001I heard recording in progress. I just can only see me. So you guys, you know, do do what you have to do. I can hear you. So >> by 49 of America and to the republic for it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay, just checking public comment. No public comment. I know it's not on the agenda. >> We don't do public comment. >> Oh, I do not know. >> I should know that. >> Okay. >> So, our first policy, our first agenda item is restorative justice practices. This was originally reviewed and adopted by policy committee in March of 20. 24. >> Did you hear that? >> I did because I can hear you. I can't see anything, but I could hear you through the computer now and it
002was doing an echo. >> Oh, okay. >> Okay. Bye. >> Okay. Okay. So, we had reviewed it. We um had the committee had approved it. It was not moved to the full board. Um and so the recommend >> It was >> No, >> it was never brought to the full board. >> No, but I mean it was voted out of committee. We just it didn't >> exactly right. Um and so the recommendation is that we um have any discussion we need on it and then um go to the audit committee and go forth through the chair. So if we have already discussed and voted it through and it was just a technicality that it didn't get on, I would motion that we or entertain a motion that we would move it forward as is. We
003I I read it at home. I'm I'm fine. Are you all fine? >> Yep, >> I'm fine with it. Okay. >> And Commissioner Simmons? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, I second that motion. >> Motion's been made in second. >> All those in favor? >> I >> motion passes. So, restorative justice practices moves to our next full board meeting. So, that brings us to number three, policy 4212, drug and alcohol testing for bus drivers. Um, so this is one of the policies that was adopt that was identified in our policy audit and Mary's very helpful guide. Thank you. Really summarizes what those recommendations are. Um, there is one area for discussion. It asks that all bus drivers be trained in using an EP pen. Uh this is please reference page three of this policy. We currently
004do not offer this training to bus drivers. However, this is a contract here. So it's in it's a possible condition. So that was the recommendation made by CA for us to consider in this policy. >> And I can say I um emailed the policy to the Bristol Burlington Health District just for your own knowledge. um they said because they don't know um the bus drivers well enough, they would not be interested in doing the training. So, if we do move this forward, we're going to have to find someone who is comfortable doing the training. >> Would we be in non comp would we be out of compliance with the federal mandate if they were not trained to use it everywhere? statement statement. So I think we have to we have to pass it and then
005understand that that is going to take some time to implement but that um I don't think that contracts are can can override law to be honest like I think even right Harley even if I'm 99.9% % sure that if something is mandated by law that that h like so if it's it's like with the calendar like if a school day is off or not off the contract doesn't supersede what a a holiday is. So it's the same. So I think once we adopt it we just have to have a plan in place to implement it within a certain amount of time >> through the chair. Um, I I agree, Chair Pon. I think in the future we could, but I think right now we could still train even though because it's law. >> Well, it
006I would be interested to I'm personally since it's a state mandate, I'm comfortable passing this policy so we can figure out how to implement it. But if it's a state mandate, first first student should already have a way to because every other school district should be requiring it. So it may be something that's happening that we don't even know. >> Can anyone hear me? >> So I think we pass it and then figure it out. >> Can anyone hear me? >> I guess right now in our contract we have hands off like the bus drivers. So even like buckling a prek in the bus drivers don't help with that. They're completely hands off. So that's why it would be a change for us. But we're also in we're going to be creating a new contract
007and we're not going to have that hands off. >> Okay. This is like an emergency situation. >> Yeah. So, do you know who would do the training if it wouldn't be the health department? >> So, I think we just have to probably contract. So, I can tell you at Mountain View, my nurse trained me. So, um if the Burlington Health Department doesn't want to, maybe we can work with uh Bristol Hospital or uh ENT or something. Um, and what their protocol is right now is should somebody go into shock, you pull over and dial 911. Um, but I mean that could be two times >> for the if this is moved for the full board meeting, would we be able to find out or ask for student how they how they currently meet this the
008state requirement? Mhm. Yeah, I can I can definitely find out from them. Okay. >> Is Maria tapping and typing in the chat anything because we can't hear her. Someone want to make a motion. >> Oh, sure. Go for it, Lori. >> Sorry, I can't talk. >> Sorry. Wink wink. >> Yeah. To make a motion for um the drug and alcohol testing for bus driver to be moved to the full board. >> Second. >> Further discussion. where you gave a thumbs up. That's a third >> hearing. None. All those in favor? >> I I motion passes. >> She can't see you. >> Oh, that's right. >> What? >> Okay, so that brings us to number four. Minimum duty lunch for teachers and other certified staff. Um so this is a shorter policy. Um currently we have
009all BPS schedules uh or BPS has 30 minute duty-free lunch for teachers. >> Um it was recommended that we get this codified by full board. >> That correct? any other important things that we should know about this or consider? >> We've reviewed this one before, right? >> Okay. >> Well, this one is we've t definitely talked about this and it never >> Mary had told us previously that it's already being implemented even though we didn't officially adopt it, but that's the entire policy. Okay, that's how short that policy is. So I don't think there's anything because it's mandated and it's just one sentence. >> Any discuss any other questions? >> No. >> Uh I motion that we um approve as is >> second. All those in favor. I >> I see that Maria says I
010So policy 3542.43 charging policy service. Okay. So this does not apply to BPS. Well, because we currently have every school qualifying as screen reduced lunch. I do think we still have to adopt it in case we ever didn't qualify. If a school um was ineligible, one of um or if the law changed, I think it still has to be in if it's mandated. Is that what you >> It came up in our audit. >> Right. So, so um what David Fols did is he took out all of the information that has to do with um occurring debt. So, the the policy itself basically says that if a student owes, let's say, $5 to the school, you can't say, "Oh, we're not going to give you lunch now because you already owe us $5." Um, so
011what he did is he just took out that language. He did leave in stuff that we do do. So, um, a student is able to get one free lunch and then if they want a second free lunch, they can either use the My Bucks app or they can um or they can um they pay like with cash. So, we aren't nobody is accumulating any debt. >> So, which option is that? So we have the se there's several pages for it, right? I don't know which page is is which when he the one he recommended. >> So everything that David recommends is in the blue. >> All the red is taken out. I don't have color. >> Oh, here. >> Maria, can you try talking? >> Hi. >> What did you do? >> Oh, I see
012you. I see you all now. >> Let me see if it's in. >> Oh, it's darker. See, ours is just >> Oh, okay. >> So, yeah, >> the red is bolded. >> Okay. ship. >> Thank you, Jeff. Thank you. Um, if you want to look at mine, you can I It is on board book the colorraphy. >> Oh, it Okay. But do you need I don't know that we need to take anything out. I feel like we should adopt it as it is because the previous language says applicants for such meals are responsible to pay for meals until the application for the free or reduced price meals is completed and approved. So, we're already there. But then if we went in another direction ever, >> okay, >> it would still say. So as long as
013we're approved, the language could be there. I don't know if somebody else wants to weigh in. >> So it's just in case we ever go back. >> Well, we have to adopt the policy based on state mandate. and the language that they gave us is saying that this is relevant until we're approved as um um quick question. What was uh the thought process in taking out the language that's highlighted in red? Um, so he just felt like because we don't have the debt, we don't have any of these things in place that the policy around it should mirror what we're currently doing. >> But if you I hear what Shelby is saying as well that we're not going to we're not going to run into any of these issues because we simply don't charge >>
014unless we do, >> right? And then the policy would be here. So, this policy protects us now because we're eligible for all of our schools. In the case we weren't, it would still be here and then the kids would be protected. >> Yeah. >> If they were charged. So, I think we adopted the way that it was. >> Yeah. That snap thing happened really quickly and I felt we could get to a board, >> you know, to go back, >> right? And and I think the idea too is also that like we know that we wouldn't do that, but what if we're not here in a couple years and something changes and the and a new board doesn't know that this isn't that this was amended because we were eligible and that there's pol because
015we did the audit to find out what we had to have and this was one of them. So I think we should adopt it as is. That's my >> um just I just want to make sure I understand the blue is what was added. It was not >> was adding. Yeah. >> Okay. And the red is cave language. >> Mhm. very minimal. Uh my recommendation would be adopting the policy the cave policy without any renegotiations leaving it the way that it was originally proposed to us because even though it doesn't apply now it could >> and it's mandated with the exception of where they have to add in uh what the district uses. So the district uses the my my school box. So that was written in in blue. So we need to adopt it
016with that exception I think. Oh the A. Thank you, Carly. Was there a recommendation as to which version a is >> a >> Yeah. >> And A doesn't have a nice like to make a motion to move policy 34 3542.43 charging policy food service version A the full court for review and approval. >> Second. Any further discussion questions? Hearing none. All those in favor? >> I >> Oh, Maria, we can hear you. >> Hear me now? Oh, good. >> Motion passes. >> Brings us to number seven. Gifted and talented students. >> You should have the policy. If you do, do you have the policy? Also, do you need a copy? >> Yes. Can we have your marked up policy? >> Oh, great. Yes. >> So, this is uh one of the policies that's required um
017based on that policy mandate. Uh there were multiple options to be considered. So, I think let's see. So, make sure that we're all looking at the same. you should see uh P6172.1. Okay. So, there were two versions. You might have the one that begins with the public act 21199 and I um can share that with you if you'd like to see that one as well. There were two potential policies recommended by Cabe. Uh and so u deputy superintendent Hawk uh Mr. Alan Theiel, who's our gifted and talented coordinator for the district, and I looked over both versions, and we're recommending version one. Both policies define gifted and talented students in terms of what how we would define that here in Bristol public schools. Both policies describe that students would be identified through a PPT. And
018then uh the difference the main difference between the two policies version one and version two is that version one expands gifted and talented to describe outstanding talent in the creative arts where that is absent in version two. And so our thinking is that our the way in which we assess students for gifting talentedness would uh include how we would look at um outstanding creativity in in terms of the creative arts. And version one also describes that the school district will provide educational programs within budgetary constraints to increase students knowledge and develop skills among those students. Where the other other version two uh describes or identifies that students would receive accommodations such as uh the provision of supplementary materials, extensions to curriculum or advanced uh placement course options. We feel that version one is more all-encompassing
019and really recognizes our district efforts to support gifted and talented specific education through the programs that we are currently providing. >> I had one question. >> Yeah. >> So using the term PPT for gifted and talented in your suggested language is informal uh PPT. correct >> in a formal. So the state of Connecticut now requires the identification to be uh well it has always identified it as part of a PPT process. It is under special education. You have to identify students as gifted and talented but the state and federal legislation doesn't require that you provide any programming. That's op that's really optional as available within the district. But always your identification ultimately has to be done through the PPT. This year the state is requiring that it is recorded in CT sense and that's one
020of the changes that were which is the program in which students individualized educational plan is housed and so that is the work that Mr. Theiel is doing this year and this policy is in alignment with that. >> Okay. And my my question about that is it says that the parents won't be in the PPT. They will just be notified of the decision. Is that the sample language or is that a district l like decision? >> That was directly from the language. Okay. By >> and so that's because when that conversation happens, it's more geared toward just educators and not families. I'm just trying to figure it out because usually PPTs have parents in them. >> Yes, I didn't see I'm looking for that in the actual policy language because that's not something that's >> I
021read it. I'm positive of it because I I stopped >> through through the chair. I I I believe that the language >> does say parent >> screaming >> that was we're referencing was in a document. >> Can you turn her down a little bit? >> I'm I'm so loud. Right. I can hear the echo in there. I just jumped on my screen. I don't see nothing. >> Okay. No, I read it because it was in there. >> Oh, right. Is it in this one? Number one, >> ponds. I think you read it in a second a separate document outside of this one that was um >> it was some notes provided by um Deputy Superintendent Hawk. >> Oh, but it but wouldn't those be based on what's in here? >> So, um Mr. Theoriel uh
022asked that we not have a formal PBT because he has 263 students and to arrange that for all those families um would be so time consuming um and that it would basically be he wouldn't be able to start servicing kids until January. So what some districts do is they do this um meetings these meetings but they just provide like extra work for kids. What he really does is he works on each kid's individual needs and uh creates great programs for him but he can't do both. >> It's just not possible with that with a 260 right >> student case load. Is the um through the chair is the concern about the PPT for new students who are identified as gifted and talented or is is there a concern? >> I'm not concerned. I was just
023trying to understand >> Oh, no. I was Yeah, that was to I was wondering like through um Deputy Superintendent Hawk is u Mr. Theory's concern like the PPT process moving forward for students who are identified or concern is there a concern with the the work that's required to actually have um this now part of CTS like the current IEPs >> the meetings the meetings is what he said like if he had to set up I don't know how often you qualify so he gave a number of 240 >> something students I don't know if that's yearly that you would do the PPT or if it's once and then it I I don't have the answer to that. So the the CT saids part I was confused on at first as well. And what it is
024is um in power school if a student has a 504 there's like a little flag for them. If they have um an IEP there's a little flag for him. So, he already went to a training that taught him how to migrate all the kids' names so they will all get a flag that says gifted and talented. >> And he's done all of the testing for the kids. Um, right. He gave me a whole list of and we went over all of the different tests that he gives. Um, and he does, as uh Carly was saying earlier, he has been really working on getting those super creative kids. Um, so he does all of the steps, but having a PPT with parents is too much for one person to do. But what he does do is
025he and the teachers all meet. They make recommendations. They talk about why they're recommending who they're recommending. And then he sends a formal letter to everyone who was um going to be part of the gifted talented I my my I think my concern with having a quote unquote informal PPT is that it could be a violation of the law. um without a proper invite for parents when I just I I would definitely want to clear that with Amy Martino and also our council to be sure that we're not um doing something that could get us jammed up. I can definitely understand how it would be um and Mr. Theiel does an amazing job. I can't believe what he he's one person and what he does with the gifted and talented program. we had him um
026as a guest speaker uh I don't know if it was last year or the year before in student achievement and um I mean what he's doing with the program is amazing. Um I I'm just concerned that anytime you're having a PPT there are procedures that have to be in place for it to be a PPT and to to not allow a family to be involved in that process is concerning for me. Um, so yeah, I just want to make sure >> we should table this one and get more information before we keep going with it because we want to make it so that if I don't know if um including parents online for, you know, is an option or having parents decide whether or not they want to, but I think the I'm afraid that
027if we were to um move forward and not have a process. Well, although the process isn't determined in the policy, right? >> The policy doesn't have that language. Correct. I think it was just >> Can we find that correctly? Does it say it says PPT? Like >> the policy talks about the identification of students for gifted and talented. And Commissioner Simmons, I think that was your question. Is an annual PPT required or is it through the >> I asked that. Yeah. identification only and the numbers. So from what I see in the written policy in version one um in the second paragraph the first line for purposes of this policy gifted and talented students means a child identified by the planning and placement team and so that would imply that a planning and placement team
028uh be there to evaluate and identify gifted and talented children >> but every year Kari >> to me is identification the first >> it also says down at the last paragraph though the final determination and the identification of students as gifted must be done by APT, >> right? And and so my my concern is not necessarily the frequency of the meetings, whether it's an annual review or once a year. My concern was using a term like informal or not actually going through the legal process of having a PPT. Um that that's my concern. making sure that we're following um the proper process in identifying a student as gifted and talented and that requires a PPT. So that means you have to provide um prior written notice to parents. you know, there's a whole process to
029um make sure that we're legally uh following a legal process for scheduling a PPT and ensuring parents are notified and provide providing them proper notice before. Um so that I just want to make sure I don't see it in the policy language that you gave us. Did you take out anything about PPT or formal PPT wasn't calling it informal. So if we were to adopt your language the operational guidance that was requested wouldn't necessarily be and so we could find out. >> I think there's some language here in the um description that could be helpful. Okay. >> So it's K policy. It's not mine. Just let me >> So it's K policy >> looking at the one you revised. >> You're looking at the >> Yeah. >> Can Can I jump in? >> Okay. >>
030Thank you. >> Well, page Harley, page four has like criteria with lots of things. >> So, I'm gonna point out I know I'm not I need to talk on the mic so that Commissioner Simmons can hear it too. So on page three or section two the top of page two under mandatory referral identification and evaluation services. Uh the second paragraph the planning and placement team is required to be used to evaluate and identify gifted and talented children. However, the composition of the PPT used for this purpose is different from the PPT composition for special education. And so the board of education the the remaining paragraphs there do share the um that the remaining paragraphs do describe who needs to be a part of that particular PPT meeting. >> I'll give you a few minutes to
031read. >> Okay. So we're starting on page two at the planning and placement team PPT is required to be used. >> Yep. >> And then where is the team outlined? >> So there's a bunch of different um it elaborates on that idea. So the composition of the PPT used for this purpose is different and then you could read on and it would it describes who might be a part of that PPT. For example, one of the um suggestions is a group evaluation, group assessment. That's the fourth paragraph there. means certified >> written parental consent shall be secured before a child is individually evaluated for identification as gifted and talented and this is CAB's language. This whole packet is from CAPE and version one you'll see is immediately following that's out of the two what we
032had recommended >> and it states note that the students parent or guardian is not a required member of the PPT assembled for the purpose of identifying gifted >> intent. Well, there's the language. >> Yeah, >> we're safe. >> Okay, I feel a lot more comfortable. So, thank you. >> Where are we seeing this? I'm so sorry. I was trying to follow but >> Maria, it's page two. It's at the top where the CABE sample language that we received in the email or it's on board book in page two. It's section two, page two. It's the starting with the third paragraph down all the way to the bottom. >> And Alan Theoralt wanted to jump in on he's online. >> Okay. >> Go ahead, Alan. >> I still don't see I'm sorry. Before Mr. jumps on,
033can I just see the language? because I want >> sending it to you, Maria. >> Okay. Because I'm I I have my document. >> It's on page three. >> I just sent it to you. >> Okay. Perfect. All right. Thank you. Sorry, Mr. Theoriel. >> Oh, that's okay. Not um thank you for having me. I'm sorry. Um I jumped in, but Carly kind of covered it. If you go on the um portal for the you know CTG gov site um the language says the PPT means a group of certified or licensed professionals who represent each of the teaching admin and pupil personnel staffs and who participate equally in the decision-making process. Note that the student's parent or guardian is not a required member of the PPT. That's right from the state portal. Um we do
034need parental permission. That's also part of the legislation. So we do get permission to test the students. Um but for the purpose of the PPT um the state doesn't require that parents are part of that um meeting but we do have you know guidelines on what we need to do as far as identifying um the children and then obviously alerting the parents um how we have to do that as well. So, um, and then they they're obviously more than, um, allowed to have a hearing if they feel that, you know, they're not happy with the decision-m. That's also part of the language. >> Yes, I see that on the bottom of the second page. >> Yeah. We were just making sure that we were following the letter of the law. Um, and before I don't
035know if you were on, but uh, Commissioner Simmons was um, bragging about how amazing you are before you came on. So, this is just a technicality of us wanting to make sure we're dotting our eyes and crossing our tees. >> Well, thank you for the kind words. I I truly appreciate it and I just wanted to be on here just in case I was needed. So, thank you for allowing me to >> Thank you so much. >> Sure. So Harley, I have one more question. So I have this, but then in the book on page four, there's language crossed out and there's a revision in my book on page three, we changed advanced academic classes to rigorous coursework. I just want to make sure that >> I think that's the next policy. That's >> I
036don't have page for any cross. >> So that's why I'm confusing. No worries. >> We're all in the general same kind of category. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I was on challenging. >> So, we skipped it. >> We skipped it. That's why >> I thought that might be the case, but I'm going to just go with the meeting. >> Okay. So, that's why I was one head. I'm sorry. >> It's okay. >> Anything crossed out. I'm like, wait, I know I'm on the right page, just the wrong. >> So, I'd like to make a motion to move gifted a policy 617 to.1A, gifted and talented students program version one to the full board. >> Second. >> Any further discussion, questions? >> I'm good, >> Maria. >> Yeah, looks good. >> Hearing none. All those in favor?
037I I >> back to challenging curriculum that I had skipped. >> Okay. So, yes, this one you'll see a number of crossouts. So, you might recall uh earlier in the fall that we had reviewed the advanced coursework policy 6141.51. I did check on the online board policy handbook today and it wasn't yet updated. So, if you need a copy of that one because it might inform your decisions about this one, I have a hard copy for you. This uh policy is a subset underneath that advanced coursework policy. That advanced coursework policy uh you'll you might recall was about the guiding principles and how we as a district want to support students and really challenging themselves to the most rigorous coursework. And then it also outlined our selection criteria. So the policy committee reviewed that they
038made minor adjustments to the selection criteria. Uh just to give one example, uh you added family student and family input into the decision about a student's eligibility for uh participating in advanced coursework. This policy is a subset of that one and that it identifies that same policy, the practice guiding principles and practice for middle school, grade eight and grade nine. So the last time that we went to discuss this uh the policy committee had asked that they process that 6141.51 and they also review the gifted and talented policies because they could see that these would have pieces that would overlap. That's the context for this particular policy. It it is new. It's not a revision to a policy that currently exists and it is one of the policies that we're mandated to have by the
039policy audit. All of that said, you'll see that there is quite a bit of language change in this one. So, the first whole uh narrative that you'll see in your packet is crossed off because that's just the historical background for the policy. But once we get into the policy language, um we did make some changes. For example, one of the changes that we made, uh we've changed advanced academic classes and changed that to rigorous coursework. Uh part of that is because we don't offer an advanced level course in all content areas at the middle level. Uh we do do that in math. While we have algebra 1 plus for eighth grade students and pathways to algebra in grade seven, uh that's not true for all of our classes because philosophically, programmatically, um we are we
040don't necessarily see the gains in having an advanced course for every level. So you might know that um it's often called tracking. Tracking uh is what we would be creating if we were to do that. And while there are mixed results for academic achievement, when you track a level, uh it's not the same positive impact for all students. And one of the downsides to tracking is that we could be expanding upon current inequities within the system by limiting access to all students. uh and it that could down the line increase the achievement gap. So um our middle schools have really taken a concerted effort to make sure that our classes are heterogeneously grouped with the exception of any curriculum that would require students to have more content in order to progress through that progression in
041mathematics. As an example, in order to get to calculus, they do need that extra year of instruction in high school. So the curriculum's compacted in middle school. We don't find that to be the case in all of our other content areas. So we can adjust to meet students needs and what is the preferred method of differentiation for purposes of challenging coursework which would be through flexible grouping. So this we've changed it. That's a long explanation for why we don't have advanced courses but rather rigorous coursework. We feel like that more aptly describes it. Then uh we also you'll also notice that some of the other changes was that we we have taken out language um from the 6141.52 to make it more align with the selection criteria in 6141. So rather than making decisions about
042who has access to the rigorous coursework based on um some student descriptions, you'll see that the old language used language like self-motivated or self-disciplined or superior cognitive ability. Uh we've really replaced all of that kind of language to be more inclusive following in line the revisions that were made in the 6141.51 policy that includes m using multiple methods by which a student may satisfy including the identification of giftedness as one of those criteria but also includes recommendations from teachers, administrators or other school personnel. you can take some time to review those. I want to thank you for explaining that all because it is really helpful to understand why the language was changed in that it is in an effort not to further widen a gap of inequality. So I really appreciate that. >> Can I
043ask a question? Um, >> thanks. On page three, um, where it reads, it's it's the bottom half of the page. Well, where it reads um in compliance with section five of blah blah, the board adopts this challenging curriculum policy aligned with SDE guidance policy includes as required criteria for identification of students in grades eight and nine who may be eligible to take or enroll in advanced course or program as defined and that such identified students have an academic plan. Priority placement will be given to students identified as gifted as per policy 61721, gifted and talented students. Is there language in the policy we just adopted that gives um gifted and talented students first priority to challenging curriculum or or whatever language we're going to use in this policy? >> Are you asking about in the
044policy you just adopted? Do you mean the gifted and talented policy? >> Yes. No. There's nothing in that policy that gives preference to um seats that are available in a class. In this policy, it is mentioned as a criteria and identifying students eligibility to take that class in middle school. And it's the same uh exact language that was given there for high school as well. Looks like you're reading. Maria, do you have a follow-up question? I'm just going back to the the policy that we just looked at, >> talented, >> which was 61721, right? >> Yes. >> Okay. 61. So that was that's the policy they're referencing in this policy. And so I guess I'm trying to make that connection. what what priority placement will be given to students identified as gifted as per policy
04561721. >> So in that the way that I read that line is that priority placement will be given to students who are identified as gifted and talented through the process that's been identified in policy 6172. In other words, if a a parent had a question about um if a I don't if a parent might believe that their child is gifted but has not been identified through the process of 6172 then um it wouldn't be true that statement priority preference would not be true for that particular concern. So the policy 6172 identifies how you're named a gifted and talented student or identified as a gifted and talented student. Um, this policy then describes how that would be considered in access to coursework. And while that initial language there of that policy describes priority, when you look
046at um the sections, let's see on page um it's labeled at the top as P6141.52B. They don't number pages, they letter the pages to make it all the more confusing. Uh at the bottom there, you'll see that how uh in readers identification of giftedness is a part of the process for identifying eligibility for different courses. >> Great. >> It's in the red. >> Oh, ours aren't red, but district and school level principles will contribute. Yes. Okay. So if a student let's say a student is identified as gifted already then what is that what does this sentence mean priority placement will be given to students identified as gifted priority placement where students >> I would in terms of our our context dayto-day it would be that that student would be considered for a seat within a
047algebra 1 because it's going to be this is for middle pool only an algebra 1 course. >> Okay. So, students who are gifted and talented have priority placement in our advanced classes for lack of a better term. >> Yep. is the way that this reads and then of course like it is I I think I just keep keep putting it in as one of the factors that is considered because in reality we look at the overall picture of a student and as we just reviewed for 6172 you might be identified as gifted because of your unique creative talents and their creative arts that doesn't necessarily mean that algebra in eighth grade is going to be the best learning opportunity for you. Speaking for myself perhaps. Yeah, me too. I I guess for me, we're looking
048at uh a curriculum about, you know, challenging curriculum policy, a policy that we're careful with language because we want to be sure um that we're not contributing to uh the the underified, right? We don't want We know that there are vulnerable populations that are not um as represented in gifted programs and not as represented in our advanced courses. And so I think this sentence struck me um only because it's like saying if we have two students of like abilities, one's in one's gifted, one isn't, one seat is left in the class. It's going to go to the gifted student. the way this language the way I'm interpreting this language >> the chair it does take away the ability for the district to make the decisions because if it was challenged and to Maria's point it
049was two students who were very similar and that individual decision would no longer be the district. So, I have to agree. I don't like the language. I think it should be a more comprehensive decision than just that just knocks the other one out because this one was identified because they could be already getting other supports that that that the student who isn't identified isn't getting which would then lessen the other students opportunities. >> I think that's a very good point. I I think you could strike through that line and the the rest of the policy still >> is fine. >> Okay. >> So, you said strike through priority placement would be given. >> Yes. >> And and then I'm it makes me consider and I did try to look in the policy before our meeting,
050but where in policy is that language giving priority placement to a gifted student? That's more identifying, right? >> So, >> it doesn't That's what Kylie said. >> I know she said that before. I just I guess I just wanted to >> make sure, you know, based on maybe me articulating my concern a little a little bit differently. No. Um Okay. Gotcha. So there's nothing in the gifted policy that says priority placement are, you know, to advanced classes goes to gifted students. There's nothing that because I couldn't find it in there and I felt like it was a little bit in conflict with this statement. >> Robust conversation regarding gifted talent. I feel like we >> the only in 6172.1 uh the only language that I could see that is around what type of programming is
051there on the fourth paragraph. The school district shall provide educational programs for gifted and talented within budgetary constraints that include a broad spectrum of learning experiences which increase knowledge and develop skills necessary for the student to function successfully in society while encouraging students to excel in areas of special competence and interest. There was in version two specific language about advanced coursework but that was not the policy that we recommended. >> Okay. Yeah, that's and then I think that language is good language. That's all I have. >> You're good. >> Yeah, I do. >> A motion that we move it forward with the recommend recommended language that was provided to us by Carly. And in addition to strike out the 1 2 3 4 fifth paragraph that says priority placement will be given to students identified
052as gifted as per policy um 6172.1 gifted and talented students to the full board. >> Second. All those in favor? >> I motion passes. >> Um I just want to do a time check. >> Oh, I'm good. >> You're good. Okay, I'm good. Thank you. >> So, that brings us to our last item on the agenda, policy 2151, hiring school administrators. So the um the page in your binder was the specific language given to us by Kate and right prior to the meeting I gave you the language that we wanted to add to that. >> So the language you want to incorporate into recommended policy. Okay. >> Through the chair. >> Yes. So what we did was we went to CABE and got their um spoke to Jody Galler. He gave us their model policy
053which was very concise in comparison to the two policies that we currently were operating from that were um in some ways conflicting of each other. One was last updated in 2016, one was updated in 2022. Uh there was some language in the 2022 policy that we thought was important language that provided the opportunity for the board to participate in administrator um interviews. And so we took that language and moved it back into this pol into the new model policy. And we also included the language that was in previous policy because the intent of that language is still the current intent which is that hiring committees would include members from the school community as well as representatives from each of the unions as appropriate and determined by the superintendent. So, we didn't want the new policy
054to exclude a comprehensive team or uh we make the optics that it would exclude anyone because that's not the intent of this. The intent of this is to use the most current language to take out a lot of language that's no longer applicable or redundant or in conflict of each other and have a mainstream policy that's very clear. Um and so >> so just to clarify so the recommendation is to consider policy 2151 for con consider that policy and then resend policy 21000 and policy 411 which is currently those are both currently BPS policies and then we need to resin those if we adopted these. That was the recommendation by Cabe would be to resend the two that would this would replace two. >> And then there's one that's also been recommended that's not on
055the agenda tonight for it used to be called minority recruitment but now we call it something else. What is it called? Do you know there's a new term? Hold on. And that will have to go on next month's policy, but this doesn't impact that. So, this this policy that we're talking about right now wouldn't impact the one that's going to be that needs to be added at our next meeting. They're not in conflict or the other one's not adopted. like we don't have >> Well, I am sure that this replaces the one from 2022. The 2016 Hold on. I just want to pull it up to be sure. >> This one replaces policy 21000. >> Yes. Administratives. Yes. And the other is called personnel certified non-certified recruitment and selection last revised December 2016. And oh,
056increasing educator diversity is the new and that's 411.3. So I believe tonight we would be suns setting policy 21000 and replacing it with 2151 as amended. And then we would be suns setting policy 411 when we adopt or discuss for possible adoption policy 411.3 which is not on our agenda tonight. So, >> we would be getting rid of one tonight and then adopting one and then at our next policy meeting working on the next one. >> Got it. And the authority in 2100 0 existed in the same way that it exists in 2151. However, there is language in that contradicts or doesn't support fully the language of of 2100 or 2151. But we're going to change 4111 to 4111.3 so that doesn't happen anymore. But we already had so many policies on the agenda that
057we were waiting until the next policy meeting to do that one. The red language in here is that being taken out or is that in addition >> being added from 2110 0. >> So getting rid of 2100 but incorporating it >> just the just that one because it's a much longer policy. >> Yeah. And it gives like it tells us that the board has to receive a certain amount of candidates when we don't do that. Like they never give us two or three. The superintendent always puts forth one and that's recommended by cave. So I don't think we would want to be in a board meeting with two or three people there and making a decision. And I think it's the superintendent's decision to put forth one. >> I like that it include I like
058the sentence where it says members from the school community as well as representatives from >> Right. So that was the strong language that we thought should carry over. >> I like that that was considered >> otherwise it was like just such a short policy and didn't really have any of the intent in the language. >> You're saying this one was a short. >> Yeah. >> And so adding this >> Mhm. >> to it >> and that was in the previous one but much longer. >> It was way more >> jargony. >> Yep. Maria, do you have any more questions or comments, discussion? >> Um, no. I I the one the one thing that I was looking at the last sentence in red um where it reads um members from the school community as well as
059representatives from you know unions will participate on the committee as appropriate. It it may not even make a difference, but if we're if language will participate on the committee when available and as appropriate, sometimes it people from those um unions might not be available. So, that was my only thinking is when available or a and as appropriate. But like I said, I don't know that it even matters, but since you asked me, it popped up in my head to mention it. I I think the superintendent will probably be deciding they has the authority to decide appropriate or available, right? I mean, because it's not our authority. >> No, it's not our authority. I was just thinking that people might not be available, but still may be appropriate, but they're not available. That's all. Like I
060said, it's >> I I I'm okay if you want to add one if available. It doesn't bother me. >> I mean, it may be appropriate that those members participate, but they may not be available. And if they don't participate, it's not because they weren't necessarily appropriate. It just may be they weren't available. That's all that's all I was thinking in my head. >> Huh. You fine with adding >> I'm fine adding it. Just in my head I'm rationalizing it like >> of it. >> Yeah. >> Wrapping my head around. >> So would you say as appropriate when available or when available >> to participate on the committee? >> You know when available and as appropriate >> more complicated than >> when available and as appropriate. Yeah. >> So, right. Oh, she just wants to add
061Lena. >> It's really more to insulate a superintendent because if somebody were to read this and those members of those members weren't part of the interview committee, I wouldn't want somebody to think, oh, superintendent must not have thought it was appropriate to have a BAPS member or a BFT member. No, they may not have been available or a community member may not have been available. It may have been appropriate, but the person wasn't available. >> When available and as appropriate. >> I'm fine adding that. Do the professionals have anything to weigh in on this? >> There is one thing I do want to bring to your attention is that in originally years ago, this policy, the one you're looking at right now, is always paired with 2100. Look at 2100. 2100 also addresses the superintendent's
062more authority with staff organizations. So we just don't want to miss out on that piece with discharging administrators. That's mentioned in 2100. So you don't want to remove the superintendent authority for discharging people if need be. That would be significant. >> Okay. So let's go to 2100. Does someone have a copy of 2100? >> I don't know. >> Okay. So, where is that language, Joe? >> It would be about in the middle. One, two, three, four, about the fifth um paragraph where it has the endorsement codes listed. >> To effectuate its oversight responsibilities, only the board may appoint and discharge administrators. For purposes of this poly policy, administrators shall include the following endorsed codes. So we have to move that into 20. That's what you're saying. >> Yeah. And there's other aspects here. I think
063it's also helpful if you look at the third paragraph. The superintendent will annual basis provide the board with organiz organizational chart lining staff positions. That's been PRA past practice. >> We did get feedback on that. And you're right, he did the um Jod Geller said that we would want to include something like that if we eliminated but not um annual, it would be as updated, right? So if it was staying the same for three years, it could still be on the website the same and we wouldn't have to she wouldn't have to or she or he wouldn't have to change it. um on an annual basis if it didn't change. So he didn't think annual, he thought it should say as. >> So what I can share is I'm looking at the original policy that
064was adopted in August uh 25th of 93 and I'm looking at the changes that were made about a year and a half ago or so. And the major change to policy 2100 is if you're looking to where it says the hiring selection committee shall be a minimum include from that sentence all the way down was added to this policy because originally you had the two policies. So the second policy that you're voting on included more of that criteria in it >> but the new one has some of the old one in it as well. not just the one that but the Cabes model policy >> starts off with the superintendent as chief executive off the same way that the other one starts off. >> So I think that to your point keeping an updated um
065org chart available and the oversight with >> would it be helpful if I read Jod's recommendation? Well, you sure, but I think it's just those two areas that you're saying that should be put into this into the new cave model policy and then I think we have one policy unless you see other areas. I didn't >> at a quick glance think those two pieces would be needed and if if the intention of the committee is to vote on the diversity plan and that would address the first part of the original policy. Do you think we should table this and work on it and bring it back this month? >> I would like to see see it all side by side. >> Yeah. I don't want >> I think so, too. I don't think we should
066rush it. >> Maria, are you okay with that? >> Yes, absolutely. >> Okay. I motion that we table this to the next policy subcommittee meeting so that we can do both of the amendments at once and incorporate the changes as recommended by Mr. >> Gowski >> and Jody Geller. >> Thank you. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I motion passes. We are tableabling 2151 to be reviewed with >> 411.3, >> right? >> We probably should put 411 on it as well and 2100 to view them all. >> Right. >> Okay. And we can send the two to Jod to just to make sure when we combine them that we didn't miss anything. >> Okay. Um, so that brings us to the end of our meeting. >> Thank you everyone. Good night. Considering we
067started late, we got through it in almost an hour. >> Wow. And we did six out of