1 00:00:04,590 --> 00:00:28,390 All right, so I would like to start the Camp County Board of Education Policy Committee meeting for September 24, 2021, at 4 p.m., it is now 404 p.m., my name is Andrew Ziffer. I am the policy committee chair and a board member of the Camp County School District. 2 00:00:28,390 --> 00:00:32,190 Today, we have President, 3 00:00:36,310 --> 00:00:42,850 myself, Andrew Ziffer, Mr. Iwat Ayosu, who is our Board Vice Chair, 4 00:00:43,270 --> 00:00:45,850 Ms. McGinnie, Ms. Iwatsaki, 5 00:00:49,710 --> 00:00:58,270 Mr. Clinton, Daryan, and Mr. Andrew Gaima, I hope I pronounced 6 00:00:58,270 --> 00:01:03,770 that correctly. Ms. Carolyn Lloyd, Mr. Elle McHughan, Dr. Norman Sauss, 7 00:01:05,630 --> 00:01:13,150 Dr. Tracilla Weaver, I believe this on her iPhone right now, and Mr. Winston Denmark, 8 00:01:14,110 --> 00:01:17,770 Mr. Anthony Outler, and did I forget anyone? 9 00:01:21,960 --> 00:01:22,160 No. 10 00:01:22,600 --> 00:01:23,160 All right. 11 00:01:24,100 --> 00:01:28,520 Like, Mr. Chair, it looks like our board council, Mr. Denmark, is on with us. 12 00:01:28,820 --> 00:01:30,180 I don't think- 13 00:01:30,180 --> 00:01:32,380 Mr. Lloyd as well. 14 00:01:32,380 --> 00:01:33,040 Mr. Lloyd. 15 00:01:33,340 --> 00:01:33,360 Yes. 16 00:01:33,500 --> 00:01:34,240 Mr. Lloyd Lloyd. 17 00:01:34,840 --> 00:01:36,400 I thought I said Mr. Weston Denmark. 18 00:01:36,700 --> 00:01:37,360 I could not be. 19 00:01:37,420 --> 00:01:37,940 Maybe not correct. 20 00:01:38,020 --> 00:01:39,880 But yes, our board attorneys on. 21 00:01:40,940 --> 00:01:43,160 And anyone else? 22 00:01:43,300 --> 00:01:44,320 Mr. Lloyd. 23 00:01:44,960 --> 00:01:45,640 Mr. Murseki. 24 00:01:46,280 --> 00:01:46,820 Think I've got everybody. 25 00:01:47,420 --> 00:01:48,080 I'm on. 26 00:01:48,280 --> 00:01:48,900 I'm just listening. 27 00:01:50,760 --> 00:01:51,160 No, Mr. 28 00:01:51,760 --> 00:01:53,260 Our Board Chair, of course. 29 00:01:54,560 --> 00:01:56,540 Ms. Allison Gerverts. 30 00:01:57,260 --> 00:01:59,540 So today's discussion will be. 31 00:01:59,540 --> 00:02:06,080 feedback on receive policies presented as first or second reads during the September 14th Board of Education 32 00:02:06,080 --> 00:02:11,020 meeting. Some of them, not all of them, that will be decided by the end of this meeting and any updates 33 00:02:11,020 --> 00:02:21,980 or follow up on newer previous policies. Discussion items that were presented as first and second reads 34 00:02:21,980 --> 00:02:25,500 during the September 14th Board meeting. 35 00:02:26,640 --> 00:02:28,360 We can do first. 36 00:02:31,220 --> 00:02:33,980 I want to get the easy stuff out of the way first. 37 00:02:34,860 --> 00:02:38,480 A couple of the easy ones that we've gone over and over again are 38 00:02:39,260 --> 00:02:40,680 B.A. 39 00:02:41,560 --> 00:02:43,060 and J.A. 40 00:02:43,760 --> 00:02:45,220 From the last conversation, 41 00:02:46,580 --> 00:02:51,260 we determined there was some overlap between B.A. and J.A. 42 00:02:51,260 --> 00:03:02,620 And so we remove the overlap in JAA and so no JAA and BA do not overlap each other in any way. 43 00:03:03,600 --> 00:03:11,300 And I just wanted to see if there's any discussion or any new community comments on those two. 44 00:03:11,960 --> 00:03:17,100 So I will open the floor. Let me get my screen bigger so I can see people. 45 00:03:17,220 --> 00:03:20,300 I will open the floor for discussion on those two. 46 00:03:21,740 --> 00:03:46,480 Good afternoon, Mr. Ziffer. Everyone, the only comment we received since the last meeting was a positive comment. Actually, that was received yesterday regarding the A and the comment is posted in the on the spreadsheet and it wasn't support of the policy. 47 00:03:46,480 --> 00:03:56,480 And the author also commented on that they would like this policy to be used as a part of the redistricting plan. 48 00:03:58,940 --> 00:04:05,160 But the entire body of the comment is inserted here on the spreadsheet regarding DA. 49 00:04:06,060 --> 00:04:17,330 I'm Nancy Kelly. I see that. Okay. And this is Lloyd. I made a comment back in July on 50 00:04:17,330 --> 00:04:22,010 BAA that we should have renamed it, but I believe that I just wanted to document this 51 00:04:22,010 --> 00:04:26,950 because it's not talking that did inside the spreadsheet. Did GS, GSBA gave us the feedback 52 00:04:26,950 --> 00:04:33,850 to call it board objectives is in my correct. 53 00:04:35,350 --> 00:04:36,850 I believe that is correct. 54 00:04:37,530 --> 00:04:41,250 Lewis, do you have any information on that? 55 00:04:41,270 --> 00:04:42,470 I do believe that is correct. 56 00:04:42,730 --> 00:04:42,910 Correct. 57 00:04:44,790 --> 00:04:50,130 Okay, because we did talk about calling in an access and opportunity policy and then we just 58 00:04:50,130 --> 00:04:51,830 change it to goals and objectives. 59 00:04:51,830 --> 00:04:52,830 I 60 00:04:57,820 --> 00:05:04,420 am updating the spreadsheet so we at least have the notes archived and 61 00:05:38,470 --> 00:05:39,530 then I do see 62 00:05:40,250 --> 00:05:44,410 there's comments from a 9-8, 63 00:05:46,920 --> 00:05:50,440 please retain requirements for annual measurable goals 64 00:05:50,440 --> 00:05:54,920 in public reporting progress, the policy in access and opportunities include clear metrics 65 00:05:54,920 --> 00:06:01,300 so board can communicate and evaluate whether achieving is intended success from 9-8 66 00:06:04,220 --> 00:06:04,560 was 67 00:06:04,560 --> 00:06:08,980 any feedback on that one? I'm not coming from September 8th. 68 00:06:13,120 --> 00:06:21,580 I think that's fair. I think that's fair, Mr. Ziffer. At the same time, I don't know that 69 00:06:21,580 --> 00:06:28,240 specific metrics should have their place in the precise policy language, but I think that's a 70 00:06:28,240 --> 00:06:33,420 fair commentary either way for Mr. Fulfoldy, the author of that comment. 71 00:06:34,920 --> 00:06:40,180 Yeah, I think so too, but my comment was the same thing that probably belongs to the regulation. 72 00:06:42,140 --> 00:06:44,520 Yeah, well, I'm sorry. 73 00:06:44,660 --> 00:06:45,100 Go ahead. 74 00:06:45,360 --> 00:06:49,260 I would also add that this is not a policy that we previously had. 75 00:06:49,520 --> 00:06:54,140 So there were no measurable goals and public reporting of progress in that. 76 00:06:54,260 --> 00:06:59,220 I mean, that I think is more directed towards strategic plans. 77 00:06:59,220 --> 00:07:06,680 So I think there could be some additional conversation around where this concern can be addressed. 78 00:07:09,110 --> 00:07:14,190 Okay, I'm just going to move the comment to the post to the regulation section. 79 00:07:14,590 --> 00:07:15,750 So is that okay? 80 00:07:16,510 --> 00:07:23,530 So I think he's just saying that he approves of the current language of the draft we have, 81 00:07:24,090 --> 00:07:29,110 because the language currently, at least in less I'm looking at the wrong draft. 82 00:07:30,000 --> 00:07:42,060 Graph, does specify that we will have an annual report to the board and that it will include academic 83 00:07:42,060 --> 00:07:48,140 achievement, attendance, discipline, career pathways. I mean, I think he's just saying he agrees with 84 00:07:48,140 --> 00:07:50,720 the current language. That's why it's retained. 85 00:07:54,960 --> 00:07:58,620 Unless I am misunderstanding where we are with this policy. 86 00:07:58,620 --> 00:07:59,380 And 87 00:08:01,680 --> 00:08:04,860 that that certainly makes it more clear. 88 00:08:05,620 --> 00:08:06,580 It's confirmed more clear. 89 00:08:07,040 --> 00:08:07,080 Yeah. 90 00:08:11,680 --> 00:08:15,140 One of the challenges I seem to have is that 91 00:08:17,250 --> 00:08:18,290 we have this again. 92 00:08:19,350 --> 00:08:22,950 We have multiple versions of policies floating around. 93 00:08:23,990 --> 00:08:31,750 And so I'm looking at the spreadsheet and the spreadsheet has an April 30th version of 94 00:08:31,750 --> 00:08:42,570 policy, BA goals and objectives, and it stayed at April 30th, 2026, and then on the board 95 00:08:42,570 --> 00:08:52,990 agenda item, that's the April 30th item, and then in the spreadsheet, there is a July 30th 96 00:08:52,990 --> 00:08:56,790 dated BA called goals and objectives, 97 00:08:59,110 --> 00:09:01,630 so I'm assuming the July 30th version is more current, 98 00:09:01,770 --> 00:09:06,650 but the April version is posted on the agenda. 99 00:09:08,070 --> 00:09:17,170 So I know this is a new policy, so how do we version this and how do we track changes 100 00:09:17,170 --> 00:09:19,330 when it's just a net new policy? 101 00:09:24,800 --> 00:09:33,520 That's a good question. Mr. Daryon, do you have a sense of the version history? 102 00:09:34,220 --> 00:09:37,960 Make sure we're looking at and discussing the proper one. 103 00:09:38,780 --> 00:09:43,160 Right, I'm pulling up the assembly version. 104 00:09:43,680 --> 00:09:48,600 Now as I compare that to the version on the spreadsheet. 105 00:09:51,300 --> 00:09:56,860 Yeah, the Assembly version was what I was looking at. I now have pulled up the spreadsheet link 106 00:09:58,060 --> 00:10:03,540 at least for this section the wording seems to be the thing. They both reference an annual reporting 107 00:10:03,540 --> 00:10:08,620 requirement to the board and then have a list of metrics for that board to include. 108 00:10:09,500 --> 00:10:14,780 And so the only way to figure out what the differences are to run a Microsoft well 109 00:10:15,900 --> 00:10:23,060 do a red line, a technical red line versus just a visual red line. Is there anything I 110 00:10:23,060 --> 00:10:24,420 need to put on the phone screen? 111 00:10:26,960 --> 00:10:32,860 You could pull up the, well there's even a, there's a 112 00:10:32,860 --> 00:10:43,980 you fourth version, that's great. There's a June fourth version. That was the one in the 113 00:10:43,980 --> 00:10:49,000 in the, what should I call it in the spreadsheet too. 114 00:10:51,310 --> 00:10:56,090 My, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, um, the, I know the policy that's 115 00:10:56,090 --> 00:11:04,090 listed in simply where, um, that's the most current version and that's the easiest 116 00:11:04,090 --> 00:11:13,610 are one to edit the dates because we're working across two different offices, legal is using 117 00:11:13,610 --> 00:11:24,070 their version of the policy and so while they may not be able to change the date, the one 118 00:11:24,070 --> 00:11:30,190 and simply should always be your reference. I know that we're using this spreadsheet and 119 00:11:30,190 --> 00:11:36,030 with Marissa and I talked about kind of cleaning it up and making it more current. 120 00:11:38,430 --> 00:11:47,010 But, yeah, the policy that you really should refer to is the one that's in simply. 121 00:11:48,470 --> 00:11:54,110 Okay, but the simply one is dated April and so you think the April dated one is probably more 122 00:11:54,110 --> 00:11:58,510 current than the one dated in July because we're probably made modifications and the simply one 123 00:11:58,510 --> 00:12:01,510 that they just didn't change the date. That's kind of what you're saying. 124 00:12:01,930 --> 00:12:08,770 Yeah, that may be it, but then I also think that there weren't too many changes to 125 00:12:10,370 --> 00:12:13,930 that's my best guess right now. 126 00:12:16,170 --> 00:12:16,590 Okay. 127 00:12:20,040 --> 00:12:23,040 Also when we're talking about simply versions, 128 00:12:23,240 --> 00:12:30,660 there's a difference between the PDF that's attached to say agenda items and then the 129 00:12:30,660 --> 00:12:36,520 working policy manual because what I'm looking at for B.A. in 130 00:12:36,520 --> 00:12:44,780 simply right now has a last reviewed date of 914 which would make it the most current version 131 00:12:44,780 --> 00:12:53,160 of all the dates we've said so far. Yeah, I see that tumours begins. So, but I know we know this 132 00:12:53,160 --> 00:13:00,080 is an issue. I agree. I had the same struggles when I was chairing this committee, I think, you know, 133 00:13:00,080 --> 00:13:11,880 My two cents are that what we are doing is not working and we need to figure out a different strategy for tracking multiple versions of policy documents. 134 00:13:19,360 --> 00:13:27,560 The Microsoft Word technical difference turned up a lot. I think mainly because it was a lot of formatting differences. 135 00:13:30,120 --> 00:13:37,040 So, do we actually know who are a fact, which is the most recent version? 136 00:13:38,540 --> 00:13:40,840 Yes, I'm sorry. 137 00:13:45,530 --> 00:13:46,650 I'm sorry, was that you? 138 00:13:48,520 --> 00:13:49,440 Okay, maybe not. 139 00:13:49,960 --> 00:13:51,240 All right, we don't know. 140 00:13:51,660 --> 00:14:02,500 Well, and then I think the other thing we need to just keep in mind is that in terms of when we're soliciting feedback from the public, they're seeing the simply version. 141 00:14:03,640 --> 00:14:11,260 Because that is the interface that allows the public to provide feedback, so they're not 142 00:14:11,260 --> 00:14:23,540 seeing any of the versions that might be word files attached to the spreadsheet we're using. 143 00:14:25,760 --> 00:14:30,160 So in other words, I was thinking the same thing this weekend, so in other words, whatever 144 00:14:30,160 --> 00:14:34,320 like feedback we just looked at in reference. I mean, it's directly tied to what's 145 00:14:34,320 --> 00:14:38,080 in symboly and visible in this moment. And symboly. And so therefore, it should 146 00:14:38,080 --> 00:14:42,140 be taken, you know, taken seriously. Obviously, because that's what the public can see. 147 00:14:44,760 --> 00:14:52,440 You know, yeah. I mean, I think Mr. Chair, I would offer that, you know, we have some assurance, 148 00:14:52,660 --> 00:14:59,480 I guess, through symboly that this version that's posted is current as of 1914. It is what 149 00:14:59,480 --> 00:14:59,960 public in 150 00:15:00,000 --> 00:15:07,420 So I think it behooves us that that's the working draft that we should appropriately be looking at and working from. 151 00:15:08,040 --> 00:15:12,320 And if, you know, if we can determine that, you know, there's a more current draft beyond this meeting. 152 00:15:13,440 --> 00:15:18,200 It's still a lot of show up and simply, you know, to be uploaded and simply, whatever changes and simply. 153 00:15:18,740 --> 00:15:21,180 So the public can continue to comment from that platform. 154 00:15:21,820 --> 00:15:25,440 I agree with Dr. Sauss this would be the most current version. 155 00:15:31,590 --> 00:15:35,250 Okay, I just said they even realized there might have been another version besides what 156 00:15:35,250 --> 00:15:36,110 since simply. 157 00:15:36,290 --> 00:15:40,510 I think we just counted four versions. There's an April version of June version of July version 158 00:15:40,510 --> 00:15:42,550 and then a September version. 159 00:15:43,590 --> 00:15:46,630 So you've got four versions floating around. 160 00:15:48,530 --> 00:15:53,510 Well, in each time we put it in simply and it has to be updated, it will be updated 161 00:15:53,510 --> 00:15:59,870 as the most recent last revised date. So, you know, from the time that it was originally 162 00:16:01,450 --> 00:16:07,970 reviewed, that was back in April, and every time you tweaked or changed it, or even if it sits, 163 00:16:08,850 --> 00:16:11,730 from one meeting to another, you'll have to update the date. 164 00:16:16,230 --> 00:16:18,250 Okay. So, I'm just writing 165 00:16:18,250 --> 00:16:31,130 down going with the premise that the assembly, the nine, 14 version is the most, all right. 166 00:16:34,250 --> 00:16:38,070 This goes back to one of the other things I was talking about, the policy of policy, which 167 00:16:38,070 --> 00:16:44,570 we guess we need to resolve of how we do all this to make sure we're not, I'm not stopping 168 00:16:44,570 --> 00:16:45,470 over ourselves. 169 00:16:45,470 --> 00:16:54,470 So, okay, I will add it to my list to look at all four versions of the policy, and you 170 00:16:54,470 --> 00:17:01,590 determine which one, it's determined at the 9-14 version is missing anything from the previous versions. 171 00:17:02,730 --> 00:17:10,210 And then if it's not, I believe, is B-A going to be, I think B-A is ready for a vote at the next board meeting. 172 00:17:10,610 --> 00:17:11,430 Is that correct? 173 00:17:15,900 --> 00:17:18,360 Yeah, believe so, Mr. Chair. 174 00:17:19,600 --> 00:17:19,720 Okay. 175 00:17:20,340 --> 00:17:23,120 Ms. Moskey, do you have any different understanding, or are you? 176 00:17:23,140 --> 00:17:24,320 No, that's correct. 177 00:17:24,640 --> 00:17:24,900 That's right. 178 00:17:25,560 --> 00:17:28,280 I did have one comment about VA. 179 00:17:29,360 --> 00:17:29,940 I got it. 180 00:17:29,980 --> 00:17:32,640 Let me get the assembly version up now because I don't have the assembly version up. 181 00:17:34,460 --> 00:17:36,520 But we're still using the word. 182 00:17:36,720 --> 00:17:39,560 At least the version I looked at, we're using the word equitable. 183 00:17:39,560 --> 00:17:46,460 and I thought we were changing equitable with access and opportunity or the proper context 184 00:17:48,640 --> 00:17:53,220 of that expression, or is that not correct? I'm going to get that wrong. 185 00:17:54,820 --> 00:18:00,260 Mr. Dipper, in the assembly version, can you point me towards where do you see equitable? I'm looking 186 00:18:00,260 --> 00:18:31,070 Now, I'm not, I want to just kind of speak for myself personally. I'm not scared to use the word equity or equitable, so I mean if we're intending for, you know, this policy to address conditions that are not equitable, I don't think that we're 187 00:18:31,990 --> 00:18:38,230 You know, outside of the law or anything of the sort to just say we want everyone to have equitable access. 188 00:18:40,290 --> 00:18:44,570 I recognize there's some sensitivity to that word because of the current administration's posture, 189 00:18:45,810 --> 00:18:52,650 but I don't know that that word is like, you know, impermissible to use in an educational context whatsoever. 190 00:18:53,970 --> 00:18:57,270 Ms. Key, I don't know if you have some perspective or Mr. Denmark as well, 191 00:18:57,270 --> 00:19:04,090 But I don't want us to be like completely gunshot and never, ever, ever, ever be willing even to use the word anywhere in print. 192 00:19:05,110 --> 00:19:08,590 That's just me speaking personally, less, you know, maybe less professionally. 193 00:19:09,710 --> 00:19:15,370 But Miss Key and Mr. Denmark, might you, might you weigh in from a legal perspective? 194 00:19:20,200 --> 00:19:20,360 Miss Key. 195 00:19:20,560 --> 00:19:21,480 Oh, sauce up. 196 00:19:21,480 --> 00:19:22,420 Good, guys, sir. 197 00:19:23,600 --> 00:19:23,740 Sure. 198 00:19:24,580 --> 00:19:30,620 So you have to be correct that there's no prohibition, no illegality about 199 00:19:30,620 --> 00:19:51,560 The use of the term, but as we all know, it is just not favored in this political climate, and that's not a reason, you know, to abandon its use, it has to be kind of a conscious and knowing decision that we make the move forward with that 200 00:19:51,560 --> 00:19:57,280 on understanding the potential for backlash. 201 00:19:57,540 --> 00:20:02,940 And we may say that potential is remote and extremely unlikely. 202 00:20:03,980 --> 00:20:05,880 Or we may feel differently about it. 203 00:20:05,880 --> 00:20:10,020 But whatever decision we make, we just need to make the decision without eyes wide open, 204 00:20:10,280 --> 00:20:13,380 understanding the potential for backlash, 205 00:20:13,760 --> 00:20:19,480 and also recognize that we've done nothing illegal in that regard. 206 00:20:21,880 --> 00:20:35,140 Mr. Chair, I'm just curious, so why was this policy item actually recommended for any amendment? 207 00:20:35,140 --> 00:20:46,300 I'm just curious as to how did it actually end up being on the agenda was it like just to change the world? 208 00:20:46,300 --> 00:20:53,700 So I'm just curious, this is a brand new policy. 209 00:20:54,200 --> 00:20:56,000 So we're working through a brand new policy. 210 00:20:56,400 --> 00:21:00,340 It has not existed before, so it's new. 211 00:21:00,920 --> 00:21:04,760 And so the changes are changes from the initial draft 212 00:21:04,760 --> 00:21:07,140 that we made a few months ago. 213 00:21:10,330 --> 00:21:16,010 So I believe Dr. Weaver and her team and Ms. Kee, 214 00:21:16,010 --> 00:21:24,410 We originally, these changes with Mr. Darien, I believe, is in my accurate. 215 00:21:25,890 --> 00:21:35,890 We worked on it mostly with Miss Key. When we started getting the policy ready, 216 00:21:35,910 --> 00:21:43,010 so Miss Key was right there with us for most of the revisions, and then Mr. Darien kind of 217 00:21:43,010 --> 00:21:50,010 step in now that he's looking over the policies and I just wanted it to add one thing that 218 00:21:50,010 --> 00:21:56,730 when we were looking at the word equitable there we also wanted to have the tie to our strategic 219 00:21:56,730 --> 00:22:05,030 plan and our strategic goal area one has equity and access in it and so that's a tie and so 220 00:22:05,030 --> 00:22:10,650 that's one of the reasons why it's in there not justwithstanding exactly what we're talking 221 00:22:10,650 --> 00:22:15,350 about, but also it ties us to some language in our strategic plan. 222 00:22:17,230 --> 00:22:23,030 Okay, so just for my own personal benefit, so I'm assuming at some point in time, you 223 00:22:23,030 --> 00:22:29,970 know, there will be some global jerks through our different countries. 224 00:22:30,000 --> 00:22:32,560 The entire website for the word equity equitable. 225 00:22:36,260 --> 00:22:51,220 And we may, you know, I could be completely being just concerned about this for no reason, but I'm just trying to make sure we don't bring attention to things that are not worth or not. 226 00:22:51,220 --> 00:22:51,660 But 227 00:22:56,040 --> 00:23:01,880 I'm trying to keep us out of any sort of radar of any possible lead election or anything 228 00:23:01,880 --> 00:23:07,300 that will cause us any problems inside of our district, and so about your sauce, you're 229 00:23:07,300 --> 00:23:15,620 willing to, you are okay with leaving that in there, and to have the district manage any 230 00:23:15,620 --> 00:23:22,920 consequence of us keeping that kind of phrase in there, because it was a big buzzword, 231 00:23:22,920 --> 00:23:25,420 discussed last time. Well, 232 00:23:27,820 --> 00:23:32,120 that's the right question Mr. Ziffer. That's the right question. So 233 00:23:32,120 --> 00:23:38,700 you know, I suppose this is the right space to deliberate those kinds of parsing of words. So 234 00:23:38,700 --> 00:23:44,620 you know, if it were amenable to most or all of our committee members here, I suppose we could 235 00:23:45,320 --> 00:23:49,480 you know, just use a different phrase theology, you know, in the district, because committing to 236 00:23:49,480 --> 00:23:55,840 sharing that each student has the access, they deserve the access, they require, has appropriate 237 00:23:55,840 --> 00:24:01,720 access to educational opportunities and resources, et cetera. It doesn't change the 238 00:24:01,720 --> 00:24:07,900 veracity of the intent of the policy, but if it might help us stay off a radar screen, 239 00:24:07,920 --> 00:24:14,610 and we don't desire to be on, and so be it. So, yeah, each student has appropriate access to 240 00:24:14,610 --> 00:24:19,850 educational opportunities, is that the spirit of that the same thing? 241 00:24:20,670 --> 00:24:28,990 I personally think so, but equitable means that you're giving each child what they need, 242 00:24:29,330 --> 00:24:33,410 appropriate kind of tangentially means that, but not specifically the same thing. 243 00:24:34,390 --> 00:24:39,850 So appropriate access to educational opportunities that they deserve or that they need. 244 00:24:39,850 --> 00:24:45,370 You know, I might add in need or deserve to be a doctor's office. 245 00:24:45,390 --> 00:24:49,050 I'm going to leave this to you, like, you and your team, you know, Ms. 246 00:24:49,290 --> 00:24:50,530 Ms. Key has their hand raised. 247 00:24:51,350 --> 00:24:57,290 Yeah, I was just going to add that, you know, really this policy is a broader 248 00:24:57,290 --> 00:25:03,550 policy for all students and to make sure that we're changing or addressing any kind 249 00:25:03,550 --> 00:25:08,930 of instructional gaps or learning gaps across all students in the district. 250 00:25:08,930 --> 00:25:20,270 And so, when we look at equitable, it broader the most folks would normally assume it to be. 251 00:25:20,610 --> 00:25:25,070 And the definition has usually affiliated with the word equity. 252 00:25:25,850 --> 00:25:28,990 And so I just want everyone to bear that in mind. 253 00:25:29,010 --> 00:25:34,890 This is something that Dr. Weaver and Dr. Outlander and I talked about at great lengths. 254 00:25:34,890 --> 00:25:35,730 And 255 00:25:40,980 --> 00:25:48,180 so your consensus was, you did actually have this conversation internally and your consensus was to leave it in, is what I'm hearing. 256 00:25:48,480 --> 00:25:56,520 That part, just the title to the strategic plan is Dr. Weaver said, but in terms of the intent behind the policy, 257 00:25:56,600 --> 00:26:05,300 when you read the remainder of the policy, it is essentially saying that this is the objective to treat all students in the district. 258 00:26:05,300 --> 00:26:13,340 it equitably so that they have access to resources and, you know, we could certainly change the 259 00:26:13,340 --> 00:26:17,660 wording, but that was the intent behind it. 260 00:26:24,570 --> 00:26:31,350 Dr. Weaver, in this case, are you hearing that you're just, you're fine to leave it as 261 00:26:31,350 --> 00:26:32,390 as 262 00:26:34,410 --> 00:26:41,090 is? And I'm assuming Dr. Weaver, yes, of course I will definitely, you know, to the way 263 00:26:41,090 --> 00:26:50,230 of the board but I do feel very comfortable leaving it in and just to say you know in other 264 00:26:50,230 --> 00:26:56,310 documents that we have equitable and strongly infused in those other documents and we have 265 00:26:56,310 --> 00:27:01,470 not gone back to taking the of those the term out of any of those documents and so I think 266 00:27:01,470 --> 00:27:07,510 it can connect but I also think that it sends a message that when we are talking about access 267 00:27:07,510 --> 00:27:14,030 opportunity we're talking about equitable opportunities for all of our students and I don't I think 268 00:27:14,030 --> 00:27:19,930 it will be a stretch for somebody to try to tie it to anything else. I can't say it's impossible 269 00:27:19,930 --> 00:27:26,990 because we know that that's there are no absolute but I do think that it will be a stretch to do so 270 00:27:26,990 --> 00:27:33,230 and I think that if we remove it from here as you previously indicated we would have to be searching 271 00:27:33,230 --> 00:27:38,450 every single document that we have in this district. And I think it shows up many, many times, 272 00:27:39,510 --> 00:27:41,530 most notably in our strategic plan. 273 00:27:43,510 --> 00:27:47,390 All right. So I just noted in the notes that the staff and 274 00:27:49,790 --> 00:27:55,050 discuss this internally and are okay with leaving the word equitable in the first sentence, 275 00:27:55,070 --> 00:28:01,470 the policy and the most there's any objection. You've got Mr. Mr. McGinnett's hand raise. Mr. Chair. 276 00:28:03,230 --> 00:28:05,630 Mr. McGinnis with the gigantic dog. 277 00:28:08,010 --> 00:28:15,830 Well, I think we kind of came to the conclusion I was going to say, which was that our strategic 278 00:28:15,830 --> 00:28:18,950 plan has the word equity in it. 279 00:28:19,630 --> 00:28:27,150 So I don't think this policy having that terminology is going to put any more of a target 280 00:28:27,150 --> 00:28:32,810 on our back than we already have by nature of the strategic plan itself. 281 00:28:34,570 --> 00:28:51,790 So I was going to weigh in and say, I'm comfortable with that language, I mean, I kind of stated in some other feedback that I would actually plant a stronger flag if we're going to the efforts of passing a policy, I think it should be robust. 282 00:28:51,990 --> 00:28:58,390 And I think if equity is our priority as a district, we shouldn't be afraid to state that. 283 00:28:58,390 --> 00:29:07,270 Um, but the, the other thing I wanted to do to say is to go back to Mr. Fulfoldi's comment 284 00:29:07,270 --> 00:29:14,810 because I think I actually did miss interpret what he was saying, uh, when I first looked 285 00:29:14,810 --> 00:29:21,870 at the assembly version, I'm used to the green being new stuff, which it is, but then I also 286 00:29:21,870 --> 00:29:30,730 did notice that there are some strikeouts in the green, which I am interpreting to be things 287 00:29:30,730 --> 00:29:36,530 that have been removed from previous versions of the new policy. 288 00:29:36,910 --> 00:29:41,790 And so effectively there is a red line, even though there's no old policy. 289 00:29:41,970 --> 00:29:48,550 And I believe that that comment is actually referring to what, if I'm reading correctly, 290 00:29:48,550 --> 00:29:57,030 is deleted language that says DCSD will annually monitor and publicly report this aggregated 291 00:29:57,030 --> 00:29:59,310 data related to access and opportunity. 292 00:30:00,000 --> 00:30:07,300 Student outcomes associated with various aspects of this policy, IE student achievement, attendance, discipline, teacher, attention. 293 00:30:08,860 --> 00:30:20,160 I think that it's kind of just recated, because like I said, there is another sentence that talks about annually providing the board with information. 294 00:30:21,100 --> 00:30:27,560 And I mean, we kind of know if the board is being provided this information, at least in a board meeting, 295 00:30:30,140 --> 00:30:35,460 it is tangently, it is also available to the public because our board meetings are public. 296 00:30:37,200 --> 00:30:40,960 But it is a little stronger, I guess. 297 00:30:41,160 --> 00:30:49,160 There are some details like the specific reference to disaggregated data and that it will be a public report. 298 00:30:49,160 --> 00:30:54,980 that doesn't seem to be in the language that is currently being proposed. 299 00:30:55,500 --> 00:31:00,100 If I'm interpreting the simply document correctly, 300 00:31:00,580 --> 00:31:05,220 so I just wanted to, since I was the one that said I thought he was agreeing 301 00:31:05,220 --> 00:31:08,240 with the current version, as I've looked at it closer, 302 00:31:08,380 --> 00:31:12,460 I think he's actually referencing a sentence that appears to be 303 00:31:12,460 --> 00:31:16,660 slated to be removed from a previous version. 304 00:31:19,670 --> 00:31:26,310 I remember this conversation in the annual reporting, I believe we were going to move to a regulation. 305 00:31:28,830 --> 00:31:34,630 This could have any recollection of this, because that one sentence is very detailed. 306 00:31:36,050 --> 00:31:39,470 DCSD, Alignular Monitor, Publicly, Report, Desiree of the Data. 307 00:31:39,710 --> 00:31:43,530 And it's actually not giving this early border advantage to seeing that we're reporting this. 308 00:31:45,520 --> 00:31:48,580 And so I'm wondering if this was sentence was actually moved to a regulation. 309 00:31:49,260 --> 00:31:51,460 or the consideration for regulation. 310 00:31:53,440 --> 00:31:59,800 I do recall some conversation around that Mr. Ziffer because it seemed like it was getting into the house. 311 00:32:01,660 --> 00:32:07,320 But I don't believe I think that was kind of right around the time where I went out. 312 00:32:07,320 --> 00:32:09,580 I don't know that we've gotten to a regulation. 313 00:32:09,820 --> 00:32:12,260 And maybe Dr. Weaver, Dr. Outler, can weigh in. 314 00:32:12,260 --> 00:32:19,040 But I know that we went back and revised that language for that reason. 315 00:32:19,640 --> 00:32:26,400 Yes, and what I will offer is that we can definitely have that more in the regulation based 316 00:32:26,400 --> 00:32:28,700 on what you talk about around the how. 317 00:32:29,440 --> 00:32:36,020 And then keep in mind that a lot of our data is already disaggregated and reported out by some 318 00:32:36,020 --> 00:32:37,460 of our group. 319 00:32:37,680 --> 00:32:40,880 So that information is already in many of our reports. 320 00:32:40,880 --> 00:32:48,720 We can just make sure that if we write a regulation, if we see that we need to go in that direction, 321 00:32:49,160 --> 00:32:50,880 that we will make sure that we have that. 322 00:32:50,880 --> 00:32:55,860 But if we think back to a lot of the way that we report out, you know, 323 00:32:56,620 --> 00:32:59,840 even one that's coming up in this board meeting, 324 00:33:00,400 --> 00:33:04,000 there's some disaggregated data out that will go with that. 325 00:33:04,080 --> 00:33:07,660 We would have to look a little bit more for some of the HR reporting, 326 00:33:07,680 --> 00:33:09,680 but I do know that that's also available. 327 00:33:09,680 --> 00:33:11,120 All right. 328 00:33:11,240 --> 00:33:16,680 So what I did is I added that sentence into the spreadsheet for a regulation comment. 329 00:33:17,320 --> 00:33:18,720 And so I archived it there. 330 00:33:19,380 --> 00:33:27,440 And the other things that were removed and that were from this policy will those be 331 00:33:27,440 --> 00:33:31,220 considered for regulation or is there anything else that should be considered for regulation? 332 00:33:37,520 --> 00:33:42,960 I am under the belief that when we have that catch all that says that we will make sure 333 00:33:42,960 --> 00:33:47,220 that there's a lot of trained public reporting 334 00:33:47,220 --> 00:33:50,380 of the information like, as Ms. McGinn is saying, 335 00:33:50,420 --> 00:33:53,040 it will be available if it comes before our board 336 00:33:53,040 --> 00:33:56,540 during our board meetings, then it will be archived as such. 337 00:33:56,580 --> 00:33:58,480 And we regularly report out information 338 00:33:58,480 --> 00:34:00,040 around that already. 339 00:34:02,700 --> 00:34:05,540 Look, I'll just leave the comment in there. 340 00:34:06,040 --> 00:34:11,740 And then, are we having more comments on VA? 341 00:34:12,940 --> 00:34:14,960 I just want to make a quick comment. 342 00:34:17,840 --> 00:34:30,240 I believe that I think it would be a lot better to make sure going forward to try to be, 343 00:34:32,560 --> 00:34:37,800 I mean, we don't probably have to stick with some words. 344 00:34:37,800 --> 00:34:45,980 Instead, we care more about the intention of the policy, Dr. Saul said that if we're not going 345 00:34:45,980 --> 00:34:58,420 to divert from our work, we wouldn't hurt to use alternative words instead of because we should 346 00:34:58,420 --> 00:35:05,000 not be held liable for something that was done predates the environment. 347 00:35:06,120 --> 00:35:22,790 But going forward, it will be a lot better at least for now to stick with certain things that are probably not potential flags, I would say. 348 00:35:22,790 --> 00:35:35,590 I mean, even though, I understand, we have those concepts or terms in our documents, but 349 00:35:35,590 --> 00:35:40,710 those predate the current environment, so we probably may be okay to have it in those 350 00:35:40,710 --> 00:35:46,050 and with, I'm not an attorney, but I believe that we should not be retroactively 351 00:35:46,050 --> 00:35:53,010 liables for something that was done in the past and we probably don't have to come through our website 352 00:35:53,010 --> 00:36:02,190 trying to decenetize our language but I think going forward I don't think it hurts to make sure 353 00:36:02,190 --> 00:36:12,810 that we don't get flagged. Thank you. Thank you for the feedback. Are we good to move forward with 354 00:36:12,810 --> 00:36:16,810 because B.A. will be ready for action at the next board meeting. 355 00:36:17,290 --> 00:36:18,210 Thank you for other suggestions. 356 00:36:20,720 --> 00:36:21,580 I'm going to thank you. 357 00:36:22,580 --> 00:36:25,700 You know, the comments I sent in earlier this week. 358 00:36:26,240 --> 00:36:31,100 But I will not hold up the rest of the committee if I am outvoted. 359 00:36:31,720 --> 00:36:36,880 Miss McGinister would like us to combine B.A. and J.A. rather than keep them as two 360 00:36:36,880 --> 00:36:40,500 separate policies. So that was those those Mrs. McGinister's feedback. 361 00:36:41,320 --> 00:36:43,300 I had some other feedback too, but yes. 362 00:36:43,300 --> 00:36:50,720 Well, I was or other, I'm sorry, is it in the spreadsheet, did I miss it or I know you sent the email? 363 00:36:50,860 --> 00:36:51,840 I sent an email. 364 00:36:52,100 --> 00:36:54,840 You don't want to look at the email mail? Okay. I'll look at the email. 365 00:36:56,660 --> 00:37:01,440 I mean, I, I, I, I recognize I have come in late to this conversation. 366 00:37:01,480 --> 00:37:09,240 I think if if mystery asks you and yourself are comfortable with the B.A. as it is, you know, 367 00:37:09,240 --> 00:37:13,100 It should move forward and I will vote accordingly. 368 00:37:20,440 --> 00:37:25,360 Okay, you brought up concerns about hiring, paid promotion, workplace discrimination. 369 00:37:30,560 --> 00:37:44,540 For policy BAA, so BAA is focused on students I believe and then you asked about basically staff, also just BAA applying to staff. 370 00:37:46,300 --> 00:37:59,720 Yeah, I mean, so my overarching I guess concern is that we currently already have two sort of parallel policies that, you know, well, 371 00:37:59,720 --> 00:38:02,500 I think they certainly could be expanded on, 372 00:38:02,680 --> 00:38:07,860 are addressing basic equity equality issues. 373 00:38:09,100 --> 00:38:14,040 J-A-A-A already exists, and it addresses these issues 374 00:38:14,040 --> 00:38:18,900 as they relate to students, and then J-A-A-A already 375 00:38:18,900 --> 00:38:24,280 exists as these issues relate to staff hiring practices, 376 00:38:24,680 --> 00:38:25,260 et cetera. 377 00:38:25,260 --> 00:38:48,220 So, my feeling is that if we want to sort of elevate this issue to a B-level policy, to the extent that maybe possibly a B policy is a stronger policy than a J policy or a G policy, I think we can do that. 378 00:38:48,220 --> 00:39:00,780 But I think that it needs to combine the issues of equity or access and opportunity as it relates to both staff and students. 379 00:39:01,800 --> 00:39:08,860 So basically, my overarching premise and concern is that I think either if we're going to have a policy BA, 380 00:39:08,860 --> 00:39:16,240 And which my vote is that it's B-A-C not B-A, but I'll put that aside for a second. 381 00:39:17,560 --> 00:39:32,140 That we need to resend both J-A-A-A-N-G-A-A-A, and combine that language in the Paul C-B-A, or we already have J-A-A-A-A. 382 00:39:32,140 --> 00:39:39,920 A, I don't know if I had the right number raised there, and I, you know, I think for reasons 383 00:39:39,920 --> 00:39:47,080 we've sort of already batted around, the reality is our B.A. policy is a little, you know, 384 00:39:47,460 --> 00:39:58,600 it's aspirational, it's not super tangible, you know, there aren't specific metrics that 385 00:39:58,600 --> 00:40:04,240 we're looking at. And so, you know, I don't know what it's really adding beyond what we already 386 00:40:04,240 --> 00:40:11,700 have in J-A-A-A-N-G-A-A-A-A-A, and I think having all three is just confusing. 387 00:40:13,820 --> 00:40:20,700 I appreciate the feedback. I think we've spent 45 minutes on this, well, then I thought 388 00:40:20,700 --> 00:40:27,400 I was going to take 15 minutes, so I'm looking at the rest of the day. 389 00:40:27,540 --> 00:40:29,960 But like I said, I'm late to the party. 390 00:40:30,080 --> 00:40:34,340 I think you said these discussions have kind of already been had 391 00:40:34,340 --> 00:40:38,320 and you've decided to move forward as you are. 392 00:40:38,980 --> 00:40:46,740 I'm not expecting the whole process to be stopped to accommodate my comments. 393 00:40:46,760 --> 00:40:47,080 All right. 394 00:40:47,480 --> 00:40:48,260 I understood. 395 00:40:48,260 --> 00:40:55,260 understood. All right, so let's move on and so BA will be ready for action at the next board meeting. 396 00:40:58,380 --> 00:41:07,000 And I just want to do JAA real quick since there and JAA was just made shorter and to remove 397 00:41:07,000 --> 00:41:17,600 any duplication from BA. And I believe at the previous board meeting I'm looking at our right now JAA was 398 00:41:17,600 --> 00:41:26,460 first read and other than Miss Venus' comments about possibly combining J.A. with other 399 00:41:26,460 --> 00:41:33,080 policies. Did we receive any other feedback on J.A.? 400 00:41:40,180 --> 00:41:41,520 No, we haven't. 401 00:41:43,020 --> 00:41:47,080 All right, there's some feedback that I gave on 8.9, but I think the feedback was basically 402 00:41:47,080 --> 00:41:49,360 just to do what we've done now, separate them. 403 00:41:49,360 --> 00:41:51,860 So, I'm going to say that was resolved, 404 00:41:56,110 --> 00:41:58,690 and do we have the right versions? 405 00:41:58,870 --> 00:42:16,980 So the version inside this agenda is from June 10th, the version inside the spreadsheet, 406 00:42:22,010 --> 00:42:25,530 I think is the June 10th version also, it's a simply version, 407 00:42:28,090 --> 00:42:29,090 June 10th, 2019, 408 00:42:31,210 --> 00:42:31,550 and then if we 409 00:42:31,550 --> 00:42:32,770 So there 410 00:42:34,820 --> 00:42:42,940 is a 914-2026 version, and so if we look at that one, it's significantly shorter. 411 00:42:44,540 --> 00:42:50,700 And so that is the one that I believe we would, if there's no comments on this one, 412 00:42:50,760 --> 00:42:53,960 I'm happy to move this one to a ready-for-action to get this off of our queue. 413 00:42:54,940 --> 00:42:57,180 So does anyone have any comments on JAA? 414 00:42:57,180 --> 00:42:58,060 team 415 00:43:05,960 --> 00:43:12,860 on our side, any of our staff, anyone we'll turn in or miscave Mr. Daryne or y'all 416 00:43:12,860 --> 00:43:14,580 comfortable given what you see. 417 00:43:19,040 --> 00:43:22,440 Yes, I am comfortable. All right. Well I'd like to 418 00:43:22,440 --> 00:43:28,580 suggest that we move this one as ready for action at the next forward meeting. Would there 419 00:43:28,580 --> 00:43:34,760 be any objections to moving this to a ready for action? Mr. Yosu is a yes. 420 00:43:36,780 --> 00:43:37,540 Any objections? 421 00:43:38,820 --> 00:43:47,660 there's no objections I think. Okay. No. I mean I do object but you I'm out 422 00:43:47,660 --> 00:43:48,840 voted so it's not. 423 00:43:50,860 --> 00:43:55,600 We have one objection noted and Mr. Yasu and I agreed to have 424 00:43:55,600 --> 00:44:11,600 it move to the next board meeting as ready for action. All right so those are the 425 00:44:11,600 --> 00:44:14,120 now, and we have 12 minutes. 426 00:44:15,720 --> 00:44:19,600 I would like to say that we did add two new, 427 00:44:19,600 --> 00:44:21,380 big knobs that we did add two new, 428 00:44:21,380 --> 00:44:25,660 actually three new items to the board committee. 429 00:44:26,580 --> 00:44:27,840 I do not want, 430 00:44:29,020 --> 00:44:30,560 unless there's an objection to this, 431 00:44:30,580 --> 00:44:37,460 I do not want DO for DJAE to be a first read yet 432 00:44:37,460 --> 00:44:39,080 because if it's gonna be a first read, 433 00:44:39,140 --> 00:44:40,820 it's gonna be a first and second read forever. 434 00:44:42,640 --> 00:44:47,520 B-B-E is going to probably be a little bit easy, maybe we can do that in eleven minutes, 435 00:44:49,820 --> 00:44:59,980 but we need to finish up K-E-B-I-F-B-G and I-F-B-I-F-B-G and I-F-B-G. 436 00:45:00,000 --> 00:45:08,040 I'm going to be very complicated and I almost think we need to dedicate an entire meeting to those 437 00:45:08,040 --> 00:45:18,000 to have a working meeting on those policies. Does anybody else have any feedback on those two? 438 00:45:18,000 --> 00:45:21,040 of how we kind of attack on those. 439 00:45:22,860 --> 00:45:30,500 Mr. Chair, I think it would be wise, personally, that an additional working time is scheduled on those. 440 00:45:31,580 --> 00:45:35,500 Maybe a little longer run way too, maybe a little longer scheduled meeting. 441 00:45:36,160 --> 00:45:38,500 That agrees with all of their most of our schedules. 442 00:45:41,660 --> 00:45:47,160 And do we have a more of a working meeting that a public meeting or whether it's been working 443 00:45:47,160 --> 00:45:51,080 meeting for you to have a turnally before it comes here, how would you, what does this look 444 00:45:51,080 --> 00:45:51,900 like to you? 445 00:45:54,140 --> 00:46:00,980 I think if we could have a working meeting that's not required to be public and I defer to 446 00:46:01,560 --> 00:46:06,440 our council on the call, if there's a space for that, there's permissibility for that. 447 00:46:06,440 --> 00:46:11,720 But I think it's I think what's but would be good is if it's has almost like an internal 448 00:46:11,720 --> 00:46:16,660 workshop with your staff to make sure we're incorporating all the comments and then once the 449 00:46:16,660 --> 00:46:24,520 comments are all incorporated. Oh yeah we certainly can do that if it was comfortable for the 450 00:46:24,520 --> 00:46:30,340 board members who are on this committee that we did so you know and then brought it back to the committee. 451 00:46:31,220 --> 00:46:43,980 We just need to make sure, I mean, there's a wealth of comments about IFBG and IFBI and back to the original conversation we had and we got on the call as that is we don't have a good system to keep track of all the comments. 452 00:46:43,980 --> 00:46:52,660 Because we get them, we get them, we get them, we get them from a turtle staff, we get them from stakeholders. 453 00:46:54,260 --> 00:46:56,060 So the feedbacks coming from all over the place. 454 00:46:56,220 --> 00:46:58,160 So we somehow have to consolidate all the feedback. 455 00:46:59,620 --> 00:47:04,240 And not all of the feedback, but what are other districts doing? 456 00:47:06,620 --> 00:47:10,260 Are we going to lead on these policies, or are we going to follow? 457 00:47:10,260 --> 00:47:18,260 And there's all sorts of strategies I'm going to do because it's all new and we're creating it right now. 458 00:47:18,980 --> 00:47:19,740 Yes. 459 00:47:20,340 --> 00:47:23,780 I will be okay to forgive me. 460 00:47:23,840 --> 00:47:24,900 No, no, I'm sorry. 461 00:47:25,700 --> 00:47:30,900 I think I'll be okay with IFBG internet acceptable use. 462 00:47:30,900 --> 00:47:42,740 Probably is lesser than the AI, but AI definitely needs a lot more robust discussion, 463 00:47:43,520 --> 00:47:57,280 but I think the internet acceptable you might be a lot maybe relatively something we could pass or discuss I guess. 464 00:47:57,280 --> 00:48:00,960 Okay. So why don't we do this? And why don't we dedicate our next meeting? 465 00:48:03,500 --> 00:48:10,140 Well, Dr. Sossmaske, do you have a priority of the three ones that have been sitting on the 466 00:48:10,140 --> 00:48:16,020 agenda for a while? K-E-B-I-F-B-G-I-F-B-I-F-I-F-B-I is going to be the hardest, obviously. 467 00:48:17,860 --> 00:48:26,180 Can we wrap up K-E-B or IF-B-G quickly? Or those are not going to take, there's not going to be a lot. 468 00:48:26,180 --> 00:48:34,760 more discussion. Well, I have not received any additional feedback regarding IFBG. We haven't 469 00:48:34,760 --> 00:48:40,400 received any additional feedback from the last board meeting on anything except for BA. 470 00:48:41,700 --> 00:48:48,140 So, and that was the comment that is in the spreadsheet. So, I do understand that a lot 471 00:48:48,140 --> 00:48:56,560 the feedback received was related, previously was related to IFBI and the AI and using AI and all 472 00:48:56,560 --> 00:48:56,900 of that. 473 00:48:57,240 --> 00:49:04,780 I do agree, I also agree with Mr. Yasu that IFBG is probably not the policy that's causing 474 00:49:04,780 --> 00:49:11,700 most of the consternation, it is likely the IFBI, but again we have not received any feedback 475 00:49:11,700 --> 00:49:17,780 on any of those policies except for B.A. since the last board meeting. 476 00:49:18,720 --> 00:49:21,080 All right, so that I'll, how about this then? 477 00:49:21,180 --> 00:49:26,660 The next meeting we focus on finalizing K.E.B. and IFB.G. 478 00:49:26,840 --> 00:49:34,520 And then Dr. Sauss played a, possibly have this, you know, this workshop, almost, 479 00:49:34,520 --> 00:49:43,320 works up like meeting internally on AI. And I think that's going to have to be, I mean, that's 480 00:49:43,320 --> 00:49:48,080 going to be one that's not to be pretty well researched in, you know, what are other districts 481 00:49:48,080 --> 00:49:51,780 doing, what are the current policies, where are the current discussions? It's going to be, 482 00:49:51,780 --> 00:49:58,160 it's going to be beyond just public feedback, is my point. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, 483 00:49:58,200 --> 00:50:04,220 and I see Ms. McGinnis's hand up to, I have no issues with that. I think it's a good idea, 484 00:50:04,220 --> 00:50:09,620 But I do want to be clear that it's not as if this has not been already researched, including 485 00:50:09,620 --> 00:50:10,900 what other districts are doing. 486 00:50:11,600 --> 00:50:17,840 We just know that there are widely divergent views amongst the public about what we 487 00:50:17,840 --> 00:50:21,140 should or shouldn't be doing with AI, what control should or shouldn't be in place. 488 00:50:21,420 --> 00:50:24,840 And so I think the feedback reflects those widely divergent views. 489 00:50:25,160 --> 00:50:29,540 But I wouldn't want our committee to presume that there wasn't due diligence done 490 00:50:29,540 --> 00:50:31,900 by the task force, what we've presented, 491 00:50:31,900 --> 00:50:33,820 and it's just a matter of does it suit our needs, 492 00:50:34,020 --> 00:50:35,380 does it work for us or not? 493 00:50:36,720 --> 00:50:38,980 And of course, this is an evolving issue 494 00:50:38,980 --> 00:50:40,840 every day of the week or my AI. 495 00:50:42,280 --> 00:50:45,020 So I would offer that, apologies, Ms. McGinnis. 496 00:50:45,700 --> 00:50:47,900 I think I came in, as you were getting ready to say, 497 00:50:47,900 --> 00:50:48,940 something as well. 498 00:50:49,320 --> 00:50:50,080 Go ahead, Whitney. 499 00:50:51,540 --> 00:50:52,480 Oh, no, no, fine. 500 00:50:54,180 --> 00:50:57,860 So I think I've said before, you know, 501 00:50:57,860 --> 00:51:05,100 as much as possible in favor of reviewing sort of similar policies together because I think 502 00:51:05,640 --> 00:51:12,960 they feed off of each other and we want to make sure that our policies are consistent across 503 00:51:12,960 --> 00:51:24,340 different policies and so given that we have IFBG, IFBI and also I mean I think in the works potentially 504 00:51:24,340 --> 00:51:33,040 a screen time policy, I mean it feels to me like these are all very closely related topics 505 00:51:33,040 --> 00:51:39,740 that probably we want to evaluate the policies together. 506 00:51:41,920 --> 00:51:49,760 So I mean I know part of the reason I FBG didn't pass for so long is that we were 507 00:51:49,760 --> 00:51:56,320 to incorporate AI information into that policy, and then clearly we came to the conclusion 508 00:51:56,320 --> 00:52:01,460 that we were just going to have a separate AI policy, but I think that speaks to the fact 509 00:52:01,460 --> 00:52:08,520 that these are policies that we need to make sure complement each other, and I would just worry 510 00:52:08,520 --> 00:52:14,860 if we pass or discuss one, and then three months later pass or discuss another one, 511 00:52:18,440 --> 00:52:19,680 you know, 512 00:52:19,680 --> 00:52:21,020 the same thing. 513 00:52:22,200 --> 00:52:25,880 Okay, and as much as I hate to suggest this, 514 00:52:25,880 --> 00:52:29,960 Miss Lloyd and I, and kind of mystery asking, and I, we did talk. 515 00:52:30,000 --> 00:52:39,400 Talk about a backup date for policy meetings. If we don't finish all of our content in the first meeting. 516 00:52:39,400 --> 00:52:56,280 And so with there being objection to using our October 1st at 4pm slot to try to get 517 00:52:56,280 --> 00:53:16,530 K-E-B and B-B-B-E reviewed and one step further for approval, I think K-E-B-Gand-B ready for 518 00:53:16,530 --> 00:53:25,030 board action and then B-B-B-E is fairly simple, I hope, whether it be in objections 519 00:53:25,030 --> 00:53:29,490 to doing that October 1st, 4 o'clock meeting? 520 00:53:31,360 --> 00:53:32,280 I'm available. 521 00:53:33,200 --> 00:53:33,980 Dr. Yasun? 522 00:53:35,560 --> 00:53:44,620 I might be available, but I'll be out of town, so I'm not pretty sure about, uh, I don't know the conference schedule. 523 00:53:48,690 --> 00:53:53,830 If we have two of the three board members on the call, is that sufficient to have the call? 524 00:53:55,190 --> 00:53:57,110 Absolutely, you can go ahead with that, I mean. 525 00:53:59,060 --> 00:54:05,300 Okay, Dr. Sawas, Ms. Key. I can't, I can't, I can't in for on the first. 526 00:54:08,260 --> 00:54:08,520 Ms. Key? 527 00:54:13,540 --> 00:54:15,040 Oh, yes, that works for me. 528 00:54:15,340 --> 00:54:16,180 Okay, I know. 529 00:54:16,800 --> 00:54:22,180 And I would just like to, I think, maybe, because I newly joined the policy committee, 530 00:54:22,360 --> 00:54:29,060 I don't have access to some of the versions that are linked to in the Excel spreadsheet. 531 00:54:29,200 --> 00:54:34,400 Like, I couldn't look at B, B, B, E ahead of this meeting because it says I didn't have access. 532 00:54:34,400 --> 00:54:43,980 So, I don't know who owns the spreadsheet, but if you could just make sure I actually have access to those files, so I can look at them before the first. 533 00:54:46,300 --> 00:54:50,400 I'm sorry, Mr. Denmark, did you actually join to talk about BBBE? 534 00:54:54,060 --> 00:54:58,660 No, sorry, I just wanted to, I said what I needed to say, but I'm good. 535 00:54:59,240 --> 00:55:06,040 Okay. I also don't have access to the BBBE policies on the spreadsheet. 536 00:55:06,040 --> 00:55:16,840 So Ms. McGinnis is not alone I do believe Ms. Key is working on access to that spreadsheet for everyone 537 00:55:16,840 --> 00:55:23,520 It's not the spreadsheet. It's what's linked in the spreadsheet the links. Yes, yeah, the links. Okay 538 00:55:23,520 --> 00:55:31,420 It wasn't just that one either. There were several I and it was it seemed very random some I have a add a had access to some I did not so 539 00:55:31,420 --> 00:55:32,440 yeah 540 00:55:33,740 --> 00:55:34,300 Okay 541 00:55:36,140 --> 00:55:36,540 All right, 542 00:55:38,580 --> 00:55:41,260 so Ms. Lloyd, Ms. McEwan, do you have what you need? 543 00:55:41,420 --> 00:55:45,000 And we're going to have the meeting next week, next Thursday at 4 p.m. again. 544 00:55:49,250 --> 00:55:52,010 Are you good? Yes, I have. I have what I need. Thank you. 545 00:55:52,750 --> 00:55:58,570 Okay. And so any other discussion points? 546 00:56:03,700 --> 00:56:05,960 All right, so this concludes this September 24th, 547 00:56:05,960 --> 00:56:12,700 2020 six policy committee meeting. As a reminder, any policies for first reader second read are 548 00:56:12,700 --> 00:56:17,420 available for public comment from the day after the B, the Board of Education meeting for two weeks. 549 00:56:17,560 --> 00:56:27,160 The next policy committee meeting will be scheduled for October 1st at 4 p.m., and you'll 550 00:56:27,160 --> 00:56:31,340 receive the email confirmation with policy information to be discussed during each meeting 551 00:56:31,340 --> 00:56:36,120 prior to the next committee meeting, and thank you for being here, and it must as an 552 00:56:36,120 --> 00:56:38,420 then getting is adjourned.