001have one. What? Sorry. No, I did not. What is this? In order to comply with section 2.2-3712D 2-3712D of the code of Virginia is necessary for the board to certify that since the Fairfax County Board convene a closed meeting on May 27th, 2025 and the best of each member's knowledge only Fairfax County Board only public matters business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements and only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening are clo the closed meeting were heard discussed or considered by the board during the closed meeting. Do I have a motion? Miss Merritt, do I have a second? Dr. Anderson. All those in agreement. Unanimous for those in the room. Thank you. All right. The next item agenda is 1.03, which is approval of minutes. Dr. Anderson. Um, I
002move to approve the minutes. Thank you. Do I have a second? Move to approve the minutes. Okay. Dr. Anderson, second for Miss Marin. All those in favor approving the minutes. That's unanimous for those in the room. All right. Right. Next up, 1.04, policy 2475, commencement activities. I call on Dr. Reid for item 1.03, policy 2475, commencement activities. Thank you, Miss Lady. Um, in the packet that you received on this, the changes included adding a philosophy statement um about the commencement activities and what they're designed to do to celebrate student achievements. There is no matching VSBA policy and the philosophy statement as well as graduation speakers which would be section 4 are the only two um edits to policy 2475. Thank you Dr. Anderson. Yes, thank you. Even it's actually right there in the minutes. We
003had a big discussion last time regarding a number of topics that we were supposed to get back to including um decorations of mortar boards. Can you just give that update Dr. Reid please? Uh we did have a discussion and Dr. Pon has been talking with principles about that and to my knowledge they haven't reached a decision on what that will or won't entail at this point. And I think the discussion also was does that fit in a policy or a regulation? I think off the top of my head I would say it fits in the regulations, but I still think the board can have that's the how the board can have an opinion on the why and just the the broader framework of what that could potentially mean. Um, so that's one comment that I
004have. And also the other comment that I have, the title of this is under special services. It says promotion, retention, grading, and graduation requirements, commencement activities. Um, unless I missed it, I don't think I saw anything in here that spoke to necessarily retention and grading. So, I wonder or even really promotion. It's really about the commencement activities themselves. Do we need to have those three terms still be embedded in the title? My understanding is that's how they're categorized. So this particular policy which is called commencement activities falls under the the bigger heading of promotion retention. So you see that heading and then there's other policies related to those other items but that's how these are organized currently in terms of our schoolboard policy. There's a whole set that has promotion retention. Okay, that those are
005my only two comments and and I did go and read some of those others and they related to for example one of them and I don't remember the name of it but was quoted last week was related to how you get a math seal or how you get a civic seal like it's under diplomas. It's within the same category but has nothing to do with the actual commencement exercise. So I I did go and read some of those. This is the only one that speaks to the ceremony then maybe just needs something else. I don't know because under special service it just comes across as if there was not enough space to add commencement activities to the line. If it's a subsection if the commencement activities is a subsection of the promotion header maybe we
006can indicate that I don't know an underlining something just so it can reflect what you said right but I do I would like to hear from others regarding my first comment. Thank you. and to the latter. Um, you know, because I do believe I'm going to be blessed with this uh this charge again next year. Um, those are things that if we can get all of our policies in compliance that we can drill down on because we want them to be more um intuitive to, as you said, forwardly outwardly facing to the public to understand what our headings mean or how they're organized. So, I appreciate that. So the other comment I recollect was related to mortar boards and things like that and while your intuition was regulation, you wanted to talk about it. So
007I think Miss Seismarhiser is next. Yeah, thank you. I um I understand the way it's written. My thing is at the motorboards as well and I I don't know where the conversation is going, but I'm just going to as one board member say that I do think it's important that there's consistency and I know schools have had their traditions as some have allowed it and some have not. But I I I'm just going to say as one parent, I do think that's an unfair and inequitable system around that. So I think we allow them for everybody or we don't let them at all. That's my two cents on that. Um but I personally think they're very cool, but I also understand that the difficulty of policing them, right? And there's a free speech component to
008them as well that may then cause other issues. Um, so I would probably it's easier to not do them, but I either way I think we need consistency in whatever you all decide. Miss Marin, uh, I am fine to weigh in on the mortar board piece, but I'd like to go for the win on this one and get it sent to the board today, you know, by motion because it's not going to be in effect before this year's graduations. So, I think we should just get this done. And like you said, Miss Lady, we'll come back to it. And I do agree. It should probably be consistent. That's the thing we're trying to be consistently consistent. So, I'd like to move to send uh this policy here, which is policy 2475, on to the board
009for action. Do I have a second? Second, Miss Lismore. Would you like to speak to your motion, Miss Mayor? No. Would you like to speak to your motion, Miss Lisa? just briefly to say that I think the motorboat issue belongs in regulations which is why I'm comfortable sending this forward but I do think it should be addressed. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak Miss Dixit? I'm just curious about the last uh line added to the policy. Um and I think it's addition right the new that the the yeah uh school elected members will not be the speaker is that because of state regulation that was came from the members of our board that did not come from staff. Oh that came from our meeting and they wanted to make it in the year
010of the election. Right. So, if someone who's currently in office is invited to speak at graduation, but there isn't a November election, that they're permitted to do so. But if they're currently running for a November election, that that would be in the same year, then they're not permitted to or in a primary. Okay. All right. I just did not understand that. Thank you for that answer. I'm okay with that. And candidates and other candidates running. Yes, this is just commencement. Yeah. So, just for a point of clarification for the public, this is just for a commencement exercise. No, actually what kind of came to mind when uh Miss Dixon made her comment as it's written is that current schoolboard members and whoever else is running for office cannot speak during the year of um elections
011or current schoolboard members cannot speak at all. It's undergraduation speakers as the heading, right? So this year, could I be a graduation speaker under this? Yes, because you're it's not an election year. That's what I'm asking for. Yeah, it's not an election year, so you could be. Okay. Any other comments on this? All right. All those in favor of passing the policy as written, Gene Manis for those in the room. Win-win. Okay. 1.05 policy 2601 rights and responsibilities of students. We're calling Dr. Reed to present the policy. Thank you, Miss Lady. In the memo, uh dated April 29. Um the purpose of this is to establish policy to support student rights and responsibilities. This particular policy was reviewed and updated by the office of chief equity officer uh and division council. It reflects best practices
012and understanding and respecting students rights and responsibilities. Um similar to 2611 and 2620. Uh issues regarding this policy include requesting consideration to change regulation 1104. Um but uh additionally section five in the student rights and responsibilities has been inserted for your review. There is a matching regulation which we're not here to address this afternoon and the VSBA matching policy is JB equal opportunity non-discrimination. Thank you Miss Marin. So this is a really big policy that if we really do want to transition from spending three public meetings talking about SRNR that we need to do the work on. So I'm not ready to approve this today. I think um and this has been something I've noted over the years with the SRNR. you know, there's responsibilities and there's rights and they're often intertwined and I think
013it's confusing and um like there's also rights of other students and that relates to safety and there's really not much in here that talks about safety and our responsibility to keep the school division safe. So, I think this is one of those policies like grading, like boundaries that's going to need some more work and maybe we plan for that in the coming year thoughtfully and like come to the meetings with what we want to say. Um, and even just needs to be updated. Talks about giving the SR booklet to students and teachers. Well, we know we have to give them to families. It's going to be electronic. We have quizzes. We have videos. So, um, and it also needs to speak about the approach to the discipline process. We've done a lot to you know
014incorporate different approaches and we also have zero tolerance for certain activities. So again these things should be related in here so we don't have to relitigate it each year. Um so I'd like to see us schedule this for the new year and have like thoughtful specific um discussions. Thanks. All right. Not seeing another placard. I'm going to ask some questions if I may. Um are you so I feel like I heard two things from you. One is that it states in here the way it's written that basically um the SR&R regulation is subject to review by the the board which is why we engage in so many work sessions around SR&R. And do I hear you possibly suggesting that language like that might be removed but we might have a bigger policy that maybe spec
015speaks specifically to some of the things that are most debated in there. for example, a cell phone policy or for example um other aspects of the SRNR and and I heard you mentioned discipline. Are you talking about the continuation of you know I'm just giving some clarification to better understand. Well, I no I appreciate I think like this exact conversation is actually what we should have like a dedicated conversation to because you're right. What do we want to embody in here? Um but is it just cell phones? Is it weapons? Is it guns? Is it drugs? like we could say in the policy that the pro the process must include you know must touch upon these topics and we could list those things. I think too it could talk about you know suspension discipline or
016even clarifying the board's role in the work but I think that that would come from the holistic view of the other policies and you know there's always maybe as we go through more policies we can see you know where does it say that we delegate to the superintendent to do it because I think it's smattered all over the place and I don't know if it's any you know particular way So, I appreciate that. I'm also looking at the um sample policy from VSBA, which I think could probably inform our conversation. Um I'm wondering if because of the freedom to have a healthier dialogue, um would this possibly be something we could bring as a forum topic? I think the forums have gotten the way things are brought to forum and what topic has gotten very
017diluted. So I'd rather you know ask that we if we want to put on a work session just go directly for it. I think that'd be great. Thank you. Anyone else? Any comments? One comment. Yes. Um so um it um in this policy there's also a reference to other version of other policies which are related to I guess um um you know one is student right of responsibility but then there other ones which can maybe fall into this same big policy. So I'm kind of wondering if this is again a way of comprehensively discussing and combining few policies together which are similar in nature. Um because if they kind of you know student dress code and lot of other things kind of can can be included there. So if we have that work session, I
018would like to um discuss some of that maybe just this document or some of the misregulation. Sorry. But yeah, um definitely 2601, 2611, 2613. Uh 2701 is a little different. I don't think it falls in. Um, if you look at the back page of this policy, it lists the other like-minded policies. Um, any other comments? I'm just curious, Dr. Anderson, Missard, are you in agreement with this idea? Would you rather discuss this further now? Um, I am personally fine with just moving this one along as it is. Um, just so we can have it be revised and be sent if we're going to have a larger conversation, perhaps combining um, some of the others. The dress code is one I think that fits um because we do have dress code as part of this regulation.
019I'm fine with that, but that's all I've got. I'm kind of in the same place actually. I'm fine moving this along. I think there's a space for governance. I know we're we're trying and I appreciate and I think it's a good thing that we're doing trying to clear off sort of the backlog, right? But I almost think there's a space next year to do a bifurcated process with governance. I've often said we almost need like a task force or a separate committee, right? So, as we're trying to catch up with the backlog, having somebody to really look at a deep dive of the policies to say these should be combined, these should be this almost as a parallel process, right? So, we get them edited so they're up to date. It's almost like a two-tier
020review and then we do the next piece of it. But for right now, I'm I'm where Dr. Anderson is. That's a longer term conversation, I think, than what we're talking about here. Thank you, Miss Marin. Yeah, I'm usually for that, but I don't think what's been added in under responsibilities is really capturing what we as a board have practiced as an approach to the SRR that talks about, you know, freedom and law and responsibilities. We interact a lot with the SRNR regarding discipline and cell phones. And so I would be more comfortable not accepting the changes at this time. It's already 9 years out of complying, you know, over so or four years. So, I would I'd make a mo well I'd make a motion to ask that we it's not really a motion, I
021guess, but I would like to put it forth to the chair and vice chair and I guess all of us as we create the next works calendar or maybe there's even a memo that the governance committee sends to the board and says these are the things that we suggest we really focus on this year. This way everybody knows and then that would make it I think more compelling. So, I don't support approving this today and I would love if we could send a communication to the whole board that states our intention. I think that would help everyone. Miss Dixie, what are your thoughts on I heard from Dr. Anderson and Miss Seismariser? They're fine as it's written and Miss Marin would like to pause. Where are you with it? Um the responsibilities uh again I
022I just felt like we can re do spend a little bit time in that area and uh so I I would just say if we have an opportunity I'll go with the the work session and discussing more with other colleagues on the board because this is just us right now and if we want it's been not updated for a long time. So if you want to just do it without the changes and then we do it again next year with the changes, I'm okay with that. Um I'm looking can I can I say something? You know, you remind me, you remind me, Mr. Mystics, that that we have had the process where we just do a no change. But again, since this is so far from when it was supposed to be reviewed, I think
023we could just wait a little bit longer. But that could be an option is that we review it without a change. But at the same time, again, it seems like then we're saying, well, this is fine. So, I just that came to mind as an option we haven't used lately. We're looking for the original policy. Correct. Yeah. It's like So it seems that the only change in the red line, not the only change but the responsibilities was changed from requirements. The paragraph that says the Fairfax County School Board recognizes that is from the standing version. And then but it's not what's displayed currently is the current version right and so that paragraph under requirements that is shown in red line in the markup but the only thing different in the markup is the change of
024the name responsibilities not actually the language is the same correct and that that's highlighted now is just the philosophy Okay. [Music] If you wanted to do it as a no change, it would be a very similar process to what you're doing now, except under summary of changes, we would just indicate that there is no changes from the current version. We would take it to the board for a vote at the next well it would be put on new business and then it would go for consent for the meeting after that. Dr. Anderson, it appears as if there's not that many changes. I guess instead of doing no change, what's to stop us just from supporting what's already here? So you make a motion to adopt what's there? Sure. Because it's essentially no change. All it
025was was requirements to philosophy and we could always come back and really have a robust conversation about it. But just to get this off the docket and to at least get it with an updated timetable, I'd be fine with that if we're going to commit to coming back, which I know we are. Yeah, I'm definitely committed to reaching out to chairs about a work session to have healthier conversation about this regardless of whether we pass it as it's written today or not. So I miss Mayor. Well, I guess the difference is is that I for one feel like it's not worth approving a stale policy just because we get to renew the date. It's already overdue. I don't want to signal to the community that this is our representation when we actually have a lot
026more to say about it. And so I think to take it up a level when we come across these policies that are seven, eight, nine, 10 years overdue, are we generally going to act in that way? Like I think we should be consistent. There's been other policies where we've said, "No, we're going to take it in review." We've talked so much about SRNR, it's seems like it's counterintuitive to now say, well, let's just approve what was when like the whole point of this review is to find exactly these kinds of policies that we have very strong thoughts about rather than just be like, all right, no change. Let's send it through. So, I'm just confused. is I just wish we could have some consistent this gets back to even at the start of this committee's
027work of like what are the consistent criteria we're going to use like is this something the board's going to have a bigger discussion about is this something that just needs to be updated maybe this is something for the next committee to really hammer out this way we have metrics that we can keep going back to instead of saying ah this one seems okay let's just approve it because I feel really passionately about this one but I don't feel like I'm alone here Well, I didn't get a second to the motion, so that's, you know, yeah, missed exit. I'm where you are. Yeah, that's how I feel. So, I agree with you, Miss Marin, that um let's I you know, we are not here to rubber stamp uh you know, policies. We are here to do
028the real work and if requires a work session, let's do that with with our board members. Um actually I want more of our policy discussions in our work sessions and have more because that's like really a lot of our work lies in our policies. So uh have more like conversation around our policies in work session would be my preference for next year and um this could be the one starting point uh where we can schedule it earlier this year if possible so that that we can still approve it in 2025. So the current year that's Thank you, Miss Seismarheiser. All right. So here's what I'm thinking. First, I actually kind of like this language. I think it's important for students to and our policies to mention that there are both legal and civil rights that
029our students have that impose both responsibilities. Oh, that went away. And um and uh give rights to them as well. I do think that there's been some conversations amongst um board members I think individually about the SRNR in general. It's a little bigger picture conversation as to whether the SRNR should be the big document should be something the board is voting on as opposed to the policy. And so I am wondering whether we pass this on to the board. I actually like this language personally right as a kicking off point. Here's the updated policy we're bringing to you as a kicking off point to have that fir that more wholesome conversation about the SRNR regulation versus the SRNR policy. Um I think it would be difficult that would be my preference is to pass this
030on and have that as a work and ask instead of it going to a vote at the board have this draft go with the SRR draft to a work session. And I think that we may need to have a conversation about what in that work session about what are the SR and our regulation we might want to embed in policy. But I actually think this is a good chance to kind of bifrocate those two. So I'm hearing from you pass it and discuss it. I have a question and again this is just me being newer on the board. If we were to pass it and then ask for the chairs to do a work session on it, could the chairs come back and say you passed it? what's there to discuss? I mean, they could,
031of course, you know, it's a chair's discussion, but we did that with the boundary policy. If you recall, we passed out a governance and it went to a work session. So, and there's been other policies, especially sort of bigger, more I, you know, I'll just say there's been other policies in the past that the governance committee has recommended, right? It's not unusual for the committee to say, "We passed this policy, we think it's ready to go straight to a vote, or we pass this policy, we think it needs to go to work session because this is the kind of policy. state needs a more wholesome board discussion. I will say if I may when I sat in that chair role there we had that conversation when policies came to us about hey do you know
032if governance hadn't given a recommendation we think this needs to go to work session versus we this so there is a tradition of doing that with policies they could I would find it difficult for a chair and vice chair if a committee recommended something to say we don't agree with it at least without going back to the committee chair and having a conversation about it. Okay, Miss Mayor. Well, that's that's a good question and again this goes back to what's the role of the committee and I appreciate the way Miss Dixit raised it and so I'm just drafting out like and I pulled up what I had from earlier this year about the prompts for policy review. What can we use to guide our review? So, one of the things could be what is the
033governance committee's role for this review? Right? So, we have some policies where there's really no change, right? It's like we're going to have a fire code policy or we're going to have an emergency management policy. All right, fine. We just know that we looked at it. It's up to snuff. Fine. Then there's ones where governors make substantive changes which is actually like you know the boundary policy that work got done largely here or it could be like commencement activities, right? Like we largely took care of it in our committee and feel like it's pretty much ready to go. But then there are these ones where it's a policy that requires significant discussion and maybe the committee takes its first cut. Every single person here is on a device while I'm talking. I just hope that
034you're listening to me. Um that perhaps it's that we do the work in the committee and then ask the board to then do further the work. Right? Like if we can perhaps think about things in that way. I'm not I don't have a problem with this language. I just think it's missing a lot and we talk a lot about this being our communication to the public and it says nothing about a lot of what we spent time talking about. So I would rather and I can send this around again but again I'm just looking for consistency in how we do this stuff. So um and I do miss lady think that a chair could look at and be like then why'd you just approve it? All right. Um, I'm going to confess I probably would
035fail a test on Robert's rules, but we had a motion. We didn't have a second. I can't make a motion. [Music] So, we got to move on. What do you want us to entertain? She wants us to entertain. Well, I'm personally comfortable with not passing this and putting it on an agenda for an early work session with chairs. which is what correct I can't well the point is I guess then I take a vote I mean this is where I get confused because I get scolded. today. How many people are comfortable just moving this to govern moving this not passing it pushing it and doing a work session with Miss Seismer? Are you recommending we move this draft as a not approved draft but this is the latest redline version that we want as a
036starting point for that work session? Yes. Okay. Yeah. I just want to clarify. I would share this with chairs. I would try to give a summary of our conversation and our consternation around it and then ask for a work session. I'm happy to make that motion if you like. I'll make a motion to to do what Miss Lady just recommended. Okay. Is there a second? Miss Marin, all those in favor? Wait, would you like to speak to your motion? Anyone want to speak to the motion? Okay. All those in favor? Unanimous for those in the room? All right, moving right along. Uh, policy 1.06, students with physically aggressive or violent behavior. It's policy 2620. I call in Dr. Reed. Thank you, Miss Lady. Um, in the memo dated April 29th, uh, the purpose, um, was
037established, it was reviewed and updated by the office of the chief equity officer and the FCPS division council. uh and represents best practice. Additionally, VSBA policy CLA um is included for your review. So, um essentially titles and sections were changed and a philosophy statement was added. So, that's it. Thank you. Okay, Dr. Anderson, I guess my overall question, because it looks like this policy didn't come into play until 1986, obviously way after there was a discipline policy in FCPS. That was your graduation year. Okay. Well, because of Miss Lady, you you put together this um policy. Well, not you all, but someone does this have to live as a standalone because it's very specific to violent students and I know the um VSBA model policy also speaks of substance abuse. All of these things tend
038to be folded into the SRNR. I'd just like to better understand why do we need this standalone um policy? I I don't know that I can identify why we need it. I we just identified making sure it was in the template that you had requested with philosophy statement and so forth. So then let me ask the another question. Do we need this as a standalone policy? Dr. I mean Mr. Foster all of the doctor of law. Uh so the short answer is um you it does not need to be a standalone policy but under the Virginia code school boards are required to adopt um if they decide to do it any discipline rules are required to be adopted by the school board. Um so which we do under the SRNR which you do. So, if
039this were to be embedded in the SRNR, and I'd find it hard to believe that it's not, we're just not necessarily explicit with the phys. I mean, I I think we are if I were to do a search into the SRNR, is this not language that's already embedded in that larger document? I would have to verify that. Um, but to answer the original question, it's not required to be a separate policy. It could be part of another policy because I'm trying to get a sense of what is it that we're communicating here? What we've communicated here is that students who um display physically aggressive or violent behavior will have consequences. We say that in charts. We say that in paragraphs in the SRNR. I'm just wondering about its utility. Not wanting to be um shortsighted
040and not making sure that it's already in the SRNR, which again I believe it is. I just wonder about the utility of this standalone very specific of this very narrow band of behavior um as a as its own policy. That's all. Missiser, yeah, I have actually this a lot of concerns about having this as a standalone policy. um it's it's sort of missing a lot here. It it doesn't reference special education students for example and there's IDA protections around that that's not referenced in here. Um you know even like MDRs and things like that. So I think yeah I I think this is a problematic policy because my worry is that someone could look at this policy as a standalone policy even though it does reference the SR and our regulations and say wait a
041second this person was physically whatever it is and they're supposed to be expel like I I think it doesn't make a lot of sense if you're not going to embed all that else in here. So I would make a motion to remove to well actually I would make a motion to ask Mr. Foster and Dr. read to see if the concepts of this are embedded in another policy or regulation. If so, then to remove this as a policy because it doesn't seem to make sense here as a standalone policy. I would second that move. I know we're recorded. I would second that. I think I just spoke to the reason why, but it it doesn't I don't like this as a standalone policy. I think it needs to be embedded somewhere else perhaps with the
042concepts but as a standalone it's problematic. Dr. Anderson, would you like to speak to your second? I think I already Anyone else have questions related to this? Miss Maron? Well, yes. So, this was actually listed as one of the changes in the SRNR policy, which is again a good reason why we waited because there's a lot more to figure out here. So I think it's one of these ones where again we put aside until we can do the larger policy review. So versus suns setting it. You're speaking against the motion. I'm yeah I'm not I'm speaking on not taking action. So ultimately I don't want this policy to go forward for more work right now. So I can agree with what my colleagues are saying, but ultimately I don't it needs to be discussed in
043the context of the larger SR&R [Music] policy. If I can clarify that I think that's kind of the same thing I was saying is that I wanted this to be taken back and for staff to look at where else it's either already embedded or needs to be embedded and then bring back those suggestions so then we can sunset it. So, I'm not saying we sunset at this moment, but I don't I do worry about this still even being on our books the way it is. But that would be my suggestion. And if we want to have that brought back as embedded in that bigger SR&R conversation, we can, but I I think this perhaps needs to be Okay. Are you speaking to this? Okay. Um I actually wanted to see what is the the policy
044for discipline and uh I think we do have a standalone policy for disciplinary actions and things like that right so this is actually can kind of violent behavior aggressive student behavior can can kind of roll into that um I don't know if we can make a huge mega policy of SRNR I think it still has to be like I kind of broken down a bit so discipline could be one of the things under that where this could live and I agree that uh student with special needs um uh and it's not mentioned here so we should definitely incorporate all of that. Okay. Um I am in agreement with I think the motion that's at hand which is to move this back to staff to see where else it's embedded. Um, I think the point I'm
045hearing is that if it doesn't need to be standalone policy because it's articulated well elsewhere, then we don't need to have it as a standalone policy. So, we also in sending it back to staff, Dr. Reid would be welcome if it they come back and say, "We're in agreement. It doesn't need to be a standalone policy." Um, or whether we're in disagreement, we think it should be a standalone policy, and perhaps these are the reasons why. Well, what does the board want on this? Do they do they want it as a standalone policy or not? It sounds like not what I'm hearing. What I'm hearing is that we don't see the need for it as a standalone policy because we also think it's void of some things that are better articulated where this is stated
046in other documents that already exist. Is that a fair summary? So, just quickly to clear what I'm asking for is either to see if it is embedded somewhere else or if not where it could be or should be embedded as opposed to a standalone policy. So I'm saying I don't want this to be a standalone policy. Help us understand does do we need to take pieces of this and embed it somewhere like in the SRNR or is it already covered that this is sort of duplicative. Okay. Right. So my I guess my ask is quickly no standalone policy. Is it somewhere else? If it's not somewhere else do pieces of this need to be somewhere else and where? And that's what I'm looking for. Okay. Is that the motion or the Okay. So, all those
047in favor of the motion on the table, which is to send this back to staff in in a way in which Miss Seismheiser just articulated. Miss Seismore, Dr. Anderson, Miss Dixit, and myself opposed. Abstensions. Miss Merit abstained. The motion passes. Next up, uh, call on Dr. Reed for item 1.07, policy 2660, voluntary uniforms in public schools. Um, this one I think we've looked at before, but this is uh again the memo from April 29th. The changes made to this policy include adding a philosophy statement and a responsibility section. There's no matching VSBA policy. Um, so very little was adjusted here, Miss Mayor. So part part of the reason I abstained from the last one was again I personally don't want to act on things that are part of another picture. So this one is the
048same voluntary uniform. So this policy was included in the SRNR review that staff did. At the bottom it says consider all these other policies. And again this is why we were trying to review policies by series so that we could have a more holistic view. Um if you remember grading policy right we put in homework instead of it being a standalone. So, what I suggest is, and I've already started taking notes, but if we want to continue, as we said we did with the review of the student rights and responsibility policy, we could put in there, for instance, that what this motion that just passed was, which was, you know, um are there things that are already embedded in the SR regulation that we'd want to pull out or what policies does staff recommend? Like
049again, we don't need to update this. There's no rush about school uniforms. I do have some questions, but if we tee up those things, then we could help bring a more robust edit to the board when the time comes. We could do it now while our brains are in it and then whenever that happens. So, I'd love to get your thoughts on that. And my so I'm not in any place to approve this this time around. I think the summary of changes is you can go buy the first two sentences. Um, it shouldn't be a volunteer uniform policy. It's a practice, right? We don't, it's not a policy. What this thing is a policy, the practice, um, section five seems repetitive. Some of the red lines seem like they've removed language that needs clarity. Why
050does a school board member need to approve? Should say something about costs. The school division is not going to cover costs. So again things that you know and why are uniforms a good thing if we want to allow it or not like there is you know data and it's not here. So again I would just put it in that SR&R discussion committee. Dr. Anderson. Um thank you. I just had a couple of questions. I don't necessarily disagree with some of the um kind of organizational feedback that Miss Marin had, but I did wonder this is a policy that's under the school board. Can you speak as to why that is? Because many of the others are under equity office, ISD, etc. Why does this live better under the school board or not better? I shouldn't
051have put that in. Why? Just why? I can say from the legal perspective that the Virginia code expressly requires that any uniform requirements be approved by the local school board. Um perhaps that's why but I but the code just also requires that just about almost anything be provi be done under the delegation of the school board. I mean we could thread that line as well. Again I I don't have any dog in the fight on this one. I I'm fine with I I understand what's been said about having this maybe be reviewed as part of the larger SRNR, but I I don't know if I see it as part of the larger SRNR because that's to the rights and responsibilities and expectations of behavior. This is for me a very different activity. This is along
052the same lines as when parents are um coalesing to change the language at their school from language X to language Z. It's a community kind of grassroots kind of work that comes to us. So I don't know if I see it as embedding as closely related to the SRNR. Um so yeah, Mix it. I'm just a little interested in this uh line. The Fairfax County School Board permits the initiation of a voluntary uniform policy for any individual school when the guidelines for implementing school uniforms are followed. But aren't we like FCPS like all the schools are supposed to be equitable and inclusive and like how can we allow one school to do that over the other school? I mean, if we want to implement P pol like uniform, it's to be all schools or not
053like I mean that's personally I don't know about that. Can I follow that up with a quick question with with Mr. Foster? I almost did it again. I think Miss Dixie might like an answer to her question first. Yes, ma'am. Well, I the policy is written to expressly allow a local school to do this. So, that's currently the policy the board has on the books. Um, and if the board wants to change that direction, you certainly can. But currently, it's written to allow individual schools. You currently permit an individual school to create um a voluntary uniform rule if they so chose. We didn't take that intent out because that's currently your in your uh statement. We just tried to craft a philosophy that would match that. Um from where I came from uh we wore
054uniforms all our lives right um it kind of gave us that perspective everybody has the same clothes where look the same I mean not look the same but you know the appearances are like all students um you know doesn't happen matter where they come from which background but they wear the same clothes um I'm not saying I'm I'm in favor of that or not but it's A it's a discussion worth having with my board members I feel. So I I feel like this policy can again be embedded into some other policy and uh when our SNR uh SRNR uh work session we can discuss this as well. Dr. Anderson, Mr. Foster, what does the state code um articulate that the school board will have latitude for part or all? Or is it pretty much not
055specific? Code section 22.1-79.2 paragraph B. It says in relevant part, local school boards may establish requirements consistent with the state board's guidelines for the students enrolled in any of their schools to wear uniforms while in attendance at such school during the regular school day. It seems to give latitude to single school rather than system. Thank you. I was just curious about that. So, I'm just confused because actually I don't know if everybody got deep into the red lining, but um I'm a little confused. When you get to page two, um let's just go to 2C. Can you pull that up? Can we look at the screen? I mean C says it looks like what's redlinined out. I mean these aren't sentences. Any group of parents and guardians or students opposing such a policy may also
056distributed with the initial proposal. It's not a sentence. The school shall schedule an open information meeting for parents and guardians and meetings of the It's weird redlinining. So I don't I don't I only have this I don't have a clean copy on board docs. Um so um I mean I'm because we don't have to have a a school uniform policy, you know, I'm comfortable suns setting it all together. Um but I I I'm not don't know that I'm hearing that from other folks. Um so it certainly needs to be cleaned up. Could we send it back to staff just to earlier? Is that a motion? I mean, Miss Mayor, well, again, I I disagree. We're sending these little pieces of things back to staff and this isn't even a priority and we have so many
057other priorities. So again, you know, there's things like the student walkout policy. There's things like, you know, that the students have been in, you know, passionate about lately about principles reviewing their newspapers, those are student rights and how we grant them or not or like that stuff should be in the policy. And the reason that there were problems and confusion is because the policy does not say any of this stuff. So if it's a student right like wearing the clothes they want as the school community decides or walking out of a building or printing what they want that should be addressed in one policy and done as one set. I really really discourage us from sending little tidbits of work over to the superintendent at this time whether it's related to SRO or not honestly
058but right now I think we should just keep this with the others. I mean again I I think it should just rest for now. Again it was when was the last review of it? A long time ago and we have talked about it and I guess it just keeps kicking up information. It was a good point that Dr. had raised like well is it authority to the school or the the district? So I would just say can we just wait but my understanding is when you say wait just just set it aside for now. Just set it Yeah. I mean because I do you're a motion to set it aside. Sure. I'll make a motion to set it aside for now. There a second. Do I have a second to set it aside? Miss Dixit,
059would you like to speak to your motion? Miss Dixit, would you like to speak to your motion? All those in favor of setting it aside for now, raise your hands. Okay. All right. I'm gonna vote for it. Okay. Miss Mayor, Miss Dixit, and myself. All those opposed? Okay. I'll work with Dr. Reid when we set it aside. So, it's set aside or it's coming back. Well, I'm sorry. It means we're not taking action on it and we did it for this one and we didn't do it for the other one. So the vote stands I mean it's voted otherwise do we not have a process? Miss Lady to clarify the opposition was Dr. Anderson and Missheiser correct to the vote? Yeah. I'll I'll try to define that offline. Okay. I'll work on that. Okay. Um
060I call on Dr. Reed for item 1.08, 08 policy 2670 programs for students with disabilities. Thank you, Miss Lady. Um, this policy has been updated in its entirety. A philosophy section was added. The title requirements has been changed to responsibilities. Um, and the section has been modified. Additionally, new legal references were added. Uh, and the matching VSBA policy has been attached. Thank you, Miss Eismerheiser. Yeah, a couple things. Um, well actually several things. First, I'm assuming this went to ACSD and came back because this was came when I was governance chair and I asked for it to go to ACSD because by state code they're supposed to comment on any of our Now, it could go to them after we're done with it as well, but it needs to go to them at some point.
061I know I'd sent it in September of it was April sorry of 2023 and I believe the first time it went to ACSD or they were made aware it was September of 2023 maybe 24 I might be getting no sorry 24 April 24 September of 24 excuse me um was first they heard of it and I believe they commented on it but I wanted to confirm that this has been commented by them on it I don't know the answer to that Mr. Mr. Foster, do you know? Because I could share the six or seven emails I sent to staff asking them when it was going to be sent to ACSD and when they're going to comment on it, including to the ACSD chair, to Mike Bloom several times. So, I think before now, we can
062pass it out of here and then ACSD would need to comment on it before it goes to the board. The reason it's better to do it before now is because if we pass it and then ACSD has some significant substantive changes, that's going to have to be discussed in front of the entire board at some point. It's easier for ACSD to give their comments and then it to be discussed here in governance and then go on to the full board, but it can be done the other way. But I know this has been almost a year, actually it's been over a year that we've been asking for ACSD comments on this. So I was just curious. Yeah, I have more comments, but that was my first before we moved on. I don't think we should
063talk about this until we have that answer that Because that is a state code requirement. You want me to talk about the other things while we're waiting for that? Yeah, because I don't and I'm sitting here wondering was I supposed to send it to them? I sent it when I was governance chair. So, this has been going on for a while. So, this is So, they did get it. I don't know. I asked Oh, I asked for staff to take it to ACSD because they have to discuss it. Is that staff? No, it was our Dr. Reed staff. Okay. I believe they did, but I'm just double checking. I think they did, but I had several emails reminding us. So, why don't you move on to your Let me move on to the other question.
064I was a little confused why in section of the responsibilities the modified standard diploma is still listed because I don't believe the modified standard diploma still exists and I think everyone who was grandfathered into that diploma has already graduated. I don't know if everybody had already graduated. Maybe I'm pretty sure they did because that was not even available from my son and he graduated two years ago. Okay. So, I'm pretty sure, but I'd prefer your staff to confirm that, but I'm I'm pretty sure they all graduated. Um, the other thing I I would recommend saying in here instead of modified standard or applied studies is or a similar IEP diploma. So, that way if something else is changed by VDOE in the future, this doesn't have to then be updated or a similar IEP diploma
065because the what these are IEP diplomas. Okay. Well, I actually the clerk's taking notes, right? You guys are taking notes. Okay. Thanks. So I I'm just that way it doesn't have to come back to us or get out of date if they change the applied studies to something else. Got it. Um that's the other piece I do think not to wordsmith but when we have in the third paragraph parent it should be parent guardian caregiver. I know Dr. Anderson brings that up and I agree. um with her as well. I also am surprised since we're referencing the FCPS manual around procedures, why we're not referencing, for example, the transition manual, the twice exceptional handbook, and the special education handbook. Um because I I know we probably want to reference more than just procedural on the
066references. Um in terms of the substance of it, since it's a policy, I I mean there's lots I could add to the substance for, you know, for time. I'm not going to cuz I think it has the big pictures in here. But there are pieces that I think are either out of date or um I I don't I'd like to understand better why these are the references and not others. I'm just trying to it's okay read where the references you're is that the second paragraph the cross references on page two under legal references cross references at the bottom. Right above the dates I see. Okay. I think those were the legally required references. Is that correct, John? If I may, the cross references are separate from the legal references. So, I don't know why it
067would be legally required to reference our own manual. For example, the legal references at the top. The legal reference at the top underneath the legal references, the cross references. So, and I don't know why like the law would require us to reference our own regulation, for example, or our own manual. It looks like perhaps we didn't update those since 2010 and the 2E handbooks probably more recent than 2010. make a motion to send this back because that section is well out of date because it also doesn't have the FCPS special education handbook or the transition handbook. I'll second. Would you like to speak your motion? I think I did. Okay. Dr. Anderson, how would you like to speak your motion? Just very quickly, just a point that I wanted to make is the responsibilities piece.
068Since this is going back, if you all could just take a look because I've always viewed that as this is what you will do. This is what this, you know, we expect parents to do this, we expect staff to do this, we expect the schools to be responsible for that. Some of this kind of falls under the general beliefs and philosophy. So I think um parts of that can be moved there in terms of what our thinking is regarding the parent relationship. Let's say the last paragraph that says, "Additionally, FCPS recognizes a parent and student relationship, I'm sorry, the parent and student as important partners." That's great, but that's more of a philosophy or belief. It's not necessarily part of the responsibility. If you could just take a look at that while you're cleaning up.
069Anyone else like to speak to the motion on the table? Seeing no other placards, like to take a vote. All those in favor of the motion on the table sending this back to staff. Miss Seismerheiser, Dr. Anderson, Miss Marin, Miss Dixit, and myself. Thank you. Motion passes. Which gives you time to find out, but may I be recognized? Sure. May I just also ask that when you bring it back, we've confirmed about ACSD review. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. like I call on Dr. Reed for item 1.09 policy 2720 student lists. Thank you, Miss Lady. Um changes again to this are fairly minimal. Uh changing the series title and we've added a philosophy section. Um also wording has been added in section three around clarifying allowance to distribute directory information um and some other titling u
070has occurred. There are no matching VSBA policies. Dr. Anderson, thank you. The only thing that came to mind reviewing this is there was significant um I guess direction in the trust policy that spoke to directory information and how that's to be secured. I'm not seeing that um being included here spoke very clearly in terms of securing various documents. Um, and I'm not necessarily saying that we have to be duplicative, but it does lend itself to what's under the responsibility section here. At least just some general statement, I think, would be important. And I would not want for these two documents to be divergent in terms of their um purpose and focus. So, I'd like to give them the time to do that crosswalk. Miss Seismarheiser see no other placards I'll speak. I'm fine with it
071as written and I would love to get a motion to pass it. Miss Lady, just bringing up when it comes to the series title, um, under regulation 1104, if we're moving it to information technology, it should be moved to the 6000 series because that's what that series is. If we're going to keep it in 20 in the 2000 series, then the series title for the 2000 series is uh, special services. This goes back to the larger discussion we'd had earlier and we've had with other policies about how the regul this regulation needs to be updated. So it is something where we could reumber the policy if the board wants to move it to information technology. Thank you. I I Yes. I just really want to um cement my opposition to moving this forward. We spent
072an inordinate amount of time ensuring that student information can be um secured and having that information in the trust policy. I am very very concerned that I don't see much of this being mirrored here minimally. I would not want for us to have two divergent documents. It will not cost us anything for staff to take a little bit more time to ensure that these two documents are in alignment with each other or to include some of the provisions out of that um document into this policy. I I I really don't want this to be moving forward without that look. It's really important that we have that information because we spent what half a year on the work and making a motion that we move it back to staff for the crosswalk. Yes. And to ensure
073that it is mirroring some of the responsibilities of that document. Do I have a second? Miss Marin, would you like to speak to your first? Would you like to speak to your second? Is this gerine to the motion on the table? Miss Dixit, I mean it's gerine to the discussion the policy this one. I just wanted to add my two cents because it's falling under the IT realm now. Um it is um definitely very important to uh secure and keep our information private and there are a lot of uh uh elements who are trying to get into the servers and always so I do want to make sure that we are uh with the student list we have the highest level of uh cyber security and firewall in in in place um and that's something
074um I think we should reflect in some ways in our in our policy too that we take this very seriously Thank you. Seeing no other placards, I'll vote for the motion on the table that we push this back to staff. We definitely need one edit, which is what series it's going to go into, and some of the other suggestions with the crosswalking. All those in favor, everyone at the table. So, the motion passes. It is 5:00 and we are adjourned.