001Sorry, I'll send it to you. >> No. I'm going to call the policy meeting to order. Thank you all for being here. Hope everybody had a wonderful Mother's Day and yeah. Um Miss Kadetsky, will you call the roll? Melissa Mason Here. Pat Bradford I am here. Dr. Merrick Present. All right. So, today's invocation is going to be given by Chaplain Georgiana Pinkney of Lower Cape Fear Hospice, who's going to do so remotely and then I will lead us in the pledge after that. Good morning. My name is Georgiana Pinkney. I'm a chaplain with Lower Cape Fear Life Care. I am grateful for the ask to pray for the leaders of our community today. Let us pray. Gracious and loving Lord, we thank you for this day, the giver of all things that are good and
002worthy. We thank you for our many blessings, not just for ourselves, but for our schools and community. We thank you for the abundance of successful outcomes and school events and for the staff of New Hanover County. We ask for the blessing of discernment as we continue to seek wisdom, strength and courage in all of the planning we do today. Guide our thoughts and deliberations and allow us to make conscientious decisions for the good of those who have confidence in our leadership and put their trust in us. We ask Lord God for the insight to lead with integrity, to reflect what is good and right for the community we serve without self-interest but with fairness and integrity. Lastly, Lord, help us to have compassion in our hearts and may our actions reflect your values of service
003and justice. We pray that by working together we have a united purpose and create a positive learning environment for all. We ask this in your holy name. Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right. Uh I will entertain a motion to approve the agenda. So moved. And I will second that. And for discussion, Madam Chair, >> Dr. Merrick. Uh our colleague has asked to add policy 7720 to the agenda and I would say if we cannot put it in this month that we would certainly make sure to put it in next month. Uh my hesitancy is that none of us have really had an opportunity to talk about it.
004So, did you Are you making a motion to do so? I'm making a motion to add it to either this month or next month. Either this month or next month. And I And I'm because of the reason that uh we have not had a chance to all review it, then I would recommend that we have it next month. Okay. And I will second that for next month. Can you give me the title what it is? Uh Sorry, you probably could have done that. My bad. It's all good. 7720 employee political activities. Uh, Madam Chair, discussion. Sure thing. Go for it, Ms. Bradford. What is the procedure, the regular way to get something on the agenda for policy? I believe it's to request the chair generally because I set the agenda for this for this particular
005meeting. We have a different structure obviously than for our bigger meetings because there's more of us and there's a need for for that kind of thing, but my understanding has always been um that it's brought to the chair to and then in situations like this, the three of us can make that decision for for next month. So, if I or another board member wanted to add something to our agenda, they would reach out to the chair and say, "I'd like to put this on the agenda, ma'am." Okay, thank you. That and we know that in the past we have referred to committee as well. So, you know, that's another avenue that it can get put on the agenda. So. Um All right. Dr. Mayor? I would just like to add that um I do believe
006that that would be the most appropriate way to bring it to this policy committee. However, I think that um whether uh anyone on the board could send it to to any one of us to bring and it's still going to be the choice of the three of us to add or not to the agenda. The question I have is whether or not we have the same rule for this committee that we do for the larger general board meetings, which is to say, if something is requested to go on the agenda, must it be so within two months? I don't know if that's been the procedure over the past Is it codified that way? There's no There's nothing codified that says that that that is the procedure. I might recommend that we make part of our
007next month's agenda. policy conversation. Yes. Okay, Madam Chair. Is there any more discussion? Um there is no requirement for coming to policy to have a second like we It's not a requirement for the board, but it carries more weight when we do have a second cuz now we fill it out on that online form that we fill out. So, but there is no need for a second. They just We just bring it to the chair. Correct? That's my understanding. Under those circumstances, I'm going to vote no and ask it go back through the process that we have already established and go through the regular process because we're you know, we've been in this thing a while. We should be following our processes. All righty. So >> Dr. Merrick. I I I think I saw from
008your hesitancy you would like me to specify that motion a little clearer. And and based on timing, I'm going to ask that we add policy code 7720 to next month's policy meeting. Which I believe you seconded. >> that. Yes. All right. Miss Kadetsky, will you call the roll? The motion is to add 77 Sorry. The motion is to add 7720 to next policy meeting. Melissa Mason. Yes. Pat Bradford. No. Dr. Merrick. Yes. And that passes two to one, so we will discuss that at next policy committee meeting. So, there is still a motion to There was a motion on the table to approve the agenda. It was seconded. Um all those in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? That passes three to zero. Um I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes. So
009moved. Second. Discussion? >> [cough] [clears throat] >> Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? That passes 3 to 0. So, we're starting off strong with policy 2120. And um in the attachments online and in your packets, um I had our attorney see if he could find some um a county that had a policy like this. So, over the past few years, it has gone in and out of my attention. Um Board members have open access to schools. We can walk into a building, and that means open access to kids. And I think that after recent events within the election, within just everything, um and to make sure that our kids are as safe as humanly possible, that board members coming in should be held accountable. So, what we have
010what I um what we have is from Rockingham County, which is, I believe, the only county other other county in North Carolina that has a policy because the state statute doesn't require it for us. There are other states that do have state statutes, but North Carolina is not one of them. So, Rockingham County has it under policy 2120, and it's at the a very last page, and it says, "All newly elected board members are expected to submit to a background check and sign a code of ethics statement that includes these provisions at the organizational meeting of the board." Um and so, I wanted to bring to discussion the possibility of using some of that verbage within our policy to make sure that from now on, every board member that comes on to our board has
011that background check and we know our kids are safe. So, some of the questions that um the attorney and I have had and that I kind of wanted to to kind of bring forward and see everybody's thoughts about are if an individual First of all, how far back are we going to go? How severe of a crime are we going to look at? If someone does have a record, what can we do because they are elected officials. So, I kind of wanted to bring that those questions forward for discussion. I didn't know if any of my other board members or the attorney had any feedback or the superintendent. Go for it. >> [clears throat] >> Several of you in the recent past had offered to volunteer to take a class or teach in a school.
012I think you might make it a little cleaner to say just in the policy board members will align to the requirements of a level two volunteer. Which some of you already are because you've gone on field trips or things like that. But, if you put that in there, it would kind of encompass all of that with it. And just make it a little cleaner. Cuz right like we have made it a real clear I I have Sorry, I have made it real clear that board members are welcome in schools. You're welcome to visit. You're welcome to talk to principals. That isn't always the way it's been in the past. But, without that level two volunteer, you are either a guest or you're a staff member and you're not really either one. So, I If you
013just said they're going to align to the level two volunteer requirements, then that might make it cleaner and show that there's a purpose for doing it, if that makes sense. Okay. Dr. Merrick? Uh I like that distinction. I think it's cleaner. Um it was a little bit difficult for me because it I don't see it in red and blue and and it looks like a complete rework of this one. So, I've had a hard time following it and I apologize. Um the one concern I do have is that we are making a decision for next for the next cohort. Mhm. When um very likely none of the three of us perhaps will be here. Right? >> Well, I know for sure I won't. >> Well, we we know that for sure. >> But And I
014have confidence that I will be. What's that? >> [laughter] >> I mean all of us I I could be here or not be here. You could be here or not. >> matter. We still govern. Well, but I do have a problem with the idea of making a decision for the next cohort if we are not ourselves willing to do that. So, I am in favor of this, but I do believe it should be that all of us within the next 2 months uh uh picture like I agree. I don't think that's an unreasonable request. Um Ms. Bradford? And as you know, I I did volunteer on May 1st and I was not allowed to help in the classroom because I didn't have that level two. And this is something that we've talked about in the
015past. Um we certainly talked about it after the the primary. And so, I'm very much in favor of that language, but it it it gives me other questions. So, um it's not necessarily something we'll talk about we'll do today, but I'd like to throw some other questions out there and and ask the the two of you to consider um we just had a news article um in WHQR and it said the school district fingerprints. Well, that's technically true, but it's technically not true cuz we don't fingerprint everybody. We only fingerprint some of us. The the policy states we fingerprint new employees. We have done that for the past 4 years. Yes. But >> Every employee that is new to this district has been fingerprinted. Let me be clear. Make sure that that didn't I was
016going to say that. I was going to say that. Sorry. But I I have long held that we should go all the way back. Um I was fingerprinted to become a guardian ad litem and I think anybody that works around children should be fingerprinted. Um I've always leaned on the staff over the MOUs and how much of a background check that we do there. So that's the second part of what I want to talk about. But I would like for us to consider seriously and for Dr. Mars to give us, you know, an estimate of what the cost is to retroactively do that fingerprinting. And I think that the board members should also be fingerprinted as well. Because if we're going to be you know, in a classroom, in a hallway, whatever, we should follow
017the same guidelines as the staff in terms of letting the parents, the students, and everyone else know where we stand safety-wise. Now, the the levels of the background checks is interesting. Um one of my best friends talked to me this last couple of days about something that happened in her past where and the story doesn't really matter, but there was a father and he had taken the child from the mother who had custody and they left the country, so the FBI got involved. Anyway, things progressed and the child was returned and the man was wanted. Um and my best friend's sitting in a Little League ball game in a small town in North Carolina and she hears a voice and she recognizes the voice of the husband. And she's like, that can't be. You know,
018he's got to be, you know, in Africa or somewhere. And it turns out it is him. Um and he's not only a coach of a Little League team, but he's also working on a college um administration as a professor. And so she called the college and she said, huh what are you doing?" And they said, "Our background check only went this many years back." So, my question to staff is, you don't have to tell me today, how far back do our background checks go when we do a hire? And how far back do our background checks go when we do those MOUs and it says right in the boilerplate, you know, you're going to have these background checks. What are the parameters on these background checks? I'd like to know. Well, I'll check in and
019then you jump in afterwards, okay, Jen? So, first for the public's knowledge, we have always done background checks. Fingerprinting is an additional level of checking. So, the background check has always been done and everyone who is an employee also is put into our Guardian system which notifies us if a new crime is committed. The background checks have always been done. It pulled up my speeding tickets, so I know they're in there. But, it goes and generally speaking, how far it goes back, uh we've talked about this before. The burden of doing everyone who is a current employee who has not been fingerprinted yet will have to be a budget item. That's something that we would have to build into the budget for next year or whatever because it will be best guess was how much
020did you say? Um they're about $36 per fingerprint. Per person, not each not each finger. >> [laughter] >> Um Spencer Vance, good quality guy. Maybe about 25% of employees Yeah, that's all part of it. Yeah. Um Wow. That we would assume haven't been fingerprinted yet. There'd be multiple sources that we would need to look at to um trace that where holding these individuals. From what I understand, at some point in time there were employees being fingerprinted this prior to us being here and then it stopped. And then, of course, the 2021 requirement kicked back up. So, the number I'm giving you is assuming that prior to 2021, no one was fingerprinted. So, within that group, there may be some employees that may that were not >> Yeah, a good example is pre-K has always been
021fingerprinted now, regardless. But, I will tell you, of course, for us, there are only two counties in the state that fingerprint their employees, and we are one of them. We do background checks on everybody. Yes. Yes. And always have. So, there's no one that's working for us that has not been checked. Right. And regardless, they are all put into the system where if anything new pops, we somehow find out about it before they get home. >> [laughter] >> So, question on that. We have 3,300 employees. You're thinking there's 2,500 that are outstanding. So, that leaves 800 that are fingerprinted. Only 800 out of 3,300. That's my point. Now, I'll put it this way. We tried to make it a little more understandable. All of the employees that have been with us, and I I need
022to find out that number, from 2021 forward, have all been fingerprinted. We're making the assumption that the farthest we can go back, based on electronic records right now, not all of our electronic, you know, there's still paper form records. Prior to that, of the total that we can determine, we would need to fingerprint 2,500 employees in the district. So, at some point in time, where they are, they might be first-time employees, um we have more than 800 people in it. Currently fingerprinted. Okay. Just for clarity's sake, because um level two volunteer, maybe the public isn't aware, maybe they don't necessarily have are are not able to volunteer. So, what does the the level two volunteer What are those requirements? I'm sorry. I was also trying to give other Mhm. Right. And tell us I know
023when I got fingerprinted I went down to the police department and they did it. Who does them for us? Right. Guardian. And is No, sorry. Sorry. Is it a a one-on-one off thing? Um We want some fingers. Sorry. Um you know, you have two people go down in a week and one goes on a Monday, one goes on a Thursday. But if you had a bulk, you might could schedule them in groups and maybe get a discount. Cuz one of the things that was suggested in discussing it with friends was that maybe the sheriff's department cut us cut us a cut us a price break. And I thought, well, no, not at this cost. But if they're doing a one-off, that's more expensive than doing them, you know, let's run 10 through today. They um
024give us hours that we can tell our people we're good for. Um and so, I would venture to say that we already kind of have the best deal in town. They won't really do really well with us. Um and certainly it is not a money-making enterprise for them. So, we definitely play by what works best for us. And but we have them when you apply for a job. Okay. Um because it's really at the mercy of the person that's screening Mhm. And the cost most of the cost of that is to get the reports back. >> Yeah. And Cuz Hang on. 2,500 * 36 is a lot of Mhm. The level two, what does that look like? Um that is our background and depending on where you're on the volunteer list, we also have to
025do the level three thing. Um and for good reason has another tier of of background checks through the DCF so um level two is our regular running background check and we do this. So, we don't all the volunteers actually kind of weird, we sort of collaborate on this. The volunteer process is done through them. But our teams work together on that they're also part of the guardian process. So, once any volunteer applies for a background check, all of our employees have a background check. We work together to make sure on a regular basis we're all up to date and if you leave or transfer to us, you're on our list unless you leave. Correct. And if you leave and come back, you have to be re-fingerprinted. And put that on our guardian And when they
026when you're hired, who pays that cost? We do. You do personally? I do, thank you. Um, so 85,000, that's about the same as what I wrote down, about 85,000. It's a lot. That's one teacher. Um, have we had How long have we been doing fingerprints for? Okay. It's one of the first things we did, yeah. Yeah. And have we had any use to have to go back and pull those fingerprints? And also double it's it's also double bagging, right? It's checking in two different places twice. Right. So the back So you can get information from the fingerprinting that you might not get from a background check. >> the freaking process. And if it's time-sensitive, so the county then would report that in a reasonable time. That can slow the process down. Yeah. I I I
027guess I'm just trying to measure the pros and cons. When our budget is as tight as it is, it's hard to imagine spending you know, $85,000 if if there's not a really good likelihood that the information we get is going to, you know, create more security and prevent something terrible from happening. I mean, obviously we're we'll spend whatever necessary money we need to if it's going to keep one child safe. I get that. So, I wanted to kind of bring it back to this policy because I think that this we can do this discussion further when we focus on the policy for the rest, but I want to kind of bring it back to this because looking at ourselves, um Mr. Blanchard, can you kind of delineate like, I don't know delineate's the right word.
028Can you talk to us about what we could do if a board member did not pass the level two background check? What could the board do? What could the district do because that's a possibility and we need to be able to prepare for that. You know, there's not a whole lot of policing ability that you have in a direct sense um on on board members. Now, you obviously if you depends on the level of let's say we pass it. Somebody comes back with a felony that would prevent them from voting, for example, they're not even eligible to to be on the board. Right. So, I mean, you can, you know, refer that over to Board of Elections and Sheriff's Department or whoever and action gets taken that way. Um and the board can cross that
029bridge when they come to it, whether we're talking about I hate to use the word emotion, but because that that's should never happen. But, um otherwise, on the other ones, I mean, it it it's kind of you really don't have a whole lot of options with them. I was thinking I guess potentially you could have somebody that might get on the sex offender list by way of a misdemeanor, you know, something that they had done that was a misdemeanor in the past, which theoretically wouldn't bar them from voting, running for office, and every once in a while you see somebody vote that actually does have felony conviction, like we just saw in the, you know, controversy with the primaries here. Um with with those folks, you know, if you're on the sex offender registry list,
030you can't come on school property except in very limited things. So, I don't know how someone could continue to serve as a school board member. They don't even be able to participate in meetings. Well, they couldn't necessarily even come here because there's a school right there. Yeah, I I don't even think they they could participate in in meetings like that. I mean, there's a the only carve outs for felons uh for felon sex offenders are are going to be those situations you know, it's it's in our policy already. If you've got a kid in school, you basically you have to be uh chaperoned at all times. Um if you if you vote, you get to come on uh to a school ground vote, but again, you've got to have a minder there with you. Um
031so that I just don't know how anybody can could serve with that. Um Ms. Bradford and Dr. Merrick. And I like this as a deterrent. Mhm. Um and on top of that in another teacher walkout, board members could go into the classroom. It's a plus. Um and the same with the fingerprinting you know, we insurance companies that we pay premiums to have since I've been on the board paid out what is it, $7 million? You know, so as a deterrent I would like to when when when things ease up and there's money left over from this or that, I will come to the board with that kind of emotion when I see there's an avenue to be able to fund it because I think it's a deterrent and to the community that is still wounded
032and raw from what happened before we got on the board. I think knowing that we were fingerprinting everybody would be some level of of of healing. And so I will do that, not in this in this round here cuz I'm I'm mindful of the money. And I understand our finances really well, but if things loosen in any way, then I will be coming back with that. Other than that, Madam Chair, I would move that we add this language if you like the language that's highlighted in that kind of yellow color. Um I would move that we add that um level to well Dr. Barnes, so I >> The wording would be I wrote I wrote down, too. >> That That board So um I I can move, you can move. Um I'm I move to
033add board members will align to level two volunteer requirements under pilot under at the second to last paragraph on policy 2120. Okay, second to that. On of C or are you going back to the B the regular one that's already there? So this is after that massive list. The last page and it the paragraph starts all newly elected board members are expected to sign a code of ethics statement. I'm adding it There. right after that. Perfect. >> Is that number 23 or it's own paragraph? >> That's beyond 22. Okay, I'm good with that. So, we have a motion and we have a second. Um any discussion Dr. Merrick? Uh a couple things. First, I want to point out that we didn't have a a teacher walkout. That was all arranged, so it was not a
034walkout. Um thank you. I want to I I I I like that you amended it to um to what the superintendent has recommended. Uh I am in favor of that, but I think it needs to have then if we're going to include present board members, we need to put a date on it. Oh, true. Within whatever. Within x amount of time from when they, you know, I mean, somehow if we're going to ask ourselves to be uh level two volunteer approved. So, the recommendation coming from over here is by the start of the 2026-2027 school year. I wouldn't want to put that in the policy though because obviously it's going to, you know, change. Correct, right. It seems inappropriate. >> the two motions. Well, if you just said that the board will achieve level two
035volunteer status, no later than Well, you don't even need to say that because as board members you guys are bound to follow policies. So, if it becomes policy, then we have to follow policy. Well, but I mean, if we don't have some sort of way of putting a date on it, then uh then tomorrow I would be maybe out of uh compliance, right? Which would be Well, why could we not do like two motions? We motion to pass it at the board level. Um Well, but we're we're only we >> we can only pass policy. But then when we pass it, then we add another motion to to make that policy effective blah blah. So, we do two motions. Not here. When it goes to regular meeting I like that. I just I just know
036that we had to have some sort of a trigger. >> Absolutely good idea. All right. So, we have a motion to add board members will align to level two volunteer requirements to the second to last paragraph of policy 2120. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Any opposed? That passes. Madam Chair, before we leave this policy, can we discuss a couple things about our rest of our day? Um we do have I will give about hm five more minutes. Okay. I just I did a side-by-side comparison between the Rockingham and ours. And um it just seems like on that first page, and it and it may be I went through and I checked off everything that we had that they had, but it talks about the board may not investigate issues, issues
037must be investigated as a whole corporate. That's number six under A. And then under B, too, um board members, I think this is a negative. It is unethical and inappropriate for a board member to do any of the following. These things we shouldn't do. It's unethical and inappropriate to personally assume unauthorized authority, criticize school employees publicly, and discuss confidential information. I think those are stronger than what we have. So, I would I would I would I would maybe want to tighten ours up just a smidge. Um which means we can we can send it through, but then I would ask you to be back on our agenda for next month to to look at these things and have maybe somebody figure out where they would go to get this in place, you're saying? Yes, ma'am.
038Dr. >> I I see what you're saying. You want to make sure we begin this process, and then we can go back and look at this again. Okay. I was going to say I don't want to take it to the board twice, but I but I understand your your >> what you're saying. Absolutely. Yeah. Now I get it. And just study that first page. I just think ours could be a little bit stricter. Um and obviously it's necessary. But for clarity's sake, Madam Chair, what we are sending to the board is simply to add the one paper. We're not bringing the Rockingham thing. Thank you very much. >> All right. So, But can we put it on for next month? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. All right. So, next up is policy 4351. Um Dr. Merrick
039asked that this be put on. Um I have no changes to it, but I wanted to give a little bit of time for discussion, >> [cough] >> staff questions. Um We know that we have frequent visitors who are asking us to make changes to this policy. Um and so I kind of wanted to get feedback from staff to um if we were to raise the age or of um I believe the suspension criteria. If we were to raise that age, what would that look like for our students, for our staff that are are in those classrooms? Either one of you. Well, I'd be glad to jump in. Um the policy does, you know, state I mean, pretty well um that school administrators will utilize positive behavior support alternatives to suspensions and only use out-of-school suspensions
040as a last resort. Um also identifying that teachers and students deserve school environments that are safe, supportive, and conducive to learning. Um I think it's important to include teachers and our administration in the discussion of the policy. Um there's a strong commitment to the professional development that we're doing around safe and civil schools, and that includes evidence-based approach to creating and maintaining positive, safe, supportive learning environments. And our teachers and our administrators give really high quality feedback on the handling of student behavioral needs, um, including emotional needs. And of course that's that's crucial to maintaining those safe, supportive environments that are conducive to learning. So I I would say that we would need to engage, um, our staff that are boots on the ground in that conversation. Can we ask our principal of the year
041to give us some feedback? Can we use your microphone? I don't know if your mic is Can we get your microphone? Yeah, that's all right. >> You're fine. Just because other people are listening that won't be able to hear you. So what age can I ask like what would be the >> Presently, um, it's no student under age eight or under grade three will be suspended out of school except in response to incidents involving violations of policy 4325, drugs and alcohol, policy 4331, assaults and threats, and policy 4333, weapons, bomb threats, terrorist threats, and clear threats to safety. I guess I'm wondering what age do you think we would raise it to? What would that >> Well, that's kind of the discussion at this point is that there are individuals in the community that believe
042that we need to raise the age, um, and maybe Dr. Merrick can can give a little more clarity because I know he had he had had some thoughts. Um, I don't remember what what number they had said. Well, our community members who've been been asking for this change have said if if we have been able to lower the incidence of K-2 suspensions, and obviously that's been the case. We're looking at the trends, it's, you know, I I thank every teacher, every administrator for the fact that we've been able to lower those suspension rates. And if we've been able to do it at that younger age and this group has this cohort coming through has been able to do so well. Uh the recommendation from the group was simply can we add on one more grade
043and then perhaps next year we add on one more grade. I would like to expand the conversation just a little bit. We know or I believe it's pretty well um the opinion of most administrators and teachers is that we need to have some out when when behavior gets to be so um untolerable intolerable that there's no longer safe learning environment or that there's no longer an ability to to to educate that the the learning part goes away or if it's dangerous. We need to have an out. However, when we have an attitude that is about more about punishment and less about working with. You know, I we've had several conversations with the superintendent about the idea of restorative justice about being able to work mostly with our students and I think you've been saying it's
044it's in it's it's making its way through, right? It's in the the reframing behavior safe and civil schools. We're having restorative justice taking place, but there still seems to be a lot of reliance on suspension. And the and how much energy and are we putting into working with those students rather than What data is showing that our suspension cuz I think that our out of school and in school suspensions have gone down every year in the last two or three. Yes. >> So, I don't think that saying that we're relying on that is necessarily accurate. Well, what about the what's the data for K3 through 12? Has that also Yeah, significantly gone down in the same degree? >> We I mean we've Go ahead, Julie. Yes, that's the data that was presented um several months
045ago to the board that showed an overall K-12 and then I split out the K-2 just for for context. Um I I would also be interested in the the data that suggests an over-reliance on punitive measures versus um safe and supportive learning environments. Well, I guess what I'm saying is that if indeed our suspensions have gone down and we still have the carve out that says, you know, under policy 4325, 4331, 4333, we have the ability to maintain those safe learning environments in these extreme cases, then maybe the question is why are we doing Why aren't we saying instead of just K-12, why don't we just uh K-2, why don't we say K-12 that we change this policy that says there will be no one given suspension unless these policies have been uh violated. I
046think we have to balance that against the safety of the learning environment and the safety of our staff as well. So, I haven't had a chance to bring you the analysis yet, but our most recent teacher working conditions survey, one of the things they ask is about a decline in student conduct issues. So, in this regard, it's the one place in the survey where lower than the year before is better. Uh physical conflicts among students, teachers report that it's down 13% from 6- from 52 to 39. Saying that teachers are seeing this trend less. Disorder in classrooms down 10 points, disorder in unstructured areas is down 9 points, student disrespect to teachers is down 10 points, bullying is down 9 points, and threats of violence towards teachers is down 8 and 1/2 points. I don't
047want us to create a solution looking for a problem. This board and I think that our integrity and morals say that suspensions are last resort. We do what we can to minimize disruptions to the educational environment. And I think rather than saying we should be expanding, we should be sort of saying we've addressed this problem. And I think if our if our overall suspension numbers in this district don't continue to decline, then maybe that's a question. But if we've gone down every year, I don't know I I would be very hesitant to anything that would hamstring a principal or teacher for ensuring a safe environment for children. I think that's my only concern. Don't I do want to I do want to hear from our principal and see what her thoughts are as far as
048current policy. Do you feel comfortable with it? Do you feel I feel comfortable with it because of the measures that we put in place to ensure that staff know what to do, how to help children in crisis. Um It I think I don't see any reason to address this. I'm going to back to um a solution looking for a problem. I don't And as I said, I'm not sure what age would make a big difference between I guess there's an assumption that if you're younger, you're less dangerous. Is that I don't believe that's the case. Um I guess my question is uh drugs and alcohol, assaults and threats, weapons, bonds, and threats, and clear threats to safety. Doesn't that pretty much cover it? It It does. So, if that's the case, then why are we
049only having to say K through 2 carve out? Why don't we just say no student shall be suspended unless drugs and alcohol, assaults and threats, weapons, bombs, threats, and clear threats to safety. That might by default be what's happening anyway. I I'm not sure. I don't work at a high school. Um I think that we would I think putting together committee of people who work with this every day would probably be our best bet. Julie? I also want to um correlate this to the capacity of our staff to be able to address the various needs that might be in front of them with regard to behavioral health, um social emotional needs of our students, and the the a focus on supporting [clears throat] in uh a very intensive support and early intervention is is really
050critical. We know that anyway for um you know, for overall social emotional behavioral development. But we we also need to need to consider again, I'll I'll go back to my my first statement. I think it's going to be important to include teachers and administrators in this conversation so that we can talk about our capacity in the school to be able to support in the same way that we're doing at K2 to support that beyond in in grades above and beyond and to get a a broader and more clear picture of exactly what it looks like to be able to provide this level of support. Mhm. Because I there's probably going to be a capacity or a budgetary impact to that with regard to how many additional staff we have in the building to support because
051we're talking about removing a student from a classroom to maintain safety and to address the needs, but that means someone needs to be there intervening and providing that intervention in an evidence-based way. I think that I think someone shared with me that they got a flyer on their car asking if the kid been suspended to call somebody. We're going to that level or extent trying to find the suspensions that I think that we need to address the problem. I think that parents if there's even one parent to see that you know are who's greatly concerned about a suspension that is resolved in the meeting I think that with all the emails and conversations we get from the union members, that suspension was a significant issue you guys had. And I haven't, so I'm assuming you
052have. Ms. Bradford? I did get that notice on my car. Um I agree with the superintendent and I agree with our assistant superintendent of student services. Suspensions are lower. I do believe we've addressed the problem. I remember putting this on the agenda in the last 3 years and I had an opinion. And then all board members went to super- I mean to principals and assistant principals for meetings. And at the end of that meeting, I had completely changed my mind because the principal said, "Don't make any change to the policy." And so I agreed with them. Um we did see the data a couple of months ago. We are not over relying on punitive measures. And you know, I I I will not vote to change it. I believe we've addressed the problem. There are
05320 people in a group that have a cause and that's not enough to change the school district or 20 people who don't understand that we have addressed the problem. I I didn't finish with my question. So, I want to address the idea there's a a fix looking for a problem. Um policy drives uh operations. >> [clears throat] >> And if we had a policy that said >> [snorts] >> that we do not suspend students without a serious threat of drugs, alcohol, assaults, threats, weapons, bombs, etc., etc. Then it drives us to find other solutions, and that's what policy does. And so, when I say an over-reliance, that may have been a over-simplification. The fact that we still do rely on it partly because of what you said, we don't have enough adults in the building.
054But if we look at policy as a way of putting our values out. The value says we will find a way to work with these students unless there has been a clear threat to safety. I mean, that's right there. It's already there. So, I'm wondering why our our short-term suspension only carves out for K to 2. And I I want to answer my colleague, this is not about 20 people who are who are talking because I've talked to a great number of people across the education spectrum who believe that restorative justice makes a lot more sense neurologically. Uh you know, negative reinforcement doesn't work. Positive reinforcement does in terms of how it affects the brain. So, I'm looking to have policy drive our operations. It is income It is dependent on having enough staff in
055the building. And I do understand that. But from my reading of this policy, you've got every reason right there if you need to suspend a student. Clear threat to safety. If there's not a clear threat to safety, why are we sending them home? So, I'm I I I make the motion that we produce a meeting of educators to look at this together. And if you want a board member on there, I will volunteer um to look at this a little bit more closely to long-term solutions to suspension because suspension keeps kids out of school. They're not learning and the likelihood of lack of graduation and the school-to-prison pipeline goes up tremendously with suspension. So, I'd like to see it stopped. Um, I don't know if that is a valid motion for this committee because >>
056need to go It would need to go to the board as a vote. Um, so Yeah. I agree. >> I'm going to make a recommendation that you bring that to the next meeting unless there's a second. I agree. I I would I would draw. Okay. All right. Continuing on, we have um, the next set of policy policy updates are the ones that we received from NCSBA. Um, so starting with >> Ma'am, point of order. Do we need any further action or are we just taking no action? Taking no action. Okay. Um, so the next So, the next policy we're going to talk about is 1310 and that is parental involvement. And the change that was made, um, and these are strongly [clears throat] recommended and recommended by NCSBA for changes, um, >> [clears throat] >>
057is on page three of the policy but page 28 of the packet. Um, and it says to the extent uh, parents and students will be provided advanced notice of classroom discussions, activities, or assigned readings so that the parent has the opportunity to request that the student be excused from such classroom discussions, activities, or assigned readings in accordance with policy 3510 religious-based exemptions from school programs. And then there is a deletion of the word also in the following paragraph. Um, additionally, there I believe, were some cross-references that were updated several pages later. Um, and so, those are the changes that are were put forward by uh NCSBA. And so, um, just so that we can do things in order, I move that we um move this on to the board with the recommended changes. Second. Okay.
058Let's discuss any questions, comments. Ms. Bradford. Um, I think I know the answer, but remind us where this language came from in the red. NCSBA. Okay. Thank you. Um, yeah. Is this a response to uh parental rights being able to know what's happening in the classroom at all times? So, according to the little chart that they sent us, it says um it adds a reference to the requirements described in policy 3510, religious-based exemptions from from school programs. That's the only That's the only uh information I have about that. So, is this then every change or every uh discussion, or is only discussions that are going to be religiously based? Only religiously based? If it's referring to the other policy, then I assume it's based on that. Then I think Like in a world history class,
059you would only be doing a study on comparative religion. That would be an example. But not every topic you have to cover. It That's why I think it says to the extent practical. Sure. Um, which is kind of squishy language, which normally I don't like, but in this case, I think we have to give the teachers an opportunity to say, "Hey, I just That's It's not practical for me to give every single conversation we're ever going to have in school because sometimes conversations happen organically. Um is it shouldn't it say something about I mean I guess it it is actually referring to policy 3510, but it should be Parents and students will be provided advanced notice of classroom discussions activities or assigned readings that relate to religion. Can I defer to our attorney to see
060what his thoughts are? It's fine but this is being put in the uh said it's it's being put in parent communication part and apparently it's designed just for the religious based exemptions. I don't know if there's any other circumstance. To me I feel like if we add that it's a little bit of redundancy because it is already in there. It says in accordance with policy 3510 religious based exemptions. So that's That's just my perspective that's not Sure. you know. Could it be argued by someone if they saw this that said hey you got to you got to give us information about every single classroom discussion. As long as it's practical practicable. As long as as long as that that clause in accordance with policy 3510 as long as that is the the basis upon which
061a parent has the ability to put our teachers through that much difficulty. Um then I'm fine with it. So can I interrupt? So looking at this whole policy this whole policy regards to you, your your parents' rights. A lot of this stuff is in existence in other policies. So, like on page 27, there's another reference to the same thing. Um I'm just looking for it. Oh, I lost it now. There's so many policy references. Mhm. And while she's looking for that, um policy 3510 itself frames the expectation on what would be considered um the burden on the student's religious beliefs. It identifies it in that paragraph there. So, yeah. >> So, then it's not really necessary to add it here. I wouldn't think so. I would think I would refer to 3510 on how it
062frames the um where the it's any discussion, activity, or assigned reading that the parent or guardian believes would impose a substantial burden on the student's religious beliefs. I I move that we lay this on the table indefinitely. You guys don't want to make the changes? You want to lay it on the table? In other words, I'm I'm saying that this is not a necessary change and that I'm To say lay it on the table is to say we dismiss it. Is there a second? Further discussion? All right. So, the original motion is to move this policy onto the board with the changes um provided by NCSBA. Uh all those in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? Opposed. That passes two to one. All right, next up is policy >> [clears throat] >> 3225.4312.7320.
063Um, I did ask Ms. Branson if there was any concern she had about this, but I couldn't get any info. A little information, so the team on that Or, just before you do, um that it modifies the language about Wi-Fi hotspots. That's a required change. B9D, which is recommended. And it said the Federal Communications Commission rescinded the E-rate Wi-Fi hotspot and service rules adopted in July 2024, finding that the best reading of 47 USC 254 does not permit the funding of off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and the associated wireless internet services with E-rate program support. So, I don't know if there's any further information you want to add to that. Yeah, I mean we've been I mean, we haven't purchased any hotspots for our buses in any way, but this statement is not false. It's
064fine for it to be in there. So, I've no issue with that one. Okay. And then, on the the second one on page 43, um under 9D, it talks about recordings, and it just specifically just spells out that, you know, where recordings are allowed. And this one goes into the exceptions. Um, recordings aren't allowed in pretty much every place except for, you know, events that are open to the public, such as your athletic competitions, and of course, and all those assemblies. Um but the one caveat is basically if the recording at a public event is restricted for any reason, it has to be stated at the beginning of the event. So, that's perfectly fine, too. Okay. So, I move that this policy be brought to the board as with the changes from NCSBA. Do I
065have a second? >> I'll second that. All right. Um, any discussion? Ms. Bradford? It's relative, but not necessary. Um, on this on page 43, D, where it says an exception will be made for recording at events that are open to the public, such as athletic competition, band and choral concerts, assemblies, presentations, and award ceremonies. Um, I would like this policy making committee to look at that language to be incorporated into other policies that we have that talk about photography. Um, and board members, because if if students can take pictures with these exceptions, then we might want to look at who else can do that at a public event or an award ceremony. Um, and so, uh, that language right there was vetted by attorneys from NCSBA, so it's not something we have to ask our
066attorney to even look at. So, I I'd make a request that we we take that language and look at our other policies in terms of photography. So, it doesn't it doesn't have anything to do with this motion. Do you know what policy Off the top of my head, I don't. I've got them written down somewhere. You know, where I looked at them before. >> bring that to me? I will. Yes, ma'am. That'd be great. All right. So, there is a motion to pass policy 322543127320, technology responsible use, onto the board, um, with the changes from NCSBA. All those in favor signify by saying I. I I. Any opposed? That passes three to zero. All right. Next is, um, policy 4318, use of wireless communication devices. Um This is also This is a recommended change in
067C. Um, Ms. Printson, did you have anything you wanted to add or It's actually It's a good recommendation. We've addressed in this policy or in the other policy, um, just communication in in general, but we haven't talked about just the the picture. So, I think in light of, you know, AI and things that are going on with pictures, I think spelling this out that they have to have permission from the person in order to actually, um, take the picture or it can't You can't have anything personally identified, you know, in the picture. So, I just think the way it's spelled out, it's good to let people know what what's not allowed, what's not what's allowed, what's not allowed. All right. So, I move to pass 4318 with the NCSBA changes, um, to the board. Do
068I have a second? >> I'll second that. All right. Any discussion? I would like to just ask, um, at from your perspective as an administrator, how you think this might, um, improve student bullying, because I know that pictures are used quite a bit in the use of cyber bullying. And it's one of the areas that we obviously are very concerned with and should for good reason. Um This This might seem like a small change, but I actually see this as being a huge, uh, change in terms of what students can do with their phones. And I And I like it. to me. I think I think at the elementary level, it's a little Well, it could still have that problem. Yeah. Um, so, I think this will be helpful. Clarify things. Can you see any
069ways that it unduly handcuffs students from being able to, you know, hang out with their friends and take the selfies and all that sort of thing. Um I don't I don't see how I could do that. No. Okay. Thank you. All right. So, motion is to pass 4318 onto the board with the changes from NCSBA. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Any opposed? That passes 3 to 0. And our last one for today, um is policy 4342, which is student searches. Um that was So, there's a required change that clarifies language in A5. Um and that is under the metal detector searches. Um Oh. And then changes language in section E to align with the information in the new in A soon-to-be new policy uh 7325 that's going to come to
070us next meeting, um I believe. I believe I have that in my mind for next meeting. Hold on. Make this page a part. Yeah. Um and so, that kind of gets us ready for that for that policy. Um Is there any concerns? I keep coming to you, Ms. Branson. >> [laughter] >> Cuz it's this is related to the security cameras and things like that. Are there any concerns you have? I feel like it aligns with a lot of things that we've kind of already been saying. And that we're already doing it anyway, so. Um so, I move to move this onto the board with the changes from NCSBA. Um do I have a second? Second. All right. Um Ms. Bradford, you had your hand up? Um it's interesting on that E, the last one, Where
071it deleted it says camera and then it deleted audio surveillance recorders and I'm curious, did we ever have audio surveillance recorders in the building? Okay. I just I like to look at what they delete and that's quite interesting. All right. So, there's Oh, Dr. Merrick. Um, I'm concerned that classrooms are not specifically set part here. That says, um, you know, not in locker rooms or restrooms or nurses' offices, lactation rooms, etc., but uh, educators, um, from my experience are very much not in favor of cameras in classrooms and for good reasons, I think. I can imagine that parents might want that and at the same time it the way the handcuffs a teacher uh, is is is overburdensome in my mind and it does not spell it out here and I'm afraid that it might
072give some squishy room here when it says, you know, uh, not any areas that are an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy. I don't think a classroom is a place where students have an unrea- you know, have an expectation of privacy, but I don't think that cameras belong in classrooms. So, can we spell that out more carefully? Any thoughts? Oh, I I I wouldn't be in favor of changing it. I like the way it is. All right. I would like to move that we say, uh, cameras may not be located in any areas where individuals have reasonable expecta- expectation of privacy such as restrooms, locker rooms, etc., nurses' office, lactation rooms or or uh, classrooms. All right, is there a second? Okay, the motion dies for like of Um >> you're just discussion. Yeah,
073Mr. >> Expectation of privacy. There is no expectation of privacy in the classroom. There is no expectation of privacy in the classroom. It would be a semicolon and not a comma because um it is it's a separate issue. It's not about privacy. It's just what we're saying that cameras won't be allowed in classrooms. And I would think, ma'am, before we even consider something like that, we would ask the superintendent to ask all of his principals what they thought about something like that. It would be a major change if you know, in in the way things are done um to all of a sudden stick something in that's not been studied or whatever. So, I'm just absolutely against it. I'm good. I move to amend uh to postpone the vote on this policy change until after
074the superintendent has a chance to to speak with principals and get back to us. I'll second that. Um and that was an amendment. Mhm. Um I would actually say that that's not an amendment. I'd say that's a different motion altogether because my motion was to move this forward to the board. Mhm. You're saying to pause. To move it after we get Well, the requisite What if What if we get the information back that is not cuz that's a different motion. So, I'm asking my colleagues to vote no until after we get back to the So, we get back from the When I she said join second, so it it goes for like a second. Then it'll it would die because it's a different it's a completely different motion. >> Yes, they would have to wait.
075Right. All right. So, the motion is to move this forward to the board um with the changes from NCSBA. Um all those in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? I. Nay. That passes 2 to 1. Um just so that we have clarity on my little summary sheet, I have um existing policies for amendment at the next regular meeting with no changes 1310, 4002, uh 3225, 4312, 7320. That's one. Um 4318 and 4342. And then existing policies for amendment at the next regular meeting with changes from us uh is policy 2120. Um and do I hear a motion to adjourn? >> So moved. Point point of order, Madam Chair. I'm sorry. Yes, sir. 4342, wouldn't that be uh existing policies uh with amendments? That's the change. Well, put it to the Right, the ones
076no changes from us that we just made. So, when I when I speak that's yeah. All right. All right, so there was a motion to adjourn and I'm going to second that. >> [laughter] >> I will third it. Um all those in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? We are adjourned. Thank you. >> Mhm.