001Okay, we are um we are re um convening from our recess of the governance committee. We are first going to certify our closed meeting that we had earlier. So um in order to comply with section 2.2-3712D 2-3712D of the code of Virginia. It's necessary for the board to certify that since the governance committee of the Fairfax County School Board convened a closed meeting on June 16th, 2025, to the best of each member's knowledge, only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements. And only such public meeting matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed, or considered by the board during the closed meeting. Do I have a motion? Mh Dr. Anderson and second, Miss Dixit. All in the room. uh Dixit, Anderson, and Marin. That passes. And then
002confirmation of action taken in closed meeting. We did not take any formal action in our closed meeting. The approval of minutes. Uh the governance committee approved the minutes from September 3rd, 24, September 24th, 24, October 1st. Uh should be October 1st, 2024. Um, if the clerks could you did Thank you. October 15th, 2024, November 19th, 2024, January 21st, 2025, February 11th, 2025, February 18, 2025, and May 27th, 2025 meetings with leave for the clerk to make grammatical informing edits. All in favor of approving the minutes or a motion to approve the minutes. Is there a motion to approve the minutes? I have a select. I'll make a motion. Can I second the motion? Then I'm going to second it. Um Oh, Robin's seconding it. Great. Would you like to speak to your motion, Miss Dixit?
003Miss Lady, you want to speak to it? No. No. Miss Lady, do you want to speak? No, I do not. Oh, is she Oh, she did. She say no. She said yes, I said no. She said no. Right. Um, so all in favor of approving the minutes, Miss Dixit, Miss Lady, myself, opposed, abstained. Dr. Anderson, thank you. The meetings are approved and thank you. That is great to see all those meeting minutes updated. Okay. Uh, policy 2620, students with fiscally aggressive or violent behaviors. Uh just to review where we last were. We had asked the superintendent on May 27th to return today with a response seeking to know if the content already existed somewhere else in policy and a recommendation or not on whether 2620 could be retired. Uh further the committee saw confirmation that
004the revis revision is aligned with sample policy and law. Dr. Anderson. Um, I would make a recommendation for this to be retired because I do believe that this is assumed by the SRNR and I continue to have questions regarding how this became a standalone that is really speaking to a very specific activity that is included in the larger breadth of the SRNR. I agree that it seems it could be sunset and I don't see any further input from the superintendent about um well actually I don't know if the superintendent also suggests that we retire it. We provided a letter dated June 16th um that has the purpose and then a legal department statement as part of the packet. And there was a notice on 5123 also that I thought was helpful. Um, was there a
005second memo, Dr. Reid? Because I have the June 16th, 2025 memo in front of me. That was to the governance committee. You want me to read it? Um, I'm just trying to find it because I have two memos here that I have open and I don't think I see it. I see a memo that's dated No, this is not the right one. I see a memo that is dated April 29, 2025. That's the same one I have. I don't see I think the clerks were checking about the memo. I can read it if you'd like. Sure. I think that would be great. So, um, the purpose of the policy was to establish policy violent behavior. It was reviewed and updated by the office of the chief equity officer and FCPS legal and represents best practice.
006The legal department has How you doing? If you met our daughter Robin Thank you. That seemed to be consistent with the position that I had. Um, and thank you for sharing that. But if we could make sure that that memo can be um included in the packet, that would be helpful. Um, so given the information that was just shared, I'd like to make a motion to sunset this policy and to also consider any missing language. I think that second portion that you talked about that we feel is important to ensure that those um show up in the other two reference policies. Okay. So, can we say retire? Is that the correct retire? So, the motion's been made to retire policy 2620 and ensure um language is referenced accordingly in other policy. Is there a second?
007Miss Heismer second. Dr. Anderson, would you like to speak to your motion? I think I did. I think you did. Okay. Miss Heiser. Uh, she also is good. So, uh, Miss Dix said anything? Nope. All right. All in favor of the motion to retire policy 2620. That is unanimous. Uh, including Miss Lady online. So, that will be sent to the board for action. Way to go. Okay. Okay, next would be 2670 programs for students with disabilities. Where we last left it, we had asked the superintendent to confirm that the advisory committee for students with disabilities had reviewed and approved the policy and they have. Uh the committee also additionally asked that the final draft remove the reference to quote modified standard diploma throughout. So we can can we confirm that the latter has been done?
008Yes, ma'am. I have another memo dated June 16th. Um, and this has been fully reviewed and updated in its entirety. The philosophy has been included and section 4 title has changed from requirements to responsibilities. Um, we did confirm the committee had approved it and the special services department has removed the wording a modified diploma throughout. Um, however, the wording applied diploma is in the policy because this matches the diploma handout for special education graduation requirements, diploma credit accommodations. Additionally, new legal and cross references have been added. [Music] I'm so sorry. Where are these new memos? The only memo that I see here is April. Can we take a brief recess, please? The clerk's team needs a brief recess. That's up to Miss Mayor. Could Could we please take a brief recess and we'll discuss it
009with the board in just a second? Well, I I think the board can continue our discussion. Do you think or I was going to ask Miss Heismheiser if she had any input since she was the driver of a lot of this. So, I mean I I do I just Is there anything else? I mean, certainly if you want to wait for the memo. I just didn't know. I mean, I Okay. So, I guess we will recess just for a few minutes. Thank you. Well, are we ready to proceed? Testing. Testing. Okay, we can recess uh with um Dr. Hson, did you have your placard up for a question? No. Okay. U Miss Seismore Heiser, we're discussing now 2670. Thank you. And I and I appreciate removing the modified standard diploma reference since that was out
010of date. Um and the applied studies is the current one. So I'm I'm glad we left that in there. The only question I have is on the cross references. When we had talked before, we had mentioned cross referencing the the twice exceptional handbook, the transition um I think it's called the transition handbook or maybe transition toolkit, but there's a few other handbooks that that we had t transition resource guide, excuse me, and I'm confused why those were not cross reference and they're I looked they're not in the special education handbook that is cross referenced. So, I'm kind of wondering why those weren't cross referenced here. There's also a transition resource guide. Those are the two that I'd mentioned last time. Yeah, that I just since we had mentioned it before, I was curious if there's
011a reason they weren't added. Those were two I believe I'd mentioned along with the special ed hand. The two that were added are good. Um the 504 and the special education handbook. I just was surprised those two weren't also added because I'd mentioned them before. So without objection, can we agree that those will be added? I think we actually didn't take action. Maybe that's why. But okay, without objection, we will add those two references. Transition resource guide and the twice exceptional handbook. Yeah, if we could add those without objection, then I'm fine. There anything else? So then it looks like we can move this forward. So with that addition, um, Missrah, do you want to indicate exactly where we want to put that so the clerks can add that in? It should be in the
012cross cross references. Got it. Okay, great. All right. Uh, would you like to make a motion? I'll make a motion to pass the revisions to policy 2670. Uh, 2670. Great. Is there a second? Move. Uh, Miss Dixit will second. Okay. Miss Heismore, did you want to speak to your motion? I'm good. Thank you. Okay. Miss Dixit. Okay. Uh, Miss Lady has no questions. All right. I'll call for the vote. All in favor of um approving 2670 as amended and sending it to the board. Raise your hands. That is unanimous, right, Dr. Anderson? Yes. Yes. It's not the 2E handbook. It's the twice dash. Okay. Perfect. Thank I just want to make sure for me as a reminder. Okay. Okay. All right. So, all it was was unanimous. All those in favor, Miss Lady is on
013the screen. Miss Dix, Miss Anderson, Missiser, and myself. That passes. Nice. And thank you, Miss Eismerheiser, for your skill getting that language removed. All right, we're up to student lists policy 2720. What we discussed last time was that the policy should be in the 6,000 series related to technology. Um the committee asked for today to know the superintendent's recommendation on whether the content of this 2720 can be incorporated into an existing policy such as the 6000 or oh no is existing policy or should it become a new 6000 series policy and if so what number? We need a moment to pull up that memo folks. Yep. Just take one minute to do that. Uh this is 2720. So colleagues, just let me know when you're ready to discuss the mistakes that perhaps you want to
014kick off since this was your good idea to consider. If you want Great. Great. Great. Well, I do have to say I just want to speak a little bit to the um the need and the impact of this memo. I had a lot of questions that are actually responded to in this memo. So, I just want to say thank you um save myself by not having this memo, but thank you for being pretty um intentional and deliberative and I think pretty thorough in responding the questions that I had and they are in writing. So, I'm going to put this down. Okay. So, you're good with the edits as proposed. Okay. Oh, I did have one question though. In the memo, there's something that is highlighted in yellow. Can you the determination of necessity shall I
015I'm I'm trying to understand why that's highlighted. I think it was just calling attention to I think that was a discussion we had was how do we determine what is and isn't um necessary when people um when we're disclosing any information. So I it doesn't need to be highlighted. We could have unhighlighted it. And I the edits just um I didn't see the change to the actual number, but it seems that you are suggesting that the number be changed since it's going into a different um office from special services to information technology. Is that correct? Um I don't know that I'm John. Do you recall whether we were suggesting that it change departments? I think we just presumed it was going to continue to be 2720. It the number I mean a lot of departments
016may intersect with it. Um because it's partly it and it is going to be partly legal because legal legal overseas foyer and then furpa is everyone's responsibility. So I I don't necessarily see a request to change it, but I don't know, John, if your team had that request. No, I I think it was um the change in the title was trying to reflect that as Dr. Reid noted, you know, information technology has an important role uh as does the legal team in maintaining and uh complying with Furpa. Okay. I I think for me and that's fine. My question, you know, Dr. to read was when it comes to numbering the policies, you know, are we trying in general to have the policy number match the office number so that's all unique or it's okay to
017like in this case have information technology even though that's a 6000 series? Well, I there I don't know exactly which numbers are which. I'll have to pull that up. that sometimes like there's a series on instruction and sometimes there's a series on um like HR or financial a series on HR, right? So, but instruction could be all kinds of departments that connect to it and I just don't know what I'd have to go back and look at what Virginia lists as their 2000s. It's embedded in regulation 1104. So, that's why special services is embedded. It's one of the titles of 1104, which is why it's in the 2000 series. Information technology is the heading for the 6000 series. So, that is a regulation that does need to be looked at if we're going to start
018changing headings and policy numbers. Okay. So, yeah, my question is, can we have a policy in the 2000s where the reference office is an office that has a different series number? Mistakes saying no. Do you want to go ahead and speak Mr. Tix? Yeah, I think we need to be consistent. Um, we should have all IT policy related policies and 6,000 series if they're majority of the IT policies are um and then this is how we can you know change things moving forward. I know it's going to be a little hard because we have policies all over the place but there's it needs to get organized. So I would like to this policy to move to 6,000 series if it's sitting under it. I happen to agree with that. Any other thoughts, colleagues or Yeah.
019Can you hear me? Can you all hear me? I'm sorry. Miss Lady, did you also want to speak? Let's hear from you. We haven't heard from I don't know if you can hear me but I was just going to suggest is it possible to not have it as lady one second please or do you want to bring it over here? Well maybe someone could just call her and have her do it on a phone. Hey. Yeah. Can you hear me? Can you hear me? Yeah. I was just gonna Yeah. Yeah. I was just gonna say Hang on. Yeah. I was just going to say is it possible to instead of having it as information technology as the title have it special services but reference information technology in the second or third line. We could put
020information technology where it currently says schoolboard. We could put information technology there instead if that's the department in which it sits in. school board. Under the policy number, it says school board, but instead and what we've done. Say they all say school board, I believe. Yeah, they all say school board. I'm I'm saying should it say student records and information technology or student lists via information technology, something like that. The student records is also referenced in in regulation 1104, but the student list title could be changed to reference information technology. Okay, then that's my suggestion. Thank you, Miss Lady. As was stated by the superintendent, this does not only live in information technology. It crosses lots of sectors. So perhaps we should just keep it where it is. Although I agree with Miss Dixit generally
021that we should have everything organized, but this is not solely about it. So given the memo and the description, although we were thinking perhaps it could go into 6,000, it I would suggest that we revert back to special services or instructional services. So I don't see burning agreement or disagreement. Can we just revert back to special services and it retains the same number? Is that okay? I see head nods. Yes, Dr. Anderson, we're fine. Okay. And that works for Miss Lady. So, we will um revert back, please, to special services. And then, can we make a motion to approve to move uh 2720 forward to the board? Does someone want to make a motion? Dr. Anderson. Uh we have a I'll second. Miss Lady seconds. Uh Dr. Anderson, any comments? No. Miss Lady, any comments?
022No. Nope. Okay, seeing no other comments, all in favor of sending 2720 forward to the board, raise your hands. That is unanimous. Thank you. Okay, the next policy we had up was 3335 academic advanced academic programs. Uh we had yet to discuss this. The red line includes a philosophy section which the committee had previously requested from the superintendent. So for the next three that remain well let let's take a second here. This policy, the length of school day, and the adult dead were all ones that have been redlined and we had not yet discussed. However, also on our agenda today was to talk about the next steps. And given that we have about 10 minutes or so, perhaps a little bit extra, if people can do that, would we like to talk about next steps
023because we're really at our last meeting? Dr. Anderson, I would prefer to talk about next steps because I have a very hard stop at noon. Not to say that you can't continue without me, but that's my preference. Other thoughts? Are you okay to talk about working further, Miss Dix? Miss Seismhiser. Okay. Um, so we're determining, you know, board assignments for the coming year and that will be known at our July meetings. So, you know, we did a lot of I actually wanted to create the list of all the policies we've worked on this year and thank you Miss Lady for trudging through this and um Miss Bitler and our clerk team superintendent. So, where are we thinking? I I know I've shared some suggestions, but um you know, thoughts about what you would suggest we
024pick up next in the fall. Should we start with the series? Should we start with the red lines that remain? We also have the CIP related policies. What are you all What are you thinking, Dr. Anderson? Just very briefly, I know we had more than one discussion on how to move this forward. We were trying to do the things that are important and just needed to get out and not necessarily take the full comprehensive um approach that I think has been discussed, which is to do um which is to review these policies, you know, with like policies. I I say this is a moment where we have to make a decision. It's either we continue on this trajectory or we just just pause and do the thing that we've all been talking about all year
025that's been necessary which is to take a look at the policies and series so that we can be a little bit more cohesive about the work. My personal advocacy would be for the latter because we spent probably about three meetings talking about that here in this room and we can't continue to walk both lines. We have to decide and whether or not this is a decision that is up to this body is a question. I am not sure how many of us will be returning to governance. Um I don't know that this is a larger conversation with the rest of the board. Um I I just think that a decision point has to be made because I I fear that we may be stuck in the same loop moving forward um with the next committee
026iteration. Okay. Uh Mr. I didn't realize it was up but yeah I agree with uh my colleague here that we do need to move forward in more um planned way. I just always feel like we are kind of putting out fires and doing things at a very like crunch time and um just to get ahead of it. I think a little uh proactive approach uh is needed next year and if I'm back in the governance committee I would support that. um to take a policy section at a time go through that series move anything update anything you know sunset anything it should be like done in a structured way thanks for misser yeah I agree I think the our current chair this year has put some good structures in place with the memos and things
027like that and I think I appreciate staff's work on and being responsive to some of the edits and the memos and the other documents so I think we've got a really good start this year I think Miss Lady did a a good job putting some of these structures in place. Um I think um I don't know who's going to be on the governance committee next year or what the process is. I know last year when I came off as governance chair, I did write a memo to the new governance chair kind of outlining what was outstanding, what was left, and maybe that's something that we could even put in our governance manual as something that the current chairs do to the next chairs to help with that transition. But I still will say put out
028my plug for I think we need to have while governance is continuing to do this good work and we've got a really good structure for reviewing the policies that are needed and policies that are still outstanding that have these memos around them. I think there's room to create a structure of how to review it by number or category or whatever else. And so I think that work can be done in conjunction to create that structure while continue to do the work and then once that structure is created switch to that pro process. I'm not I'm not so clear. So, I heard our first two colleagues talk about reviewing in a series. Are you saying we still need to figure that out or Well, I I mean I think reviewing in a series sounds good, right?
029And I think that makes sense, but is that all that it takes or is there a process for that? Are we going to start with 1000s or we can start with 2,00s? Do we have a sense of which series has been reviewed more recently than not? Do we have a sense of which series maybe have higher priority policies that you want to that maybe we feel need to are more important to be up to date with best practices? When we say review, I one of the things I feel like we've heard this year is what does review actually mean, right? What is a superintendent like what do we expect from our superintendent in terms of review? Are we reviewing for legal compliance? Are we viewing for current best practices? Those are two different things, right?
030And I think if we can get all of that, what are we expecting for our superintendent in terms of review? Are we what are we expecting in terms of the materials that go with that review so everybody's on the same page? And then on top of that, if we want to review by the the thousand series or the series, which I'm not opposed to, have we looked at the series to make sure that they're ordered that they're actually have the policies that fit the titles because that's something that's come up as well in governance. So I think there's a lot to unpack in terms of that process beyond just looking at the thousand series. So that's what I'm right because I don't want to do that and then say well Dr. Reed we wanted these
031memos and Dr. Reed thinks she's giving us the right memos. I think we should all be on the same page with that and I think having somebody to to flush those out and sit and ask these questions so then we have a whole process laid out to then implement it makes sense and where we start with that with that thousand series. So I'm not I agree with my colleagues. I just think there's a lot more to it than that. Yeah. Well, that that's what I mean. Like I don't mean just the thousands either. I mean like before we go, let's pick let's say the 5,000 series, right? Let's make it clear what does a review what is the def I don't think we have as a committee the same definition of review. I don't think
032we have as a committee the same definition of what we expect from our superintendent when she's doing her review. And I think there's a lot of steps put in this this year to do that. I just don't think we're there yet and I don't want to continue with that path where we we maybe are on different pages. Okay. Uh Miss Lady, did you have a any comments? I don't know if you're available at the moment. No. Oh, she said no. Okay. Um I'll just take a quick turn. Um I I agree that we should do things in the series, but I also agree that we want to be thoughtful about what we're reviewing. The memos are great. So So these are things that I'm hearing as well. I agree with review things in a series,
033but be thoughtful about where to start and you know how we determine that. Continue with the memos to brief the board in advance. Write a memo to the next committee saying where where we landed and what where they could start and further consider. Um I would add just be really clear on the communications of how things go from the superintendent to the clerks to us and work on that timing. We could even plan out the whole year in advance. I know that's something Dr. Reids asked for. So, those are things I'm hearing. Uh, Dr. Anderson, I just wanted to raise um well, let me backtrack a little bit. The review, I think that's an important conversation to have in terms of what does it involve because I know I walked in to the conversation with
034a very different understanding than than the superintendent, but I think we're definitely inching our way to that. um the the the memo regarding the um the one that we just did 2730 whatever that one was that is I I think the more um the most comprehensive memo that we've received and I'd like to use that as perhaps a model of expectation. So I think that's helpful but I don't want to lose track of work that's already been done. There were several other documents that staff generated that spoke to priority. Um Dr. Dr. I don't know if you remember um that you had articulated in in the conversation. I think we should review those rather than redoing work that's already been done in order to prioritize in a way that makes sense. Well, what I um
035could suggest is I could draft some some things based on this conversation and share with Miss Lady and we could come up with that memo to the next committee and share with all of you and see if it captures it and then send it to the whole board. Um and then uh it can be useful. So, we can do that. All right. Well, we we got super close on a major um a lot of major things today and uh we got through it. So, thank you again, Miss Lady and Miss Bitler. And that Thank you all. Thank you, Melanie, for leading the charge today. Is Robin saying something? Robin's just saying how much she enjoyed being chair and uh heard. Yes. So, thank you, Miss Lady. We hear you. We're just noting for the record
036that Miss Lady is in Williamsburg, Virginia, and she is using the disability caregiver so that we have that for the record. Thank you. All right, meeting J.