001late. Um so to get started, I want to remind my colleagues, present, not present, that um this big group of policies that we usually have are in response to typically the large legislative agenda that happens at the state level. And so as long as there's over 200 potential laws, um at the state level, there will always be multiple policies that have to be done right before the school year begins. That said, if any individual board member has a policy, whether shown here or otherwise, that they would like to edit, change, or have questions about, you can do that at any time. And you are always welcome to, of course, propose your own individual policies. And again, that's at any time. So, with that said, I'm going to turn it over to Dr. David Severe. >>
002Uh, thank you, Chair. >> Oh, I'm so sorry. I will not take turn it over back to you. I do need to pull so for our knowledge just to make sure I need to pull policies 1.6 1.601 602 603 604 605 606 and I apologize for that interruption. >> Those are all related to uh >> all the charter school charter schools if nothing else that'll help. >> We'll just we'll just bounce over those when we get to that point. >> Thank you. >> Uh probably the first one I've dealt with is probably the easiest one I've ever dealt with in my life. uh the state eliminated the word fax from how a person can request records or uh how a district is required to allow someone to request and some districts don't have fax machines
003and that's fine. Uh we just changed that language as you can see to electronic means. So, uh, it could be a fax, but it can also be an email. It could be a standalone portal. It could be anything and, uh, that we could foresee in the future that a person could use to request records. Uh, so open a records request. So, trying to think ahead and be out in front of it instead of just trying to enumerate every way we could think of, we just said electronic uh, transmission. So, that that's what it is and that's what it does. You can try. Okay. Thank you. Do we have any discussion or any questions about policy 1.407? Okay. May I have a motion for approval? >> To approve. >> Thank you. It's been moved and seconded.
004All those in favor, please raise your hand. All right. That is anonymous. That's everybody. >> Thank you. Uh with the chair's permission, I'd like to take the next three as a as a block, as a chunk, just because they are all uh related to one another. And essentially public chapter uh 495 and public chapter 458 went into effect this year which in effect eliminate um uh the opportunity to uh use various demographic characteristics in awarding uh jobs or but nothing that anyone was doing but it just specifically says you can't do that. Also uh public chapter 458 known as the dismantling DEI departments act says that we cannot have specific policies related to diversity equity and uh in in board policy. So essentially what this does as you can see through the first one I
005was just scrolled through it eliminates that same for policy 2.101 101 diversity business enterprise and I'll scroll down to the personnel goals. It specifically eliminates the opportunity which was a requirement as you see there by the footnote there on line seven. Uh we were required to set goals for educator diversity that that has been removed. So these are all um of a single part. >> Any questions or discussion? member Tyler. >> Um, yeah, as the author of the education equity policy, I find this particular directive the opposite of what should be intended for our school system and our society as a whole. Um, I cannot, despite the requirement to remove this, I cannot vote to do that. >> Anything else? May I have a motion for approval? Motion to approve policies 7.1 and 2.1 and
0065.1. Is that correct? >> 1.7. >> Oh, 1.7 001 >> 2.101 101 510 1 0 0. >> Thank you. It's been moved. Do I have a second? >> I'll second. >> It's been seconded. Thank you. All those in favor, please raise your hand. We did open it for discussion. Do we have more discussion that was not provided? Let's say Robert, you're gonna have to bring your mic in. Sorry. Thank you. >> I thought we did discussion after the motion was made. I'm sorry. >> Sorry, I was doing it beforehand. We can have discussion if you would like to. >> We can have more discussion. >> Well, I did want to just hear what uh board member Tyler um wanted to say about this. I I mean I I feel like I'm not I'm not going
007to get into the weeds of it, but I I was the chair of the education equity committee that created that and I we had input from across the district. It included students, parents, teachers. It included um groups throughout Nashville and as a community they stood up and said this is what we think is best for the students in this school system. This is what we need to have parity among all of our um systems and this is what we need to ensure that we every student is known and that we are meeting their needs appropriately and so I cannot vote to basically remove all of that. I refuse to vote for that member. I just want to uh thank board member Tyler for her leadership on this in the beginning and and express I think
008what is the feeling of this entire board which is that if not for state law we would not be taking this action. >> Okay. I did want to thank her as well and uh and just echo your statement that um here we are again in another situation where um our state legislature um even though they want to be home rule will not allow us as a city to do that for ourselves. And uh and so just know that uh as we vote for these things is to comply with state law um which is a challenge for us. >> Ditto. >> Okay. Thank you so much. >> Oh shame here. Okay. >> Ditto. >> Thank you uh board member Tyler for leading the charge on this. Um, and I'm sorry we're in a position today. Member
009Fang, >> also thank you board member Tyler for speaking out and expressing your concern. Um, I think we all echo your sentiments exactly, but coming from someone who put this all into action and did the work, um, salute to you. Um it's very discouraging um to have to vote on this, but I do understand, you know, what we're doing for the greater good of the community and the kids in in our board positions, if that makes sense. Um but I do echo the sentiments of board member Tyler as well as uh board member Taylor. Thank you. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Right. See, no further discussion. All those in favor of the passage, it's been first and seconded, please raise your hand. All those non in favor. All right. That gets us to policy 2.403.
010>> Sure. Let me scroll down past all these others which dealt with at a different time. Thank you for that early clarification. See, there's a lot there. And this next one is quite straightforward as well. Essentially, the uh federal guidance has changed regarding items purchased with federal dollars. It used to be the threshold for disposing of something that was purchased with federal dollars was $5,000. That has now been raised to $10,000. Additionally, there was some language about uh uh communicating surplus items. We're in a relatively unique position because we don't do that ourselves. We actually surplus through the surplusing office of of Metro Nashville. So, they they sort of manage that and essentially this says that they will continue to manage that in a way that's lawful and and meets the meets the express purpose
011of the legislation. >> Okay. Do we have any questions or concerns? Right. Seeing none, do I have a motion for approval for 2.403? >> So move. >> May I have a second? >> Second. >> Thank you. It's been first and seconded. All those in favor of passing policy 2.403, please raise your hand. >> All right, that is unanimous. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. Um 3.202 202 really just makes a clarification and I think in the old statute uh regarding fire drills, it was uh ambiguous about how many fire drills would be held and I think some people were were actually adding a lot of fire drills that maybe they didn't need to and I think some people were trying trying to maybe bank fire drills in different districts. We're not aware of anything
012like that here. you know, that school principles are required to hold fire drills uh on a periodic basis and they were uh either not doing it correct or were unclear on how to what that timeline was, but this clears it up that you can't have more than two during the first month of school. >> I would like to make sure in our comments and questions that we're not saying it was MNS employees that were doing that. It was just >> This is statewide. We don't I don't know where it was, but we know it wasn't here. >> Wasn't us. All right. Any questions or concerns? >> All right. May I have a motion for passage? >> Thank you. Do I have a second? >> It's been first and seconded. All those in favor of passing
013policy 3.202, please raise your hand. Thank you so much. That's unanimous. So, we'll move on to 4.10. You're right. >> Yep. >> 3 3.204. >> Yes, I've messed up. I apologize. Yes. 3.204. I skipped on it. >> Uh reporting requirements around uh disruptive behaviors. Uh if some if something is deemed significantly dra uh pardon me, significantly disruptive. So that their reporting requirements to parents. Uh these are uh we're still waiting on some firm guidance around what those requirements actually look like. And there's also a new reporting requirement to this board, a quarterly um report that would will come and again we're still waiting on some guidance around what what that would actually look like, but rest assured we're on top of it. uh the kind of the cataloges those numbers and what those numbers are
014and and how that might have impacted learning. >> All right, any discussion? >> Seeing none, may I have a movement for approval of 3.204? >> So moved. >> May I have a second? Second. >> Thank you. It's been first and seconded. All those in favor of passing policy 3.204, please raise your hand. All right. All those not in favor, please raise your hand. All those in abstension. >> Thank you. >> I was trying to telepathically be like, "All right, >> thank you." They get us to policy 4.10 instructional. I >> think we're at uh 3.206. Chair >> 206. All right. Then my list is in the wrong order. I apologize. uh community use of school facilities. So, this just clarifies that if a community member seeks to you, and this has been on our procedures
015for years, we're just elevating it to a policy that if someone who is not MMPS uh staff or or related wants to use our facilities, we we open our doors to them happily, but they have to meet the requirements of making certain that they have applied, that they've got the right paperwork. Uh this is also uh at the exact same time we're rolling out a new uh just for your information new uh facility use process that principles have received information and training on and seem to be ready to go uh that will help streamline that process and make that easier for everyone. >> Thank you. What questions or concerns do we have? >> Member O'Hara look. >> Um I just if there's anything you can add um Dr. Severe or anyone on the the process
016for I this is one of those things that I do hear about occasionally. It's just you know trying to make sure that our facilities feel open to families, community members, uh school support organizations and I would love to be able to tell folks a little bit more about how the process has changed or if there's some communication that could be sent that I could share with anyone. >> I know that principles will have that information and we'll be able to pass it along at some >> Yes. Yes. >> Yeah. and Casey's here as well. I also say that uh you know I would say in response the that absolutely you're exactly right and the more lead time we have for an organization that wants to use the better we can be prepared. That doesn't mean
017we can't do it on a dime. We just prefer to do it uh a little more thoughtfully. >> Um so uh the process is now completely online and digital. Um before we relying on schools to input that information for the users. Now the users can actually interface with the system and request the uses themselves. >> Uh there's also a district calendar that's published. So uh school events if they're being diligent in getting those things on the calendar, which I think I said put your events on the calendar about 10 times in training yesterday. Um that um they will be blacked out. So the schools will see that calendar with the blacked out dates and therefore no available dates. Um and then the routing will automatically once the user puts something in it'll automatically go to
018the school bookkeeper. They'll be able to see okay confirm my calendar is up to date. You are welcome to use our facility and then it will also route to the principal for approval automatically. Um that is part of the board policy that the principal has to approve every use of their facility. Um, and then it'll automatically route through the process. So, um, one of the things that I think the user will really like is that they can see where their request is in the process as well. So, they know, hey, it's sitting with the principal. Oh, the principal's at PLN today. No wonder they haven't looked at it. You know, we we will have visibility into the system both on the user side um, as well as the facilities use side. And that calendar is
019really going to be invaluable for community members to know what is available um and what is not available. >> Thank you. I know you all have heard from me on a couple of occasions with with uh folks in my area who um will love to know that there are some new step or new ways to have visibility into the process. And so anything y'all are able to share would be great. But thank you very much. >> Thank you Casey. That was very helpful. >> I say thank you for that update. That's really helpful. Okay. Any other questions? All right. May I have a motion for approval to pass 3.206? >> Second. >> All right. So, it's been first and seconded. All those in favor of passage, please raise your hand. That's unanimous. So, we will
020move on to the next one, which is 4.1. Yes, ma'am. >> Yeah. Uh so we do our absolute best to make sure that our policies are as simple to navigate as possible. To that end, uh public chapter 293 requires us to add the definition of anti- anti-semitism into our anti-discrimination policy. uh happy to do so but rather than try to place it into all the places it could be it was it's been decided that we would place it in one policy and then reference that policy by footnote uh in in others. So you because invariably what happens down the road it gets changed in one place and not in the other two three 12 where it might exist. So once you place it once and you still reference back to that, it's still exactly what
021it should be and a lot more evergreen. So that's what it does and it lives in 4.10 uh 5.5 are discrimination harassment of employees and 6.304 which is student discrimination harassment. So >> do we have any questions about 4.10, 5.5, and 6.3? Seeing no questions, can I question? >> Sorry, Dr. I'm sorry. >> Yes. On this particular policy, um I appreciate the addition of uh the anti-semitism discrimination policy clause that's in it. But there is there anything added for Islamophobia which are some of the things that are also being faced by students as well and people within our community? >> I'm not aware specific about Yeah. >> Yeah. I'm not aware that public chapter 293 addressed that. >> It did not. >> Um so can we pull this roll this one back until we look
022into this real quick before we vote on it? Is that a possibility to dig into it further? I think we we are doing this I want to make sure we're clear not as a MNS directive or it is based upon public chapter state law. >> Are you asking can we add our own language? >> No. Yes. Can we add our own language in addition to what the state policy says to make sure that we're covering all groups? So >> technically yes >> would uh I mean yes is is the is the sort of technical answer to your question. I would say that not specifically all cultures generation uh generations races people are sort of addressed there in the section is highlighted. But there's really nothing that keeps us from adding a paragraph below that that
023wouldn't be compelled by state law that could be Sure. >> And I'd be happy to work with you directly on that, >> you know. >> Okay. >> Yes. Sorry. >> Is it possible that we can vote on this tonight and then still make the changes that she's discussing at our next governor's meeting? >> Uh, that is possible. we can vote to approve it as is as we see in front of us and then Dr. Obama McKenna can then take it upon herself before our next meeting which is actually going to be at 4:00 no 4:30 excuse me at the next meeting that we're about to have first meeting in August and then she could provide to us then because we're already going to have a governance meeting what changes she would like at that time
024>> or we just defer >> or we could defer it. Um the easiest thing would probably be to pass and do edit >> but it's what's convenient. I think the frankly the the easiest thing to do would be just to roll it to when we have our next meeting in uh on August 12th I believe and we can just bring it as part of the package that we're going to bring with those other policies. Okay. >> And and just add that in. I I don't think we'll be in any sort of um we're making good faith effort to get it right. It's not like we're openly defying the law >> and we have that meeting um announced. We have said when that meeting is going to be it's not deferred and perpet you know forever.
025Do we have a deadline >> by state law to make sure that this is implemented? >> Yeah, I believe the the the bill became law July one. So, it said shall pass. Now, you know, we've got some we've always had some latitude in that because we don't meet in the first week of July. you know this meeting this sort of policy >> bonanza >> policy palooa yeah has occurred as late as the end of August first meeting in September in some years in my eight and a half years here so uh and has occurred as early as right after the 1st of July. So, uh, >> so at the at the privy of the board, um, I'm okay with either. We can vote on it now and then come back and modify or we can
026roll it, whichever one we we deem is necessary. I'm okay with the initial language. I just want to make sure that we encompass um the additional language in there. >> Uh, well, >> yeah, I was I could just pull it and I will just do such >> so we can refer to those when we do the charter. challenging for for our office to do it to pass it now and then repass it. It's no more challenging to pull it and and edit it and bring it back in a couple weeks. >> That's what we will do. We'll just pull it and then edit it and bring it back at the next meeting along with the charter ones. >> All right. Let me make sure I have that all noted correctly. >> Does that need to
027be voted on? >> No. I've And I've made no chair. Oh, just just for the record, I want you to see that how how it resides in the other in the other two policies there that we just reference it by by other policy just >> so it's 4.10 550 and 6.304. >> That's exactly right. >> Okay, we will add those. Thank you for everyone sticking with us on that. All right, that gets us to 4.2092 virtual education program. >> So, the state legislature uh has uh now allows uh students Oh, I'm sorry, wrong policy. My uh I apologize. Got ahead of myself. Got a policy ahead of myself. that um it it allows uh continuity of educational services uh through through virtual means uh when when it's uh or hybrid when it's deemed uh too
028dangerous or the weather is too extreme uh as determined the way we do it now by the director of schools and remember at one time that after postcoid that was not allowed and now it uh it is allowed. So this is a good bill. >> Any questions about 4.209? 2092. All right. Seeing no questions or concerns, may I have a motion to approve 4.2092. >> So move. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. It's been first and seconded. All those in favor of approving it, please raise your hand. Thank you. That is anonymous. That's not It's unanimous. >> Excuse me. >> Not anonymous. The actual very opposite of anonymous. We like to do everything up front. Thank you. My apologies. All right, that gets us to policy 4301. >> This is the one I
029started talking about a moment ago. Um, uh, so this policy looks a lot more complex in other districts because not every district's middle schools are members of TMSAA. So, but we are. So, their guidelines are the same as the state law. So essentially if a student is enrolled in virtual school they are allowed to play uh for the team for the athletic team that they >> where they would have been zoned if they were in on the ground school. So for instance in Miss Player's district if a student lived down the road here and was enrolled in the virtual school they could play at Glen Cliff High School. they could not roll over and play for uh Miss Tyler's loss in lightning, but they, you know, so there are some guard rails around it and
030it, you know, it keeps uh as long as they have a bonafideed address and that's where they're living, then that's where they are allowed to participate. >> All right. Any questions? It looks like member Feain. I guess my question is because we do provide like school choice. Why do they only is that a TMSA rule where they have to play where Okay. And not a MNS. >> It's not ours. It's okay. >> That's their guidelines, >> right? Okay. I was like I think we needed Well, I needed clarification on that cuz I was like if we provide school choice then why does it matter where they play? Um but I guess like you said we have to follow those TMSA guidelines. Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. Please proceed. Any other questions or concerns? All right.
031May I have a motion to approve policy 4301? So move. >> I have a second. >> Second. >> Thank you. It's been first and seconded. All those in favor of passing 4.301, please raise your hand. >> All those not in favor. And all those in abstension. It's one. We have one. One. Oh, one extension. >> You were in favor is how I have even worked. Okay. Thank you. All right. That gets us to four or 4.403. >> Uh thank you chair. This is a very minor change that simply clarifies that a material uh materials that that may be removed from libraries for various other purposes. Uh a materials that are uh removed solely for being religious cannot be removed based solely on that on that one ground. Okay. >> All right. Any questions about this
032with library materials? Seeing none. Oh, we do have questions. >> Yes, it is a state policy. >> So moved. >> I say we have a motion for approval. Do we have a second? It's been first and seconded. All those in favor of passing policy 4.403, please raise your hand. Thank you. That is everyone. I appreciate it. Let's get to 4.406. So the this is a in response to a federal act, the teen social media act, which you may have heard about in in the news around uh limiting use of the internet uh in in schools. So it it it it does a couple of things. One, it we we uh make clear uh how we grant access to students technology to support their instruction. And we have some language there that this just upstates that
033it really uh but the real change really is uh on the next page social networking where students will not be allowed to access social media platform using our uh internet that is provided except when it's expressly required for uh instructional purposes by the teacher. So it filters it. In other words, >> please remember this is not a new practice for us. >> Correct. >> It is just new legal language. Any questions or concerns? Seeing none, may I have a motion? >> So moved. >> Do I have a second? >> First and seconded. All those in favor of passing 4.406, please raise your hand. That's everybody. Thank you so much. That moves us to 4.601. >> So, uh, this policy essentially requires that, um, really a couple of things. One, that we have a a way
034that students can access information online, which we do currently through the parent portal. how it's codified uh in state law and that uh along with a student's progress report, report card, other things, any applicable scores from reading screeners uh including dyslexia screeners would also be included in that. So, uh it would either come uh along with or it would be embedded within. We don't typically embed it within here, but uh that is that's fine. We we've handled it a different way. some every district has that option to to get that information to the parents how they see best fit. But essentially um it's that we if we give them a screener, if we give them an administrative administer them a test that we'll let the parents know how they did. >> Oh, wait. Member O'Hara
035Block. Thank you. >> Um I just I have a couple questions I think are things that are probably in procedure. Mhm. >> Um, so, uh, I have said a number of times here how much I love the parent portal. Um, I actually sent out a message to several of the board members being like, "Yay, the TCAP scores are on the portal." Um, so, um, yes, and then proceeded to look at all of it with my children yesterday. So, um, anyone can ask to verify. Um, one of the things though that um I've had raised for me recently um and I know to be true is that that that the communication from the report card perspective um can be inconsistent. Sometimes parents are getting it via email. Sometimes parents are getting a printed copy. Sometimes parents
036know to go to the portal. Sometimes they don't. I I'm wondering whether or not in it would make sense either in here or in a procedure to make it clear that like we got an email from the district yesterday as parents. I think it was yesterday. All of the teacup scores are now available online. Go here, there, and the other place to go see this information. Um I we talk about providing this and providing it in writing. We're not clear about exactly how and when and who sends that communication. Does that occur in the procedure associated with this or should we add language in here that specifies that there is a printed copy sent home, an emailed copy with information, etc. I'm I'm not sure what the right way is to to sort of help
037to enforce that consistency, but I know that that can be an issue. Well, I think you're exactly right that that it does need to be consistent and I think you're exactly right that it that feels very procedural. Uh and so if if he's available, Dr. Williams, could you speak to that? [Music] Thank you for the question. We absolutely want to have consistency. Uh, so let me let me just clarify if this helps. Our progress reports and our report cards, they're always going to be issued in writing. Uh, the exception is high school at the very end of the year. Those are mailed uh to our high school families. So they're still printed. They're just not sent home by the school. Um, we do have those published on our district calendar. Every four and a half
038weeks. So at nine weeks, you'll have your report card and then the halfway point you'll have your prior report. But in all cases, they're always prevent uh printed and provided by the school. For the purposes of this uh policy in front of us, um the Tennessee Literacy Success Success Act has all already required us to send home our universal screening scores for K3. Uh so this extends it to K8. Those will also be printed um as required by law to go home. Um this just ensures that that will be also provided K8 along with the report card or the prior report depending on the timing uh you know which is next. So for example when we finish our uh screening in the end of August the next available printed report card or progress report will
039be a a progress report. >> Okay. Yeah. And I I think I'm mixing up a couple things in my head. So thank you for clarifying. So I am very used to getting printed report cards and printed progress reports. Perhaps it's the that we don't necessarily get the get printed copies of test scores in the same way the state test scores or the district scores, >> but this is going to add a portion of that. I guess I would just maybe submit for consideration whether or not we do it for benchmarks and TECAP as well, >> right? because currently TCAP scores would be sent directly to the families by the state department. So that happens and we pull that data into our student portal. >> Okay. >> Uh benchmark assessments, the predictive scores are available in
040the student portal. Generally those are not printed and sent home. >> Okay. >> Um the fastbridge screener though again that is printed and sent home currently has been the last three years for K3 families and the the bill and then this policy adjustment requires that for K8 as well. Okay, great. That that's all helpful too so that I can clarify that with a few of the folks who have asked me about this specifically. Sure. And then how we're going to implement this particular thing. So let me just repeat back. Sure. So progress reports and report cards both printed and sent home. >> Um universal screener data for K through three but is now moving to K through 8 printed and sent home. >> TECAP results come via mail from the state. Benchmark results are available
041in the parent portal but are not printed and sent home. All of the things that I just named are also all available in the parent portal portal at all times. >> That's right. >> Okay. Fantastic. Thank you. >> Yes. Great summary. >> All right. Member Tailor, >> since we got you, Brother Williams, I want to ask a couple questions about this. Um the um have we spoken with parents about the format of this information being provided on report cards? I know we uh met with some parents uh to talk about how it would show up in parent portal, but how it shows up on the actual uh paper report card. Um have we gotten their input to say, you know, this is what would be most useful to me as a parent uh versus it
042just being information that we're printing and nobody's looking at it. >> So, we haven't we haven't had time honestly to take that step. I will I do want to clarify that the report card as it has stands now is not changing. um due to the law. The law says on or with um so the report card will essentially remain as is. Um, this compels us, it requires us to send along with that the scores on the universal screener, which for us is the FastBridge family report. That is a stock report that's available in the FastBridge PLA platform on an individual student basis. And that includes all of the screening measures for say reading, which in the second grade would be a reading, CBM reading, auto reading, and then math, the math measures as well. So
043a family would receive all of those measures and also some language that explains what the measures represent and how the student performed on each with respect to the national percentile level. So just for clarity the screeners will be included with the report card though even though it won't be printed on the report card directly. >> Correct. It will be sent over at the same time. So you'll have your report code card and then you'll have what we what's called the fast family report. It's two separate documents, but they will be issued at the same time together. >> Okay, thank you. >> Does that help? Okay, good questions. Any further questions? Seeing none, >> may I have a motion for approval? >> All right. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Oh, thank you. All
044right. All right. So, it's been first and seconded. All those in favor of voting for policy 4.601, please raise your hand and approval. That is everyone. Thank you so much. That moves us on to it is written on our governance agenda, which is um part of the reason I am looking back and forth so much as 5.119 employment of retirees policy. But we have it in our packet as 5.204. >> Yeah, that 204 is correct. My apologies. >> Okay. >> I used a different numbering system for that. >> So, it is 5.24. >> It's 204. That's correct. So, so the Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System has had a rule uh for as long as anyone can remember that if you are retired and then you are brought back to uh to be a part-time employee, 100
045day contract or 120day contract that there had to be a 60-day separation between your last date of full-time employment and the beginning of your new contract. This was ignored, sort of looked over, not enforced to the point that, you know, nobody even really knew it existed because it was never discussed. uh if and uh in this past legislative session, the TCRS asked that this actually become a law uh so that they could uh have some more teeth in it so they they could take those measures and have a bonafideed separation. If somebody ends employment on June 30, they would have to not be employed the month of June and uh what's the next month? August. and then come back at the beginning of the next month after 660 calendar days. Did I get is that
046close enough? >> Well, the original law the way that >> the original law >> Thank you for coming to the mic. >> Thank you. >> Right. Um to David's point, for as long as any of us can remember, the uh provisions for reemployment for a Tennessee consolidated retirement system retiree were that there was a 60-day window. There was also provision for a director of schools or a state appointing authority to wave that 60 days if there was reason to do so. Hard to fill jobs in school districts was the big one, right? However, David is correct that that waiver seemed to happen all the time in state government, in school districts, everywhere. So, this change eliminates that 60-day waiver provision from the law. >> And there's a lot of highlights on here, which is a
047really, it looks like there's a lot more change than there is. It's really a lot of change to say you got to be gone for two months before you can come back. >> Any additional questions? >> Vice Chair. Um my question is with the implementation of this update in the law, do we have any employees impacted by this decision for our new school year? >> Yes, ma'am. We do >> about how many? >> Um, so last year we had fewer than 125, 120day employees at all. And any of those that are were already 120day employees, it will not affect. It would just be new ones. So I would say probably fewer than 20 that will not be actually in a school until August because they retired at the end of the school year. Wow. Okay.
048Thank you. >> Um my follow-up question to you, David, is um we're bound by law with this new implementation, so there's no wiggle room. >> There is no wiggle room. And they Yeah, exactly. >> All right. All right. We have a motion for policy 5.204. Thank you. May I have a second? >> Second. >> Thanks. Be first and seconded. All those in favor of policy 5.204, please raise your hand. That is unanimous. Thank you for everybody. That gets us to 5.305. So within the state of Tennessee, we have uh paid parental leave. And uh in the way that has worked in the past is that it could be taken intermittently. Now, under new state law, it must be taken in, uh, a piece of of time, uh, no less than a week, unless there's there
049are some waiver provisions for extenduating circumstances. But bottom line, the default is that you can't do a half day on Monday and a, you know, a full day on Thursday, uh, and then maybe Monday, Tuesday, the next week. It would need to be week on week off. Coupled with that is another uh uh policy change that I just put them together because they're both employment related that increases the number of it's really not related to the first thing but they're both employment related that it increases the number of substitutes uh days that a person can be from 20 to 30 uh which is a good thing. It's especially uh good uh in hard to staff districts and uh hard to staff areas which you know we we do tend to run up against from time
050to time. So this this bill is going to help us a lot. >> The substitute portion that you just discussed is from policy 5.0 5.701. >> That's correct. Yes. >> Correct. Okay. I can show you that language in real time, >> but they are >> it's pretty mundane, >> separate policies. >> They are. It just says takes out 20, puts in 30, and just makes clear who's eligible and who's not. >> Okay. >> Uh yes, chair player, for questions and concerns. >> So, what so what problem are we trying to solve? like what's the um what's the inconvenience or hindrance does it have to take >> oh but I'm so sorry we'll have to say that louder or have an answer from Dr. >> Yeah honestly think it's it it it assists with staffing that
051uh that and and the legislature saw that need and addressed it through this bill. It's a certificated subs concern from other counties. >> Okay. Sorry. >> Any other questions? >> Yeah. Bo board member Tyler. >> Board member Tyler, do you mind elaborating on that? I'm sorry. Yeah. Yeah. >> Um, yeah. just if you if you are a certificated teacher, you have taken your practice tests and and you have the qualifications to be a fully, you know, paid a certain amount because your expertise is recognized as valuable. Okay. >> Um and that's what that is. And so it's teachers who have that and teachers who don't. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> I just wanted clarification on that. Um I got a question. >> Can I go vice chair? No. >> Awesome. Um I have a follow-up
052question. And if you could scroll back up for me, if you don't mind, Dr. Seir, >> are we looking into policy 5.305? >> Yeah, the original one about certification. I mean, about uh maternal leave. Is that what it is? Parental. >> Yeah, >> parental leave. >> So, let me ask you. A says that possess a valid license or emergency credential. Was this not the case before or is this something new? It's it's it it was the same. It just I I just took out it. It it it listed it by reference and under this I just made it clearer. >> Gotcha. >> I just expanded it out. >> So nothing has changed. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Gotcha. Thank you. >> Really, that's three really long bullets to say in order to do this as
053a teacher, you have to be a teacher. >> And those are all the ways you can be a teacher. All right. May I have a motion to approve 5305? So move. Right. May I have a second? Thank you. It's been first and seconded. All those in favor of passing 5.305 family and medical leave, please raise your hand. That is everyone. We have discussed as well point 5.701 substitute teachers which move from 20 to 30 days. Do we have any discussion specific to this? M Tyler, >> I mean pure curiosity, why is the compensation portion only applicable to teachers who retired between 2011 in 2016? >> I don't know. >> We don't >> I really don't know. I I was not privy to the legislative discussion around that. >> Okay. That didn't make any sense. That's
054why I was asking. All right. But that is the law. >> Yes, ma'am. >> It is law. I do not remember that discussion specific. Anything else? Right. See no further discussion. All may I get a motion? >> Motion to approve. >> Thank you. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> It's first and seconded. All those in favor of passing 5.701, please raise your hand. That is everyone. Thank you so much. That gets us to 6.2000. Uh last year about this time uh this board passed a policy that allows uh school the district to allow students to leave campus for off-campus instruction provided by third parties. Uh that was in state law and you uh codified that in this exact policy. Now, this policy essentially uh sort of plugs that hole and says, "And by
055the way, if your student is doing that, the place where they are going has to meet the same background checks and requirements as for anyone else." So, this is good. Uh they we are not on the hook to pay for that. The entity that provides that instruction is on the hook to pay for those background checks and make sure they're in compliance with all the other things. and are in contact with all the other people who've gone through the same measures that our employees have. >> All right. Do I have any questions on 6.2000 member May? >> So, um this basically says that the um background checks have to be provided in writing that the uh entities have to certify in writing that the uh background checks have been completed. Is there a timeline that
056we're requiring on this? >> It'd be prior to the student being able to to to begin. >> Okay. >> So, once they let us know that, you know, we you know, I'd like to take instruction at this place across the street or down the road, then uh okay, well, here here are the markers that you need to meet. One of them being make sure that everyone who's who's there has complied with this background check. Now, does this policy specifically state that it is has to be completed prior to >> Well, that would be outlined in the outlined in state law component. >> Okay. Thank you. Any additional questions? All right. May I have a motion for 62000 attendance policy? >> Motion to approve. >> Thank you. May I get a second? Thank you. It's been
057first and seconded. All those in favor of approving policy 6.2000, please raise your hand. Thank you so much. That is unanimous. That gets us to policy 6.33 interrogations and searches. So this is uh uh has been a real change and there was a lot of discussion around this bill if you if you may remember but essentially is who is allowed to uh search and interrogate a student and in in the past it's sort of been uh school administrators principles assistant principles deans and the like and and that uh I believe the initial bill said that that work needs to move to school resource officers. Of course, as you know, every school doesn't have a school resource officer available. Some districts have no resource officers available, right? We're in the enviable position of having a pretty
058good number relative. Uh and so now the the the law that passed says it's those, you know, sworn law enforcement officials and school administrators who have completed the training. Uh now I will tell you that uh at present that training that to be provided by the state has not rolled out yet. So that's kind of in limbo. But we want to make sure we're ready to go so that once that is uh set up and our administrators can take advantage of that that we don't have any policy hiccups that pre preclude them from being able to to take care of that. >> All right, we'll start questions with member TK Fain. Maybe I'm not interpreting this correctly, but does that mean that no one can search now because the training hasn't been implemented yet? >>
059I think we're still awaiting guidance on what exactly that means? >> Oh, wow. Okay. Thank you. >> Do we have a timeline or has one been offered to us of when that will be available from the state? >> No. Are they aware that school starts in two weeks? I mean, I'm sure they will be with all these other schools starting, but Okay. >> So, something if you question board member F, would you repeat your question? >> Policy states that they have to go through a formal training. That training has not been created or provided for staff yet. So, due to that, does that mean that no one is allowed to search No, no staff at at this particular time whether it be administration, officer. >> Well, certainly an officer would. >> Okay. So, officers can,
060but administration and staff cannot. So, if they do not have an officer, then they cannot serve. >> That would not be our current interpretation. No, ma'am. Our current interpretation would be that we would continue implementing this, which in practice is no different than we have always done. Principles have always been the authority for this and used SRO's as the mechanism for that. For the most part, this happens in secondary schools. But generally while we're waiting on TDOE guidance or training for those things, we still empower are empowered to conduct these searches as we would need to. We will follow up to make sure. But as of now, we're proceeding though we would be able to conduct the search like we always have. >> So the principles will have the authority and officers and that's it.
061>> Yes, ma'am. That is correct. >> Because currently our principles are already trained during their principal training on how to conduct these searches. >> Correct. So, they already receiving this um from our behalf statewide. They now have maybe a more specific type of something that they're wanting from this training and we are not sure what that guidance is, but the administrators and principles are already trained and have historically been trained within MNS of how to do these searches and questioning. That has continued and they're still done. So they are able to do these interrogations and questions but we will have to update that training is my understanding as the information comes back from the state. Admittedly I don't expect it to be much different than what we already provide but it has not been provided
062yet. >> Yeah chair player. >> So for clarification elementary school doesn't have SRO's we have security officers. So, if a child brought a weapon to school, who would do the what would be the procedure if that would happen at elementary level? >> I'll certainly defer to Chief Sullivan and Chief Norris if they would like to answer as well, but if we suspected a weapon on a child at the elementary level, an SRO would always be called from nearby. Um, they might search a backpack or they they would again secure the child and secure the backpack or where they felt like the weapon was potentially while they waited for an SRO. If the situation called for it, they certainly have the authority to do so. No one, no MNS employee is going to search a child's
063person without an SRO present, regardless as far as if you're talking about any type of pat down or things of that nature, right? >> Member Tyler, >> um, according to all the following standards of reasonleness, if >> Yeah, I turned it on. said, "According to all the following standards of reasonleness, it says in B that the search will yield evidence of the violation and it or it will lead to finding dangerous weapons, drugs or drug paraphernalia. If somebody is reported as saying, "My friend said he had a gun and we go and we search that person and they do not have a gun, are we in violation?" Mhm. >> Well, that's that's the criteria for for initiating it that you believe it will yield. >> Not that you have certainty on the front end. >>
064Okay. Because the the verbiage says the search will yield. >> Will you give me the line number that you're at so I can make sure that I'm ready? >> Um 20 26 through 31, but specifically 28 and 29. Yeah. >> All right. Thank you. One moment, please. Well, look, I I would just say uh it's not like our principles are going into this blind. I think >> No, I agree. I I don't think that we need I think we need the ability to say if somebody says someone is carrying a gun, we need the ability to fact check that. I mean, that's safety. >> I am. >> I was say there's a lot of us in this room that have been been principles, right? I'm I'm looking at, you know, three or four of us
065here just in within eyeshot and like we spend an inordinate amount of time in our training learning about what you can and cannot do and should and should not do. So, I'm really not absolutely a thousand% certain what kind of training they could tell us that I didn't get in the, you know, didn't spend a whole lot of tuition dollars for as well. I think in response to what I believe you're asking is if I was to single out line 28 and say that they are only allowed to search and provide and then that search needs to >> end and yield with this evidence. I don't read it that way because of line 26 that the following standards of reasonableness for the reason to search a student would be that they are expecting to find
066some type of evidence. >> Um, and that it's actually somewhat of a protect I I'm reading it as somewhat of a protection of like you're not allowed to just a reasonleness of just you want to look around, >> but that the reasonleness is that you actually believe that it might yield evidence of a violation. >> Okay. instead of it being singled out as >> so I >> if you were to just read it as 28 I I hear your concern but because of the line in 26 stating that it's a standard of reasonleness. >> Okay, >> that's >> so it's not saying it must absolutely yield >> I don't read it to say that it absolutely must >> reasonable probable cause basically >> that is correct. I believe it is more probable cause than an
067absolute you need to find something or else this was unreasonable. I'm just seeing us getting sued by someone because didn't happen. >> Yeah. >> Member Maze. >> Yeah. And so what to what you're saying, the one word in here in 28 that is catching me is will, the search will yield evidence of the violation of school policy or will lead to finding dangerous weapons, drugs, or drug paraphernalia. And um even though 26 says all the following standards of reasonableness must be met, now it gets into this will meet this particular um criteria or standard. And so I think the hangup for me is that one word will or could. Could could make more sense to me. It could yield this or it could yield that. We don't know if going into a search. We don't
068know that we're going to find this, but we could find this. >> Okay. >> Member Young, >> without engaging in the unlicensed practice of law, >> and I think there is at least one attorney in the room. I I I want to say that what this means is that a reasonable person would find uh that the search would yield that based on what evidence they had or thoughts that they had. And that's essentially what we're at. That's we're not saying they are certain it would, but a reasonable person would believe that the search would yield that. >> Again, I believe it's to saying you would not do this unless you believed you had good cause. Member Nam Kenny or Vice Chair, >> is there any way we can get some feedback from you on this
069particular policy at this time, Mr. >> or do we need to >> just for further clarification? Are we required by law to now find things in people's backpacks? >> I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question? >> I think the end all question is is by line 28. Is this demanding that if we search we must find something? >> No, I don't think you could require that under law. Um, what I think this is protecting against is essentially saying, you know, I assume, you know, if you search everyone's back deck, there's always this chance that you may find something or could find something that would essentially um allow searches in any case. This is just presenting a higher standard where we have to have the understanding, you know, going into it, we are expecting to find
070something. >> Okay. that >> member Kenny. >> Um, so my follow-up question to you is, is there any concern with the word um will as opposed to may or could? >> Uh, I I what I will I what I will say um I I don't think there is concern about that language. I think that language is also reflective of the legal the change in the law is my understanding. Uh it's it's the exact language from the >> change. Um and I I also don't think and I imagine the drafting of it you could change it to be could or may that would present a much much lower standard for a search. Um that could be an issue. >> Okay. Uh, member Taylor, >> when I read this originally doing my homework, I didn't think of
071this question, but could the metal detection, not the metal detection, the weapons detection systems be considered a search? And if that is considered a search, would it meet this criteria of there being a reasonable um thought that that student has a weapon? >> Thank you. I think Chief >> Mara's coming up. Well, no. I'm just gonna just while y'all were talking about that, >> we used to head up to the microphone. I apologize. >> While they were talking about that one, I'll I'll answer um board member Taylor's question real quick. Um the uh the weapons detection systems are a screening process to that um help us maintain the um uh I was looking for the for the exact language um in the but I don't see it right here but it's um a safe school
072environment and that is that is actually outlined in here. So >> I I would say also in looking at believe the reasonable standard is tied to the principal. So the principal has to have an idea that the search will >> will yield evidence of a violation. >> Okay. >> Member Taylor. >> So just to follow up, the weapons detection systems are not considered a search. They are considered a screener. >> Yes, >> that is correct. >> Member Tyler, sorry, we're we're we're giving you a runaround with the names. Yeah. Um, no, I I think that your response absolutely makes sense and I do not think that we should change the word will um for several reasons. my I don't want us to we're walking a fine line of student privacy and student safety >> and
073I do think that there needs to be a reasonable standard for searching someone definitely I just wanted to make sure that we were not required to have to find something but it I think if we have a reasonable for whatever re like for whatever somebody has come forward with with a tip or we have been told something or or we have a reasonable probable cause to say we are fairly certain that this particular student is in possession of something they should not have on school property. I do not think based on the way you have explained it and based on the way I think the law would read it, we would not be required to find that. We just have to have a standard of reasonleness. So we can't just do that to anyone at
074any time. We have to have a reason that makes sense for searching someone so we're not just violating privacy left and right, but that we're doing it on purpose because we know or we expect to find something, not that we will. So I I am okay with it as stated. >> Okay. Member Fain. So I know with implementing the metal detectors or weapon weapon weapons detector dete detection system sorry um staff certain staff have been trained and implemented in implementing those processes to get the kids in kind of you know to make sure that they're getting to class on time and that there's not a lot of friction and a slow process. So given this and now have what you said has always been the procedure. I guess I didn't know that because I thought
075if it if the weapon detector picked up on something, one of the trained staff at that particular time could pull that backpack or whatever it was aside and go through it. So what you're saying now or cl huh or clarify for me is they need to call administration and an officer over >> which is what we would would do anyway. We would make sure the person who initiates the search. So you got >> so it it initiates a secondary screening, right? So a reasonable person would assume that if it says there's a weapon in there, yeah, could be. >> Okay. So, as as it pertains to Evolve, if you go through the screening and it beeps and you are sent to alert resolution, that system is again, it's not a physical search of your person,
076they're going to look at the backpack. They're going to use the tablet and look at wherever the box is on the system to to initiate a search. If it's on your person, they may use a metal detecting wand, but again, they're not searching a person per the state law. If they were to need to do a further search, they would call for the SRO or the administrator immediately. that search would be done in a private location to protect dignity and security and all of those things. So, you're getting into a point where the evolve system could trigger this policy, but this particular language in this policy is not referencing the actual secondary search of the evolve system. The vast majority of those secondary searches nearly I don't even want to give you a percentage because
077we find so few actual contraband materials, but the vast majority of those searches are resulted in finding a binder that the child forgot to take out and sending them on to class. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yes, ma'am. >> In fact, as a friendly reminder, I would call them a secondary screener instead of a secondary search so that we were clear with our own understanding. But with Evolve being a screener that does have the secondary screener as well discussed by Dr. Mason Bellamy. But yes, we those would still happen. Uh I do have one additional question then before we take our vote. Um it is listed on our agenda as now I've gotten lost because we've had so much discussion such good questions a uh questioning of students and searches but it is listed within
078our packet as interrogations and searches. Is there any issue with us? >> No it it's it it will be listed as interrogations and searches >> a more general topic for >> Thank you so much. All right. So that gets us to there any no additional questions or concerns about 6 303 interrogations and searches? May I have a motion for approval? >> Motion to approve. >> Thank you. May I have a sec? Uh second. >> That's been seconded. Thank you. All those in favor of 6.303, please raise your hand. Thank you. That is everybody. I appreciate it so much. Let's move on to 6.312. So this uh public chapter 103 probably generated more attention this legislative session in education than maybe any other thing that was tracked. Uh it essentially said that you know you need
079to have a cell phone policy. Uh well we already had a a cell phone policy. it was under under this. But we took this as an opportunity to really go in and codify the practices and uh put into based on various grade levels what the expectations are uh in in each level of building and uh so you see that laid out. So it looks like again there's a lot of new language and it looks like there's uh you know a lot of language that goes away but it really just sort of takes away a lot of language from uh arcane you know technologies changing so quickly so u it really cleans it up and u believe we're in a good place happily answer any questions you might have >> I'm going to start questions with
080member O'Hara block um I have a couple of different questions so I have one question that probably a suggestion, but if it's not a friendly suggestion, I'm fine. Um, this talks specifically about wireless communications devices, but it doesn't mention something that I just occasionally see children in public wearing, which is earbuds, headphones, etc. And I wonder if we want to be specific in here that those are also prohibited. Has there any consideration been given to that? And does anyone have an opinion before I were to make a friendly amendment to add something along the lines of earbuds and headphones? >> I would look to my colleagues on my left and right to gauge their feelings about that. I I'm also will like I I might suggest I mean if we have another meeting coming up
081if there is a desire to have some discussion before we might make that change. So why don't I just go ahead and suggest that plus two other things I'd like to suggest and we can bring this back if that's agreeable for folks since we're having another meeting and we're coming up on time anyhow. So my my two other questions sluggestions on this are um so I would think we we could put something such as you know accessories such as earbuds, headphones, etc. are considered part of wireless communication devices. I just want to throw that out for consideration. Um secondly, when we get to line 18, the thing that describes teacher authorizations. Um I' I'd like to suggest a consideration around um being a little tighter on this. Um we do off to so students do
082have MNiss issued devices. I understand that there might be reasons that that students might need to bring their own device into school for some reason. I'm wondering whether or not in here we just might want to suggest that teachers give uh encourage students to use their MNS devices for educational purposes during instructional time and that use of personal devices is limited to the times that are identified. I I'm just wondering if there's sort of a if we could go a little stronger on this to basically say we're not allowing it unless you're using it for instructional purposes. And if we're issuing MNPS devices, let's just say, you know, let's use those MNPS devices and keep those personal devices for other times. I just want to have some consideration of that. And the last thing is
083I'm wondering about enforcement of this policy. And that probably lives I've asked a couple of questions like this throughout today. So you see a theme in my questions which is that might live in um in procedure. But I'm thinking in particular of high schools that I've been in and walking around and you see some classrooms where teachers are doing a great job of keeping students off of devices and very engaged and you see other classrooms where that's not the case. It strikes me that this is the job of the principal and administrative staff to make sure that the policy is enforced consistently across the building. I understand that's probably like a standard thing that we assume in all of our policies. I just wonder whether in some of them that are sort of more intense
084we might want to specifically reference that. >> So uh a couple of things >> that's probably a procedure I'll think. >> Well, so you've referenced really three things. The first the first one relative to the earpieces and and the last one to the penalties. Let me address both of those things are enumerated in the student handbook. uh and even this language regarding right here which uh permission and what constitutes a wireless communication device is the definition that was approved and is in the current student handbook. So that's sort of the posture we're in for the 2526 school year. Um, I I I wonder if it might be prudent to to think about uh letting this school year play out with the definition that's already been approved and then coming back to it rather than trying
085to, you know, just a little bit before school starts, go back into that student handbook. I mean, okay, but I really hate earbuds, so I just want to say I don't think kids are learning if they have an earbud in >> unless they're using them for auditory purposes to understanding the lesson. >> Uh before we get to member May's question, may I ask a quick followup to that which is are we saying that earbuds, headphones, the like are considered wearable technology? So they are encapsulated within this already? Well, I I think in in this particular definition, it references two-way communication. And I think, you know, that that by and large earbuds if you're listening to music are certainly, you know, one way, but if you're using them for a phone call, that would be that
086would be this then it would meet the definition of two-way. Um, I still don't know if it would be a two-way, but I would I would think I think it could be considered underneath wearable technology if but um I hear that you're saying it's referenced within our um school manual. Um do we know what it's saying in our school manual? Is it saying something specific to >> using the definition that's that first paragraph? >> Okay, thank you. Let's get to the question from member Maize. >> It's more of a statement than a question. along the lines of teacher authorization and I think it's more procedural than policy and uh you know based on what member member O'Hara Black was saying I think there needs to be some consistency in the uh authorization because I have
087also been in schools where in high schools where we have some students who uh are able to use their technology and other classrooms teachers prohibit it but if it is in is if it's a part of our policy that it is encouraged to use that technology for learning purposes. I think there needs to be some consistency so that it's not students are not being penalized from one classroom to the next. >> All right. So, do I have a motion for this or do I have a friendly amendment or do we want to pull it? I I mean I would like to move that we >> Defer it. Allow folks to go back and take a look at some of the questions that I've raised. I don't and and then you know let's get it passed
088in 3 weeks. >> Okay. I think it's too much to take care of in this meeting. So I believe pulling it. So we're going to pull policy 6.312 and refer back to it at our next meeting at the next meeting. All right. That gets us to our last two. >> We're in the home stretch. Chair, >> is that correct? Are we good? >> Correct. >> Okay. Is policy 6.411 student wellness policy? >> Uh, previously state law required elementary students get 130 minutes of physical activity. That has been changed to 40 minutes each day, each full school day. Uh, so instead of chunking it different ways, it says 40 minutes. That's what it says. So that's five, that's 200 minutes. All right, any questions? We'll start with member Namaki. Um, this law will go into effect
089this school year. Is there I'd like to hear what is being done to accommodate that given we have so much instru instructional time that is required for us for literacy, so much instructional time for numeracy as well as um additional courses and programs in our um rotations. Can someone >> So, these are the same concerns that that come up during the the legislative discussion around this. And I'll also tell you that our principles are well aware of this and have incorporated this into their schedules. >> Yeah. I if you don't mind, I'd like to hear some feedback if that's okay. >> Is that from Dr. Williams? >> Chief Perry or Dr. Williams? >> Yes. Thank you for the question and we share the concern uh as well. Um when this was passed um and then
090amended uh so it was originally 60 and then now it's 40 and it's actually split into two 20 minute parts of the day. Um we got together with uh some of our support hub team on the division of school side and just brainstormed ways that schools could consider doing this. Um so schools ultimately have flexibility but what we did was provide a do a document that clarified exactly what the expectations were and then gave them some suggested recommendations thing and it could be a combination. So it's not necessarily one move right it could be a series of combinations that add up to the 40 minutes. So it may be for example instead of PLT being 45 minutes technically it can be 40 but then because time has to come from somewhere um and then it
091may be shortening social studies andor science. So, it could be a combination of things. What we didn't want to do was start to compromise, as you said, our ELA instruction and our math instruction. Uh, the biggest impact was felt K2 because K2 schedule is just a little bit tighter than 35. Uh, but again, this was all done, we did this ahead to be proactive because schools were starting to think about how they were going to fit this in. So, we gave them early guidance back in May so they could get ahead of ahead of this. Um, but again, we've we've got a document. We've given guidance on on recommended ways to make this happen. >> Thank you. I have a follow-up question. Will this impact art, music, and PE, physical education? >> Um, it might
092depends on the approach the schools take. Generally, related arts is left alone. So, so as I said, an example, related arts is typically 60 minutes. It could be 55, but that would be one move. In other words, we wouldn't take 40 minutes out of related arts to account for this. It might be shaving off a few minutes here and there across different uh potential scheduling configurations, but the related arts is generally when your ELA and math teachers have planning. So, we didn't want to reduce that. But knowing that the time has to come from somewhere, uh there's just a few things that we said these are potential options to be in compliance with the law that schools may have to make some hard hard choices. And I'll give you another example as well. So in
093the beginning of the day, some of our schools have morning meetings. And so looking at how we are utilizing our time in the mornings and being more efficient as well. So where they may have 15 minutes of morning meeting, they may have 10 minutes. Some of them some of them have decided to go maybe schoolwide morning meetings which then will shorten that time as well. So they've looked at the efficiencies of their um master schedule and their day. So then they can make those adjustments as well. >> Okay. Um, I I would say my my biggest concern about that is your related arts program because we tend to cut that. Um, and Dr. Williams, when you talked about cutting social studies and science, I'm a science geek over here and we already don't give enough
094instructional time to me for science and social studies because of literacy and numeracy. Um, so I understand what we have to do because of state law and and I appreciate the work that you guys are doing to to be able to address that, but those are some of the concerns that have been brought up to me and and also that I see um as part of that. So, thank you. >> Oh, member Tyler. I just I I just have one question about the 90 minutes of phys physical activity for um high school in particular. I think a lot of middle schools still offer recess and they can meet that pretty easily. >> Can I hear a little bit more about how our high schools are going to meet that 90minute physical activity every week when
095they are not allowed to count time in between classes, walking back and forth from class? Um I have a high schooler who's very concerned and would love to have that unstructured time and he feels like he doesn't get it and so I would love to hear more about how are we incorporating that. >> So, uh this change does not change the requirements for high school. It's purely to elementary. So, those those 90 minutes are still in there. So, however they're meeting it now, they can continue doing that. >> Okay. >> All right. Any additional questions? All right. So, for policy 6.411, do I have a motion for approval? >> So, >> may I have a second? >> Second. >> Thank you. It's been first and seconded. All those in favor of passing policy 6.411. Thank
096you. That is unanimous. Thank you so much. That gets us to our last one, 6.600, which is student records. Chair, we're going to end like we started with a very simple policy change. Uh the law says that within five business days, uh students records need to be sent to the to the new school. That's something we've been doing. That's something we'll continue to do. Our business offices, business practices are already uh fully in compliance with this and will continue to be so. >> Okay. Any questions or concerns? Seeing none, may I have a motion to approve to approve. >> Do I have a second? >> Oh, we have many seconds. All right, it's been first and seconded. All those in favor of voting uh in favor of 6.600 student records, please raise your hand. Thank
097you so much. That is unanimous again. And that is our last policy to go through. Again, I appreciate those in attendance, our staff that have helped with questions, anyone watching, and of course, my own colleagues for being here and being present for what we call the policy pulooa um after the state legislative session. Again, we have another governance meeting coming up. It will be at our next meeting, which is August the 12th. No, one moment, please. Let me make sure I'm saying the right thing to you. August the 12th. and it will be at 4:30 for governance where we will go over the few policies that were pulled and that will be posted soon. Thank you so much. With no further business, this meeting is adjourned.