expectation >> of the program initiative or whatever ever is being evaluated. Um because ideally if the focus of a program for
044example is to increase math performance of third grade students then that's going to be one of the primary outcomes that are examined as part of the program evaluation study. >> Um and I would say that we are always intentional to include multiple data points that we are looking at embedded in a program evaluation study. So it we know that what there you know you can't determine a program's effectiveness based on one metric. So we are we are definitely intentional to do just what you shared. >> Sure. Then let's um let's uh hold on to this policy. This is only our initial review and when we have um the metrics of how to look at it and then we'll revisit this policy. Thank you so much. Um, next up I would like the staff uh to
045begin review of policy BFA that is our policy setting. Thank you Dr. Addison. So turning now to policy BFA policy setting. This conversation is a continuation of an earlier discussion with the policy management committee at its September uh meeting. Today we'd like to highlight the major updates that were requested by the committee and how they are reflected in the draft. Okay. >> The committee sought update updates to those portions of the policy that speak to the board's awareness of implementing regulations under development or revision. Second, the committee sought clarifications of public transparency regarding policies and regulations under development amended or approved. Sally Okay. So, one of the main tools uh that the um for communicating information about policies and regulations is described at this top of page two. So, pretty much all of page two
046is where I'd like to focus right now. So, this portion of the policy has been reworked to emphasize the continuously updated summary of changes. Uh that's lines 69 to 71 and also the public comment page that holds policies currently available for comment. >> 69 69 to 71. >> Okay. And the next part >> 73 and 74 >> 73 to 74. Okay. >> Okay. So I don't want to give the impression that it is up to the public to come and find this page because that's not what it is. Um I want to emphasize that those pages are source material uh that are regularly promoted through multiple communication opportunities. So the summary of changes page is regularly promoted to principles for them to share with their school communities. It is promoted to the policy management committee
047in every policy management committee meeting. The public comment page is promoted through MCPS communications and now on the board's web page as well. >> It is also promoted at all meetings we have uh that take place during the period of the public comment period, all those community engagement opportunities. So, it's a living tool that is not dependent on people typing policy in the search engine, but they can also get to it that way. So, it is where we hold an awful lot of information. That summary of changes goes back to 2006, 2007, and it's everything that has been amended, updated, revised, rescended. It's all of it. Um, I would like to turn that next to page four. Um, so board members will recall that in this committee overhauled the public the I'm sorry the community
048engagement policy and um that clearly articulated various goals for engagement as also a variety of available techniques. So as the committee has updated policies subsequent to 2023, we've been referencing that policy directly rather than repeating pieces of it. So we just wanted to reference that that is the overarching policy for the goals for engagement and the variety of techniques available for engagement that the board uses for any time it wants to engage in the public in its decisions. All right. So, the last section, it's the final section I wanted to highlight is starting in the middle of page eight. And this responds to the board's interest uh in a greater awareness of regulations under development um or revision. So, this section directs the superintendent to develop and maintain a pro a timely process for notifying
049the board about regulations under development or revision. Um and then in prior discussions with this committee, there was an interest in establishing a process for making the public more aware of regulations under development while also clarifying that there are situations when the superintendent must move swiftly to revise and publish regulations um under deadlines that are outside the superintendent's control or operational concerns that must be addressed quickly. So with that we are ready for your discussion. >> Sure. Thank you. Um I want to see if my colleagues has any comment. I have there's a few things um that I am um looking at. So one of the things is on page two the line 73 as you mentioned the public comment is only one mode used to communicate right so I'm wondering should here point out
050the public comment page is one mode or one way uh used to promote opportunity for public comment instead of just say Please use that. That sound like the the only thing we we are uh offering. Um on um page three lined um or or or 79. It says consisting of not fewer than is it do we say not fewer than three members? Is that typically how we how we say it? I I'm just not fewer. It's just when I'm reading it doesn't sound natural to me. So just take a look at that to see if that is what it is. Um um with input uh item B on line 87 with input from the superintendent of schools. should we say the the committee shall see input from the superintendent of the schools? I wasn't very
051clear here who who is it to to take care of this part with input from the committee shall identify in need of development of revision and adopt an annual work plan to guide the does it mean like Um do we need to discuss idea before we see input if without it just I don't seem the order is clear the committee should identify policy in need of development or revision and then then see input what is >> anytime somebody struggles that much with a sentence it needs to go back to the shed So, let me take another crack at it. >> I'm a little bit confused with the order of events here. >> That's fair. Okay. >> So, I think the the the the probably the last part of the sentence is quite important. That is
052the committee that adopts the work plan. >> That's right. >> With input from the board and the superintendent. So, let me try. >> Okay. So, and then can you also take a look at line 106 cost imperation? Is it co and then and the thinking here is cost and budget implation because cost is not just uh for us the budget is is what uh we decide how to how we spend money. And then uh if we can take a look at uh um one of these um um next on lines next item is line 110 the impact on those affected by the policy those those do you mean MCPS community? I think we need to uh specify who those are. So on line 114, similar policy or best practices adopted by other school systems. I
053I I appreciate we always benchmark with other school system. I think that's our practice in the policy. Would this would does this seem vague? It's my question. You know, maybe the problem is back up at line 94. >> The it is the work group that is going to take all these things into account. Do you want me to rework it that way? >> So similar policy or best practices are those similar policy even successful you know how how do we decide which ones to look at? So if you say look at 994 should meet to develop a draft the draft policy take into account as appropriate adopted by others school system. I wouldn't worry too much about it but it is you know it is saying I I assume that we are looking at successful
054things that's working well but it just need a little bit um definition um of it. Oh, and then line 249, um 249, take action to a full board meeting because now uh we have um change our board meeting to word sessions and board business meeting. So maybe um say board business meeting, >> right? So I do have a question about that. Mhm. >> Um do >> Mhm. >> because the introduction of the work session business meeting >> distinction >> Yeah. >> was a decision of this year's board, >> right? >> Do you >> want to obligate future boards to sticking to that same process? >> I think the intent of not changing that was that future boards >> may want a different process. That's fair. I think that's fair. Very fair. Let's keep it that
055way. Um then line 269, it says in the event the board direct a new policy to be developed or an existing policy to be amended or reconcile that may establish now here use may. So I have this confusion about shall will. Now there's a may. So, what should it be? >> All right. So, um my rule of thumb or my my that's not a good expression to use. My um my understanding of the verbs will shall and may are that will or shall both mean you're going to do it. >> Okay? >> May means you're giving someone discretion to make a decision. So here we're intentionally saying that we need we are giving discretion for them to to dis to establish a timeline. >> Yes. >> So they they can do it or they may
056choose not to do it. Okay. >> Clear. That's a good clarification. Okay. Um I think that that's all I have. Miss Sylvestri. Um I think in in um in previous discussions we've we got feedback um I think folks would like to have public comment for regulations which is not what I'm suggesting but I would like because we do go through a robust public comment process for the policy I would like for that to be taken into consideration when the superintendent is drafting regular regulations because I think we had the example of the cell phone >> grading >> policy >> grading reporting yeah >> regulations where people on the phone too but I think the grading regulations >> people said hey we would have liked to have been consulted I'm not suggesting that but I do
057think that the comments that people give throughout the policy development process are valuable and then should be taken into consideration when developing polic uh regulations I would just like to say I agree with that. >> I >> So that is added here. >> Is it? >> Yeah. The D. >> What page are you on? >> That's page two, line 33, right? That is under rules and regulation. That's under >> page. Which line is it? >> 73. The public comment page. >> Am I misunderstanding you? I thought Carla was talking about um the regulations, not the policy. So, >> and so I would agree that I I personally would like to see us do regulations the way the federal government does. Put them out for public comment and put them out for a period of time,
058two weeks, four weeks, I don't know what you want to do, but that you then come back and revise the regulation if you see fit based on the comment. But I do think we ought to put the regulation out for comment because we were caught off guard a little bit by that too. So we have added that uh on page eight. >> Okay. I must be missing. Where where are you? >> 2B line 293. >> Oh yeah. >> On page what? What line? Line 293 where final drafts of regulations shall be published on the policies and regulations handbook public comments web page >> because that's what that was my only comment and I missed that. >> Yeah, it is that is that is the whole reason why this was booked for >> I thought I
059thought so but I I actually missed that. >> We wanted to make sure that we captured we wanted to make sure that we captured the board but I didn't see this. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um, my other question was, um, >> but then what was Carla talking about >> that? >> I didn't see it. >> She didn't see it either. See, we're so busy looking at all these things that you sent to us that none of us saw it even. >> I think it's because we separate the policy from the regulations. >> Policy comment at first and I thought that was different. >> Yeah, I I have to say this is um quite a policy. It's a little it's a little bit hard for me to follow even. I see the format, but I
060guess I just wonder like when you talk about community engagement at 117 >> and then Julie revise line 73. It would it would seem to me that we could somehow >> cite that over on 73 >> some kind of way. you know, that's what makes it a little bit complicated to me, but maybe that's just my sense of order. >> And and and also um we talk about engagement here. We do have the uh policy ABA which is engagement policy, right? Are are these two >> totally align? Are these this policy and that engagement policy language totally align? Yes, we uh included that actually at the top on line three. We added ABA because we do want to make sure that they are aligned. >> Okay. So, I just want to make sure those two
061when we talk about engagement, the language are aligned. Okay. All right. So, yes, the whole point of doing policy setting revision is to have the regulation to be public facing and seek public comments. >> I tell you, it was in there. It's in there. It's in there. Okay. >> A few more. >> Oh, go ahead. Go ahead, please. >> Um, >> could you help me identify where we talk about how often the policies are reviewed? Is that in here? >> So, let me address this partially by starting at um let me find the right place. Okay. So line 90 >> 990 >> it is the board's 90 >> 90 >> it is the committee's decision what policies they want to take on in any year understanding the capacity of the committee understanding the capacity of
062staff they have the option to do any policy >> that they consider important right And this the you go to your other board members, you get input from them, you you know staff chimes in on the pressing concerns or we will advise you on for example this year um there was a change to federal guidance. We need to change this now you know so you always have the option to pull up anything you want. I will say that previous boards eliminated the three-year cycle because it was unworkable because they found you know that I could do another count but you know the 90 policies or so that you have and the you know we have a body of some 300 documents right and there are there are there is capacity right So of the 90
063that you have to work with, let's let's take it I could provide you with a running average at a future time of how many we actually are this committee is actually able to accomplish in a year and there are some years when certain policies are more pressing than others. Um so it is always the board's discretion and we do say that uh let me see >> strategies >> implementation strategies line 203 263 sorry the board may call for a review of any policy at its discretion. >> What line is that? 263 page seven. So there are reasons beyond a clock or a calendar that other boards and other policy committees have decided there are a variety of reasons that a policy should come up for review. And so that is where the issue is addressed.
064And that's the context, the historical context. >> I guess we are we are dependent on you on behalf of the superintendent to have a good grasp on the 90 policies, what what needs to be reviewed, what's still um useful, and then make recommendations to the board in terms of what needs to be reviewed. How is that codified anywhere so that if somebody else comes into that position and they they have a different approach? I don't know it they'll focus on technical amendments which is necessary but not looking at the full scope of the work. We're just we're just hoping that you're doing a good job of making sure that all those 90 policies are are still in good shape. Um so there's a lot of trust there. Well, you are also dependent on your own
065board staff um who they are also monitoring all the state laws coming down. There's there's sort of a um division of effort. Uh your board staff are monitoring all the state laws that are coming down so they can advise you on uh laws that impact policies that will need to be updated. um our office monitors uh all the state regulations coming down. So we are advising based on on those changes that are coming through. We have you know so let me see if I can find another place in the policy that would get more directly to your point. I want to be able to say that the administration reviews the 90 policies annually to make a recommendation to the board in terms of what needs to be reviewed this year for their work plan just
066so that there's some assurance that somebody's looking and making sure that those 90 are still useful policies and not just documents sitting in a file. >> So we can make that clearer. Um, back to line 90, we do add language that we would adopt an annual work plan to guide guide the committee's work. So, to Sally's point, it's a collaborative effort between our office and board members and board staff. Maybe that is >> identify policies out of the totality in need of development. I just want to make sure somebody's looking at all of them to make to not just the hot button items or the things that need to be updated. Um, and then Is there any opportunity and I don't know what my colleagues think about this. It's just an idea. So, um something
067to think about. We set the policy and the superintendent is in charge of implementing it >> with fidelity according to the regulation. Is there an opportunity for the board to test how different policies are being implemented? because they're only as good as the implementation. We we have beautiful language here and we deliberate, but um just something to think about, you know, what is there a role for the board and and who would do that? is that maybe a policy committee agenda item where we come back to a policy that's important and have some speakers talking about the implementation and the strengths and weaknesses. Um just Mr. to throw it out there. >> Actually, every conversation we have, I don't know, uh maybe with V and Miss Manua Chain, every conversation we have when we have
068a student achievement conversation, when we have a conversation about school safety, when we have a conversation about those are all under the guideline of policy. So if something is working well then we know that it has been carried out or the policy is working. If something is not working well then maybe it's time to review the policy or review the implementation of the policy. So I think every conversation we have is policy related. Nothing is outside of policy. Well, it's really the implementing regulation that you're evaluating when you do that. And I hear what you're saying, but I think I I hear the cross between the two of you. I think you're both a little bit right, but it's the regulation that's being implemented. So, if say when they come in to talk about >>
069uh let's say reading, >> I guess we have a regulation on it. Then they're talking about it and we're deciding whether or is helping us decide whether or not they're really following this regulation. Oh, and let's talk about safety. That's an easier one to understand, I think. >> Okay. So, they come in >> and they're telling us how they're implementing it. >> Well, we can change the regulation easier than we can change the policy to make it make it fit. you don't want to write a policy so specific that you have to keep changing it. So I think we would be looking at the implementation of the regulation itself. Now maybe you want to take a look at how we could do that. But that that kind of ties into a question that I have
070that I wanted to ask and that is back to that section that we all missed. Um, I I'm a little bit I guess I don't see in this uh Okay. policies and regulations handbook, public comments web page. Well, if I'm a parent, how do I I mean, what's going to tell me to go to the and look at this that it's out? >> Yeah. >> Because I'm not going to the public comments web page. I don't even know if I've ever even been there. So, could you just tell me, couldn't we put something in here that directs the superintendent or whoever is putting this out to to do some sort of public notification to parents, to the community, because I I just think that public comments web page handbook, you know, who's got time to
071read this? Just the policy committee. So, >> can we make it simple? Some of course can we give them some direction about how to put it out >> a link? >> I didn't know whether that was I just don't remember the community engagement one, but I didn't think it was covered by the community engagement policy. >> I don't see the I don't >> I don't think so. Can Can you think about that when you >> putting something in there that talks to regular people? Sure. And we will and we'll rethink. Um that's part of why in my earlier comments I said it's it's a it is not dependent on people going to look there. It is something we use in presentations. It is something we use in press communication. It is something we link in
072slides. It is something we link in surveys. It is something we link in Thursday things to know >> and all the community. It's it's where we keep it I guess is maybe the best way. There's a difference between where we keep the information and how we use it. And >> so this is where they keep it. >> I understand that but I would like to know how I'm going to know that it's kept there. >> Yeah. So in your four things to learn that will be so that people know to go look there. There's a link there so they can they can provide comment. So somehow I think Miss Wolve is looking at you codify in here that it will go out to the public like public will be notified that there's something for them
073to look at otherwise they won't like every three months go on to the website to check you know that that is not on people's to-do list right you know so so but but somehow codified that we will notify the public about uh seeking public comment for regulations. >> Yes. >> And I also just want to just for your awareness, it might help. Uh Canvas, it has announcements for students that it does very often. And I know that I worked great with getting student input in my own cases with my small advisory council. >> So, if that at some point could be, >> you know, shown on there, I think that would be great. especially >> okay >> with regards to the grading regulation. I know a lot of students wanted to have input on that
074and they did not get that as much as they wanted. >> Okay. >> So, no. >> So, for this one, uh Miss Sylvester, go ahead. >> Okay. So, back to my um idea, I think we've had some uh recent issues where policies were not being followed and we got into some trouble. Um and so I feel that there is a need for the policy committee >> to do some spot checking on important policy. So we just we were just talking about the uh back background screening super important policy. Um there might be uh a space for the policy committee and their work plan in the future. >> Mhm. >> To say, "Okay, we're going to spot check these three policies this year to check on an implementation because this is beautiful language. This is how
075it's supposed to work. How it actually works is a different story. It could be a different story. So, it's a suggestion um for us to think about if we need to put something in here in terms of the board policy committee uh spot-checking on implementation of a few critical policies um each year. Yes. Um, looking at this policy, I think we have some minor language change and we have one that say we want the public to be notified if regulations see comment. So if they fix that, we should move it to the whole board. So then I would like to have a motion now so that you can Okay. So can I have a motion for move it for the full board for um tentative action? >> So moved. I need a second. >> I
076have a question. >> So, are you going to integrate my suggestion into the language? >> Okay. Thank you. >> I second. Okay. All in favor, raise your hand. >> I have a question. >> Okay. Go. >> I I'm still I I'm loving this. This is real live. People can tell this is not scripted. We are doing the work right here. Okay. >> I still think that it's not implementing the policy. It's it's looking at the implementation of the regulation. And the one that you particularly point to is a good example because that wasn't in the policy. Even if we had spot checked it, the rat back was not in the policy. >> Yeah. This is >> it's an example. >> Yeah, that was a good example. But I'm just saying maybe we should have we
077should call it a spot check, but maybe we shouldn't specify policy. Maybe we should somehow figure out and I don't know what that should look like. I'm going to say that, but however you want to review stuff. I don't know if you're actually reviewing the policy. I think you're reviewing >> I think you're revealing the implementation. >> Have have some report on implementation. Report of implementation. You can pick topics of report of implementation reports. >> Yeah. >> So, so you want that reflected more broadly because you know there are certain policies that spe that specify um an annual report or um on implementation. >> Yeah. >> So, but you want that stated more broadly. I think that >> the BFA >> it should say the policy committee can or may may use the word may
078>> okay may >> may request implementation reports right all right I I vote for it too >> okay then I asked this question to Miss Yang earlier does every policy have a regulation >> no and vice versa no because there are certain regulations that are straight implement mentation of law. So um every policy um does not necessarily have a regulation if it's just very clear that this is your position. This is your position on this topic. Um so that's the simple answer. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. So we have a motion and a second of moving this to the whole board. All in favor raise your hand. Can I just ask one more question? >> We would never get this. >> No, no, no. I just I just have one more thought. >> Okay.
079>> And maybe we're back to that regulation paragraph that we all missed. >> Um that is just too funny to me. >> No, no, no. I didn't miss it for the record. Put that down. >> Okay, forget it. >> Um maybe we want to say >> it's sometimes 10 days may not be long enough. Can we can we >> 20 days? >> No, no, no. Maybe can we just say a minimum of 10 business days? >> Oh, >> or something like that. >> Okay. Minimum of >> 10 better. >> Okay. All right. So, also that. So, we have multiple changes. But if that is also okay, all in favor raise your hand. >> Quick. >> No more. >> We don't we don't need a new motion. Second. >> No. Yeah, we didn't change we didn't
080change the motion. Yeah. So, um we'll move it to the it was unanimous from the committee. We'll move it to the board. >> If you change the wording, it might not move. >> All right. Thank you. Um now, um that is all the uh major policies that we are looking at, but we also have some that we put out for public comment. So next up, let's review the comment we receive on policies that uh were previously made available for public comment. And so the first up is policy DAA, physical responsibility and control. >> Thank you. Joining us now is Mrs. Ivon Alonso Windsor. We are here to provide an update to the committee on the public comments received on the financial policies DAA fiscal responsibility and control DIG operating fund investment and GI funding retirement
081pension system. Uh in the course of the policy's development process MCPS consulted with a variety of stakeholders before drafting the policy. Uh then the policy was advertised and posted for comment and very few comments were received on these. As a result, we are recommending one change to policy DAA and no changes to DIG or GI. >> Okay. >> And I'll turn to Ivonne for any questions. >> Sure. So one of the question is in policy DAA and section E7. DAA section. There is um language about operating fund transfer of author authority between category notification approval from the county council and county executive. So my question is that was stried out. Why was it stried out? So when we revised the policy, one of the things we did to make it as clear as possible and
082concise as possible, we removed language that is moving to a regula to the regulation uh to make sure that it's captured because it's part of the implementation >> um as a result of that comment. Uh we went back and we have added it, you know, to make sure because it's law that, you know, the county council has to approve in category transfer. So we did add it and we also included the board because it have to come to the board first before it goes to the county council. So we have added that language line 75 through 77 >> back into the Okay. So so uh I think that's good. I know that we move it to regulation. But just to be sure people don't go into regulation they see the policy. Let's make it to
083be clear comply with the state law. That's all good. I don't have any other questions. I don't even >> Oh, okay. So, if that is the case, um, so I actually want to do these in bulk if if you don't have questions because that is DAA, physical responsibility and control and then we have uh DIG operating fund investment and um and also GIG funding retirement and pension system. If you don't have questions, we can move all three of these in both to the board for full action. Okay. Do May I have a motion? >> Motion to move >> all three policy. >> Mrs. Yang, can I clarify something? Yes. Did you mean final action? >> Final action. Yes. They are they all went out for public comment. So now it's for final action. Yes, there
084is a motion to move them to the full board for final action. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay. All in favor, raise your hand. That's unanimous from the committee. Thank you everyone. Thank you. Is that all the items on our agenda today? >> Just the regulations that are there as items of information. >> Okay. So there is one more item for information. Any comments, questions regarding the information item? Seeing none, I need a final motion for adjournment. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. All in favor, raise your hand. Meeting is ajourned. Thank you everyone for being super on top of the task.