001Benediction is the right word. Benediction. Isn't that like a thing the pope does? >> Like a blessing. >> Yeah, sure. Close enough. >> Horseshoes in Catholicism, right? They say that's what close enough is. >> Council fact. Wow. >> Thanks, David. >> All right, it is 5:30, folks. We're going to start the meeting today. We are here for the policy committee. Um, first on the list is guidelines for public comment. Each speaker is limited to two minutes per person and it has to be related to either the agenda or something that is within the purview of the policy committee. Anyone? Okay. Thanks folks. I appreciate it. And with that, we'll move on to our first item for the day, uh, which is the administrative guidelines for policy 2240. Now, policy 2240 is up for second read
002at this month's board meeting, but we're getting out ahead of that and we're making sure that we have some administrative guidelines that go along with it. So, what you'll see is three attachments. Um, the first one and the last one are what we're looking at now. The first attachment is the very rough draft of the administrative guidelines. As you can see, it's just kind of a word document in some bullet points. And then if you look on the bottom, there are some revisions there. Um, added words, uh, struck items and, um, I have some notes. So, does anyone have any initial thoughts on that? Um, otherwise, I can kind of talk us through it. I have no initial thoughts, but we're looking at the first document before all the changes in the third one. >>
003Yeah. So, the first document's been on there for a while. Uh the third one was added more recently. >> Okay. >> And the third one, like I said, is uh some updates to that initial rough draft. And it's still in working format so that you can kind of see where those changes were made instead of it just being I think it makes it a little bit easier to compare contrast. So, does anyone have any thoughts on that? I can take us through and I can talk about some of my thoughts on some of these changes if you guys would like. All right. Um, so first of all, I wanted to specify that if we're representing different viewpoints, we want to make sure we're doing so accurately. I think the difficulty with teaching controversial issues for
004anyone regardless of where they come from is that it's not easy to keep your personal bias out of the instruction time. Uh, especially with controversial issues. with other things it might not be so important but you know especially with the recent Supreme Court ruling we want to make sure that we're uh treating this fairly and we're treating parental rights with the utmost respect so I said we should have the word accurately there um I have the identify bias section struck um when I was doing the formatting I was kind of playing around with how I do that so I don't think that necessarily we should get rid of this idea of edit identifying bias the issue that I see with it is that if we're identifying bias, the bias of the person saying this is
005how the source is biased plays into account. Um, and again with controversial issues, this becomes pretty confusing. So, I'm not sure how we're going to navigate that. I feel like you would need to have a genuine representative of those views to help have out those discussions. Um, so I was thinking, you know, we might want to remove that or we might want to amend it. Um, obviously the word diverse, moving on to that third edit is it carries a lot of political weight. Um, we're seeing more and more. So I said we should change that to differing. I think that that is less confusing and it carries less of those uh uh esoteric meanings. And you know, our the point of teaching controversial issues is not that we're supposed to lean into it necessarily. I
006think that when the curriculum calls for it, it's fine to teach it. But um I don't think that we should be leaning into it. I think that it would be more accurate to simply say actively seek out and present a range of opinions and interpretations when controversial issues come up. We shouldn't be seeking to inject them into the uh curriculum or into the instruction time. Then uh where we have model open-mindedness, I was thinking, you know, again, we you really need someone to present that viewpoint. Um I would say that if you're going to be teaching about, you know, perspectives on immigration, you probably want to have someone who represents a pro this side and a pro that side. You don't really want to just have a person who's on one side of the aisle
007talking about this is what the other side of the aisle believes. It tends to be pretty difficult these days for people to hold a civil attitude about other people's beliefs. Then we move on to critical thinking and analysis. Um, I wanted to specify that we should identify logical val fallacies and evaluate evidence, but only do that in a manner that is in keeping with like formal logical fallacies. I think that if we're going to teach about that, we should very specifically have that included. So, that's something to look at as well. Um and then uh in the original draft we had under promoting reflection encouraging students to think critically about their own beliefs and how they are formed and to consider the validity of alternative viewpoints. I think the sticky part that comes in here
008is if you're teaching children to think critically about their beliefs that can pretty quickly turn into teaching children to question their parents. I think that they should examine all sides of an issue. But I think we should let the facts speak for themselves when we're teaching in general but especially when we're teaching controversial issues. So, I think that listening carefully and being respectful of different viewpoints is a better way to put that. Um, having the term safe and creating a safe and respectful environment is kind of presupposing that the environment isn't safe. I think that all of our environments should be safe to begin with. Um, and the nature of talking about controversial issues is that people are going to have differing ideas if we're not creating safe environments in the first place. I think
009there's a bigger discussion to be had as a as a school district. So, I recommended shrinking that down to creating a respectful environment because that's more precise. Then we go down, we have addressing misinformation. Um, again, as some of the other things that I've mentioned, I think that the idea of misinformation is very nebulous when it comes to controversial issues. Uh, one person's misinformation is another person's accurate information and vice versa. And so certainly get into where different sides stand on the subject, but I think it's important for us to um specify that >> you know what is misinformation. I think that's a little I think that's a little difficult. Um it kind of depends on the perspective of the person who's making those definitions. See what I'm saying? >> And then uh we have
010knowing when to step back. I this is probably where the heaviest amount of edits was made. Um you know we talked in policy 2240 about uh refraining from sharing positions but I that gets more complicated because even sharing personal experiences can really work in a way to uh influence students in a way that I think a lot of parents would not find appropriate. Um, I know that I've talked to many students from Watertown High School and middle in the middle school over the years who had experiences where a personal experience was shared, but it was really shared in a manner that was that seemed like it its intent was to sway the students perspective on something. So, I would recommend that uh we should just keep it very simple. We should not we should have
011no staff sharing their personal opinions or beliefs on controversial issues whether explicitly or implicitly. And then uh rather than imposing a particular viewpoint um is you know uh kind of clarified. So I said we can take that out just tighten up the draft. Um and then if a teacher is unsure on how they're supposed to handle a particular situation or topic or question when it comes up really they should be redirecting students to their parents uh primarily. Um obviously if we're talking about you know tensions rising in the classroom I think that kind of gets addressed in the next point. So I think that it would be good to refra >> I will say on that one as an administrative guideline Sam I think they were writing it from perspective of a teacher being unsure
012of maybe if it was controversial or not to then reach out to the principal or other colleagues. That would that's how I would assume that would be the seek the support. You took it at the perspective like a student was reaching out to the teacher for >> a better understanding or support. >> Yeah. And the reason that I was thinking that and I can totally see where you're coming from. That's a very valid point. The reason I was thinking that is because we're talking more about in the process of teaching after it's already been established that they're going to be teaching these things. >> Um >> can you make that a little clear? That's a good good thought. Okay. So perhaps uh when teaching a controversial issue if you are so maybe just clarifying when
013teaching a controversial issue at the beginning of a sentence. What do you think David? >> That helps. >> Okay. Gotcha. Gotcha. All right. Then towards the bottom we have a few more clarifications that I had on there under the unexpected hot moments. Um I don't think that you know these the the first two bullet points that I have crossed out have students write down the reactions and have students write down to specific things or to the discussion as a whole. It's one thing if it's part of the project I suppose but in general I don't think we should be asking students to uh provide written statements on their personal beliefs on controversial issues or at least we should be specifying for parents that we're doing that because I know that that's something that makes some
014parents uncomfortable. Um, >> I think that would be maybe part of the lesson plan portion or that would be the intention. >> I based on everything that I'm seeing coming home currently, administration is trying to signal to staff members to give amp parents ample time of what's going to be discussed in the classroom >> um so that they can opt their child out of that unit prior to >> um the the class. engaging in it and giving them an alternate assignment. Correct. I'm pretty sure Jason like that is what's been signaled across the district. Correct. >> Yeah. Unit by unit. Okay. Definitely. And as we get those course uh course guides that we've been talking about at Ed services going, I think that's going to get easier and easier. Um so again, I mean just
015as general advice, I think it's one thing when it's a specific part of the course guide or the course curriculum, whatever you want to call it. Um but I don't think that you know that necessarily fits as general advice. Um I definitely hear what you're saying. Um and then towards the end we have by focusing on these principles teachers can create a learning environment where controversial issues can be discussed in a way that promotes critical thinking and respectful dialogue. Again the purpose of uh some of the recent rulings that have happened is to put more control back in the hands of parents. And I think that the purpose of discussing these things isn't to uh give children of values education on controversial issues. I think it's to um introduce them to information about those controversial
016issues that exist in society. Uh so I think exploring or deeper understanding of complex topics gets into a little bit of a into a little bit of a gray area the way that it's written. So those are my notes. I know that was a lot to go through. Thank you for listening to me. Uh does anyone have any initial thoughts on those edits? David Tammy. >> So on page one where you talk about you struck out identified bias. >> Yes. >> I think I know why you did that but boy that is a really important skill to learn. >> I definitely agree completely and uh I kind of touched on that earlier. The issue that I see is if I'm the risk is that if I am teaching someone to identify bias in a specific
017issue, I may be compelled to teach people to identify a bias that I see that does not exist from the other person's perspective. So, it kind of ties into the differing perspectives discussion below. Um, I think that it's important that we are presenting these things neutrally and accurately. So, if we're talking about identifying biases or logical fallacies like we talked about in uh item number three, that we're doing that on a basis that is actually neutral. Um, you know, and everyone calls themselves neutral, right? You watch Fox News, they call themselves neutral. You watch CNN, they call themselves neutral. You listen to the Young Turks, they call themselves neutral. Uh, a lot of people call themselves neutral. And it's I don't know that that even exists. You know, when it comes to controversial issues, everyone's
018got an opinion. So, um, like I said, I probably would have highlighted that when I was going through I struck it out. I probably should have highlighted it. It wasn't so much uh strike that from the advice. I think that we need a greater level of clarification on that. I think I think we might be able to rewrite that in a way that allows for that idea to be explored because in a controversial issue the bias of the person in writing or speaking or whatever um has to be identified. >> Yeah, absolutely. >> That would be something I would want and I understand the danger there. So, >> Oh yeah, definitely. and identified accurately. You know, I mean, we we see lots of statements about who people are and what they stand for that are
019very inaccurate and sometimes they lead to awful awful consequences that are completely wrong. We've seen that happen very recently in the last week. Um, so again, the way that we do that without incorrectly presenting that information is very important. Um, but I do agree with you. I think that rewriting it and providing for that is is is there. Do you have any immediate thoughts on any adjustments that you would make to the identify bias statement and how we do that? >> Due respect on that, could I take a little bit of time to think that through? Because I think it has to be worded carefully. >> Yes, most definitely. >> Have to be some words smithing there. >> Yeah, I I completely agree. >> What's up, Carl? Am I right in saying that the more
020you listen, you get a little older and older and older and you're listening a lot, it's easier to identify bias as age goes on. But as a young person, boy, if you were like me, I was the most gullible kid around. You listen to anything. So, you're the instructor. How do you go about it? Well, very carefully. Well, I I'm just going to tell you I remember being taught how to identify bias in in in written in the written word and I remember reading articles and different things from different perspectives and having to figure out the bias of the author. And what I remember and um I mean I've dealt with my share of controversial issues over the years but I think as a teacher I want to be as neutral in it as possible.
021I want to help the students understand the the the actual bias that is in whatever it is we're talking about the sub the the spoken word the written word. Um, and it takes a certain amount of skill to do that for sure, but teachers are trained to do that. There there's a there's a danger in it, Carl. There's no doubt about it. You know, but we all realize these issues are not going away. They're just probably going to become bigger and they're going to be more and more in our face. And with these little gadgets we all carry around, we get instantaneous news from both good and bad sources. So, um, at some level, we have to figure it out. And I I I don't I just I just don't think inherently ignoring how to
022identify a bias is helpful. >> No, definitely not. And again, I think that's where the idea of identifying logical fallacies and evaluating evidence comes in, right? um a person may even approach you know on either side of an issue they may approach a situation with a bias but the manner in which they approach it matters a lot so uh definitely I mean I think a lot of people proclaim their bias I think the issue is when people don't but in a lot of ways what we've seen from the Supreme Court and a lot of the changes we've seen over the last several years has been because people are starting to get the perception that there is an issue with presenting yourself as unbiased in some parts of of the country at least in some classrooms
023and not actually presenting things in an unbiased way. So again it kind of goes back to I think the greatest issue there is that um like you said a person who wants to teach in an unbiased way a lot of these notes are common sense. I think that these notes are on the let's say off chance that someone is not teaching in an unbiased way just to make it very clear hey this is the way that things need to go. Um, again, it's a it's a very tricky topic. So, we could leave the identify bias statement in there for now as it's written. Um, but I would say that again, uh, seek clarif we should always encourage students to seek clarification from people who hold those views on what they believe. It is very easy
024to mischaracterize what another person believes either willfully or accidentally. So, I would say keep identify bias bullet point with the stipulation that students should be directed to seek clarification. >> Well, I'm almost tempted to say take that bias and add it into the teach reasoning skills because that is part of it. Um, but let's let's work on the wording of that a bit. >> Sure. Okay. Okay. Um, would you like to what what what are your thoughts on that? because this would probably move forward with 2240 to the board meeting and I think that would be a big enough change that we would probably want to work that out now. Would you like to come back to it a little bit later maybe? >> Oh. Oh, >> yeah. Sorry. >> You want to put it
025in the critical thinking area? Is that what you're saying? >> Under Yeah, under the teach reasoning skills. >> Yeah, that's a good place for it. Um, my comment in that would be because I' I've taught this kind of thing. And what you do is ask the question, do you see any bias in this particular research? >> Like who's doing the research and what is it about? And there may be definite bias in there because maybe the tobacco industry is doing the research on >> um so that they they can that but you ask the question and then you you deal with their feedback trying to be neutral but you're actually pointing out to them this may be a point of bi bias this may be a point of bias what do you think and uh
026that way they start thinking that way a little bit without you saying already this is biased because look at this already. >> Does that make sense to you? >> Yeah, definitely. Absolutely. I definitely think that it should start out with an open discussion like that. I think that's a great way to start it. >> It can be done. >> Yeah. But I also think that it's important to clarify when a bias when someone is stated as having a bias that's not correct, you know. Um I think that people have been accused of having those biases like I said and >> they haven't had them and it's led people to have opinions about them and it's led to terrible, terrible consequences. So, um, yeah, I agree with you. Maybe just move identify bias down to, uh,
027take the the content of the identify bias bullet point and move it down to the first bullet point of item number three, right? >> I mean, you can almost make it easy enough and just say identify logical fallacies and inherent biases or logical. Yeah, I mean, you could do that. Identify logical fallacies and >> inherent biases and evaluate evidence. >> Logical fallacies. >> I was linking the biases to the verb identify. >> Yeah. Yeah. I see what you're saying. Identify logical fallacies, inherent biases, and evaluate >> because then you're putting in the context of an actual skill >> that you're attempting to teach. Right. Absolutely. It's a skill to skill. Right. >> PPI likes that word. May I just ask a next steps question? >> Yeah. Um, definitely. So, what are our next steps on
028this? So, like I said, making that move down to inherent biases um of inherent biases down to teach reasoning skills and then does anyone have any objections to these edits as they stand? Tim, David, >> I just have a question about other some other related issue on this particular policy. >> Okay. Go go ahead first. I guess we'll we'll throw that on. >> Uh as far as the opt out process, uh I don't know where that falls. I mean, was that on on an administrative guideline? Was that It seems to indicate that it was in a form. >> Um >> there is a form online like on the main landing page of the district website. I was kind of curious if uh if we had to add uh more specific language in the policy as
029far as u parent opt in opt out type of situation to that particular um >> can I just add in on that? Can I Okay, so um there was a couple issues I saw in the district. >> Okay. Um, one one of the classes I received a op a controversial issue form saying, uh, this whole class is controversial. Uh, you allow your student to take this class or you don't allow your student to take this class, please call high school administration to get a new class. But the the form did not explicitly state what is going to be controversial, >> what the lesson plans were, like a specific >> and I don't know if we want to move in the direction of completely discriminating against students because we don't want to give out the lessons
030plans to have like one or two units for that child to sit out instead of the entirety of the class. I definitely think that that was the intent and I think that that is part of um not to have you guys shy away from this discussion, but I think that's more so part of a separate set of uh specifications for 2240. Um so if you would like to combine that with this section on how to teach those controversial issues, I'd be more than happy to do that. Um >> I think that it would go well in the same document, right? So it before you even teach it, your first step would be to get that information out to the parents to see if anybody wants to opt out. Right. >> Sure. >> And then you
031move into the discussion topic of it. Um, and I think right now staff is concerned what is or is not considered a controversial issue because like a a parent received an email saying that discussing um male and female plants in biology is considered controversial. So maybe there needs to be some clarification. I'm not saying on this document, but somewhere there seems to be a lack of understanding of what would be considered controversial. >> Yeah. And again, really all of this is not It's interesting because we started this policy before the Supreme Court ruling, but a lot of what we're talking about now is how do we respond to that Supreme Court ruling? Um, which they've done a lot of great work on the policy. Uh, it's looking really nice and we've we've got a lot
032of good tools to go with it like the opt- out form. But I think that there is a question of is the intent that we're supposed to try to identify what other people are going to find controversial or is the intent that we're supposed to have a greater level of transparency as to what is being taught in the classroom so that parents can identify for themselves that which they find controversial. >> And I want to ask Craig, is that what you were >> Well, yeah. I mean, I think it defeats the purpose to just have a blanket statement for your class to say this class could be >> controversial. either you take the class in acceptable co content or opt out or just take a different class. I mean really yeah that seems >> not
033very fair. >> No I mean we're we're not allowing for um the education of a child. Uh it it it's it against the whole spirit of the of the policy in and of itself. >> Yeah. It's also making a pretty broad judgment about where people are going to come from. What's up Jason? >> Thank you. Um I have a couple two questions and then a comment. First is that my first question is I believe that uh the controversial issue policy 2240 has gone through first read to the full board and now we're bringing back in preparation for the second read. Is that right? >> Yes. >> And that's scheduled tentatively at least to occur next week. >> Yes. And then uh that's so that's my first question. My second question is I believe that the
034next step in as it relates to uh controversial issues is to gather some feedback uh some of which some of these documents or all of these documents linked here are part of that as a way to guide next steps to craft an administrative guideline offline and then bring it back to this committee. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I thought this was the discussion today. I'm so sorry. That's I'm verifying. >> Okay. >> Um I I think you're mostly right, but I think we want to have at least a working idea because I know that the original without any of the edits that we're discussing tonight was already given out to teachers. Correct. >> I I'm not aware of that. >> So that's what I was informed of by a community member. I received I received uh
035that information. >> This was given out to staff already to use from my understanding from from Jared. >> Yeah. the the first the first PDF that we have on our agenda in this area, how to teach controversial issues start guide, um not the updated one, but the original that was already given out to staff. >> I know that the slideshow for sure was part of a a district-wide Yeah. >> uh kind of professional learning piece. And so just for clarification again, is the the the conversations about administrative guidelines as it relates to controversial issues tonight a conversation in preparation for craft crafting the administrative guideline offline and then bring it back to this committee for review or is this preparing an administrative guideline for Monday? Well, I think that the more that we talk about
036it, we're probably going to need to have a little bit more time to sink into it. But I think that, like I said, since we already had a rough draft go out and be given to the teachers, I think that we should get a little bit closer, specify some of those things that were maybe missed in that rough draft, and that information should go out anyways, even if we do continue to add to it. This is kind of the conversation I have with Jared. He said, "Oh, this is just a rough draft." I had actually given him uh my suggestion on these things and said, "Hey, we should talk about this before um this was given out to the staff, but he opted to give it out to the staff uh instead just as he
037had written it." And he said, "We can always work on it more. We can be iterative with it." So, um like I said, if we're going to opt for being iterative with the instructions that we're giving to staff, I think that we should we should have a good working copy tonight and then maybe fine-tune it from there. You know what I'm saying? So, a little bit of what you're saying, but also let's have something a little bit more prepared than just letting it go for another month because I think staff wants firm clear direction from the board on how to go about these uh these issues. >> There's most definitely kindness and clarity. >> Yes. Right. >> Absolutely. >> In my experiences and I I am learning along with a lot of people, but this
038is not an administrative guideline, right? This is a document that provides guidance >> versus an official administrative guideline. >> And so I think again I'm just clarifying for everyone's uh just to-dos and planning. Um, if if we're if the goal is an administrative guideline, I think this conversation is very fruitful and appreciated and will help guide the official drafting of an administrative guideline which could be a subcommittee, could be work offline, and then we bring it back to this committee for review and then it goes to the full board. Does that make sense? I just want to make sure. >> Yeah, I think that makes sense. And then the last piece is I know there's some questions about letters and plants and and and I know Sam you weren't part of a conversation last night
039but last night we talked about educator effectiveness and that we're on a journey right and I think the same conversation could be had tonight is that um certainly some of the letters that I've seen some that I haven't seen I don't think would would be uh the model that we would we would expect three months or three years from now, right? But it's a journey and we're all learning together and I um so I just wanted to say that, right? And we'll learn together and do it, >> continue to get better together. >> Yeah, I think I agree with Jason. It is a journey and everybody's learning and um this represents a a sizable change for a lot of people in the district. But the incident that Tammy has referred to, excuse me, I think
040twice now about um the opt out notice that she received from this one particular teacher. >> I I think we have to construct a situation. I don't know where it goes. it goes in the opt out directions or it goes where I saw that and I I mean I almost hesitate to say this but I saw that as a as a um kind of a poke at the policy >> because any everybody knows that no one is looking for us to opt kids out of an entire class. So, I think this was someone trying to make a point. But if that's going to be the case, then we need to make sure we craft language that really delineates and specifies what we expect um on those on that opt out notice. I to me this
041that was just a complete misuse of that policy. Yeah, I I think I agree. Go ahead. >> Um to that particular point, I did craft some language um that might be a little bit more specific and I'd be happy to uh provide that to whoever needs needs it. Um but basically it said some like an uh part to that administrative guideline might say no student shall be deprived of their desire to earn credit in a course due to an attempt by the teacher to inform parents of the controversial nature of the course at the beginning of the course. Nor shall the teacher be exempted from informing parents of the controversial issues prior to 2 weeks of their discussion. In accordance with this policy, an opt out form shall not be provided more than 30 days
042before the issue shall be discussed. >> I think that sounds good. >> Do you do you see that as being part of the administrative guideline? >> Probably. Yeah. And so again, I I approach tonight as >> a conversation, guidance, >> uh suggested revisions, additions, you know, >> to then I think offline and I don't know who the audience is or who's the working group. then offline take all the information the conversations suggested revisions to create an an administrative guideline and that would come back to policy have a discussion then go to the full board that so I think I just want to make sure that aligns with everyone's thinking >> I'm I'm fine with having an administrative guideline crafted and then having the whole board look at it I have no problem doing it that
043way >> you mean doing it like today and then having it go next week Right. That's what you're saying. >> Next week, Monday. Because he's he's asking, should we wait another month or should we have it go immediately to the board? >> Well, my understanding is we have this working document that we're going to make some changes on. >> That is not an administrative guideline. It is guidance prior to an administrative guideline. >> Yes. >> Right. So, that should be worked on, but I'm okay with the administrative guideline waiting a month so that it can be appropriately worded. flushed out. >> I am strong. I am comfortable with that. >> Okay. Yes. And that's that I'm on the same page. Yeah. >> So, go ahead. >> I don't want to step on any uh so
044I think we're just saying three things now, right? One is a a a policy that I believe is slated I don't want to assume anything but a slate I believe is tentatively slated for the board meeting on Monday. >> Yeah. >> For second read. >> Then that becomes the policy. Right. The second piece would be working on this guiding document, right, to finalize that. And if that's tonight, we do that tonight >> and then we can talk about how, when, where it gets shared. >> Yeah. >> Right. And then the third would be any opinions, examples or additions or revisions that would lead to an official administrative guideline that would again in my opinion work offline on bring it back here. So is that right? I just want to >> that's my understanding. Anybody else?
045>> No. >> Yes. >> Okay. Great. Thank you. >> Absolutely. Yeah. Um so yes, Greg, I like your language. I think that would be great for an administrative guideline. And I think additionally specifying that again I think the most difficult issue is that controversial is not defined by the person teaching. Controversial is defined by the person either the child or by the parent and most specifically by the parent. What is considered controversial is different to different people. And so I think the best solution really is for teachers to give um a an overview of what they're going to be teaching in a class. I think that's the way that it works. And I think that the idea that um I there's only a very limited amount of information that's gone out about what would be
046considered uh controversial or not controversial. You brought up the idea of um plants being controversial or non-controversial. Uh I don't know how that would be derived from what people are talking about here. When I look at the training slides, we have some examples on there. If you guys want to go in there for a second, I guess >> go ahead. Um so when it comes to like that particular topic it it kind of I think we need to be very very uh clear in our communication whether and I thought I thought the administration was pretty had pretty decent communication with staff to say that hey if you have questions about anything that you come to the administration and ask before you perhaps proceed with something whether it's a form whether whatever the case may be
047and it's kind of troubling because in that particular case that could be construed two different ways. One, there's either there's uh, you know, members of the public might say, "What's controversial about that?" Or two, members of the public might say, "Well, are you making some sort of a pivot in classroom when you're talking about asexual plants to to a very very different conversation that really doesn't belong in science? So, is it is it a our biology? Is that is that a um is that an issue that really now we're using it as an excuse to have a further uh controversial discussion? I mean that's how it can be construed. >> I completely agree. just because somebody decided that they they looked at it like okay we're talking about plant genders and you know when when
048the expectation is we're just talking about biology you know with plants. >> Yeah. I mean even when we're looking at the examples on the slideshow to to your point the example that would be most closely associated with that is number three on slide number eight. It's the number three. It's identity philosophy, gender, and sexuality. Gender is not a biological phenomenon. Gender is a psychological phenomenon. Um, that's contested. It's a controversial issue. Um, sexuality is about reproduction. I guess you could very, very broadly say that that applies to learning about plant biology, but again, I mean, I think that the real issue comes down to what are you teaching and how are you teaching it, right? like that's what defines a controversial versus a non-controversial issue in many ways. And I think the easiest solution ultimately
049is going to be let's provide information on what each of these units is going to be and how we're going to be teaching these units. That's a long ways out. For now, the best thing we can do is provide information as much as possible to parents in that kind of modular way. Well, I I just there there's an expectation of compliance with the controversial issues policy um moving forward and um not to also be sending some mixed messages to the public. Yeah. >> You know, which can be construed a number of different ways. Mhm. >> Um it's just that's just harmful and it's it's to to a to some respect it's also um you know it it it just doesn't uh lend itself to a very uh credible I don't know a a good uh
050a good faith effort to to notify parents. Um, >> go ahead. >> I just want to follow up on that because I think you used a word that a phrase that's very important here. I think we as a board are trying to make a good faith effort to clarify this issue. >> And I think um I'm assuming the slideshow that we're looking at right now has already been shown >> to staff. I think the examples on there were excellent. I don't think they're ex they're um >> exhaustive by any means because there can be other things, but I thought it was pretty complete and I love the statement that says remember that the examples cut both ways. But what what I think we're facing, Craig, is this is this policy is going to rub some
051people very very wrongly. it is going to it is going to not always be seen as good faith. It's going to be seen in a completely different light. And so I think we have to be careful how we word things. Um I think we should work a little bit on the wording on that because I think it comes across um a bit too >> cut and dried. >> Well well it it it puts a teacher already on the defense. >> Okay. We want them to cooperate because we're operating out of good faith. >> So we want to bring them into that area where they understand where we are and that they cooperate. So I think we need many of the components of what you're offering there in in your visioning because I think we have
052to make it clear. Um and Timmy, correct me if I'm wrong. Did you use that example as just a madeup or example or is that something that actually came to your home from a teacher? >> I received it in my email >> from a teacher. >> That's a real example. Yes. >> See that we have to that has to be that has to be stopped. >> That's true. >> Yeah. >> That has to be stopped. It's not helpful and it's not in good faith. So people can disagree with our policy, but when you're in the district, we expect you to comply with the policy and not do things that are obviously not intended. >> Yeah. Go ahead, Jason. >> Sorry. One second. >> I I really appreciate the efforts to be clear, right? And and
053again, there is kindness and clarity. And I think between adopting a policy and then communicating it and and an administr administrative guideline that is yet to be crafted, but I think we're getting some feedback to get to that and revising literature. We're working towards that. Right. I do also live in a world where I believe there's positive I assume positive intent. Right. And we we've talked about two examples, but that's two of hundreds of people. >> Oh, yeah. >> And so I I just want us to remember that the vast majority of executing this plan followed the plan, right? This slideshow was shown I I believe to every staff member and if not there, you know, certain folks probably missed it, right? But the vast majority of people saw this slideshow, operated accordingly, and comm
054and are are communicating with our parents at a level that we've never seen before. And that's a celebration >> and and and so there are outliers that we'll address, right? >> But I just don't want us to get caught in this like two examples that and lose sight of the successes of something. This is new. >> Oh yeah, for sure. No, I I agree. >> It's just like the adoption of a new literacy curriculum at the elementary school. There will be teachers that don't follow that curriculum tomorrow, right? But it's our job to help them, guide them, support them in in in executing that to fidelity in a way that we expect. And so just want >> Yeah. And so for me, I'm also approaching out of good faith. And what I'm looking at is
055when a parent gets an email that says, uh, this is what my class is about, and if you don't like it, don't take it. Which is very much I saw that email as well. Uh, it went to multiple people. Uh, I think that's I'm approaching it with good faith and I'm saying, let me help you clarify. We're not supposed to talk about the overarching class. If every single class module has something controversial in it, you have to specify what that is because some parents might find subject A to be fine and subject B to be controversial and something that they don't want their kids to learn about from from from the schools at least. So I think that we need to honor that and we need to respect it. So I think the simple start
056um if you're looking for big picture ideas the simple start would be let's specify that you need to go through a process of informing parents not of what your class is but of what the different modules or sessions or what whatever term you use what those specific segments of the class are. So that would be the first thing there. Providing parents along with that information with an opt out form as another uh item is very important and specifying that like Craig has written it has to happen um no more than 30 days before and at least two weeks before. I will say that there are a number of teachers in the district that are sending the form per the time frame that's on the policy that's going to second read. They're putting the content that's
057going to be on there. They're directing you to administration if you want to opt your child out. So, it's not like there's not a large number of teachers in the district that are doing it. So, I honestly believe that that is what administration articulated during >> like the beginning of the school year. I don't think it was that administration didn't clearly tell them. You have to give parents ample time. >> Well, I think that they did deliver. >> Oh, I I totally agree. I totally agree. >> The overall message I'm getting. >> You had something you were going to say earlier. >> I I'm going to reserve my comments on on that. I want to see how this shakes out, but I am I'm with I'm with Julane. >> There's going to have to be
058some a stop to some of this stuff at some point. >> And if that means an uptick of um uh close session HR or disciplinary related meetings, so be it. >> And I would say that again, um if a person's operating in bad faith, you need to have good confirmation that that's happening. Um although I agree with Tammy, it would be my understanding from my communications with administration that they did communicate these ideas clearly. Um because we don't have it in writing, at least as far as I understand it, we don't have it in very clear writing. Um I think that we are still going to have to put that in clear writing >> because there's always there's always a real possibility that someone becomes distracted by a thought while they're listening. they miss a
059key piece of information and they move forward in good faith and then you know I mean we've all made that sort of mistake before. So I want to give them that in writing so that it's there for them to reference so that they have the personal responsibility and freedom to be well educated on what the expectations are. >> So I I I hear where you're coming from though completely. this district will make sure that we have teachers in the classroom that comply with policy. That's that. Absolutely. Okay. So, um wrapping up this subject, does anyone else have anything further? Any further comments? So then action steps on this would be to take the content uh of the revised how to teach controversial issues with neutrality document. Um consolidate it uh take those take into account
060those edits as long as the other members of the committee agree um and bring that forward to the board. The only edit that's not currently on that document for specificity is removing the identify bias bullet point and moving it under number three adding the phrase inherent biases after logical fallacies. >> Are you making those changes and sending them to me? >> Yes, I will do that. >> Okay. So, just so you know, I am out of the district as of noon tomorrow. >> Okay. I will I can click go and have all of those things change and I'll send it to you tonight. Um, I'll send you a clean draft and then we'll have that move forward. >> And that gets attached to the board agenda under what? >> Um, maybe in addition to 2240
061being passed as a policy and we can just have it there for information and clarification. Uh, what do you guys think? Or would you like to see this pass from the board as something that should go out to the district? So my understanding that this is just kind of like a interm document until the >> um administrative guidelines are created. So I don't necessarily think it needs to be extremely official, right? Because once the administrative guideline is implemented then that everybody will be working up the policy and the administrative. >> So the last one was added or was given to building administration which was then distributed to teachers as needed. Correct. That's my understanding. Okay. So maybe we could just distribute the updated form to building administration, have it on the we can have it
062on the agenda for Monday. It's there for information just as a note um as kind of a complimentary data or complimentary material for policy 2240. >> Okay. So add it to the second read where policy 2240 is. >> Yes. Okay. >> And just for clarification again, the conversation would be to finalize that Monday and then administratively we share it with principles. >> Yes. uh for for this and then obviously we would do a little bit more work for a bigger administrative guideline that would include um and then this is the other action item from this subject. The we're going to have you guys offline craft uh some administrative policy that's a little bit longer contains this this material but then also contains specifics about when to inform parents uh and how to inform parents and
063what it looks like which part of that would be Craig's rough draft that he read out. If Craig, you can provide that to us afterwards. Um, >> and the we can we can uh modulate that language a little bit, but we want to specify the three main points are you need to inform parents between four and two weeks before the material is taught. And it needs to be informed by module with information on what's being taught, not just uh climate change, right? you should have this is this is the supporting docu this is the supporting material I'm using things like that that parents should have an idea of what that discussion constitutes if you're talking about plant biology why is it controversial if you're just talking about plant biology I don't see how that's controversial
064if you're talking about how it relates to human conceptions of of gender identity I definitely see how that can be controversial so it kind of depends and I think that we need to provide that information to parents again the purpose of this is to put control in the hands of parents parents so that parents can make educated decisions about their students education >> and that work would be offline with a draft of the AG coming to policy next >> in October. Yes. Thank you. Appreciate you guys working through it with us. >> I do have one question I want. >> Yes. >> Do the teachers have a syllabi >> at this level? Do they make a syllabi? >> Uh I would be guessing, right? I can tell you from past experience. has has those units
065in it. >> Yeah. >> So, >> and even like the titles of materials you're using. Yeah. >> I'm guessing this is a guess, right? That the majority of our high school uh courses have a sylli that is shared with with students and staff. That's a guess. >> I'm guessing below, you know, middle and elementary, there are none. That's that's past >> that's kind of what I would think myself after being in the schools and elementary. You're more likely to have that the high school than you are lower. >> But I would be hardressed to say that everyone has that. >> Yeah. The question you don't always see that at the high school level this level necessarily see college level. >> Yeah. And it's something we're going to have to work on over time. Like you
066said, it's really big changes that are coming down from the Supreme Court. We really have I mean it's a real shift in perspective. Um Okay. So, we've got our action items. Any further thoughts? All right, we will move on in our agenda to the next discussion. Uh Tammy requested a discussion of her sponsoring uh gender support plan policy. This is derived from the discussion we had last November about the gender support plan administrative guidelines. Uh Tammy, would you like to give us some initial thoughts? So, um I am sponsoring this to be moved to a policy because an actual official schoolboard policy offers substantially more legal weight uh than an administrative guideline. A policy will act like local law to ensure that parents are always informed of what's going on with their child at school
067as it pertains to this. Um, now what you see in front of you is our current administrative guideline and then the draft policy that was pulled out. Um, I don't know if anybody's had time to look at it. There's only one concern that I see that I would like to make an adjustment under it's on page three under official records. Um, I would not like to see the district send over our data using the students preferred name and gender. I like to use the sex at birth information because it skews data. If you start um sending over data that's going to be compared, it starts skewing data based on sex. Um potentially making in inflating numbers you wouldn't otherwise see in that normal demographic. >> Tammy, this is Sarah. >> I would concur on that.
068I would agree with you on that. I think that would be a good change to make. >> Excuse me. Where was that again? I'm sorry. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Page three under official records, line item B. >> Line item B in the second set of >> Yes. In the second. >> Yeah. Towards the bottom of the page. >> Oh, here we go. Thank you. >> Starting with the Wisconsin Department. Yes. Um, yeah. And then restate for them what that action item would be. Tammy, >> um, I would like it to be the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction allows districts to report data using the gender and name a student identifies with. Um, the W USD may not or will not update it based on how they identify. and we'll send official data over. >> So,
069>> David, how do you feel about that? >> That's fine. That's fine. Um, it'll generate some discussion from certain people, but I'm fine. >> All right. And then, uh, I think everything else looks good. The only mention that I had and I'm going to put this forward to the other two members of the committee is we have the definitions section uh and then specifically I'm looking at definition number three biological sex and the use of the term biological sex throughout the policy. While I can understand how biological sex may seem clarifying, I think it is actually redundant because the term sex only refers to that which is biological. And I think that we should have clear simple language uh specifying that. So how do you guys feel about remov removing biological from before any use?
070noticed that when I read through you put that out in places >> and and that's what you're thinking is biological. >> Yes, sex is biological by nature. There is no other kind of sex, right? >> My thought on that was will everyone else see that the same way when they read it? >> Well, and so I think that if we didn't have a definition of what it means, maybe there would be some ambiguity on the individual level. But if we have a definition at the beginning that specifies sex is either of the two main categories male and female into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions. We have a definition of what sex means. >> Okay. >> Biological in sex implies that there is nonbiological sex.
071>> I wondered when I read it. I thought it's up here. You take it away on purpose down there because it's already defined in the academic language. Right. >> Yes. Exactly. Um, >> okay. As long as everybody catches that and didn't think you left the word out. >> No, so that's and that's kind of why I brought it up because I think in the process of adjusting some of these things, obviously there's a little carryover. Uh, Craig, you had your hand raised. >> Yeah. I just um encouraging the committee to to try to keep it as much as similar as it was before. Um, you know, this this is something that has been uh a discussion that, you know, we've had. We don't need to be beating a dead horse on this. Um, so who
072has had that discussion, Greg? Because you and me have had it, but I don't think anyone else here has. >> The newbies have it. >> Yeah. I don't think Tammy has or David has or Carl or Jul. Now, and like I said, I want to put that out to the rest of the committee because I'm not, you know, I want to hear what other people's perspective is on that. I'm hoping that we can move on relatively quickly on this. >> Oh, yeah. I think that I think that that's a pretty simple fix. I don't know. What do you What are your thoughts, David and Tammy? >> I'm fine with I do that several times. >> Okay. >> Gotcha. All right. Um, so that'll be Oh, yeah. Julian, >> I'm gonna maybe put that number one.
073It's very non-standard to remove it. >> It It is expected >> and I'm not sure that >> like I played the word game for a long long time and like >> we're not a democracy, we're a republic and everybody still knows it's a democracy. Okay. Now privately I don't yield my ground. >> Yeah. >> And I don't write it that way. >> But I'm not going to die on the hill either. Okay. So this is a term that is used consistently in the public >> and it resonates a certain way. >> If you remove it before the from in number three before the word sex, I would strongly encourage you to figure out where it could go in the definition, you know, like either of the two main biological categories. >> Sure. Sure. because we
074were making assumption that like they had a good point. Is everybody else going to understand it that way? >> Maybe not. >> Yeah. >> And so >> Jason's saying exactly there's a there's something to be said for clarity. >> Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. >> Understand what you're saying. >> Yeah. white and struck completely, >> you know, but the purpose of this is to not be so totally accurate in one sense that we lose the people who are number one implementing the policy and number two um trying to understand in the public. >> That's my here's my experience on that. after teaching for so many years, even college level and so forth, you can write something out just really nicely that you you understand that it sounds perfectly clear to you >> and they still ask you
075a bunch of questions. Uh, and you tell them sometimes when you just tell them exactly the same words you wrote, they go, "Oh, uh, DPI was like that when I wrote stuff." But uh what I found is that people read something and don't always understand it. If they have a chance to ask, they ask. If they if they don't, they say, "How come that was there but not over here? Are we still talking about biological sex or just >> something else?" >> Yeah, you would want to bring the whole document into alignment. So the question is, do we change every instance to biological sex or do we change every instance to sex because there's a split there. Julain's point is that in in in documents and research it's used all the time. Right. >> Yeah.
076And so there's a clarity issue. It's not a brevity but a clarity issue. And I completely understand where you're coming from Julane. And that was some of the discussion that was had last time. And that's why I was saying I kind of want to put it out to Tammy and Dave to see where you guys are on that to see if you have a strong stance one way or the other. >> I guess I'd rather see it stay in. >> Okay. >> Uh just because I know people are going to have questions. No matter what you write, they're going to have questions. >> Sure. Sure. Do you have a strong stance on that? >> I do not have a strong stance. >> Then I'll defer to David's choice there. Not to put it on you
077or anything like that, but I'll I'll I'll defer to David's position there because it was a thought that I had. It was a discussion the last time and I know that there's some utility to it, but I hear what you saying. I think it's I think there's a utility there as well. So, we'll keep that the same. Um, we'll make the adjustment that Tammy called for. And any other questions about the gender identity policy 2268 before it goes for first read before the board? >> I'm hearing none. So we will move on to the next agenda. >> Julian. >> Yes sir. >> Reed Ben Franklin republic. I'm I'm I Hey, I'm I'm holding off for Republic. >> Very good. That's the pot preaching to the kettle, I think. Um absolutely. Uh so, moving on to
078the next item, we have policy 0164, uh meetings, and we're going to look over that. We're going to look over the language that we have involved here. So the reason that we brought this in is because we had some question about uh the language between this and the next item which is 0155 committees. Um Craig, do you have any initial thoughts on this because I know that this was somewhat concerning you. Go ahead. >> Bear with me for a minute here. >> W USD board is failing water towel. >> Uh oh, I'm sorry. This is for policy 164, right? Okay. Gotcha. Gotcha. Okay. >> It is like It likely comes as no surprise that this topic has been weighing on me. It's been a potential editorial in the back of my mind for weeks, if
079not months. I've hesitated as long as possible, but realistically, Watertown can wait no longer. The Water Watertown Unified School District board has placed culture war nonsense at the forefront of its entire existence and done so at the expense of the school children, taxpayers of Watertown. claims, whether made in misleading campaign materials or right in the boardroom at the Ed Services Center right across the street from the Daily Times office that current members are trying to get politis politics out of the WUSD in order to focus on the children. At best, they can be seen as trying to reframe the truth. More realistically, they are lies. The people of Watertown have been and are being lied to. As the board tries to drive away anyone who doesn't do exactly as the majority desires, take a look
080at who has voted in to replace them. Retired educators with 50-year histories in the city don't want them. Individuals with literal PhDs in the educational field, not relevant is a long time ago. Certainly those who have been selected to replace resigning members may well be fantastic people. It remains abundantly clear that they have been selected not for their credentials to the position but rather their desire or willingness at worst to go along with the what the majority wants. In multiple cases, those individuals have been recruited specifically to fill those roles. That may not be that may not quite be illegal under state opening open meetings law, but it is certainly not in the spirit of the rules. The board has little time for solving a funding crisis that it is large that is largely no
081fault of previous boards nor positioning WUSD as a selling point to a community that is competing for new residents. Instead, it is determined to set new records for disapproval from parents and staff. Serving the constituency has to be a priority rather than continuing to gauge the culture war trash or worse yet seeking a launchpad for future political aspirations for multiple board members who have made no secret of that fact. The board has a chance to do the right thing Monday selecting candidates whose interest is actually serving the community, the children and taxpayers of Watertown. Unfortunately, you and I both know that's unlikely to be the priority. Thank you for your opinion. Watertown Daily Times editor Tim Sullivan, July 25th, 2025. I read that one. >> Um, >> yeah. What are your thoughts on that, Craig?
082>> The reason, you know, the school district is a customer of a Watertown Daily Times. We spend thousands of dollars annually to um do business with them. Um and we get we get that. Um at some point one has a question whether or not they're capable of objective reporting at all and why are we subsidizing it? So, because he's got a right to his opinion. He certainly does. >> Yeah. I was going to say, I mean, I fully support and I actually most strongly support people speaking when they disagree with me. I think it's the best way to learn and move forward to hear from people who disagree with you. Um, my concern, because I do think I share some of your sentiments, but from a different angle. My concern is more so in the
083general accuracy and proficiency of the publication itself. Uh when I've read articles in the newspaper about subjects with with which I'm familiar, I've routinely seen errors um both grammatical and factual. And so if you're proposing what I think you're proposing, that would be more relevant to the point than whether or not they run an editorial uh that runs contrary to my opinion on a subject personally. So, so my recommendation to the committee would be to perhaps maybe keep some options open. Um, and any place in policy that would it would indicate that the Watertown Daily Times specifically um and on the first page it says notice shall be given without cost the Watertown Unified School District official newspaper the Watertown Daily Times to strike that. Mhm. >> I don't even know if it's um essential
084just just to strike that whole sentence. >> Can I >> if there's an if there's an opportunity for the district to explore other options moving forward um certainly uh the policy at this point would prohibit that. >> I think um I think that if anything maybe we should get some feelers out of the expense of moving to a different paper >> if it's even necessary. So question >> you just don't want it to be on the policy. So if we have to part ways with them, we have no logistics to deal with essentially. >> Are we short on money? >> You had a you had something you were saying. >> Well, I don't think it is required the that's added in there after point C on page one by paid publication and news media. But
085if you notice that it's just at least one of the following ways. Um it's my understanding we've added that we've added the the daily times to it. Um I want to say mostly because we always have. I'm looking at Lynn because I'm sure she's the one that actually sends it over to the paper, right? >> Yeah. I think we're legally required to get at least for some reason, not necessarily the agendas, but we still do all of that. So, >> but it's a question that we have to Yeah, it's a question that we have to have >> um answered later, I guess. But I don't think there's anything that obligates us to define what the um official newspaper is in policy. That's my understanding. >> Yeah. Um >> I agree. Per state statute, it just
086says it need we need to have a paper record. It doesn't say that our paper of record has to be noted like our official paper of record doesn't have to be documented >> to be published. >> So I excuse me, sir. No, no, no offense. I'm not trying to get in get in on you, but the way that uh meetings are run, there's a time for public input at the beginning. Um so hold your comments. I'd be more than happy to speak with you once the meeting is concluded though. Thanks for uh wanting to be engaged. I really appreciate it. >> Thank you. Um, >> one other one other point too is yeah, we we do happen to have a you know some financial concerns perhaps maybe um this might be an opportunity to look
087to see if there's a a way to um you know to to save some funds in the future. >> Absolutely. >> You know if if it's even necessary anymore I don't know. But if you read this policy, it says in the last sentence there, in addition, such notice shall be made public in at least one of the following ways. And there's three, right? >> So the third one is the paper. So it is not required that we announce meetings in any kind of paid publication. We can choose A or B, which I think we already do. Um B. I know we do. Mhm. >> So, we've already because we do B, we've already met the letter of the policy and the law because that's state law that requires that we given a public notice on
088the meeting. >> Gotcha. But it does not have to be in a newspaper. No. Okay. All right. Yeah. As long as we are not violating a state law by taking away that specification, I'm fine with making that amendment and striking that line in this policy. Um, Craig, if you see that language in any other policy, I'd be more than happy to uh be more than happy to see the same happen, but let me know. Uh, we can bring that forward for that adjustment. >> So, I want to make sure I'm reading that right. And and Lyn, I am looking at you because I know you're the one that's been doing this for years. She >> is the expert. >> So, open meetings for non-hore committees shall be given pursuant to statute. Such notice shall be
089given without cost to any news media that submits a written request for meeting notices and to a news medium likely to give notice in the WUSD's geographic area. And then it says in addition such notice shall be made public. So I may have to back up a little bit on my statement. >> If the Watertown Daily Time requests that we give it to them, >> then we have to. >> Yeah. >> With no cost. >> Okay. But then we that gives you the out Craig because it doesn't say we're still eliminating the statement about which news print >> uh which print media we would use. >> Yeah, I I would I would defer to whatever uh whatever legal um we have. I don't even know if it I don't know if that sentence is required
090at all. the the very sentence at the bottom of page one. >> If if we have to provide summaries, I mean it certainly certainly that particular sentences that we have to provide summaries to a paper and if the if the Watertown Daily Times so so requests a summary, they they certainly can publish it. I mean or or or any other news outlet that wants to publish our summary. we could certainly provide that to them without cost, you know. So it the the difference is when when we place something in a newspaper, we have to pay for that. >> Well, don't we pay for the summaries? We pay Yeah, we pay for the summaries. This is only about the notice for the meetings. >> This doesn't have anything to do about the meetings. No, >> we
091pay for placing those notices in the paper. >> Oh, yeah. >> The notices. >> This said they're supposed to be without cost. >> Yeah. But it's >> No, no, it's the other way around. When when the news outlet requests information from the district for for providing um that those notices, we're not going to charge the paper for those notices. >> Wow. That's a >> Yeah, >> that's kind of silly. That's kind of a a silly language. Um, yeah, I'm I'm with you on that. What What's your thoughts, Carl? >> Why are we getting upset about this? The guy's The guy Let him write what he wants to write. >> Well, I don't think it's So, my perspective, Carl, is I don't think that that's super relevant to me, at least. I like hearing from people
092who disagree with me. It's one of my favorite things. >> Exactly. But so what we're thinking is we shouldn't be specifying what newspaper we're working with because it shrinks our options and specifically we shouldn't attach ourselves to specifically giving money to any one newspaper. Again, my perspective with the newspaper, if there were a reason that we should not continue to pay them to post those notices, is because of the factual and grammatical errors that I see occur quite frequently in them from my personal experience. >> I have nothing wrong with that either. That's your opinion. >> Well, that's my opinion. >> That's right. >> So, so I hear where you're coming from, Carl. Um, what do the other members of the committee think about striking this last line? >> Interesting you brought that up. I
093I left that a long time ago and when I read that, um, so that doesn't bother me. It's an editorial. You're going to get those in almost any paper >> and they're close to the situation being right here and they hear a lot of things. What? And I think your point is well taken, Sam. If you see errors in there, especially factual errors about things that they're putting in there as fact, then that's a real problem. >> I'd rather not pay them to post things if I know that there is a real chance that they may post something incorrect. It's one thing they can post whatever they want. They can publish whatever they want, but I do care greatly about the accuracy of what's being published. So, >> I'm not but I just want to
094clarify. I do not disagree with you. >> Yeah. >> No. Um, so I have no problem if the other members of the committee are okay with it striking that last line. It doesn't mean that the Daily Times doesn't publish things. It simply means, my understanding is that we're not going to specifically pay them to publish things. We may pay uh any given newspaper to publish notices if we so choose. Right. That's where we're at. >> What are our options? >> We can look around. We can keep we can keep on agree it sounds like we we may have an agreement with them. Mhm. >> But that agreement um may change if you if the um language in the policy changes. >> Yeah. >> What kind of agreement? >> Probably a contractual agreement of like a
095certain amount of money would be my guess. Like a certain amount. >> I don't expect them to have done any of that. >> We we don't know. Nobody knows here. >> Hey, maybe that's something you could bring up at fiscal soon if you want to look into it if we have that information. You know, if we can get that information. All right. >> So, if you'd like to if you'd like to connect with the fiscal chair, you can do that. >> Um or I'm sorry, you're the fiscal chair with the fiscal administrator. Um >> Yeah. Okay. So, strike the last line, right? >> First page. >> On the first page. Yeah. >> I just wonder if it would behoove us to connect with legal counsel andor uh review and contracts before we make this decision.
096That That's my own question. >> Very good. >> Yeah. to the point. >> Yeah, absolutely. Let's uh let's tenatively strike the line, connect with legal counsel, make sure everything's going okay, and then we'll potentially bring that change before the board next week. If we can get that information. If you don't hear back in time and you don't get a firm answer in time, we can push it back to next month happily. Um, okay. Any further questions about policy meetings? Nope. >> Okay, then we'll move on to the next one. 0155 committees. This comes out of a previous discussion we were having about the language at the very bottom, the last two sentences or the last three sentences of this policy. It's currently states subject to any more specific directive of the board, the superintendent shall
097either personally serve as or designate another staff member to serve as an administrative liaison to each standing committee. Such liaison shall normally attend the committee's meetings. So this comes out of a discussion where Jared said, "Hey, I would like you guys to include me." Like I said, it's easy for me because he is the liaison. So he's by default included uh in all communications about my committee meetings. But as the policy is written currently, when you take this in tandem with an earlier statement in the policy about the uh the creation of the agenda, it does not currently require administrators to get the go-ahad or communicate with Jared before that agenda is put together. It's a courtesy, but if it doesn't happen, there's nothing keeping people from doing it. So we were discussing if the
098board would like to see every single message about every committee meeting looping Jared in we can make that adjustment here and specify that all communication should etc etc. We can move that forward to the board. Is that something that you two David and Tammy would be interested in adjusting and ensuring that Jared is looped into every communication about all committee meetings. that would be sending him things from our meeting or >> uh every time so let's say you're let's say you were the head of ED services for sake of discussion and you wanted uh Jenny Boris who is the administrator liaison to add something to the agenda. The way that it works currently according to policy is that you would say in an email, "Hey Jenny, can you add item A to policy? I would
099like to see or to to ED services I'd like to see this discussed." According to this current policy, she would then add it in. Currently, how it's being practiced is you say, "Can you add item A to add services? I would like to see it discussed." She goes and asks Jared if she can or for, you know, for confirmation. Jared says, "Yes, do it." Then she adds it on. So it adds an extra layer of uh red tape and time to a situation. So the two proposals are we either include Jared on all emails about every committee or we specify no this is what policy says and you don't have an obligation and the administrative liaison who works on that committee does not need to go and get approval before it's put on the agenda
100and other things of that nature. Does that make sense? >> Okay. Yeah. It's a little bit different than what I thought. >> Yeah, it's it's it's it's kind of nuance >> in the onboarding for example. >> Yeah. >> Um Jared said, "Please let me know first before you go somewhere else with things you want to have done." So in other words, he wanted to know what's coming. This actually takes him out of this out of that. >> The way it's currently written, he's not But so and what he asked for at the other meeting was, "Hey, if you guys could include me, that would be nice." And so what I'm saying is I don't have a problem with including Jared, but the way that policy is currently written, there's no requirement to include him. And
101I said we should look at that and we should make it affirm. Either people do have to include you or they don't have to include you to clarify for the administrative liaison whether to clarify that for the administrative leaison whether Jared has to give his uh go-ahad before something is added to an agenda. >> I don't know that he has to give his go-ahad. He just wants to know. >> Yeah. Um, >> so you would like to keep it as is then? >> Uh, if I was superintendent, I'd want to know. >> Yeah. >> So, not that he has not that he's saying, "Well, you can't do this or you can do this." >> Mhm. >> He's just saying, "I want to know." >> Okay. Gotcha. Gotcha. So, then what we'll move forward with is
102we'll move forward with and I'll bring this up when we're discussing it uh when this comes forward. We're not going to make any changes. We're going to say that stands as is, but the clarification is people should loop in Jared to the best of their ability, but administrative liaison such as Jenny or Sarah or the rest should understand that they do not have to wait to get the go-ahad before adding it to the agenda that Jared should simply be pulled into the loop. So the process would be person A asks person B to add the item to the agenda. Person B adds the item and lets Jared know if Jared was not included on the email initially. >> That's perfect. >> Okay. and I will watch the video after it gets uploaded and I'll uh
103I'll keep track of that. I'll keep track of what I just said. Um because I don't think you really need to put that down for like an official action item. Go ahead. >> I just found it interesting that the paragraph before is even more definitive. The committee chairperson shall be the presiding officer for committee meetings and collaborate with the administration lead which next in the next paragraph is defined as a leazison for the committee in setting committee meeting agendas and in meeting reporting to the board on committee meeting proceedings. And I think that's the paragraph that you took as definitive for you as a chair right can say okay I'm just doing what this thing says. I think that paragraph is even more definitive. >> Very very clear. So, we would kind of have to
104adjust that if that were the will. But, it seems like David's kind of leaning in the direction of, hey, let's just like include Jared as a courtesy. But, we should be clear that the liaison does not need to get that go-ahhead before they add the item. Always, it's always good to include Jared. If Jared is like, oh, hey, what about this? He can always uh come on in and he can say, "Hey, I've got a consideration about whether or not that fits, whether or not we're overloaded." Um, which hopefully won't happen too much anymore now that we're done with Neiola, but you know, it's always a consideration to hold. Um, so yeah, that sounds good to me. Any other thoughts, guys? Okay. So, I don't think there's really an action item there. It was just
105a point for discussion to see if there was an appetite to change that up. >> All righty. Moving on to item E. Nola policy singles. Does anyone have any comments, questions, or concerns about any of these policies? I personally do not have any concerns or >> I do have one question. We have student groups 5840. It is the policy of the board that student groups be recognized as authorized school organizations only if they are approved by the superintendent sponsored by school approved personnel composed members of the student of the composed of members of the current student body or the majority of their meetings at the school at school and have established aims which are educational in nature. Membership in an organization or operation of any high school, fraternity, sorority, or any other secret society as
106described by law is prohibited throughout the WUSD. In particular, the board will not tolerate any type of gang or gang related activity. So, that all looks good to me. My question is, what is the school approved personnel that can sponsor a student group? Because this would maybe I'm wrong, but this would include clubs or would clubs be a separate item? Do you >> I don't have any input there. >> Yeah. >> Are there clubs that would be not associated necessarily with the school? >> Yes. >> But be using >> Yes. that use the facility like >> facilities. We have a separate policy for that. >> There is a separate policy for that. No. No. is we have like a school approved clubs and like I'm not using the right word. It's not approved and nonapproved
107but it's like one that is uh education centric but you can have other clubs in the buildings like you could have a Bible study after school that can be held on the school property but it is not a school funded club that none of the uh school funding goes towards providing anything for that club. They can just hold it in that building. >> That's already going. >> Yeah. Yeah, that's a separate policy. I think that's already taken care of and doing pretty well. >> Yeah. Go ahead, Craig. >> So, the way that I take that to mean is that uh sponsored by a by a school approved personnel that allows for the um the district to do a background check. You know, like if you're putting a pay parent in charge of coaching or something
108like that, you're going to be able to make sure that that individual is approved to carry on that activity that group >> definitely >> a process for that. >> Yeah. So, I think that this kind of works hand inand it's a clarifier about as it says policy 2430 at the end of the first paragraph. um we can uh we can check in and see if there's more of a specifier there because I would imagine that um you can't just have a member of the community say, "Hey, I'm going to sponsor a club, right?" >> You can there's currently a policy in there that if it's a we have like approved and it's not approved, but it's like >> um education focused and non-education focused for after school. And um then there's a third option where
109like let's say Dave has experience or expertise in controls engineering. He can go to Jared and say, "I'd like to sponsor a PLC club after school." And Dave would be the monitor of the club and be the instructor teaching how to program that PLC, but he has to go to Jared and submit um like the intention of the club and what the outcome of the club's going to be and then the super would approve that based on the documents handed in. Right. >> Sure. Sure. They just have to have a background check of some sort by the district. >> I I would assume Yeah. I would assume Jared would be like, "Ah, looks like you know how to PLC. Come on board." >> Sure. Sure. Okay, that answers my question. Any other questions on any
110of these uh policies? Yes. If I'm hearing none, we can move on over to the last item on our agenda for tonight uh in the policy discussion section at least. uh neolys policies 8,000 automated external defibrillators direct contact communicable diseases and control of bloodborne pathogens. Any thoughts there? I'm hearing none. So we can move those forward for uh I believe this is for first read. Um same thing with those neolo policy singles. All right. Uh we don't have any new or major revisions in the policy section. And let's look at future planning discussion. Does anyone have besides our action items, does anyone have any other items that they would like to see next month at policy? >> I currently do not. >> I do not either. Uh but as always, anyone on the board, you
111have something that you think is worth talking about or would be in the interest of bettering the district for student education, please email me and Jared um out of courtesy and uh I'll be h well in that case because he's the liaison as well and I'll be happy to uh get that on the agenda as quick as possible. All right, we are looking at our action items. We're going to look at the past ones first and I'm just going to see about this. So, the first bullet point on here, Jared is still working through um getting some data so that we can bring it forward. We'll get there when we get there. Once Burke gets back. Um that's the second one is the same. Uh library media centers being pulled out to have more discussion.
112Um I don't remember where we were going with that. Do you know where we left that off? Because >> I'm not quite sure. I thought we were gonna create a subcommittee. >> Yeah. >> But I don't know that we have yet. Yeah, let's uh let's hold off on that until Jared gets back in case he's got uh some more information for us there. And uh the last bullet point about Jenny Boris and the draft course guide template is moving along. So, we've got that going. All right. So, our current action items, tell me what you got, Lyn, and I'll let you know if I hear anything. >> All right. So, I have uh Jared, Jason, and Jenny are going to work together to create the draft administrative guidelines to uh the uh 2240 policy, and
113they're going to bring those back at the October policy committee meeting. Um they're supposed to make sure to cover specifics on what to in uh on when to inform parents. Um was it two did you say two and four weeks prior to the lesson and the informed informed by module? And then how to inform parents. Take uh the contents from the revised documents and consolidate with F edits. Add updated document policy 2240 for 20 uh for the document that you um made the updates to. You'll send that to me. >> Yeah. And then um we're going to update version uh verbiage in letter B under official records by changing the word um may to will not in the uh gender uh policy. Uh we're going to strike the sentence in the 061 0164 meetings. We're
114going to strike the sentence that refers to the WUSD's official newspaper. Um we're also going to connect with um legal counsel to make sure of the legalities of removing that line and we're going to check contract. Uh and then singles can go to first street andola 8000s can go to first street on Monday. >> Yep, that sounds good to me. Uh anyone have any thoughts there? Last chance for action items before we close up shop. All right. Well, that being said, we have nothing left. Our next meeting is going to be on October 15th, 2025, unless something changes. Um, and we're meeting tomorrow for fiscal, those of us who will go. So, thank you for coming tonight, guys. We're adjourning the meeting at 7:03 according to my clock. >> Good job.