001policy committee meeting to order. Please rise for the pledge of allegiance. >> 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. >> Okay. So, our first agenda item is approval of our January 28th meeting meeting minutes. Uh, may I have a motion? >> So moved, second. >> Any discussion, questions, corrections? >> I have an abstension. >> Okay, so we have one abstension. Um, with no further discussion, all those in favor? >> I one abstension. >> Abstension. Have we received any public comment either in person or virtually tonight? >> No. Okay. >> Thank you so much. So that brings us to our review and possible action on policies. Um I can give a very
002brief intro to our first policy and then please I invite anyone who has critical information. I know Joe you may have some Mary please I invite you all to pop in and share. Um so my understanding of policy 417.4 four um is that we do need to it needs to be reviewed and updated to align with Connecticut general statutes regarding teacher non-renewal timelines. Our current policy which is dated 1994 um lists an April 1st deadline while state law specifies a May 1st deadline. Um, so although Connecticut general statute supersedes local policy, best practice is really for BOE policy and language to match statutory requirements. This can help prevent confusion and ensure consistent implementation. And then if anyone has anything additional to add um before we kind of dive into the policy, I welcome it. >>
003So, and that was a great summary. So that's exactly what we're aiming to do. Um, in the talent management office, our goal is to start combing through any policies that align to anything HR related to begin to modernize and update. A lot of our policies are over 30 years old. Um, state law has changed and what I value is having very concrete policies with regulations. It's just very easy when you sit with employees or you're speaking to administrators to have a very clear, concise, concrete steps to take when addressing any issues. Um, so the current policy is pretty vague. Um, in your packets, if you're looking the first page is the original the current policy, which I originally flagged because of the April 1st um, incorrect date, if you will. I attached the general statutes.
004I copied and pasted it into a Google doc um which very it's almost identically align to the cave model policy. If you look at the cave model policy, there's a packet there. Um we wouldn't be adopting the whole packet as our policy. The packet gives us different options and what our policy could look like. So if you're looking at page one and two, it's the first page front and back. Um, those are two different versions of a similar policy we have now, just updated so it's accurate. I personally reviewed both and I'm very keen on language in policy. I personally prefer the second policy. The second policy specifically cites where applicable the entire general statutes. So allows me or any uh administrator to go back into state statutes to point out um anything they need
005to site in particular. So for instance, if someone is terminated or suspended, the reasons in which an administrator can do so is actually outlined in general statutes. So it just gives more flexibility. >> Quick question. >> Sure. >> Um I just want to make sure I'm looking at the right one. Um, is it are we looking at the P4117.4 or the one that has a and then there's another one that has B. >> Yeah. So, the the first we're looking at is just the P4117.4. It's the first page. And I have a big X on mine so I don't like it. Yeah. >> And it's the one that's right behind it, which I've scribbled up with my notes because I like it. >> Okay. >> And and they're both very similar. It's just that the
006first policy on the first page, um, it's too narrow and I think it's important to have a policy that allows flexibility to go directly into the state statutes. But both are acceptable. It's just personal preference. >> Thank you for clarifying that. >> Do you know? >> No, >> I can. >> Oh, it's over here. I do. It's the second one. I just didn't want to say it. Right. >> Now, there's a third layer here in the K model policy. So, it might be easier as I just tore off my first page. So, I know I have my first option, my second option. And then we have on page three technically um P4117.4 with an A. That's another version of the policy which is just an expanded version. At first when I read through I really
007liked this because I liked how it was written in the policy. My only hesitency if you will is that if state statute ever changes. We'd be forced to go back in and renew the entire policy which this is the exact language that's in the state statute that provided you in in the copy. So when I I thought about it at first, I really liked the third version, but I think for consistency purposes, it's always easier just to go back right into the general statutes, which is updated constantly. >> Um, so it's most up to date. So >> So the second one would be your recommendation, >> correct? >> To the board. Okay. >> 7.4. >> Yes. So, I think thank you for describing like the difference between the first page and the second page because
008I think what was throwing me off is I was looking for uh synchronicity in the titles. So, you know how it reads um personnel certified non-renewal/suspension and underneath nonrenewal but here on the page the second page it reads personnel certified dismissal suspension suspension and I'm not seeing where there's a title of non-renewal >> so it's embedded within the language under dismissal and termination so and this is anyone who's listening right now when they see this policy on the agenda I'm Sure, people are alarmed that they were just trying to update the policy. Um, the first policy when I read it, it really kept mentioning nontenured, non-tenured teachers, >> which in a system you have tenured and non-tenured. So, on the back, it also encompasses >> all teachers. Um, not that we're ever in that position
009where we have to head in that direction. I just think it's overall more encompassing. So the language is a little more broad which allows you to go back into the general statute where it has that language. So that was my initial concern was that that language wasn't there. So I went into the state statute. It very explicitly states non-tenured actually defines tenure non-tenured and the different rules and regulations around it. >> And I think the reason why it's been on my radar is just in my limited experience. I know I only have a few years on the board. Um but there were conversations about practices around non-renewals for non-tenured and when we were looking at statistics we noticed there was a sort of a disproportionate number of non-renewals and we started to really look at
010that. So that's on my radar and there were some concerns that were raised out of certain p district practices. I'm not saying that those concerns are still prevalent, but the non-renewal has stayed with me, especially for, you know, for the non-tenured. Um, and I I I mean, I appreciate that you're from your perspective giving us like information about your preferences. So, that's very helpful. >> One quick question. Um, how does this or is this in alignment with contracts? Is there anything we need to be concerned about or worried about or not concerned or worried but like um keeping an eye out for? >> Yeah. So, I I perused the Bristol Federation of Teachers contract um to make sure it was alignment and the contract directly sites as outlined in the general statutes. And that's another
011reason why I preferred the second version because everything just goes back to the general statutes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I did want to bring one more thing to your attention. So within the packet, there's also a regulation um that can go with the policy. I went through the regulation. Let me actually make sure it was on the right page. If you were in your packet, it would be your last two pages. At the very top, it says R for regulation, R4117.4A, and it says a sample regulation. I think it's always great to have regulations where applicable. I would personally recommend to the board to include this regulation with the policy. We currently don't have a regulation and all the regulation does is standardize the language in which we use. So it goes through the
012different steps. Um if there was a recommendation to the board for a non-renewal, what that communication would look like, how it would be written. It provides templates. I I'm a huge fan of just standardiz standardization in general. It just keeps things clean, concise, straightforward. >> So my recommendation would be to include that within the policy. >> Within the policy. Um is your recommendation A? >> Um so A B C it's it's one >> entire regulation. >> Okay. >> And that part is a little confusing when I went through I thought it was three separate efforts but it's it's one >> one. Thank you. Okay. Um, so I would like to make a motion and then um hopefully we can hop into discussion. Um like to make a motion to um approve policy 4117.4 personnel certified
013dismissal slash suspension. um the second page one and include um the regulation R 4117.4 for A, B, C, indeed the whole packet of the regulation. >> So moved. Second. >> Okay. Discussion >> through the chair. >> Um, has anyone communicated with the union? Did the union review this? talking BAFTA. >> So, so because it's just an update that mirror state statute, um there wasn't really a conversation about change of practice because this is not a change of practice. We're just solidifying here's a state statue and here's what we follow. Um we will update staff. We have a nuts and bolts meeting u once a month. So my it's March 4th maybe nuts and bolts meeting. Um, I'll update staff that there's a more policy has been updated and can go into it and you can,
014you know, peruse and ask any questions. >> Are these regs in existence currently? >> No. >> Are so this these regulations would be new to the union? >> Um, the templates are really the same. So typically right now if we were to go to that extent or if we were going to non-renew typically we have an attorney on retainer who would assist in that process. But another thing and superintendent can't attest to this is I I try to do as much as I can on my own. So I think if we have a regulation um where we could just use that same language um and do the work in house I think that's appropriate. I I'm just my personal feeling is I mean regulations are how we operationalize things. I personally think it would be
015skillful to have union review and know that there is no um you know contractual rub. I mean I I mean I'm I'm certainly you know willing to vote and say affirmative. I just my concern is because we're bringing regulations in and voting on the regulations as part of the policy, you know, operationalizing it is saying how we're putting it into practice. And I think it's a skillful approach to have unions part of the conversation when this is presented. Um, and being able to say yes, the unions are comfortable with the way this is being operationalized. There's no contractual concerns. Um that's just my personal >> I could agree with that. I think transparency is um >> it's important. So >> what would administration recommend for kind of next steps um in um kind of reviewing
016it with the union, getting their feedback their way in? Do we move the policy along, hold back on the regulation? Do we move both along? And then in between now and the board meeting, we get that input, what would your recommendation be? I personally feel like we're so out of compliance with the state legislation. Um and if our contract is going to reflect uh regulation that our policy doesn't reflect that we should move this forward. Folding in the union will be a piece of it. Um and I believe that Mr. Gowski has a very good relationship with the union. Um and if we do have to table it before it goes to the board, we can table it. But it's imperative with things like this that we stay more than 30 years. >> We can
017move it out of policy and then you know it would be great before the next full board meeting to know that you know there's been conversation with the union. Anytime you know the union says yeah this is this is in alignment with the contract and >> we support this. It just it feels better. >> Yeah. >> Feels better. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. that that's helpful to hear that feedback. Um and and please no, Mr. Gowski, I very much respect um your you know your perspective and the way that you've looked at the policy and thinking about how it best serves the district. Um and I I I accept your recommendation on the part of the policy that you're you're thinking is in the highest good. Um so I appreciate that. >> You sold
018offense taken here. No, no offense at all. >> Yeah, extremely thorough assessment and presentation. >> Um, any further discussion? >> Okay. Um, so hearing none, all those in favor? >> I >> motion passes and um it gets moved to the full board. >> Thank you. Bless you. Okay. So that brings us to our second policy of the evening um which is policy 6141.328. Um little intro to this. I I'm actually excited to be reviewing and discussing this policy. I've received some some feedback that this would be a good one for us to take a look at. um some community members and and teachers feel like um this will be helpful. Um so this agenda item um is our current polic policy that I was able to find is 6141.328 bring your own device and the
019use of personal technology in schools. Um there's been an identified need to discuss update this policy to refle reflect current practices. Um, this current policy from what I could tell was last reviewed in 2015. So, a lot has changed since then. Um, and we have several attachments that can help inform um, our committee's discussion around this policy. We have current policy, three sample policies from uh, Madison, Waterberry and uh, Ngatuck. And then we also have ce model policy um to kind of bring in and and see what will work for our district. This is a a big undertaking. Um I think one thing I notice about our current policy is that um it's fake. Mhm. >> Um and it's a little out it not a little it's outdated and I think some um more concrete
020guidance and specificity around how to handle things is going to be important. That was one thing that stood out to me through the chair. Is the intention with updating this policy to have more uniformity with the way that it's applied throughout the district? Um because I you know what I think I've I've noticed just from being a parent is >> what >> oh what I've noticed from being a parent is >> sometimes we'll get um sign signatures are needed like parent signatures there's practices that vary within a school so it'll vary based on team it'll vary based on teacher so we're having different policies and practices is being given to parents on these topics and other topics and one teacher might have this practice and sometimes the language conflicts where so my my child is
021expected to do ABC and D in this classroom but then do ABC and D in this classroom and I'm signing multiple forms which actually I don't sign and I explain why I don't sign that because there's there's contradiction and is so is the intention that there's going to be one policy and that it's going to be applied universally across the entire district, classrooms, grade bands, schools. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I think it would be Yeah, that's per I love it. >> A standardized BPS policy. >> Gotcha. Thank you. >> There is in um what Kee had provided us for guidance. So I had reached out to Dodie Goler and um he had sent over um some resources and um a sample caves model policy on it. They also have a framing the smartphone policy. It's
022called framing the smartphone policy deliberations and I did find this pretty helpful um because I think it is a policy that will elicit a lot of questions and it's something that we're going to need to be really clear on. What's everyone's thoughts? I know me personally, we need something more substantial than our current one. The current policy seems to almost reflect um when the odd child might have one device and we currently have students who come in with two or three different types of devices. Um and I know that in the high school they struggle. Um, I know that the middle school they say oft and away during the school day and then some people see that as off and away but in my pocket and other people see it as oft and away and
023in my locker. And um I also think that sometimes families with the best of intentions really challenge um administration. You know, I told my daughter that she can call me anytime. You know, such and such is happening in our lives. And so I think that if we can create a sound and detailed policy that will not only help families, it'll help um teachers and administrators to be able to um have the same script, have the same message that they're sending to everybody. >> The cave one seems very detailed. I love the way you put that, Deputy Superintendent Hawk, that you know there's that there's that like predictability in it and that it it actually there's a climate component that like this is what we do in Bristol public schools when it comes to devices and
024it's kind of universally applied, universally understood. parents understand it, students understand it, educators understand it, and um it it doesn't leave question where our current policy there are a lot of kind of gaps in it. And there's to me when I read out I'm like I have questions who provides this, who does this, right? And I I think the more explicit we can be and where it doesn't leave question, it's kind of like if then this this um would be a better application. And I I like I want to know how I can enforce this with my child. Well, here's the policy. There's no question. Right. Sign >> How do we know which one is which town? >> Huh? >> Was it Madison? >> Okay. >> 90. Okay. >> Oh, that's Madison. >> I I
025thought this one was very measured >> August of 20. Oh, yeah. >> Um, so something that was just brought to my attention is that policy committee adopted in 2020. So there might be another >> I said that I said I know we worked on it >> but it never made its way voted on in a full in a full board or did we just work on one >> is it the one that you can't we have it that you mean the 2020 >> the number >> oh >> especially when you call I just did a quick search >> in your email >> 329 this one that >> but when I search on our >> on our policy >> do just even the word sell it doesn't come up doesn't come up >> okay >> so
026I don't know if it ever went to the full board and >> 61419. I remember it being called B. I was surp I was saying this earlier. I was surprised that B is the term we hear from my personal career. There's a lot more advantage when you're issuing a device either from the company or from in school >> because now you have to manage a lot of the different browsers and a lot of different >> Oh, right. Right. >> You know, when you allow somebody there's a lot more >> protection at the place. I remember being surprised >> that you were even allowing this but it was restricted to cell phones and that so that's why I said to Joe downstairs I know we did this while I on the board >> but I don't
027think we voted I think we worked on it but I don't we'll have to see we did August 2020 I'll go on and see if September has it voted on >> but that won't be the first >> you found something found Sounds like Sydney found something. So, while we're waiting for that, um, if you look at the one that has this on the front, >> the one from Madison 0.9, the last page is the policy. >> And I like that it does high school, middle school. Brik Shipman just drafted this one for Madison just this year, like very recently. and it has different allowable flexibilities um that would set the standard across all high schools, all middle schools, and all preK, but still allow for there to be the teacher's ability to say, I want
028to use, you know, you can take out your phone and we can use it if you want for >> this to research something or >> there could be an area of the school during non-instructional time where kids were allowed to and that would be determined by the schools. Um I know I'm con So this is the regulation is it >> right the last >> is there the is there >> Mhm. >> the regulation. Yes. I'm sorry. I love the regulations. So, >> okay, >> that is where when I read these, I I didn't see it broken out by by grade level and >> have the um ability to have a structure, but also flexibility because I think in high school there is that >> option and I think you have it. Oh, there's another one
029that I don't think I saw it before today though. Um, and so the other thing was I've done some um I've participated in some professional development where they talk a lot about how families and parents feel about cell phones. And I I don't know how much we've done of that in Bristol, but what I've learned is that there are a lot of people, like an overwhelming majority in my experience of people who feel comfort with their kids having a phone on them because of school safety. And I for one, you know, am one of nine and so it's only one person. But I feel that I would never want to take away that communication, the possibility of that communication in the worst case scenario. >> Um, and so I'm not wed to any one. I
030just out of the ones that I had read before today, this one did it did what I was hoping we would get a sample to do, but there Mary is saying there's another one that kind of breaks it out like that, too. So, I'd like to read that one, too. Madison >> Madison's regular. >> This is the one that Shipman just wrote, and I just really liked it, but just thought I'd share. >> Is there a policy that goes with it? I didn't see it. >> It I >> So you took this off >> off their website off Vanis. Yeah, because that's where I found it, too. >> Okay. So the whole 50909 that's all Madison. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Oh, same policy. I >> their website shows the new things they do with the
031policy and then the regulations. So that's how I found it online, but >> everybody does it different. And just a little um backstory on this too. The district asked us to adopt something because the schools wanted a policy to regulate things. there wasn't one although I think we worked on one and I think there was confusion like didn't we work on one so I think there were principles who thought there was a policy and people who didn't and if they pointed to policy and parents wanted a policy they couldn't find a policy online and so this wasn't um the board saying we think there needs to be but it was in response to the confusion we really needed to figure it out so that's what we were trying to do. >> Sydney wasn't voted on
032in in September in the minutes. Is that what you were looking at? Okay. So, we voted against the regulation before the policy concern, >> right? >> But wait, we voted yes on the policy and no on the regulation. Oh, well no, some did. Some did. We had a lot >> Yeah. >> And left it up to the leadership >> superintendent. Yeah. >> Let them manage it. >> Is this >> operationalize it, right? >> Is that from the committee or the board? >> It would. Wait a minute. It says it failed. It didn't go through >> in class. Yeah. And then >> did it fail in policy or at the full board? >> Okay. So, something happened where we voted and with eight commissioners. Oh, wait. Approval of policy 6141 12 101 device passed with eight
033commissioners, Carlson, Jon, all of us saying yes. Then the regulation one to1 device new following a motion uh a roll call vote happened and then approval of policy of policy 6141. So again we voted again on the policy. So we voted twice but we all voted yes the first time then we voted no the second time because it was 44 and in a vote in a tie it goes no. So it says approval of policy 6141 3291 one to one device program failed with 4 to 4. So that's what's in the So we didn't ever >> but that was what we called it. Well, 6141. >> I know. >> Right. >> I think this one is more cell phone. >> Perfect. >> Well, is this the number that you found? >> It's more I I
034like that more. >> Basically, it does say that it failed. So, that's why we can't find it online and we probably didn't vote on it again. There's nothing else in board >> when I searched in board book. No, >> she's saying she's asking you if the next month on the minutes come back to it. >> Okay. But as of th those minutes, it says we voted yes and then we voted no. >> And we might also have the video. I'll be talking. >> It's called one to one, but Kristen's saying that there was BYOD in that. So bring your own device was in >> I can't see in the minute right now maybe Shelby and I could go back because we were here >> we can but we'll probably still have to adopt a new
035one. So, >> but we could it it's a rabbit hole. >> But when we first um went to bring your own device uh during the pandemic, we didn't have enough devices. So, some kids were actually using their cell phone to do their homework while others were given whatever we had. Um, so that also could be a possibility. I'm I'm just I'm when But you did say what month did you say of >> the first I got bit and then I stopped because I didn't want to move my phone. >> Yeah. >> August of 2020. >> Yeah. >> So it hit March the pandemic and then we were getting ready to come back and and then we were going to do hybrid learning. Um, and that's all I'm gonna say about that. >> That's why you
036guys have finally coming back to school. >> Did I just >> Yeah. >> Is there a difference? So, I'm noticing I'm noticing the language is a little different. Um I'm seeing like it referenced as personal technology and then use of private technology. >> Um >> yeah kind of like what is that what does that mean? Madison gives the definitions on the first page for their policy, >> right? And they give the definitions, but then in the body of the document, so where it gives the definitions of privatelyowned technological devices um in the doesn't define private where it go >> right here. >> Privately owned. So that means it's the persons, it's not the schools. >> Maybe maybe it was one of the other districts there. I There was a discrepancy that came up for me.
037Maybe it wasn't Madison's. >> Let's see. What I will what I what I wanted to what I wanted to say before I unplugged the microphone was um so we over the past six years when we were doing policy work that we we came across a lot of policies that had regulations and when they had regulations sometimes they were so overly rigid that they created barriers for um autonomy or you know decisions to be made and we didn't regulate them and we we still don't regul we still are not responsible for the operational piece. So if the superintendent wanted to change a regulation she could. So we're really voting on the policy the policy not the regulation but the regulation is included for transparency so that there's parity and consistency and a full knowledge. So, I
038like when like the right now I find that human resources and the superintendent when something is of um a significant um interest districtwide. Including that regulation is helpful for the people who work in the district, but it's also helpful for teachers and parents and everyone to understand the process. and it doesn't lead to well why is it happening here like this and why so I really as long as it's not overly written like in a way that creates barriers I kind of like the whole regulation thing you I I do appreciate seeing the regulation to see how things are operationalized I don't even necessarily mind voting on it like we did in the previous policy. Some of the caveats there is if we do vote on it and it becomes codified with the policy now
039should the superintendent wish to change the way it's operationalized. Do we then have to go back to policy because we voted on the policy with a rag? So, you know, if >> we could ask um we could ask Jod, but we could ask Shipman, we can ask. >> Sure. >> What >> I've been told is that we don't have the authority, >> right, >> to do anything operational. So, while we've accepted that the superintendent wants a regulation and we've included it. >> Mhm. Right. Right. if it if they wanted to change it, that would be up to them to change. And so would they then change it and print it is what you're asking and ask us to >> ask us to say, can we now change it and have you swap it out? So
040I think if >> I have it >> if we're not if if we don't have authority or oversight over the regulations and if Shipman advises that superintendent has full discretion over the way it's operationalized and even if it's voted on you she want you know he or she wants to change it doesn't have to go back to committee. I don't see where it's skillful for us to actually vote on a regulation. It would be it's it's nice to have the regulation as we're looking at the policy, but maybe it's not a skillful practice for us to vote on a regulation if we don't have any overall authority. So, I think the whatever council advises us can inform that practice moving forward, but we should see it. It's good. >> Well, but I also like when
041it's printed with the policy. Yes, ma'am. Yeah. So that's the question is do we just vote on >> the policy >> policy but allow the regulation to be >> to accompany it >> included online and I think that's a question for Shipman or Jod to say do we have to vote on the regulation and can it be included >> if we don't I don't know the answer. >> I think it'd be helpful to get answers from both. Mhm. Mhm. Um, one diff one thing I just wanted to point out that was kind of interesting to me. So, looking at Cabe's model policy and Madison's regulation. Um, so it's interesting to me that Cabe's model policy breaks down elementary, middle, and high school in the actual policy, but Madison breaks it down in their regulation. Um,
042and that's the one that Mary thought Madison was better. >> Yeah. Um, Madison is because it's in the regulation. I think >> I think it gives some flexibility to create change. However, you can see how clear and I'm going to just I was looking specifically at high school because I think that's where a lot of this happens. Mhm. >> So for cave it says um high school practices shall focus on restricting cell phones use in classrooms unless determined by the teacher as necessary for instructional purposes. Practices that ensure appropriate filters are in place mitigate illegal use and access and inappropriate sites. But then when you read this one's so much more specific. Students are permitted to bring the cell phones and other wireless communication devices to school. Such devices should remain on silent throughout the
043school day. Devices used including earbuds are not permitted. Belltobell during class time. A teacher may allow the use of such devices for core specific educational purposes. Students may use cell phones and other wireless communication devices during non-class time in areas designated by the school's administration. Like that's really specific, really, really clear. >> I really like how the other big difference I'm noticing is that in Madison's it's very it includes other >> devices. It's not just earbuds. The question I have about the earbuds is if a student had earbuds in their this policy wouldn't >> this? No, >> it wouldn't matter. >> Everything >> in Madison it says other acceptable uses and then at the >> the bottom it really breaks out like for IEPs, 504s. >> I like that. That's what I liked. >> Yeah.
044I mean, I think the question is, do we feel like we have a draft of of anything that in, you know, that we're ready to say this includes everything that we want the policy to look this way and maybe we want to take a piece that the regulation, we like the way this is worded, but we want it not to be in regulation, but we want it to be in polic you know in the policy is there any >> Madison's looks >> when I read the entire policy and the regulations yeah I liked >> it it was recommended by Shipman they just wrote it I went and found it and I was like this is ex this was to me what Bristol wanted but >> as presented like the policy as policy and then you
045like the regulations as well. I did. >> One thing that I will say is I would like to take each one of these regulations by grade level and just run them by the administration. So if they say, you know what, the newest thing is now we have X, Y, and Z. You know, can we add that in there? Because that's the best part about regulation and that's why I like that we're not voting on it. Um, but I don't see >> from my experience and I've taught, you know, middle for 20 years. um and elementary for 10 and I was in the high school. Um I don't see a lot of things that they would say. No, I don't see any red flags. Um and I I see a lot of things that I've heard
046people talking about that they would like. >> And the idea that they went into the IEP 504 is just it's perfect. And if you keep that in regulation, then if something else comes up like glasses with iPhones on them or you know what I mean, you can just add it in cuz Lord knows what we're going to look like next. >> It is a thing. They have cameras and glasses. >> Yes. Yes. would this policy bless you. >> Thank you. Hypothetically speaking, say we were to adopt Madison's, would this conflict with the current any current policy BPS policy that's currently in place that we would need to >> resend resend? I don't think we have a policy that passed. >> Well, what about this one? Yeah, the six one we >> has it definitely it
047has like definition of device >> that was past July 1st 2015 for us >> I think oh this is B yod in this one >> but that's 2015 >> I don't think we need this in 2015. >> They I would agree, but I'm curious what others think >> don't have different messages and they can't say well you're saying this but on here it doesn't say it you know >> take it offline. >> Yeah. >> I think we have to vote though at the board to sunset it like to >> rescend it is rescending >> rescend it. Yeah. Well votes. Yeah, we we would have to vote to resend here and then at the full board. >> Mhm. If we vote to rescend it here before the full board meeting, we can send the one we're
048going to adopt and this to Jod Geller because we already have our free service for what we already pay and just say would there be any reason not to resend this and let him tell us >> yeah before we vote. And then if he said, "You really shouldn't get rid of this because of this or you have to pull this over," then we could still do that after the fact. Like we could either add it in the full board or >> add. So you're saying get Jody? >> We we could vote to res to if we wanted to vote to move Matt the Madison one out of the committee tonight >> and we want to vote to resend this tonight before we vote in the full board. We can ask Jod to do a once
049over on this to say is there any value in this? Is there anything in here that we would want to make sure? Is it another >> Yeah. >> the new policy >> or are we good to just rescend? >> Can we vote to rescend even if it's not on the agenda? >> Like if you added in new business, we can. >> Oh, okay. I mean, it's not as important that we have to resend it, >> but if we're trying to not have duplication and old policies, it gives us the option. >> There's a line in there that says the student teachers help um that holding their phones. >> Show me how to use my phone. >> The opposite. It's the kid asking the I mean it's the teacher asking the the kid like help >>
050you're good with the Madison. >> Can I just ask one question? Um so this is the use of private technology devices. So the presumption is that it's personallyowned devices and where do we have in our in another policy uh district issued devices. So that's the 61 6 >> 41.3291 that did get approved actually on October 7th, 2020. >> Okay. And so we're going to be keeping those distinctly separate. Okay. because I just noticed like some of the other policies that were presented today, there was like an integration of um you know private technology devices and district issued like I think waterberry was one but um but our intention is to keep this separate like private technology devices this okay. Yeah. And I my recommendation would also be to have our director of technology because he
051has a wealth of knowledge to look at the one that um Sydney just referenced >> because a lot has happened since 2020. Um so I think that that would that would be a a good >> and that's the 6141 that was the 2020 >> Mhm. Yeah. Yes, >> that >> and that is not up on cape >> on our policies. >> We have to get it up >> on board book. >> Okay. >> But it's already been approved. And then um some faculty have come to me asking and I've started the process but I'm not ready to bring it to policy. um policy around like um for lack of a better word a uh uh childcreated site that looks and represents a school. >> So like you know this is the Chippens Hill um such
052and such site and then students uh quote unquote roast and act like the school is behind it. Mhm. >> So there's a lot going on on the internet that we really >> social media like >> the social media. Yeah. Social media um >> stuff. >> So that is something that I uh Aaron Wininger has given me about three different districts. But that is something that I do want to tackle before the end of this year. >> Okay. Because I guess it's becoming more and more prevalent. So, it sounds like um the Madison policy would really fit our district's needs at this time. Um we've reviewed the policy, we've reviewed the regulation. Um, I'd like to make a motion to adopt thinking about my words. Adopt policy number five. Do we keep the same number? >>
053Because it would be a different number. Right. >> Right. Right. That's theirs. That's theirs and it might not sequentially. So like >> to adopt >> what's the cave number >> because we would are we >> cave number >> right here >> are we replacing like >> this one's not >> so that's affected more than this one is >> might not be the same >> no they're all the same like no >> no >> cuz ces is very different >> I think it's shipman versus a because it's in five. So it's 5,000. >> Yeah, it's it's it's in this realm and I think this is shipman's coding and the other one is caves. >> How does it look in our agenda? It's just included as um >> so 6141 1.328 and then the samples are uploaded
054on board book cuz that's our that was >> well this is the number that we have so I would use it and if we needed to make >> an adjustment to it we could >> we can find that out too. Are we are we because if I'm looking at the agenda language so it's policy 6141.328 instruction bring your own device and protocol for the use of personal technology in the schools. Are we still calling it that or we're going to call it use of private technology devices by students? >> Do you know what I mean? it. We can go either way, but if we wanted to adopt this one as is. >> As is, it would look like that and then it would be then replacing 6141.328. >> It's like we don't have that. >>
055Yeah. >> Oh, so we figured out that it wasn't voted in. >> No, >> 329 wasn't voted. >> 329 wasn't 328 is uploaded. It's on our cave policy, >> but that's the one from 2015. We resend that >> and we would vote this one forward >> as 5090.9. >> Okay. So, we're we're ch that's changing cuz you're not up >> now going to be in different places, >> right? It'll just be in different places. It's not going to be in the 6,000s anymore. >> 500. >> It'll be in the 5,000 students. if you'd like. Well, right. Well, the other one was students as well and no >> and the other one they're they're in the 5,000s also. >> Okay. Well, yeah, it I mean we can easily we could change that piece, but I think
056so. Most importantly, we're really looking >> 5,000 is students, 6,000 is instruction. So, I think it belongs in 5,000. Yeah, we can put it in students. So, we would be rescending 6141328. >> Um, so we had talked about two things. We either resend it now and move it to the full board or we add it at the board meeting to new business and get have Jody take a look at it. I I recommend that you would vote to resend it out of this and then if Jody said there was a reason, we could either decide not to do it or buys in new business. >> Got it. >> But it seems completely outdated. So I don't think that's going to be the case, but I I'm happy to get that confirmation. >> To me, that
057makes sense. So we can do it in two separate motions. Okay. And I would adopt the regulation and then I'll ask the question and we can same rule applies. We can always >> okay always declare that we no longer will >> right >> or whatever we'll wait for guidance that okay >> go for it. It's okay. I think resending this full 16141328 that has to do with instruction, it probably never got rescended after >> the other more updated >> technically replaces it. You'd be safe, I'm pretty sure. >> I think so, too. >> Okay. Y right control >> student piece, >> right? Okay, >> that makes sense. We're on the same page. >> I might need help from everyone explaining this at the board meeting. Okay, >> we got we got >> you're good. >>
058Uhhuh. Okay. So, um I had started a motion. It wasn't complete. So, I'm going to start it again. Like to make a motion to adopt policy number 5090.9 use of private technology devices by students and move it to the full board for review and approval. >> So moved. >> Second. Any discussion, question hearing? None. All those in favor? I >> I. >> Motion passes. And then I'd like to make a motion to resend policy 6141.328 instruction bring your own device and protocol for the use of personal technology in schools. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Discussion. Hearing none. All those in favor? I >> I motion passes and moves to the full board. Um before we adjourn, I had one quick question. Um I had heard um one idea to have it take our IT
059director take a look at policy 6141.329 um for their input. Is that something that would be feasible for the to happen before the next policy meeting? Should we add that to our upcoming agenda or should we hold off and just kind of wait a little bit >> for it? But I just think that he has a lot of um experience. >> Um and I I sent to uh you and actually I didn't I can probably send it um to uh Commissioner De Antonio. I sent you the policy from Wallingford about social media. >> Okay. >> I did find that just, you know, to put on your list of things to um maybe to take a look at. Okay. So, it sounds like that would be something to consider as an agenda item for our next
060policy committee. Okay. Meeting adjourned. Thank you everyone. This was a productive meeting.