4/14/2026 - FCPS Governance Committee Meeting

001Okay, we're all here who are going to be here, I believe. Welcome. So, this meeting of the Governance Committee is now beginning in session at It sounds a little echoey. Is there anything I could do? Okay. Thank you. Okay, so this Governance Committee meeting of April 14th, 2026 is now in session. So, come to order. 2:32. Okay, welcome. Hi, everyone. So, we have 2 hours here till 4:30. All of us here in the room are the ones that will be here. No virtual participation today. And I still hear this echo. But so, two big discussions today, a continued discussion about the AI policy and the calendar policy. Then we are going to discuss two sort of AI adjacent policies in the 6000 series about technology, get through some 5000 series policies, which is financial administration,

002and then get some good old policy formatting and style guide discussion going. So, and we want to make sure that we're really clear on what we're deciding at the end of each phase. You know, just want to make sure our due outs and our next steps for whoever that is are crystal clear. So, the first item is the minutes from the March 17th meeting. And so, can I have a motion to approve the minutes for March 17th with leave for the clerk to make grammatical, technical, and formatting edits? While we're waiting, Miss Deputy Clerk, I did have some edits. So, can you remind me how we go about doing that? I did send them to the clerks. Does everyone review them? Please just remind me of the process. Yeah, everyone here would have to review

003them and agree and to put them in and then we would vote on it. That's why the as revised is there so that it can be um Actually, I didn't put as revised in this one, but I certainly will. Uh so that it can be um approved by everyone to agree with the edits. Okay, so I did send my suggested edits out yesterday. I don't want to use precious time going over them here. Are people familiar? I'd like to move pretty swiftly. So, if someone wants to make a motion or Well, Dr. Anderson wants to speak, but I don't want to spend more than like less I want to spend less than 5 minutes on this. So, go ahead, Dr. Anderson. I'm happy Hello. Hello. Okay, I'm happy to make a motion, but I wanted

004to make sure that we had some consensus. I know that Miss Lady had sent um another email. So, are we good with what's posted here? Because personally, I don't have any pressing questions. I just want to make sure I'm not overlooking an outstanding point. Okay, I will make a motion to Oh. I'm so sorry. >> Well, so as it stands, if we want to spend like 1 minute reviewing, that's fine. And then if somebody wants to make a motion, then we can proceed. So, we'll just give another minute. I motion that maybe we table it since it's not the crux of the work that we want to do today so that we can have time to read >> and make How How about we finish the 1 minute that I just laid out and then

005if that's where people stand. Thank you. So, again, if I had edits, I sent it to everyone, right? And that's how it's raised. They're not posted to BoardDocs, they're just distributed here. I could read through them. If I mean, it comes down to we have the minutes as they are. If there are any revisions that everyone agrees to, then they're put in. So, if no one is agreeing to the revisions, then we vote and then it's the majority. Does everyone have the revisions? I mean, I know you do, I sent them. But I can read them. That's also option. >> an option. >> Okay, again, let me just um see if I can do this expeditiously. Well, the process is if someone in any meeting has comments on the minutes, they raise them. And then

006the board votes to adopt them or not. And then the minutes are adopted. So, I had comments that I sent to the committee and the clerk yesterday. So, this would be the opportunity to provide your thoughts on that and decide if you accept or deny them. And let me pull them up because if we're going to have a discussion on it, then I do want to have my um comments. And I do think it actually is germane. Um And I do think it is germane because it deals with what we were expecting to do here today. So, um like I said earlier, a goal for today is to make sure we're really clear on the expected outcomes. It was not as clear in the last meeting, and that's why I looked to the minutes for

007guidance, and it wasn't as clear. So, there are two spaces where I'm asking for the minutes bless you to be amended. One is under item 1.03 about artificial artificial intelligence and AI policy discussion. In the last sentence, omitted said the committee chair requested feedback on an updated draft of the policy. And I inserted it to say the committee chair requested feedback from the superintendent on an updated draft of the policy. And that's per me going back and listening and reading a transcript. And then I added more details. So, what I added, and it's now here on the screen, later because haven't If you recall, we talked about AI policy, then we talked about calendar policy, then we talked about both of them and what the next steps were. So, I wanted to put in here

008what those next steps were. So, later near the end of the meeting, the committee discussed desired next steps by the committee and the superintendent for work on the AI policy as well as the calendar policy. The chair summarized that the priority for the committee is the AI policy, and the committee requested that the clerk's office look for additional meeting dates to continue this work. The expectation was that the superintendent would bring information to the next scheduled Governance Committee meeting, April 14th, incorrectly stated as April 19th by the chair, me, to continue the AI policy development work. So, that is my best and honest attempt to capture what happened based on my memory, the transcript, and the video. So, I will turn it to discussion about my proposed edits, Ms. Lady, and then Dr. Anderson. Thank

009you. Um yeah, I I think I'm I'm in agreement with the majority of the edits. However, when we get to the very bottom of page one and it says this is regarding calendar discussion. Are we going to start with the top first? >> Can we just do the AI, please? >> Thank you. Uh Dr. Anderson, do you have anything about the AI portion updates? >> No, I was just going to make a motion for us at least to just settle with the top if there are no questions. Well, you can make a motion, but that's not my preference. >> for us to have the minutes be revised as indicated for item 1.03. Okay, made by Dr. Anderson, second by Ms. Lady. Any further comments, Dr. Anderson? No. Ms. Lady? Nope. Okay, all in favor of

010amending the minutes with this language, raise your hand. Got Dr. Anderson. Um I'm not sure if Ms. Lady, Ms. St. John Cunningham, are you voting? Ms. Lady, yes. Um Ms. St. John Cunningham? I'm going to abstain. I I don't remember Okay. So, that's three in favor, uh Anderson, Lady, and Marin, and one abstaining, St. John Cunningham. So, thank you. So, let me go to the calendar piece, again trying to put down what I saw recorded and recollected. So, midway through, um if you could scroll down, Ms. Deputy Clerk, thank you. The committee chair noticed that noted that the draft is a calendar that the draft was based on feedback received from school board members and the public. Um and then further down, some new content. Next steps discussed were committee members gathering further feedback from

011other school board members, the superintendent returning to the committee with responses to the draft policy about whether it is a feasible policy, not at a date not at a date determined, requesting of the chair and vice chair of the board that the calendar policy be placed on an upcoming school board work session agenda, and discussing the calendar at the next scheduled governance committee meeting, as well as the to be scheduled additional committee meetings mentioned earlier. And I added in the discussion also occurred about past data, including from 2023, and I thought this was important because this was a new piece of information. The superintendent stated that revisions were drafted for November, um whatever date that was of 2023, governance committee for policy 1344, but those edits were not adopted by the board. A question about

012the status of action about those edits were raised. One board member stated that there is no record of a school board vote. The superintendent stated the council confirmed that such a vote was done. And I did notice a typo in there, Adam Clerk, but okay, Ms. Lady. Well, quickly, for the record, it's November 29th. November 29th, thank you. >> Yep. And there was a typo in there, too, but Ms. Lady. Yeah, my main um issue was that I don't I did I listened to it a second time as well, and maybe we can ask Dr. Reed, but I don't recall in the next um steps discussed was um superintendent returning to the committee with the responses to the draft policy about whether it's a feasible policy. I don't have any recollection of that piece of

013this. Um I heard you just state when you were reading that at a further date, um I know we discussed not overburdening staff over spring break, and they worked on the AI questions that we had. Um but I just I don't recollect any directive or any discussion of when the superintendent or if the superintendent was asked to bring back a redline policy. Do you do you recollect, Dr. Reed, if we asked you to do that? And we in fact said no. That's what I thought. We negated it. Yeah, the this that I would return to this meeting with the responses to the questions raised by um governance committee members related to AI, that I was not going to um work with the draft of the AI policy, because I think Dr. Anderson said that she

014was going to do that, and we didn't want to create multiple drafts of an AI policy. So, we were going to simply have staff respond to the questions, however many, and that the questions Ms. Brown sent to us, and that's what we responded to. And then in return to calendar policy, that was not for this meeting for us to bring anything back. I just didn't hear any discussion of a directive to do to redline the draft that Ms. Marin had shared. So, that's I recall that. That I don't recall that. So, we could have that conversation today. Could be in the next minutes for today, but I just don't recollect that happening, so I'd want to scratch. And And where is that language where it's stated that the superintendent is asked to bring back redline

015comments? Well, it says uh the superintendent returning to the committee with responses to the draft policy about whether it's a feasible policy. So, it doesn't say redline, but we didn't have that conversation. I So, I just want to say I'm happy to scrap it, but superintendent returning We might conclude at the end of today's meeting, but that I would just like to strike that one sentence or that one phrase. I don't think that's accurate, but for the sake of time, I'm I we could scrap it. Um I very much did say it's in there saying, is this even a feasible policy? Does it mean it means that the superintendent could return like she did with the AI with the format of questions, not a redline. I know that we did not ask her for a

016redline. May I be recognized? Are you finished, Ms. Lady? Dr. Anderson. >> Just very quickly, two things. Um Ms. Brown, you had a chance to review the video. What was shared? Cuz I didn't go back to rewatch it. I tried, but I didn't have enough time. Well, there was comments about whether or not the policy would be feasible. I would have to agree with Ms. Lady's comment as well that that was brought up, but there was a focus on the AI policy, and there was a request to hold off on the calendar policy questions because you and I were working on the document, and then the um it just was We didn't want to overburden everybody over spring break. So, the committee together did not say, yes, we want this calendar one worked on, was

017my recollection and what I watched. Thank you. And And secondly, um my draft that I have for myself that I've reorganized, it is for myself to reorganize. I just want to make sure there's clarity on that, which is why I sent it out, especially given the new directives that we received just um last week. Okay. That's fine to remove it. My My interpretation of it was that we should expect something back from the superintendent, just feedback, but that's fine. So, Madam Clerk, can you strike from my edits then about um from the that language, the superintendent returning to the committee with the responses to the draft policy about whether it is a feasible policy? Can you please strike that? Uh this is a PDF. I'm not sure. >> Oh, well, I sent you >> a

018doc. I got it. Okay. And then um And then in that next >> hear? Yes, please. And then in that next section, that word should be be, not by. The calendar policy by be placed should be be placed. All righty. So, we will be super specific today to make sure we have it absolutely accurate. So, is there a motion to approve or amend these minutes? Dr. Anderson, second? Ms. Lady, further discussion? No, motion to approve the minutes as revised. Um Now, do we have to adjust AI? No, I if the as revised adds in all of the conversation, and that's why I do that specifically so we don't have to have each little section. So, it'll just be That's fine, but we're going to have to >> on this. Okay, so again, so Ms. Anderson

019moved for motion to approve the minutes as revised, including all of the totality. Um Ms. Lady, do you want to speak? Uh the only thing I want to say is I do believe, and Madam Chair, correct me if I'm wrong, I do think that this is going to be on the the May 5th work session is the is a cal- is time for a calendar discussion, just for those listening. Well, that's what I heard as well. It wasn't directly communicated to me, but so I'm glad to know that, and we were going to talk about that a little later. Okay. So. Okay, uh did you Ms. St. John Cunningham? Yes, this question is for the clerk. Um where can I access the transcripts? Um you alluded to that you looked that you re-saw the minutes,

020but that there are Are there transcripts available for for our meetings? Um a lot of times people use the the transcripts from YouTube themselves. There There is a transcript, but it's not um it's not readily available to everyone, no. So, are those are YouTube provided, not clerk office provided? I can't speak to that, cuz I don't know what Ms. Marin used, but it could be. >> Could you clarify for that, cuz I I did not realize that we had access to transcripts. I just rewatched the YouTube video, and it automatically closed captioned, so that is what I relied on. Okay, so watching it what they underlined you're referring to as transcripts. Thank you. Yeah, so I correct terminology would be the closed caption on the video. That would be a better terminology. Okay, so um

021all in favor of amending the minutes as provided, um Dr. Anderson, it looks like we are unanimous in that. Okay, the minutes are approved, showing again just how important it is to know what we're doing next. All right, thank you. So, AI policy. Just to regroup, we just went over where we thought we were going to be. Posted on today's BoardDocs, per um recent board clarification, are the Well, the continued proposal by the superintendent which we first saw in February that is on board docs and then also was placed the version that I shared at our last meeting that was my work product that was shared now on board docs because we all had been discussing about it. So we want to make that public. Also shared are the is the responses that the superintendent

022provided to our questions at the governance committee meeting. So what I'd like to do in an effort to move us closer to structuring the policy is we [snorts] can walk through each section of the policy purpose, philosophy, definitions um and then responsibilities and get clearer and perhaps we can note what questions we still have and wherever we get to alignment that's what I'm suggesting. Madam Clerk, do you have a feedback? I don't have feedback. I just have a a note. Um are we working off of the version seven of of Dr. Reed because I don't have anything other than a PDF for you so I can't work off of yours. Um so if if we want to work on this as like a red line working through it, I'd only have a PDF of yours.

023I'm happy to send you a word version. I think you know, for me and I'd love to hear what others think but you know, saying okay purpose, you know, we have we have two versions. Is there something we want to commit to from each version? Is there one we like more? Is there something we want to add? So I think it will be um why don't you please use the version my version since it does include the superintendent's it is a editing of the superintendent's with that still in there. Okay, then I'm going to need a word version of that. >> all right. I will get that to you. This is a new process that we did with um posting members documents online so Okay. Um Dr. Anderson, do you want to uh go ahead

024Miss St. John Cunning? Do you have your your packet or not? Dr. Anderson, do you want to begin and I'll get you the file as quickly as I can clerk. Yes, I'd like to begin with purpose. Um I am supportive of the edits that was in the Marin version only because it and much of that is from um the I think the version seven. Um so as it reads oh, can we put it up? Oh, okay. I am literally >> have to edit on the spot. I just think we need to take the notes so that the edits can be done. It it we have to just get to the gist of the things. We can't sit here and wordsmith. We won't be super productive. I Right. So of my thoughts are regarding purpose um

025is that I am in I am supportive of the um language that Ms. Mann has written um but I would like for there to be something that speaks to our division's educational outcomes because we are using um all of our tools to support our outcomes. So that's the only thing but it's a very small edit but I'm fine with the purpose as um written in Ms. Mann's version. Okay, Ms. St. John Cunning. So first of all, I apologize cuz actually I was working completely on the other document and got this only this morning. Um so uh I I do appreciate that this has been shifted to uh an overall technology policy which I think is what we have to work on. I do think that considering that even though we had a paper copy of

026it, I was in prepared to work with what you had. I was prepared to work with what we had on board docs but when we look at purpose, I would like to see uh children struck and put students instead of children in there. And again, this is just last minute attempts uh because this was I did have a lot of meetings this morning. This came to me this morning so I did not have as much time my staff and I did not have as much time as we would like to. Um and I I do think that some I would like to make this as high level as possible and uh I don't think we need to I think the presumption of safe ethical equitable and transparent could be struck and say align with the

027division's educational mission and then when we go further, we could talk about the different policies and regs that would have to be added right in here that we would have to do I would have to at least do a deeper dive into which ones we would be referring to. Okay, Ms. Lady. So um I do agree with the let's just strike children and say students um but also I the way I read the the purpose is it's it seems very AI specific. Um and I did get some feedback some other from other board members that based on and I I guess it would be a question um for for Godum and and um Dr. Dr. Presidio would be should be we should we just have an innovation technology or should it be an EdTech separated

028out from AI? Like what are your all's thoughts? Well, I don't know that I have a strong opinion on that. Um I definitely think >> [clears throat] >> that the emerging questions around artificial intelligence are something that's going to evolve. So if we draft an AI specific policy now, I think that's something that's going to have to be up for ongoing review which is fine. Possible if you went broader with an EdTech policy and had AI as part of that, we could address more things in regulation that maybe would be easier to update more frequently. Um but I don't know. I mean I would defer certainly to the governance committee and the superintendent but just right off the cuff, I I do worry a little bit when you have a policy about the with something

029that is so rapidly emerging and developing, the frequency with which you might need to revise the policy versus revise the regulation. And I suppose if you wanted it to be specific to AI it could be more broad in terms of its scope with things written specifically into the regulation that could be revised and updated on a more ongoing basis. But I think when the when the governance committee started this discussion, the focus was on artificial intelligence. I think there were more questions about that but I think over the last few months, there's been more community discussion about EdTech in general as well. So I can understand trying to do something more broadly. Thank you. Um and again, I sort of I see both uh perspectives on this. I think my preference honestly would be one

030policy in that perhaps a little more narrow in scope to leave more room for specificity in regulation because of how this is such an evolving thing. Um I and I felt like I did I did read in here later at some point something related to or we had a conversation in the past about the parents agreement to the technologies that are utilized but I thought I was there somewhere in the policy and I'm missing it now that wanted a breakdown of every one of those or am I am I remembering that incorrectly? I I'm not sure but do we want to stick with that higher level topic of purpose, you know, that key question of >> If we want to do that, then if we're going to stick with this as an innovative technology policy,

031this purpose seems only AI about AI. But so I'm not sure uh how it needs to be expanded. Um I mean it does say use of technology for instruction and it says including with the use of an artificial intelligence. So maybe we don't reference AI in the purpose because AI is a technology and not break it off and is that make it more inclusive? I mean I'm asking my colleagues. Yeah, I'm happy to have more of a discussion and so so basically what you're saying is you are in favor of a more broader policy about instruction and technology. Right. I guess I'm just concerned this purpose make me made me think oh, I'm really only looking for AI in the rest of it because it's named at the top when we're talking about all instructional

032technologies and AI is is one of them. So perhaps we just say establish a framework to ensure that the use of technology for for instructing students in Fairfax County Public Schools and and and strike the including with use of artificial intelligence. Cuz then it goes on to say Yeah. I mean I would just say to establish a framework to to ensure that the use of technology for instructing students in Fairfax County Public Schools is aligned with the division's educational mission. So so my I suggest thinking about other policy work we've done like grading Ms. Lady. If we can get clear on what we want the concept to be, then we could certainly ask the superintendent and we can also come back with specific language that we might want to change. So um so again, so

033what I hear you saying is it's okay that you're in favor of both not not it being AI focused only. Correct. Okay. Just want to make sure the purpose supports this as a Yes. Okay, that's super helpful. Dr. Anderson. I be honest. I had the same struggle especially when I was writing my own, because there were some places where I felt like we have to be a little bit more specific with AI and kind of drawing back to the larger lens, it just didn't got a little bit overwhelming. So, even my version, which I'm glad I didn't post, is a hodgepodge of these two worlds, just trying to straddle. But, I'm looking at some of the responses that the superintendent provided to us. On page two of the response of number three, which is a

034wee behind in putting AI in a policy, and it says here that our position is consistent with peer districts and their review of Northern Virginia in 30 largest, was roughly half have dedicated AI policies or guidance documents and the other half have general technology documents. So, not awfully informative, but it certainly gives some context. Um I I think we're at the moment where we have a lot of other policies that if we were going to make this an overarching technology policy, we'd have to bring those in. Um I think to be a little bit more expedient, just because time is not on our side, is to have just this perhaps be limited to AI with some general overtones and references to the overall technology. Um I do also want to say that the the sentence

035that speaks to safe, ethical, and equitable, that has to be there because that's core and that was [clears throat] also part of all of the superintendent's drafts. Um and I think you brought that over to your um version, which is why I was able to be supportive of it. Because people want to know whatever tools that we're using, whether it's AI or computer, whatever it is, that there's equity in it, that it's safe and ethical uses are part and are forefront for us. Okay. >> So, that's not helpful in terms of where to fall, but I think I want to be clear. No, that is helpful. >> to have just the AI policy. It's not impossible to do both. I just think it may be more expedient otherwise. Okay, I'll go ahead Did you speak

036already, Miss St. John You did. Let me Unless Yeah. Okay. Great. I'll just add some comments. So, I agree with Miss Lady. I do think having it more overarching is really what the community is asking for and it sets us up to have that framework where we can dig in and focus on AI and whatnot and um as one of our um leadership team members said over there, you know, it just naturally goes from AI to edtech. So, I think it'll be hard to bifurcate it. I wanted to say that So, you mentioned acceptable use and so, when we're thinking about what kind of policy we need, so I'm aware like some school divisions will have acceptable use policy for students, one for employees. I don't know that we have a distinct acceptable use policy

037and I'm not sure if what's in the student rights and responsibility regulation is that. Superintendent Reid, can you clarify where it's written down what the expectations are for digital device use for students and staff, please? >> Thank you, Miss Meron. I'm going to um ask Mr. Sethi to share where the acceptable use policy language would be located. So, the acceptable use policy is quoted in one of our regulations and is also shared with students and families on an annual basis. Um that is electronically available, I believe on our public website, which I can check and send back a link to. >> [clears throat] >> Thank you, Mr. Sethi. So, we don't have an acceptable use policy given by the board. In a policy format? >> Correct. I don't believe >> Oh, it was a statement.

038I wasn't asking the question. We don't. So, that is something to weave into here. Um and what I liked about other divisions that had the employee use, that seems like a great thing to have, too. Um you know, we talked about like and this comes up to you could talk about like cyberbullying. Well, bullying is bullying, so the SRNR, you know, kind of applies to that behavior. So, again, when thinking about this this policy being about innovation and instructional technology, I do think either we embed a section about acceptable use or we as a sidebar ask for the superintendent to to advise us on an acceptable use policy for children and adults. So, that's my feedback. Miss St. John Cutting. Um I'm just going to weigh in that I do think that this is we

039should have just with all the work that my staff and I did during spring break with 1104, 1102, and everything and things were all over the place. I think that when you think of AI, you think of technology and I think that when it's all in one place, it makes it easy easily accessible for everyone as opposed to having something here, something there, something there. Uh it it You have to dig all over the place for stuff and I think part of the reason that all we're doing all of this work is to make it more accessible. So, I say, you know, technology is this bucket. Within the bucket of technology is AI, is our, you know, screens for certain things and then you go acceptable use, but that's all within one bucket. That makes

040more sense to me in terms of how people can look at it instead of having it bifurcated all over the place. Okay, so that's That's good. That's in agreement with Miss Lady and myself. Uh Miss Lady, do you have another comment on the purpose section here? Yes. Um speaking of acceptable use by um faculty and staff. This only references in technology for instructing students. It doesn't reference acceptable use policy. So, I don't want to put what the acceptable use policy is. I think that belongs in a regulation, but I'm comfortable saying that the purpose is that somewhere in here that there will be um you know, and I don't know if that acceptable use policy I mean, we can reference it because we definitely need to have them, right? But, I think somewhere in purpose,

041we can't just narrowly say technology for instructing students when we're talking about teachers using it also for thought partnering for, you know, developing lesson plans, being innovative, whatever. I I I I just feel like because we're talking about and actually right now it's teachers are using it way way more than kids are. I mean, it's impacting learning because of what teachers are gaining from that in terms of the intersectionality of inclusion and UDL instruction. So, I don't know how we do that, but it's a framework to ensure the use of technology for uh instructional delivery, for instruction and instructional delivery. Like, I just think we need to put something else in there. >> So, yeah, I'd I'd love to just comment on that. You know, I I see what you're saying and when we think

042of like the calendar, there's the employee calendar, student calendar. Um different HR like it could be an HR. So, I wonder if we could just put a pin in it and say like, where are we eventually going to put the part about acceptable use for employees? I don't know that we're there yet, but I I agree with you, it's important. >> I do think we need to add something related to in in in our instructional What did I just say? Um Yeah, how about the use of technology by faculty for instructing child students in instructional development and instructional delivery, maybe. Like, it's I don't know. I'm going to >> But, something. We have to include something. So, maybe we could put like a bracket in there to remind ourselves um Miss Clark, Madam Clark, like,

043you know, insert something in here that speaks to the role of faculty responsibility. Would that be accurate, Miss Lady? Like, to speak to the role of faculty responsibility or the role in general? >> that establish a framework to ensure the use of technology for instruction, but also for lesson development. I don't know the terminology. I'm going to look to the experts. I I'm This is where I would have staff wordsmith this. >> Right. And that's what we want to give >> Correct. However they want to deem that, but it's the use that's not, you know, it's like what they're doing back here, you know, sort of behind to inform delivery. Yes. So, our clerk is capturing down that prompt so the superintendent and her team can do that. And and we will change children to

044students. Um it seemed like that was a consensus. That's one little wordsmith we can get out of the way. Um and keeping safe, ethical, equitable, if you would like to put a comment around that, too, please, Miss Madam Clark. It's um Yeah, as a safe, ethical, equitable, we we liked that language. Uh and and equitable, please, um Miss Brown. Okay, so, yeah, Dr. Anderson. I have a question. >> Um you mentioned um Miss St. John Cutting that your staff looked through this. When you looked at it, how many and you said this is in the 1000s? Were there like three, four? Give me a sense of how many other policies are about technology that you had to >> No, I wasn't talking about this. I was talking about the other work that I did uh

045with the with the formatting and the the style guide and all that, which is which is not like huge. It wasn't a huge thing, but there there were different places that we found things that had it all been together, which is what we're trying to do. It made sense. It wasn't about this. I was just saying based on that experience, I think it would be easier that it's all here cuz then this is going to have a lot more. >> And I think that's what we've done with some other things. So, that leads me to then my question to Mr. Sethi. Do you have any sense of the number of technology policies that exist? Because if we're going to make this broadly, it would make sense for us review those to incorporate the pieces so

046we have a more of a one-stop shop approach. And that that was my statement. That's going to take a little bit more time if we're going to make it broad. Like how many other technology policies are we actually talking about? >> There's six. Well, we have some There's a couple you missed but we have some that we our staff did and we researched and we have them. I mean, I'll have to look up on my notes cuz like I have this very thick thing here but we do have them. >> this was, you know, part of when we first started, you know, I made a list and I said, "Here is a list of possible adjacent policies." And I did not receive any feedback from the committee about what else we should do, but I

047decided that we should do two of the 6,000s that are on our agenda for later today, 6220, that's 11 years old, and 6860, that is 12 years old, I think. So, we will get to those. So, there unlike other areas, there are not a lot of technology policies. So, I'd love to know the additional ones that you found Miss St. John Cunning. But, I think we're getting ahead of ourselves. So, I I just want to add like when we're talking about purpose and we were talking about um adding like acceptable use, I think >> [sighs] >> I mean, I've started to think about policy a lot different in terms of it being a very high level and then the specifics coming in at regulation, which was why I was saying the safe ethic ethical transparent

048would not be there that we could have put like evidence-based data. But, if we're talking about acceptable use, the acceptable use is safe ethical equitable and transparent. I mean, that is the acceptable use for students and and then that then that goes into the specifics would go into regs, is the way I see it. Does that make sense? It does. I I still agree that we need to have this language because it connotes something very different >> I'm saying is that covers the concept of acceptable use without us having to Oh, I see what you're saying. without us having to wordsmith because basically acceptable use should be safe ethical eth- I didn't have advocacy for ethical for acceptable use. So, yeah, so Madam Clerk, I just want to be sure I know it's hard to

049copy down what we're saying. That phrase safe ethical equitable, all three of those words should be in that comment that says language all to be included. We want to protect that language. And then Sure, thank you. And so, what I hear Miss St. John Cunning said you know, that language can signal that it must be acceptable use, but my input to that is that term acceptable use is like now just terminology that is used in this work. And so, I would even say um under at the role of faculty responsibility, articulate there, you know, that it's acceptable use. Like use that language cuz people are looking for that. Parents are looking for What's the AUP? What's the acceptable use policy? And I think another again coming back to it is well, where do we detail

050that more in policy for employees and even in general at our level. Um And if I could also add one last thing just to put a finer point on what Miss um Lady shared. For the instructional piece, I think what I'm hearing is we need to ensure that we have language regarding the planning, the teaching, and the learning components of the experience of our in our schools. Did you want to comment? I just think that would go in regs, not in policy. Can you repeat what you would want in there? What you >> I was just kind of co-signing when she we she didn't have the language. She just wanted to make sure we were being um broad in terms of all the components where educational technology comes in. It comes in at the planning

051because this is where our teachers are right now with the AI. It comes in at the instruct at the teaching and it comes in at the learning for students. So, all these three are part of the overall experience that I think we're trying to ensure is captured. >> So, you said planning and instruction? Planning, teaching, learning. >> But, well, teaching is instruction, isn't it? I want to be really clear. So, it's two places. It's really And that's how we generally think of our services, right? There's instructional and there's operational or right? So, planning is sort of the operation in this. But, anyway, I'm just trying to say that in the purpose, we would like it also Miss Clerk if you could please write down, you know, be clear that we're talking about planning and instruction,

052those aspects of teaching. But, planning is not teaching. That's a different activity. >> also yeah. So, hey, we just got pretty far with the purpose. Way to go. Um can we backtrack though up to the top to the actual where this policy lives? We started talking about, you know, the series. So, it was introduced to us as a 3,000 policy, which is instruction, but the office of record that would own it is the IT office. So, what I had recommended is we actually make it in our instructional office, our instructional services department, office of instructional services. Can we have a discussion about that and if there's agreement on that or not? Dr. Anderson. Um I I don't know if I have any strong feelings about it one way or the other, but if our hope

053is that technology is a tool for instruction, then it makes sense for us to live in the instructional realm, but I really don't have strong feelings one way or the other. Go for Go for it, Miss Yeah, my only thought is that uh we referenced policy 6220. So, that's clearly is tech is you know, like we're we're combining technology and instruction. So, I don't know that we can say it lives in one particular place. And or do we not want to sunset 6220 and instead accept the redlining and keep some of that that that those techy details out of the policy to make it just an instructional policy. Miss St. John Cunning, did you want to add this time now? So, I agree with you and I mean, you know how our policies sometimes will

054dip across. I see 6220, which is about information security, disaster recovery, and contingency planning as enterprise-wide. So, I would not recommend folding in 6220, but something like cyberbullying, right? We we roll that in. Do we crosswalk it to someplace else? But, so under that guise, I do think that we should keep it I'm very much in favor of having it live in instruction. And I what I would do and and maybe we get eventually to this phase where we've got some pretty good uh like editing notes for staff to then work with. I would ask that uh Dr. Presidio and um Mr. Sethi evaluate is there anything in here that truly is technology solid that shouldn't be in an in an instructional policy. Um just as one of staff's exercises when they we get to

055a point where we're asking them to review it. So, let's be sure that we capture that. So, um Madam Clerk, so this would be up in talking about just in general, right? Can you re- rephrase that, Miss Lady? Yeah, that once we get to a place where we want staff to review and tr- incorporate this our conversations, uh I would want Mr. Sethi and Dr. Presidio to also read it with the lens of ensuring what's in here lives in instruction and if there's anything that has bled in that really belongs outside of this but in a very tech-specific policy, that we make that they that they help us make that adjustment at that time. Great. And I copied that down as as well. Great. So, I've said that, but does that is that a fair

056ask of staff or no? I think that whoever gets named on the policy just their responsibility to make sure it stays updated. That doesn't mean that's the department that's going to manage the work. That's determined at the senior leadership table. So, this work can't live in one department only or it'll become a siloed enterprise. And if this has to be enterprise-wide as almost all our policies do to work, right? The Chief of Schools owns a piece of this. Our equity department owns a piece of this. >> Our IT department that's going to own a piece of this. Instructional own a piece of it. It the title of the department that reviews it doesn't connote where it actually quote unquote where the work lives if that makes sense. Because if only instruction and no equity department,

057no IT, no Chief of Schools, it's going nowhere. So, that's helpful. So, I don't really need that notation then because at the end of the day, I think what we're endeavoring to do is um talk about how technologies are used across the gamut instructionally. And that's therefore probably belongs in instruction. So, Yeah, I mean, until we get to this phase where we >> Yeah, T-specs, ASPITs, and all of those pieces, they have to work in concert. They can't work in silos. Well, I I wasn't going to mention it, but now I feel compelled to. This is the signal of where the board intends the work to where the heart is. And for me, the heart is instruction. But, I know you agree, but the answer that everybody works on it, that's true, but just like,

058you know, I was looking through um later on like our how we're going to review policies. This is a perennial discussion. Special education is listed as special services. Well, shouldn't it be in instructional services? It changes the frame of mind on how we view these things. Um you know, right now promotion, retention, grading, graduation are in special services, but that's related to instruction. So how we choose to define it, I think, does really matter. So I'm in agreement. And I don't think it's just a label and then yeah, IT is going to take it over. No. This is a label that conveys that the board expects this to be grounded in instruction. Agreed. Which is why I don't think we need my comment. I think your comment reminds us. Okay. I like your comment. >>

059Okay. Okay. Well, thank you. All right. So okay, and how about then the title? Do we want to stick with that for now? I don't want to word smith, but it sounds like we're we're in that realm. Okay. So nicely done. We are 5-0 minutes in. We have the definition section next, which seems like it could be less complicated. Um and then, you know, we get to the philosophy and the responsibilities. And I think where the responsibilities section, that's the part that we hear a lot of clamoring about. So do we want to How about for the definitions, we go through and say, are there definitions we need in here? Are there some that we don't want? And maybe just hold on changing the definitions of the actual things in there. Okay? So do we

060agree what's in there? Is there anything else you'd want added? Dr. Anderson, definition section. Yes. I I think I said this last time and it's in the notes here for us to have a definition of and examples of non-generative AI because I think it gives a little bit of context to parents that perhaps this is already in our um educational space. However, just kind of pulling back, if this is going to be an overall educational technology, I think most of these definitions are AI related. And I'm not saying that they shouldn't be because we know that's where the questions are, but should we be a little bit more inclusive? But I'm fine with the definitions that are here, but we need to have the non-generative generative AI be part of the list. Okay. So asking

061for non-generative AI, but considering widening it. Ms. Singh John Cunning. So um mine is more of a formatting thing in terms of definitions. Like if these have to be in the policy, like if they could be moved to regs or the or we could have an annex with the with the you move it to an annex page because the policy should be short, concise, and boom. And then this can be in another section like as an annex or in regs. Or an appendix. Perhaps even. Yeah. I mean, whatever the verbage is. We had that con What's that? Oh, sorry. But so the idea that and we we've done this with some other policies when there's a lot of con- details to say, look at the appendix. So okay. I I could get behind that. I

062have to say because this is such a an intense thing and it's fairly new to our community, just like grading, we had to get to a space where we had to explain what some of these things meant. You know, parents didn't know what formative was or what summative is because not only is this direction to the superintendent, this is also information to the community. And we have many many of our policies have the definitions embedded. Now if the list is getting to be very very long, I don't think moving it to the back would be a would be um a problem, but I wouldn't want it to be kind of the standalone document or in the regs because it needs to be part of what is explaining the expectations. Okay. Well, thank you. So differing

063opinions about where to put this. But do you want to finish your comments here, Ms. Cunning, and then let's go to like the content itself. Go ahead. The reason I say this is we were first initially looking at this as an AI policy. We have now moved to technology and I I think I need more time to speak with um you know, our IT department and stuff to look at all I don't think we have it's I don't think it's all inclusive of what we're trying to do here. And and so that's why that if we are going to have definitions, this was geared more towards AI. Um I think there's a lot of other definitions that would fall under the overarching technology policy. Not to mention that there might be things we don't even

064know that they're going to invent yet. Like we already know like those glasses, you know. >> [laughter] >> That kind of stuff. So um that that's why I'm saying that uh agreeing with Dr. Anderson that that I don't think this is all inclusive and I think I really need time um to you know, speak with IT to and and instructional services to see what all kinds of technology is being used. And I do agree that having definitions so people can understand what they are are helpful. I mean, me being one of those that needs that the most. Um it's like if we're going to do definitions, then we have to be inclusive. As as many as is are possible that can be informative to our families and to your students and to our staff. Thank

065you. And I agree with Ms. Singh John Cunning. I just want to ask um Madam Clerk, could you please put the definition section a comment that says to add non-generative AI? And I wonder given uh Ms. Singh John Cunning's comment, is I wonder that too. So how about we put in here and ask for staff to come back with a list of what else would they recommend be defined in in the realm of um technology um you know, terms to define in instructional technology writ large. So Ms. Lady. So in in the responses from staff, they asked if we're going to include definitions, the policy is broader as a broader educational technology policy. >> I'm on page five of the answers to the questions from Dr. Reed's team. And they added instructional learning management system,

066digital productivity tools, digital assessment tools, and standards-aligned digital instructional programs. Well, that's the quickest answer ever. So that could be inserted. That's question seven. >> I do, if I can, ask about um the the cuz I'm looking at the definitions and I don't see I don't see generative AI. Oh, there it is. So that you want non-generative AI. Is that also on the comments from Dr. Reed? What page What Well, okay. So great. So Ms. Lady, there There it is. Sorry, yes, it is at non-generative AI is a type of artificial intel- yeah. So we there's the definition for that, too. Wonderful. Okay. So just to summarize, so Madam Clerk, if you could please insert there, right? So add from the superintendent's response document, it's from question seven that has the definitions and then it's

067question nine. So and what I want to confirm is we're building here to be able to now, after this meeting, hand it off to the superintendent for her to redline and update this policy and come back to us with a revised policy. Is that accurate, board members? I have I nod. Is that your understanding? I I I I think if we get there, you know, depends on how far we get through the discussion. We're building it. But this is usually how we do the thing is that we ask them to come back with, you know, we keep iterating the document. Ms. Brown. I mean, in the consensus, we can say redline for Sure. This was not an official. I just This is why we're writing the comments to give guidance to the superintendent and perhaps

068others are taking notes, but like I just want to make sure we take the time when we do get to the consensus part to actually write down exactly what we want. Okay. But But again, I mean, this is great progress. Yeah, the only other comment I would make is that when we did grading, if we are looking for some some consistency, we did put the definitions basically right after the summary of changes, which we this policy wouldn't have. So it'd be right after purpose. If we're looking to do anything in alignment, but >> Well, let's not get into that just I appreciate that. Um and you know how we're trying to format. Okay. So let's What about this for the definition section? How about for our next meeting, if people want to come if the

069board wants to come with any specific feedback about specific word changes? Okay, if you really feel strongly, but otherwise, we can live with these. Ms. Lady. I'm not going to come back with anything strongly. I'm going to defer to staff who are far more expert on this than me to come up or add a definitions. That's just me personally, but if other people want to bring something back to the 21st, that's fine. Okay. Well, fabulous. Okay. So and Superintendent, you're following along, you're with us with how we're trying to get clear on the asks. Okay. Yes, ma'am, I am. And I I also appreciate the deputy clerk's you know, work to get it the clarity at the end just so that we're all on the same page and come back with what you would expect.

070Yes. Yes. Okay, great. So we're going to look at philosophy now. Uh which is at the bottom of page two. So this was a new con- this is new content that I drafted. And um I didn't use AI. I actually wrote it. But I added in things that I heard from the community. So do folks want to take a read of it and and rather than word smith, right? Let's think of are there big ideas that you want in here, or are there some things in there that you don't think are necessary? So, why don't we take a minute or two, and then happy to kick that off. Hold on, actually, I'm incorrect. The blue is what the superintendent proposed. So, scratch that. This was the existing that is in the original policy. Let's just

071double-check. Right. So, So, the philosophy section in the superintendent's So, I apologies. Version So, it says version seven, and that's what's been posted for in BoardDocs the last two meetings as well. This philosophy is what the superintendent provided us with. So, again, thoughts on are there core themes we want to include? Are there things in here we don't think are necessary? Let me just give people a minute to glance that over. The clerk said that Mr. Frisch had thought this was a bit wordy. Well, this all refers to AI, and it should This is a technology policy. We We need to change the wording. It says the Fairfax County rec Oh, my microphone is on. It is on. Okay. I'm sorry. Um so, we're going to have to change I We're going to many technologies

072or something. We're going to have this cuz this was all relating to AI, and we're this we are now working on a technology policy. So, we're going to have to change that. Um I mean, Miss Miss Miss Tichenor Cunningham, are you finished for now? Yes. Okay. Yeah, I'll Yeah, I'm just looking at reading at Okay. >> where it has to change. >> So, that's a really um well-received point. Dr. Anderson. Just going right through my notes here. One is exactly that, to broaden to include technology if we're going to go beyond AI. Two, I think we need to have some language in addition to the recognition of the usefulness of technology, and but also an acknowledgement of the challenges, um which will also, I think, mirror what was in the purpose in terms of the

073need to organize guardrails. Um And thirdly, I think we really need an our philosophy which really serves as our belief. I I think some language regarding ensuring that students are critically evaluating the use of all technology for various purposes would also be very helpful. Again, this goes to the core of the values of the board, and those are the things that I believe reflect at least the values that I'm bringing from my constituent work. Okay, so let's make sure we capture that. So, first we have the overall comment from two colleagues that it's going to need to be a little more broad. Um Then, Dr. Anderson said recognizing the usefulness and also the challenges. Okay, we got that. And then critical evaluation by students for all tech. So, for them to develop that discerning mindset.

074Is that what you're getting at? Okay. Whether it be I can use a calculator, or I can use a computer, or I can use whatever the exact tool is, and our huge drive is on um digital literacy. We have to ensure that we have that be as a comment that we want for kids to be discerning and utilizing the um tools that are available to them, and that's also all over the standards for technology integration and supports. It's just making sure kids are critically thinking about those um what they're outlining in the five Cs, just kind of bringing some of that language into our philosophy. Yeah, I really like the the word discerning. Miss Lady, did you want to add? Yeah, uh I mean, I think that some of the comments are excellent, but I

075also think that if I'm I don't want to speak on behalf of Mr. Frisch, but uh you know, I think when you get in here, obviously we need to reference many technologies. I'm not sure I like the word powerful in the first sentence. Um I think it's just I just think we should say AI is a tool. And instead of to be, I think it should be which may be used in the division. I mean, they don't have to use it, okay? But it presumes that >> So, let's do AI as a tool which may be used Right. Well, recognize that technology is a tool. Okay, sure. We did it broader. Which may be used in the division. Yes. And then when you when you get to um it you know, obviously it's going to

076augment, enhance uh the work of educators. Um So, I guess what I wouldn't expect in a philosophy, but I understand why Dr. Reed's team included it because it's speaking to the fears of our community. But if you were not going to do that in policy, which I don't think we do in all policies. We don't necessarily address the fear that we that some folks have. When you talk about professional development, creativity, instructional expertise, then you the part here that says the essential empathetic relationship between the teacher all the way through up until this framework. That's just allaying fear. I I I I appreciate the language. I understand it's the focus. It's certainly you know, but I'm but I'm just saying if we were it it's not needed in a philosophy, but I understand why it's

077there. I'm not asking to scratch it. I'm just making a comment um that that that's that's my belief system regarding how it got included. Um Um And even the next sentence, when we talk about establishing division's commitment to a proactive and defensive posture to mitigate liability and protect student rights under federal laws. I mean, that's what we have to do all the time. We don't put that in every policy, either. So, you know, perhaps, you know, highlighting all the way through that piece, and I don't know Again, I understand why it's there. I don't debate whether it shouldn't be there. I'm just making an observation that I think it's there. Well, I guess I could ask. I mean, you know, in in terms of that particular section that starts with um the essential empathetic relationship

078all the way through uh federal laws. Um it seems like that was there to help inform a reader of policy that these are that these are our values. I think that as we as the team um who put this together reviewed a lot of different literature, the state policies, um most recently the framework I shared with all of you. The There's really a desire to reiterate and be extraordinarily redundant intentionally about staying human-centered in this work. So, um my understanding is that that that's really something that the team also felt the board would want to hold up as a very um public value. Um I do think that there was a philosophy statement where it talked about human-centered right at the beginning. I think we could also just say student-centered education, right? Um because that's

079what our strategic plan um is all about. So, I I just think there many of the policies and philosophies around the nation right now are working very hard to say this is not a replacement. This is to augment. Um this can be a tool to increase effectiveness, support efficiency, to spend more time human to human, not less. So, I think that was the point. >> Yeah. Excellent. And I And I like that. And if Again, if we're going to scratch AI and make it technology, it's it appears again in the next paragraph under AI implement implementation. Um it can stay there cuz it's more specific. So, I do understand it, and I do think you're right. I do think our public who's going to be scrutinizing this would like to see the continued reference to

080it. So. >> And I would also just add it's not just our public, but I think anytime you the board does a policy, it's a signal to both the internal um audience, which is division staff, as well as external, which is our community and families. And it's families and community who don't have families in the school, right? Our business community, um our uh but our internal staff want to know that we value their human contribution to this work. And I know our educators work so very, very hard, and there's a feeling I think sometimes that AI some people may intend it to replace aspects of what we would consider a really important human connection in education. So, I think it's also a it's a signal to our internal community to say we value our people

081and what our people bring to this work. So, I would leave that there. Great. Miss Tichenor Cunningham. Well, thank you, Dr. Reed, because it's I I had all that scratched out, too. I thought that I mean, a lot of those words are very much feeling words. And again, I'm trying to think very high level like even enhance professional judgment creativity instruction. I was going to just put just work you know because but based on what you said and I know again now I'm torn with the idea of what should go in a policy like how dry should it be as opposed to how um I I don't know the opposite to use to that but I understand why those why that language was used there now based on what the superintendent said and probably as

082you said uh alluded to like to allay the fears of our community. But it's I had that all scratched out too. But that means some consensus. Um Dr. Anderson to say >> quick comment. It's really quick. The only thing I think is we have philosophy should we break it out and do a values or just leave it as philosophy? Let's leave it as philosophy cuz we work so hard to get a format. Dr. Anderson and then I'll share something. >> Yes, just kind of going back looking at the long history of this work the philosophy really um encompasses what some policies have as beliefs. Some policies have as values. All of it is we're trying to boil a plate boil it down to using one term but it's supposed to represent all of those things

083so we have consistency in the formatting. And in that section that is a section that is not necessarily super high level because it gives information about what we believe in. One of the things I remember asking that question in this very room when the philosophy with the policy regarding um providing opportunities or space for staff to breastfeed we made a value statement. I remember asking um Mr. um Foster about it where we said this is best because of the research. So this is that space where if we're going to be more flowery in the language this is the space where that would live and I appreciate Dr. Reed's state oh she's not here. I I appreciate Dr. Reed's statements because it exactly reflects what the community is looking for which would speak to my point.

084There's a lot of fervor around um AI. There's a lot of fervor in the community around screen time. How do we not in this section be purposeful and be really targeted in the AI piece while we're trying to attempt to make this an overall technology um policy? I mean I'm just looking to hear people's thoughts. I think we have to be pointed even if it's just as an example um for example in terms of um ensuring that it's included here. We cannot not have that. It's especially after the comments that she shared but it brings us back down to a narrower scope. Thank you. Um so I really like I like all the comments that's been said. I found a lot of alignment. Stating what's best for kids. We know it's best for students when

085it's human centered. I just find human centered to be very um lingoish. I liked uh what someone else said student centered or you know what does that mean human in the loop students like that's very wonkish. So Dr. Reed said she said not a replacement but a tool to augment so as to spend more time human to human. I think if we can add that kind of language in there so I don't know if um Madam Clerk you can help us capture that but it seems like to summarize the this philosophy we know that it's got to be less about AI and I agree with Ms. Lady like the fear part we don't want to ignore it but we could write it in a way that's like we support our students and we're going to

086protect our students and we are going to stand by our humans. And then we have all those other tech policies to really help with you know data security. I I do think that this is the place to put a statement in there about device use and screen time. And so it could be that a two paragraph philosophy doesn't have to go on forever but I do agree that if this is the whole thing we've got to say it intentionally. So let me just make sure um if our if our clerk could um it's all not a replacement have tech policies well we wouldn't add that we have tech policies for data security. Um and then we're getting to the tech usage. So I guess what I would want is for us or the superintendent to

087talk about really elevating that it's not a replacement but it's a tool to augment and instruct you know the work of our vital educators. Right? And we will always value the human work. So that's really what this wants to convey right? We we know what's best for kids is to have it be human centered and value educational research. And then the next piece is okay now let's get into the gritty about screen time and devices. And my version actually have four bullets. Okay. Well let's hear from Ms. Lady and then Ms. Stjohn Canning. So I think the notes are great. I defer back to Dr. Reed if she wants to make that more concise or use some different language but I think we need to keep it. Uh in terms of the um one-to-one there's

088under responsibilities we start to talk about one-to-one devices. So I was planning to discuss K2 at that time but you kind of brought it up here. I don't know that I want to put it in philosophy but I do I've had some good conversations with folks about the K2 use and basically my understanding is it's incredibly most places it's very limited but I have heard from folks where that's not the case perhaps in their building. And so what I would propose if we put anything here related to K12 is that we limit it to no more than 30 minutes a day. >> K2 or K12 Ms. Lady? K2. K2 okay. K2. That we limit it to no more than 30 minutes a day. Because here's the deal. Their assessments are on a device. So if

089they're giving an if they're you doing an assessment it's going to be more than 30 minutes but outside of the assessment use otherwise we have to go back to paper pencil and we're not preparing them for later primary grades because so many of our assessments are I mean SOLs are all on a device. But in terms for instructional use to you know um that I would limit it to no more than 30 minutes a day um and some days zero. I don't necessarily and it could be just that they have a cart of devices that they that stay in the room versus them being issued one-to-one. I just don't want to say no access to any device because there are things that are happening that are important. But from you know for station rotation or

090for other reasons I would want to limit to no more than 30 a day K2 unless they're on it taking an assessment cuz sometimes the assessment takes longer than 30 minutes. >> about the responsibility section not that philosophy section at this time? >> be both. My point is you raised it here but it's in responsibilities. I'd rather keep it in responsibilities and separate it out um but since it came up in philosophy I wanted to share my thoughts K2. Um later than that I I don't I haven't done enough work and inquiry around finding out how often devices are used 3-6 um or even in middle. So I'm not in a position to make a recommendation on time um as I am K2. Okay thank you. Ms. Stjohn Canning. Yeah so I think as we

091look at the philosophy and again I I think in philosophy and exactly what you were talking I think I think that goes more in regs but I think one of the things that when we're trying to capture all of this I think what does have to be in our philosophy is that our guiding decisions are going to be with evidence-based data. And I think that will answer a lot of fears that maybe parents may have because if our division can point exactly to your point for certain grades you know the littles it might be limited but if we're doing assessments like our evidence-based situation is that they have to do assessment that we're going to have to do it and it's going to require this much time. And everything else that follows is like where

092in the spectrum of developmentally appropriate it should all be on evidence-based data which I think this school division does a great job of of doing is we look at the data we say this is appropriate and we move forward and we don't have to define what that is yet because in some situations we're not going to know but we know that whatever decision we're going to make is going to be based on evidence-based data. So I think that's something we should incorporate here in our philosophy that whatever we do with technology takes that into consideration. Okay. Can Okay and then can I go? Okay. Yeah sorry. It's okay. Um the human in loop concept I mean I we had that has to stay. I mean in the idea of what you said you know AI

093can't do it alone the human will always need to be the one in the loop to judge um what's best for students. Got it. Okay. So can I say something? I do think that the philosophy should include a statement about device use and the intentionality and screen time. Right? We've Yeah and the evidence-based actually makes me think of I had questions when I looked at the comments you know the information from the superintendent. What are the criteria by which our apps are being evaluated? There was you know things in here about the assess you know the um who like question six. How would student safety you know, AI features are reviewed, the tool approval process, the technology review teams, the tool evaluation criteria. I don't see that being an ISD language. What's the instructional purpose

094here? Because we know a a lot of what we're hearing is kids are doing wrote things, they're offloading cognitively. So, yeah, it might not expose bad actors online, but if it's going to take our kids into just click and do. So, I I do want something in the philosophy that says you know, either the board sets the the directive about the availability of devices. You know, we could straight up say no one-to-one devices for K2. And I mean, we're saying these things because we've heard that that's really what we're hearing is the best thing, but I would like it to actually be backed by research that says, yeah, kids don't need devices one-to-one that age. I'd like to be bolder in there and as well as keep the responsibility section, like keep that stuff in

095there. So, and I wonder even saying things like you know, 30 minutes a day. You know, I'd say, well, you know, kids probably a lot of kids probably go home and have devices at home. They know how to click and do things, right? Like I don't know that I'd want to say every kid can have up to 30 minutes. That seems like a regulation thing, but what we want to say is, look, we expect our kids not to be on devices unless it's absolutely instructionally necessary. So, I'd rather say something like that and then say, okay, the super has to figure out what that looks like. Maybe it's a classroom cart of devices. I mean, there's also budgetary savings, too, in doing it this way. Um, so so, I don't know where that gets us

096in creating that content. I mean, I feel like maybe I could write something cuz that's kind of how I think think through things and share it and I think it might be hard for the superintendent to capture what we as the board are trying to capture as our values. Dr. Anderson? Um, yes, thank you. I just wanted to confirm what I believe I heard so I could check some stuff off of my list. Um, this section This section is going to continue to um, be broad and articulate what the board's philosophy and beliefs are. I would and it will include language regarding screen time and device use. It would be my advocacy to again mirror work that we've already done. When I looked at the grading policy, the philosophy was very broad in terms of

097consistency. The philosophy was very broad regarding consistency. However, in another section, we were clear that it had to be one type of grade book. And that there had to be um, one set of weighting. Because the philosophy was still broad, we had the exact thing. And I love love love love the idea of saying the K2 limit to 30 minutes, but I don't think that lives in the philosophy. The philosophy should be that we're mindful that screen time should be limited, that use of devices should be appropriately um, developmentally appropriate and age appropriate. I I think it's the big overarching, the philosophy is just the thoughts. In another section, we get into the nitty-gritty. K2 limit in two by 30 minutes. Device use, be discerning and all of the things that I've just heard. So,

098that would be my thinking. Thank you. I just want to do a time check. So, we have 40 minutes left. We still have on the agenda to get through some policies that we've just kind of been waiting to do and then what I well, and also the calendar policy. So, we've covered a ton of ground today. I wonder if we should kind of summarize where we're at now with the AI policy and then be clear on what our next steps are. Um, because I think it's going to get you know, maybe the next meeting is just AI. I don't know. But, there's a lot of stuff in the next section. And maybe now with this discussion today, we're going to be much fresher for the the next meeting. So, what do you all think about

099trying to summarize where we're at now, get clear on next steps, and move on to calendar and some of the other policies we'd scheduled. I'd be okay with it because I think the next steps of this policy are really the meat in terms of who does what, does it live in regulation, does it live here? Um, I I think we have the overall broader things already outlined. Um, the other question that I had that I don't know well, I had it under philosophy, but I I'm sorry, under responsibility, but I wonder should we signal to it in philosophy the role of our parents? Like how do we expect want them to engage with us on this work or with their students on this work? Because we have every year at the beginning of the year,

100yes, my kid can be on YouTube or they cannot be on YouTube. So, clearly we already have practices that embed our parents into our routines. I wonder if should we should signal that kind of um, relationship in the philosophy, but for it to be better spelled out elsewhere the same way I just described the um, number of minutes for screen time. But, I'm fine with what you've devised. Otherwise, we won't get to any of these other things. >> Yeah, Ms. Lady. I mean, I'm comfortable. I mean, we've basically gotten through one page of four. Um, I agree. I don't want to put anything detailed in the philosophy and I mean, I'm comfortable sort of creating an expectation of what goes in regulation related to different screen times, but um, if we feel like it needs

101to be put in policy to ensure that it is 0 to 30 minutes um, during the school day. Obviously, we can't control what happens once kids go home in terms of screen time. Um, that works for me. I don't know whether or not any reference to parents should be under responsibilities or not. Cuz we've we've kind of toyed with that in the grading policy. Like what's the responsibility of parents? And I don't remember where we landed on it, but I'm not sure if we can put a something in about parents cuz we can't it's not something we can control for. >> To responsibility or part or or philosophy? Either. I mean, it's not something we can control for. Yeah. So, okay. Ms. St. John Cunningham. I was going to go to you. I I mean,

102there's a lot of stuff here and again, um, I have to dig deeper into this just because I was prepared for something else. Um, I think with parents as a former parent liaison now family liaison I think for us to put anything in policy about parents, um, we we have no en enforceability. We have no anything over that. All we can control are the students that are in our in our Okay. Okay, I just I just want to make sure that I just want to be cautious about that. Um, and also just cautious about that because of the diversity of our population what are the expectation of what parents can and can't do depending on where they're at. That's that's just that's just a those are the quick red flags that came up in my

103head. Okay. May I I have I feel like I have to clarify that. Um, I was not um, wanting to our to communicate that we wanted parents to do X, Y, and Z necessarily. I wanted to communicate that there was a role for parents in this work. Because we already have that that exists. Every year, I have to go check off to see what technologies do I want my child to engage in. I just wanted to signal that parents are not outside of our expectations regarding technology and AI and all of those things. Does that help? >> That's fair, yeah. >> Yeah, I think that's the parent academy they've talked about. And I'm looking at the the policy, the um, grading policy under responsibilities, there is a section for parents and caregivers that says to

104engage with teachers to understand student progress. So, we've had that is more of an expectation. Okay, so I'm going to summarize some things to see about consensus. Okay, so, Madam Clerk, um, I'm going to document as well as if you could, too. So, can we and Madam Clerk, can you go to the top page, please, the front page? So, can we have consensus to adjust the name on this policy of the office to office of instructional services from IT? We all agreed on that. Are we in agreement? >> I'm fine. Okay, so, that will be um, adjusted. Okay. The name of the policy to innovation and instructional technology. Just for now, let's just get rid of some of these track changes, make it cleaner. Is there that's what captures the broader. Are you good with

105that? Okay, great. Under purpose, it we wanted you to update the language a little bit, but I I wonder if that's something that the board needs to do rather than the superintendent and her team. We provided some input, but it seems like that's ours to own. Are there thoughts on who would return? >> the superintendent just taking what we've already articulated and just putting it into words. Okay, Ms. Lady. Well, I would say this. I don't know that we want to send this to the superintendent until we get through page six of our comments. I mean, but let me ask, do you want to do this as we've done this? Like we've gotten to a sort of a space here where we think we're done with a page and a half of this. Would you

106you to then take that part with the feedback or wait until we've got feedback on the entire document? You know, I think staff are all here listening. I I don't to me it seems like once you're done with where you're headed, that's where the meat of the work is yet to come. It's not you know, so to comment on the purpose which I I mean, honestly, I think you've completed the definitions we've added, the philosophy, you're there. I don't know that I mean, I don't know that we would have anything to add to that, to be honest, but I think it's the rest of the policy that likely when you're done with that to have us take a look, I think would probably be most efficient. Well, I don't know that I agree it's the

107most efficient because then that means that we are to do this very quickly, like today, to turn it around to to I would prefer if we could accept our changes, get rid of as much track changes as possible, and and keep going. It shouldn't be that that hard. I mean, the definitions, even if it's just a placeholder, if it's copy pasting, you know, there's more staff in here than school board members. So, surely somebody can find the time to do that. >> did this with the grading policy, too, cuz we had about 8,000 different versions at some point. Yeah, so I don't So, again, what I'm trying to do is and Madam Clerk, I guess I don't know if we're changing it, can you adopt those changes that we just said, the name of the

108office? Let's get Let's adopt all that stuff. Um you could take I will change the name. I would have to go through it and do it because uh you did track changes instead of the redline, so it's a little bit different of a process for me to just hit accept, accept, accept cuz it's only going through my edits right now, but I can certainly do that on the back end. May I suggest that it seems that the superintendent wants kind of all of our feedback in the entire document before moving on. >> like to do it the way I've proposed, okay? We just have to pick a way and do it. So, can we can I continue? >> it, but I don't think it could be done right now, and we have very limited time.

109I know we do. So, I just don't see any notation up there that we're accepting that, and that's I'm trying to be real particular here. There is no notation anywhere that says we are adopting that. So, can you please make a notation? So, where I'd rather put this is the motions document under my consensus. Can you put it both places, please? Sure. I want there to be zero doubt of what is happening, please. Under the purpose and the definitions I'm suggesting that the superintendent just make those changes that we've articulated here. Is there agreement on that? We articulated all this stuff. Talking I I just need to clarify just the technical accept the changes in this document? I I don't understand what else we would do with it because it feels like you're in agreement

110with what's there, and I I think it's just a matter of accepting the changes if I'm looking at that correctly. Well, um in definitions, we said that we agreed with the content you provided in a different document. Can you literally cut and paste it in? Um Ms. Maren, this is Ms. Etlow. Could I propose what we did with the boundary policy and similar as well? My staff went through and did um what you're requesting, which is to include the things that have been put in Excuse me, through um the changes, and then we post um to this meeting, we say what, you know, this is the draft as of this date from the governance committee meeting on BoardDocs, and we notify everybody when that is up and posted. >> is what I thought we were

111trying to articulate. But we also have a meeting in 1 week. So, I'm just trying to avoid, personally myself, saying I will go in and copy it and paste and make these edits. I mean, this should not take a super long time. I just [clears throat] I'm trying to be really clear. So, my staff and I can get that done and get it turned around as soon as possible, and then we can follow what we did with boundaries because we had this similar issue. And it's because we're controlling it, and we already have it, it was easier than trying to send it back to the superintendent and having her team have to look through the notes. That's fine. So, can can the clerk team commit to having this back to the board by COB, close

112of business Wednesday? That end of the day tomorrow, the updated version with what we've all been getting consensus on can come back to us? I would just ask for Thursday at noon because we have chairs and post chairs tomorrow. We also have admin committee. And we have admin committee, so could we do Thursday at noon? I'm I'm okay with that. I mean, I I I think it takes time, and I you know, I'm happy to help, too, cuz I'll be here tomorrow. Yeah, I think I think we've got to be respectful of how much time this is. >> Yeah, I'm just trying to put in processes because every time we do something, it just seems like there's something slightly different, and then it becomes a problem. So, let me just please articulate then what the

113commitments are, okay? So, title change, the name change for the policy, agree to update the purpose language as we indicated. So, and update the definition section, please, to include from questions 7 and 9, the definitions offered in the superintendent's document. So, all of those things we had consensus, and can we have confirmation that the clerks can return a version um to the school board and superintendent by Thursday noon? Yes. Okay, and school board members, yes, go ahead, please. >> Um Dr. Reed, what I know that I asked for extra definitions if we're going to talk about technology. I don't think that the clerks can come up with those definitions. I think it some of it, but I but I was looking at it. I don't know if it's as comprehensive it I know that we're

114just looking at the beginning. We're not finished, so we can still have time to keep adding to this. I just I want to be mindful of the time that it takes for for leadership to do this, for clerks to do this, um for our staff to do this. So, is that going to be something that's feasible in terms of including all the definitions, or is it okay to include what you can up to that point and then keep adding because we still have four more pages. It's not as if we're finished with this document. So, I think the latter. Currently, um I think the adds that we have from the feedback are appropriate to integrate today. Staff are going to continue to work alongside the committee, so if we have more to add later once

115we get the policy back again, I think we could always add later, but I think to get a new current draft by Thursday, I think the definitions that we reviewed are likely sufficient for that for this Thursday. Thank you. >> Yeah. Right. So, again, we agreed on that. So, the clerks will handle all of that above. When it comes to philosophy, what I would like to suggest is any I know I would write a version. Do we each want to write a little bit or say what you absolutely want included and come back to discuss that? That is kind of the only idea I'm thinking of cuz again, that's not something we would ask the superintendent to devise cuz it's our philosophy. Yes, this lady. Yeah, I guess I would say that if the clerks

116want to take a stab at it based on what our conversation was, that's fine, but I also like you saying that each of us, if we want to do that, I just would need a copy of the of of the boxes that were on the right to cuz I didn't take copious notes on what we just talked about. I'm happy to draft my own, and I also think Mr. Frisch would probably want to take a stab at that as well. Okay, so wonderful. So, do we have consensus that we will each bring our own version? Could we have that to each other by Monday morning? Can we commit to that? Yes. And do you want to send them to the clerk? And I would like to compile them, and I will work with the clerk

117to get them distributed. Or how about we just I don't know. We It's hard to commit. >> [sighs] >> How about everyone just send them to the full committee and the clerks? Can we do that? Okay. So, each of us return with language by I'm sorry, what? For the philosophy, I'm hearing that the committee members will send their versions to us and to each other. My team will work to compile of them and get that posted by Monday. Wonderful. Right. So, by Monday morning, each sends uh the committee the committee members the language, the clerk team will compile into one document, which I gather um will be posted. Is that correct? Um Ms. Etlow or Ms. Brown? Yep, that as long as the committee members are fine with it, that's what we'll do for the

118philosophy. >> again one of those instances where we're talking about something, so I thought we had to post it. So, Yes. So, that's what I'm saying. If everybody send them to SB clerks and to the committee members, then Ms. Brown and I will work to compile them and get that posted. Okay, great. And Oh, Janet, yes. Just to be clear, this compiling of the philosophy is going to be a separate document, or is this going to be within the document? >> a separate document. >> Okay, got it. Thank you. Separate document. Do you want separate document? Okay, and then as far as then onward from there, do we want to dedicate the next meeting solely to AI and going through these responsibilities? Or What? Anyone? >> Are you saying AI or technology? I will say

119the technology, the instructional technology policy. Let's Can we adjust that name then? Which is more timely, this one or the calendar? Because I wouldn't want to say the entirety of the next meeting would be devoted to this if we need to get the calendar out a little bit faster. Okay. So, we will devote a considerable amount of time to this. And I will confirm the agenda with you all. We can do that today. At the end of the meeting, which is now in 20 minutes, so. But, this is great. Okay, so we're all clear. So, as far as the superintendent, there's no do out. Is that correct? Are we all in agreement? Yes? Dr. Reed, you're good? Okay. All right. So, let's shift to calendar cuz, you know, let's do some more easy work. We

120need to vote on consensus. So, all those things that So, the the clerk has put all of the things up on the agenda that we've talked about, and we want to make a consensus vote, so we're agreeing, okay? Um do I have a motion? I don't need a motion, just if they without objection. Does everyone agree? Yes? Ms. Sejan Cunning? Yes, okay. Wonderful. Excellent, everyone. Okay. All right. It would have been nice to take a little break, but let's get through the calendar a little bit. Okay, so let's So, what do we want to achieve in the next 20 minutes, and unfortunately we can't get to those other policies. I'll just say if it's possible to come to whenever the next meeting is that we talk about the agendaized policies that we're not going to

121get to again. So, it's those two in the 6,000s and the ones in the 5,000s. If you could come, are you good with it, or do you have really specific questions? And if there are specific questions, maybe we can even try to get them answered before time because otherwise we're just not going to get these approved, okay? So I Yeah, I mean, I do have specific questions, but I would ask when I would humbly request that when the governance chair's making these agendas that we look at a realistic timeline. Uh just because this is one of my one of my many committees, and in terms of staff time and what we have to dedicate time to, if we're not going to cover things on a certain day, they could be using their time someplace else.

122Noted. So, for the um calendar policy. So, we know that we have a deadline to get calendars to approve. So, the policy will then guide the development of those calendars. Do we want to take a minute to walk through how the current draft stands? So, this is the one that was first introduced on March 17th that combines six calendar policies. Are there I don't have much new to add from when we talked about it last time. Where do other people stand? Does this policy with that encapsulates most of the other policies work? Is there anything in here that people are opposed to? >> [sighs] >> Dr. Anderson, you have your placard up? And then Ms. Sejan Cunning? Yes, I know that we are very limited for time. Um and we don't have the opportunity to

123go through this one at a time. Again, I'm fine with the definitions, you know, the purpose is what it is. But, I think I want to hone in on where is it that we are being a little bit clearer in terms of what our expectations are. Um it says prioritizing full day um 5-day weeks, which is great. Um and I wonder, do we need to be a little bit more detail about some other things? For example, when school begins, um should it be 1 week, 2 weeks after Labor Day? Should we have any direction there? Should we have clarity in terms of when the end of the year um should be? Um also, regarding calendar development, there's been um I think some level of advocacy regarding the calendar committee. Um I I know FC I

124guess FCFT, they talked about that last week. So, I don't see any of that here. Um not just the committee, but the development process. And the thing that is very much near and dear to my heart, and that is my strongest advocacy, is the opportunity to provide for community input at some cadence, which I think it should not be every year, perhaps every 2 years, to the And I know I'm being super high level and not picking into this, but I know we're short on time. I want to make sure other people have time to speak. Ms. Sejan Cunning? It's okay. So, we have a drafted policy that reflects a lot of board member input. We have not yet asked the superintendent to provide feedback on that. Is it feasible? Is there a budgetary cost?

125We have some questions, perhaps. So, do we want to ask the superintendent formally to return with her analysis of this and answer any questions that remain? That is one option. So, Please go ahead. I guess um um wasn't wasn't as prepared as I should have been for this conversation, um but I am a little within the policy, the very last page, observances as student holidays. Um if I read this correctly, it looks like we're putting all of those decisions on Dr. Reed. Um in terms of cultural and religious observances, um I know at the last board meeting there was, if I'm correct, a vote to do some surveying, was that correct? At our board meeting on Thursday. So, I guess I want to speak to that. I don't want to get ahead of that by

126giving this to Dr. Reed. Um so, I guess I would say when it comes to that surveying, I think there has to be rank order options. Um like ultimately cuz otherwise they're they're all going to be competing. Um I mean, I think we need to say to folks like 2 weeks at winter break. Like 3 days for Thanksgiving. Um all federal holidays. Um Spring break is a week long. Spring break is um cuz I guess here's the other thought, right? Like, I don't personally philosophically, I'm not going to support any cherry picking of cultural religious holidays. It's either all or nothing. So, and what I mean by that is we either pull them all back and move Spring break off untether it to Easter week. Um I think that's further in the weeds than where

127we're at. >> Okay. What I think is that we have a draft policy that the board put together, and we need the superintendent's input. Is it feasible to you know, have 5 days a week a percentage of 5 days a week? What could we get? What happens if we, you know, we just codified eight early release days? Is that feasible? And um you know, the day the length of summer. I think we're at the point where we need the superintendent's input to know if like what's actually operational. Um I guess to that point, that there is a draft here, but I don't unless I'm having amnesia, I don't remember sitting here giving input. I I acknowledge the work of the chair of the committee. This is fantastic work. But, we haven't discussed it. So, I

128guess I'm unsure whether to move it and then have discussion based on Dr. Reed, which I'm fine. Um versus having discussion before we move it to Dr. Reed. I guess that's my question of the other committee members. >> Well, well, just to summarize, this the genesis of this was a few months of work of collecting input as much as possible from board members who made themselves available, and stitching together six policies to create something, okay? So, as chair, I put the policies together, and then No, just so you know, and we Yeah, yeah, and we had it on the agenda last time, and now it's on the agenda this time, and this is our opportunity to talk about it. I'm fine with this policy, which might not be a surprise, but you know, I want

129to know if colleagues are and our other partner, the superintendent. I don't want to put something in here that is not doable, but at the very least this policy puts it all in one place. But we need to have the discussion. Is the board going to vote on the the policy? Is Is the board going to vote on the calendar? Are we going to We could put in here 3 years calendars are needed. Like taking some of the debate that we had on Thursday night here. But that's all up to you. I've I've queued it up as much as I can. >> I think we have about 12 minutes left. In that time we could have some discussion, and I don't think that would preclude Dr. Reed from being responsive to what's here. What I

130do like is that we've made this more of a one-stop shop, the way that we just talked about the other policies, instead of having all these single policies that really don't say a whole lot. Um I like that this is consolidated. I think there are some things that are missing, and I also want to say to Ms. Lady's point, we've already made, and I've said this already, we've already kind of cherry-picked because we have some holidays that are days off. We have some holidays that are observance observance observance days, and we have some that don't show up at all. Cuz I know I have students right now from Justice High School who want me to add another holiday because theirs is nowhere on the list. So, that ship has sailed. And we just have to

131to to deal with it. I I just remember that uh Mr. Foster did share when we were going through this, and these were public statements, I double-checked, from one of our meetings back in '21 '22. Perhaps, I don't think it was '23. Is that there has to be a secular reason, there has to be an operational impact for a religious holiday to be included. So, that's just information for the group who you know, some of you were not here at that time. So. I'll just add, I mean, I personally want the calendar to be driven by instruction. I think we keep getting stuck on this cultural observances, and that if we can focus on instructional time, it's going to work itself out. And that's why also I don't think that, you know, I did purposely,

132if you look at the original policy, whatever number it was, it did list, well, actually it didn't. It was in the approved guidelines that listed all those holidays. They've never been in a policy. The only The only holidays mentioned in policy are Indigenous Peoples Day and um or excuse me, Veterans Day and that Thanksgiving Friday. But so so observances as student holidays, if we say to the superintendent, you have to have 70% of your weeks be 5-day school weeks, she's not going to be able to do all of the observances that we have now on top of all the other criteria. So, if we have to prioritize our criteria. Yeah, Ms. Lady. Um yeah, I I guess it's hard to put a percentage in there. Um because I'm also not comfortable putting it upon Dr.

133Reed to determine whose religious or cultural day is of paramount importance to get to the 75%. Um and I'm also because I do believe that that this should be instructionally driven. Um I felt strongly when this the first calendar came out where there was an expansion of religious and cultural holidays, and then additional observance days that we couldn't get provide any new instruction, and we couldn't do assessments, and we were every week was not a full instructional week because of the stipulation. So, I also make a point that ob- religious observance days or cultural observance days, we can do new instruction, and we can do assessment. We're We We've got to keep teaching and learning um if we're going to have those O days. But I'm also a believer that, you know, perhaps I've got

134more feedback from people who want all the federal holidays based on Thursday's conversation than I got asking us to strip strip back any cultural day. So, I guess to be honest, section five that says Indigenous Peoples Day and Veterans Day will both be school days, I voted for Veterans Day on Thursday cuz that's what the policy currently states. I I wanted to align what we're doing with policy. But I'm not necessarily comfortable saying moving forward that we make Indigenous Peoples Day and Veterans Day school days um without the broader conversation and input that was we that was asked for by the board on Thursday. Ms. Nguyen Huynh. So, yeah, I I also want to say that um most of the correspondence I received was advocating for all federal holidays to be acknowledged more than anything.

135Um Dr. Reed, can you explain to me what happens when we don't use snow days? We have more instructional time. So, last year very s- we used fewer days because weather a year ago was less difficult. We didn't have the special elections, and have um as many holidays land during the week. So, how many Do you remember how I I didn't bring that with me this afternoon, but yeah, we still have a day and a half actually even this year left of I I think it was like a net of about 10 extra days that kids more or less last year that they got of instructional time because we didn't use snow days. Uh we used about three or four, I think, last year ago. Yeah. But not as many as this year. Right. And

136some years we've used none, to be honest, and some years we use many. It just this year was a convergence of holidays, elections, and weather. Okay. I I just want the general public to understand that we do a lot for certain days to be used for inclement weather, but when we don't use them, it's like we don't give them back to the community. The kids are getting instructional time. I think this was a unique year um because not all religious holidays fall on a specific day. They follow a lunar calendar. So, depending on how that plays out, we can't plan for that, and I think that we had planned for that for one of the holidays, and then and then it moved due to the movement of the moon. So, so um I do believe

137that this should be instructionally driven. However, as I stated from the dais, I think we're going to have to be creative with how we acknowledge and celebrate the diversity of the community that we live in, and how we recognize the importance of some of those religious holidays to to to to those individuals. Right off the bat looking at this policy, when we look at the to review the attendance data, and I had I had asked this at our last committee meeting that we had, and that's going to be hard for us to do right now with some of the holidays we already have in our calendar because I thought, well, we could base it on attendance. I know that one of my staff members worked in the school lot and was responsible for attendance and

138would say, well, we had a lot of people missing certain days, and not just students. Remember that we have a lot of staff members that celebrate certain holidays that are high holy days, and so then that becomes a sub issue that becomes not only in our schools, but that not only like who's teaching in the classroom, who's serving the food, who's driving the bus. Those are high holy holidays, and people are going to take those off. I think that right now we don't have that data because some of those holidays were are already off. So, with this policy, the reviewing the attendance is going to be difficult. So, let me offer this. How about as a next step, we ask the superintendent for two things. One is of the drafted policy, the combined, is it

139legally accurate? Did we correctly incorporate all these other policies and capture it, and is it still accurate given the current legal guidelines, okay? So, that would be one ask. The second one is there is this November '23 draft that was redlined from the prior board that has not been revisited. So, and we've done this with other policies. So, can we ask the superintendent to review that November 2023 version and say, does that still have standing or not? Should we be considering the November 2023 version, or should we move on to this new compilation, and is there anything in there we should be working on, or we should carry forward? And then I guess the third thing is in this compiled policy, there are one or two places where we say, like snow days. It says

140on the last page, explains what happens if all snow days are used in a year. That's a question we get all the time. Can we just put in the policy like how snow days work? Um you know, really I'm just trying to understand There are decisions that this board will have to make that are more value-driven, but there's also factual stuff in here. And it's a matter of is it correct and do we want to include it? So, do we want this like this policy says weather-related or emergency closures? I think previously it was I don't I don't remember. It was from policy 1350, whatever that was. Um you know, I'm just trying to get us to inch forward a little bit. And we're not asking for a lot of new information. We're asking for

141confirmation of the work that's already been done. So, what do folks think about that? Miss uh Dr. Anderson, we'll just go right around the room after that. Thank you. I I think we do need to find a space to move on. I do think we need to have uh uh staff review of this document and whatever that draft was to see what other pieces are to carry forward. Otherwise, we'll just be stuck in this space. But, I do have a question and I'm wondering because this has come up many many years um since I've been on the board. And because also folks have said that this occurs in other places and I don't know what those places are. If snow days are not utilized, could they be released so um to become an earlier um

142end of the school year? Mr. Smith has answered this more times than I have broken out my Frosted Flakes without permission. So, Mr. Smith, do you want to answer this again? I think you you've got it now. >> up a lot. So, so we are unable to give any snow days back because in the past we built in three additional days. So, it was students were uh scheduled to go 180 days and we would build a calendar with 183 days. So, if we went to the end of the school year and those three snow days hadn't been used, we could give those days back because students would have gone their requisite 180 days. We still create a 180-day calendar for students, but we built in that extra time because our day is 30 minutes longer

143than the state requires. So, because our school day is 30 minutes longer for students than the state requires, we've built up additional uh instructional hours that we can count uh which is the equivalent of uh approximately 10 days. There is a very convoluted formula that we have to follow as we look at seat time, as we look at instructional hours at the elementary, middle, and high school level. Yes, elementary is much more. We really run up against it with middle school because uh there are some issues with middle school. And then we look at the high school level uh based on the number of days that bump up against state requirements. Sure. So, we are unable to give any days back because our day is longer. So, then that settles it. And but I would

144love to have that formula. Just two more quick points. One, Veterans Day has only been a holiday for the last couple of years. It has not been practice in Fairfax County. So, it was a new thing that could potentially be taken well, has been taken away from the vote last week, but it's a new it's a new thing. And I also think the conversation, again, what I'm hearing from my constituents, it's not just the number of days, it's the consistency of the days that we have. That seems to be the crux. I I I'm not having a lot of people saying we don't have enough school days. We just don't have enough school days that are consistently together because whether or not we like it, the child care issue is a huge burden into some

145of our for some of our families. I have families who cannot take off and cannot attend to their kids. And when they're expecting 5 days, Yep. So, it's 4:30 and I know you had to go. I So, can we get consensus? Can we ask the superintendent to please come back with information about the legality of the draft that reflects the board and public input? And her conser- her thoughts on the November of 2023, that document, is there any you want to use from there? And then I would add, can you can the superintendent provide and there's placeholders in this policy that says information or recommendation to answer questions we get about the use of snow days and should we actually just call them emergency closure because that's what they're called in the policy, they're not

146called snow days. And also the use of virtual instruction. Can you advise us on whether we should put because that's what we call we were closed, can't we have virtual instruction that day? And so, right, but I would like the superintendent to add this in to help us get forward. So, is there consensus on those three things? Dr. Anderson, yes. Miss Lady? Yeah, I I I think I'm okay with that. I I I haven't read the the November 29, 2023 policy on pulling up. I was going to read that, but um I I am amenable to that if that works with Dr. Reed. Does that would that work with you? Work for you? You know, whatever he want will work. I I don't know. I it'll work. Okay, so is that consensus, Miss St. John

147Cunning? Yeah, I mean I I I always am very conscientious of like what flows down from here cuz I know what workload looks like because I've worked in schools when things flow down to school level. And I know right now we've asked the superintendent to prepare within a 2-month period uh a a survey. And I know that we're looking at this policy and I'm wondering if some of that survey will help inform this policy. I I don't know if if that's something that we're looking at this policy, but we've also charged the superintendent to do the survey and that survey might be something that would not just inform her, but inform us. And that's what I'm wondering if that's something that can help. And may I I I don't know if that would be helpful

148to you having some of that that information as you're looking at this. I mean, I know I think it'll be helpful to us, but I'm sorry, but this is a a decision that we have to make. Is there consensus or not? If we want to have a calendar for July 9th, we need to make decisions about this policy. We're ask- yeah, we're asking them to take a look and I I would like it to be for for April 21st. For April 21st. I mean, this is what it takes to get this done. We set a deadline. This is the work. Yes, Miss Lady. I'm okay with asking her to come back information about the legality of the draft policy. I don't need that reflects board and community input because we don't have community input yet.

149>> I think that that is not needed. It's the current draft. Correct. Correct. Okay. And then does the draft of the policy redline for the November 29 meeting still stand? Again, I think based on the guidance she was given, that answer is is yes until we revise this. I'm okay with that the way it's written. I think that that's a fair ask cuz it's not it's it's pretty narrow scope. Okay, thank you. And it's not my policy, it's the one that was from March 17th, please. And I did send an email to the clerks to have better titles of these files so we can track. Okay, so and then advise on school closures emergency and virtual learning. So, okay, so Dr. Anderson, I Dr. Miss Lady? >> also supposed to include virtual learning questions and

150stuff like that? >> the scope of this. What I want to know is right now right now in this draft, it says can we have can you please Just hold on. I hate that we're rushing. I Right now policy 1350 says emergency closures, but people always talk about it about snow days. So, what we're trying to figure out is can the policy be clearer and instead of saying snow days, section five on the back says um school closures, emergency closures for emergency closures, okay? So, we've taken what's in the current policy. We've tried to spruce up the language to make it more understandable by the public, but as Marty knows, he keeps getting asked that question. Wouldn't it be nice if Marty never had to answer that question again? If we can put it in

151here and the words you say are accurate, then it will be known. Same as virtual learning. Right, we're trying to codify these things and clarify them. So, that's all. I I think so. Do we have consensus? Miss St. John Cunning? Okay. So, we have consensus for the superintendent to please bring this back. It was without objection. No, there is objection. No, there's not. No, it's been And can we receive these by Monday morning? Is that possible? Yes. I I don't know. I'm going to have to get to staff cuz we've got to look at um our closure regulations, virtual learning plans, the legal No. Well, it's in the it's in your motion. I have to come back with that. So, I have to So, I'm going to have to go back and I mean, there's

152some work here and sit down with legal and go through all of this. So, >> scratch virtual learning. I didn't even hear that put out there. I just heard school closures and emergency closures. I don't know. Look, I was just trying to throw the superintendent a bone and say, "What do you want our response to when people say, 'Why can't we learn virtually on a snow day?'" Do you have advice for us on what we should put in our policy about virtual learning? If you can't get to that in a week, okay, then don't. But also, we don't have any next steps for the superintendent on AI. So, and we thought that was going to be the beast. So, I think we are totally fair in asking for this work. I just want to make

153it sure it's clear that the virtual learning is related to the closures. Yes, it is all under the emergency closures. It's section four in the in the draft. >> Synchronous or asynchronous is what I would >> Or whatever it is, just something. Tell us, is there any Is there ever any a situation where she would say, "Yes, we're going to use virtual learning." Is it completely off the table? My understanding is it's completely off the table. It It would require engaging with the staff, committee, community. I mean, there's a lot of discussion if we want to add this to a policy. >> back to us and let us know a timeline? I mean, again, we're trying to do this policy so you can develop the calendars that we said we wanted by July 9th. Yeah.

154So, I I'm just going to say that as someone who worked in the system that I understand Dr. Reed's concern because if Then we can Let me finish it. Why don't we just scrap it? Why don't we just scrap the virtual then? It's fine. The biggest things are can she look at what we've done? >> the virtual part because that does require a lot lot of work. Okay. We're not going to change that. >> Why we don't have to. Excuse me. Can we just scrap the emergency closures together, too, please? It is literally It's a I I I I disagree with that because I think what I'm What I think we need to highlight is why we don't do virtual. We don't have to research that. We don't do virtual. This is the rationale. The

155same rationale that I have asked you about before, that I've communicated to people who have asked. This to me is not new work. It's just codifying what the current practice is. That is my understanding of what this is asking. Exactly. Just so everybody knows the same thing about the snow days, why we don't give the days back, why we don't do virtual. Just putting that in writing so that there's clarity, so everybody's expectations can can be clear. So, for me, I don't see that as new work. At this point, it's only a week. Let's just stick with the um please the feedback on the current draft and the November 23 draft. Is there consensus on that, then? Yes. Miss Lady, yes. Okay, and Madam Clerk, you have that. Thank you. And Superintendent Reed, you're good

156with that? >> that. That's because we really want to be thoughtful about the legal review. That's the most important, I think. >> I I just want to say I'm concerned that it seems like unless it is super explicit, the work doesn't happen until we say so. And we are working on the calendar policy. Please be ready to talk about it. You know, like we have There are questions in our draft. Like if you haven't read our draft, that's a problem. Okay, but then you know that we have questions in there. And maybe you have opinions on it. Same with AI. I I just this having to say, "Okay, work now, not work now." We are working We're doing this. The goal is to finish this next month. So, please don't wait for this super micro

157prescription. >> [sighs] >> Yes, Miss Lady. I'm just saying that like Look, I I sat in your seat last year, and it was very frustrating when policies didn't get through. And there were lots of reasons why. So, I think that's aspirational to have added calendar to AI this year, and I think that we just need to give grace cuz if we're not comfortable, we don't get there, then we don't get there. I think it's aspirational, but I'm not sure. >> Okay, well, we we made a very clear commitment to the community on Thursday. No, we not to not to pass a calendar policy about >> cannot create a calendar without policy. That has proven to be a disaster. >> There's a current policy in place. There is six policies in place, and look at where

158that's landed us. There are a lot of people that are happy with the calendar. So, I'm just saying that uh you know, it's aspirational, but I'm if we don't get there because we're not ready, then we're not >> it's just on us to do the work between the meetings, and I know it's really disappointing when you do a lot of work and you don't get to it. I've done that for many years. It's disappointing. So, the more that we can >> Miss Marinacci will do my work No, I'm just saying that when I hear comments like, "I only got it this morning." or "I didn't get it." I don't know what to tell you. >> Okay, well, your policy wasn't posted until last night after 7:00 p.m. As So, I don't same policy that has

159been there since February. >> is not correct, Miss Marinacci. You brought in a policy last week that was for internal use. And then that's what was stamped on my document. And then I saw it was sent out >> same one. It has been the same one since February 17th. >> for the public to see until last night after 7:00 p.m. >> know that we're talking That's what I'm saying at this >> reading it. I I didn't say I didn't have it. I didn't say I wasn't prepared. I'm saying it wasn't posted. >> And the email I sent you on March 31st said, "We will continue talking about these documents." So, if I could interrupt, I'd like to say that I think the direction forward is clear, and I think it um being that I think

160that staff have to go to another meeting, it would be helpful if we could adjourn. This meeting is adjourned at 4:44.