[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:04] 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.
[0:28] Today, we have President,
[0:36] myself, Andrew Ziffer, Mr. Iwat Ayosu, who is our Board Vice Chair,
[0:43] Ms. McGinnie, Ms. Iwatsaki,
[0:49] Mr. Clinton, Daryan, and Mr. Andrew Gaima, I hope I pronounced
[0:58] that correctly. Ms. Carolyn Lloyd, Mr. Elle McHughan, Dr. Norman Sauss,
[1:05] Dr. Tracilla Weaver, I believe this on her iPhone right now, and Mr. Winston Denmark,
[1:14] Mr. Anthony Outler, and did I forget anyone?
[1:21] No.
[1:22] All right.
[1:24] Like, Mr. Chair, it looks like our board council, Mr. Denmark, is on with us.
[1:28] I don't think-
[1:30] Mr. Lloyd as well.
[1:32] Mr. Lloyd.
[1:33] Yes.
[1:33] Mr. Lloyd Lloyd.
[1:34] I thought I said Mr. Weston Denmark.
[1:36] I could not be.
[1:37] Maybe not correct.
[1:38] But yes, our board attorneys on.
[1:40] And anyone else?
[1:43] Mr. Lloyd.
[1:44] Mr. Murseki.
[1:46] Think I've got everybody.
[1:47] I'm on.
[1:48] I'm just listening.
[1:50] No, Mr.
[1:51] Our Board Chair, of course.
[1:54] Ms. Allison Gerverts.
[1:57] So today's discussion will be.
[1:59] feedback on receive policies presented as first or second reads during the September 14th Board of Education
[2:06] meeting. Some of them, not all of them, that will be decided by the end of this meeting and any updates
[2:11] or follow up on newer previous policies. Discussion items that were presented as first and second reads
[2:21] during the September 14th Board meeting.
[2:26] We can do first.
[2:31] I want to get the easy stuff out of the way first.
[2:34] A couple of the easy ones that we've gone over and over again are
[2:39] B.A.
[2:41] and J.A.
[2:43] From the last conversation,
[2:46] we determined there was some overlap between B.A. and J.A.
[2:51] And so we remove the overlap in JAA and so no JAA and BA do not overlap each other in any way.
[3:03] And I just wanted to see if there's any discussion or any new community comments on those two.
[3:11] So I will open the floor. Let me get my screen bigger so I can see people.
[3:17] I will open the floor for discussion on those two.
[3:21] 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.
[3:46] And the author also commented on that they would like this policy to be used as a part of the redistricting plan.
[3:58] But the entire body of the comment is inserted here on the spreadsheet regarding DA.
[4:06] I'm Nancy Kelly. I see that. Okay. And this is Lloyd. I made a comment back in July on
[4:17] BAA that we should have renamed it, but I believe that I just wanted to document this
[4:22] because it's not talking that did inside the spreadsheet. Did GS, GSBA gave us the feedback
[4:26] to call it board objectives is in my correct.
[4:35] I believe that is correct.
[4:37] Lewis, do you have any information on that?
[4:41] I do believe that is correct.
[4:42] Correct.
[4:44] Okay, because we did talk about calling in an access and opportunity policy and then we just
[4:50] change it to goals and objectives.
[4:51] I
[4:57] am updating the spreadsheet so we at least have the notes archived and
[5:38] then I do see
[5:40] there's comments from a 9-8,
[5:46] please retain requirements for annual measurable goals
[5:50] in public reporting progress, the policy in access and opportunities include clear metrics
[5:54] so board can communicate and evaluate whether achieving is intended success from 9-8
[6:04] was
[6:04] any feedback on that one? I'm not coming from September 8th.
[6:13] I think that's fair. I think that's fair, Mr. Ziffer. At the same time, I don't know that
[6:21] specific metrics should have their place in the precise policy language, but I think that's a
[6:28] fair commentary either way for Mr. Fulfoldy, the author of that comment.
[6:34] Yeah, I think so too, but my comment was the same thing that probably belongs to the regulation.
[6:42] Yeah, well, I'm sorry.
[6:44] Go ahead.
[6:45] I would also add that this is not a policy that we previously had.
[6:49] So there were no measurable goals and public reporting of progress in that.
[6:54] I mean, that I think is more directed towards strategic plans.
[6:59] So I think there could be some additional conversation around where this concern can be addressed.
[7:09] Okay, I'm just going to move the comment to the post to the regulation section.
[7:14] So is that okay?
[7:16] So I think he's just saying that he approves of the current language of the draft we have,
[7:24] because the language currently, at least in less I'm looking at the wrong draft.
[7:30] Graph, does specify that we will have an annual report to the board and that it will include academic
[7:42] achievement, attendance, discipline, career pathways. I mean, I think he's just saying he agrees with
[7:48] the current language. That's why it's retained.
[7:54] Unless I am misunderstanding where we are with this policy.
[7:58] And
[8:01] that that certainly makes it more clear.
[8:05] It's confirmed more clear.
[8:07] Yeah.
[8:11] One of the challenges I seem to have is that
[8:17] we have this again.
[8:19] We have multiple versions of policies floating around.
[8:23] And so I'm looking at the spreadsheet and the spreadsheet has an April 30th version of
[8:31] policy, BA goals and objectives, and it stayed at April 30th, 2026, and then on the board
[8:42] agenda item, that's the April 30th item, and then in the spreadsheet, there is a July 30th
[8:52] dated BA called goals and objectives,
[8:59] so I'm assuming the July 30th version is more current,
[9:01] but the April version is posted on the agenda.
[9:08] So I know this is a new policy, so how do we version this and how do we track changes
[9:17] when it's just a net new policy?
[9:24] That's a good question. Mr. Daryon, do you have a sense of the version history?
[9:34] Make sure we're looking at and discussing the proper one.
[9:38] Right, I'm pulling up the assembly version.
[9:43] Now as I compare that to the version on the spreadsheet.
[9:51] Yeah, the Assembly version was what I was looking at. I now have pulled up the spreadsheet link
[9:58] at least for this section the wording seems to be the thing. They both reference an annual reporting
[10:03] requirement to the board and then have a list of metrics for that board to include.
[10:09] And so the only way to figure out what the differences are to run a Microsoft well
[10:15] do a red line, a technical red line versus just a visual red line. Is there anything I
[10:23] need to put on the phone screen?
[10:26] You could pull up the, well there's even a, there's a
[10:32] you fourth version, that's great. There's a June fourth version. That was the one in the
[10:43] in the, what should I call it in the spreadsheet too.
[10:51] My, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, um, the, I know the policy that's
[10:56] listed in simply where, um, that's the most current version and that's the easiest
[11:04] are one to edit the dates because we're working across two different offices, legal is using
[11:13] their version of the policy and so while they may not be able to change the date, the one
[11:24] and simply should always be your reference. I know that we're using this spreadsheet and
[11:30] with Marissa and I talked about kind of cleaning it up and making it more current.
[11:38] But, yeah, the policy that you really should refer to is the one that's in simply.
[11:48] Okay, but the simply one is dated April and so you think the April dated one is probably more
[11:54] current than the one dated in July because we're probably made modifications and the simply one
[11:58] that they just didn't change the date. That's kind of what you're saying.
[12:01] Yeah, that may be it, but then I also think that there weren't too many changes to
[12:10] that's my best guess right now.
[12:16] Okay.
[12:20] Also when we're talking about simply versions,
[12:23] there's a difference between the PDF that's attached to say agenda items and then the
[12:30] working policy manual because what I'm looking at for B.A. in
[12:36] simply right now has a last reviewed date of 914 which would make it the most current version
[12:44] of all the dates we've said so far. Yeah, I see that tumours begins. So, but I know we know this
[12:53] is an issue. I agree. I had the same struggles when I was chairing this committee, I think, you know,
[13:00] 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.
[13:19] The Microsoft Word technical difference turned up a lot. I think mainly because it was a lot of formatting differences.
[13:30] So, do we actually know who are a fact, which is the most recent version?
[13:38] Yes, I'm sorry.
[13:45] I'm sorry, was that you?
[13:48] Okay, maybe not.
[13:49] All right, we don't know.
[13:51] 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.
[14:03] Because that is the interface that allows the public to provide feedback, so they're not
[14:11] seeing any of the versions that might be word files attached to the spreadsheet we're using.
[14:25] So in other words, I was thinking the same thing this weekend, so in other words, whatever
[14:30] like feedback we just looked at in reference. I mean, it's directly tied to what's
[14:34] in symboly and visible in this moment. And symboly. And so therefore, it should
[14:38] be taken, you know, taken seriously. Obviously, because that's what the public can see.
[14:44] You know, yeah. I mean, I think Mr. Chair, I would offer that, you know, we have some assurance,
[14:52] I guess, through symboly that this version that's posted is current as of 1914. It is what
[14:59] public in
[15:00] So I think it behooves us that that's the working draft that we should appropriately be looking at and working from.
[15:08] And if, you know, if we can determine that, you know, there's a more current draft beyond this meeting.
[15:13] It's still a lot of show up and simply, you know, to be uploaded and simply, whatever changes and simply.
[15:18] So the public can continue to comment from that platform.
[15:21] I agree with Dr. Sauss this would be the most current version.
[15:31] Okay, I just said they even realized there might have been another version besides what
[15:35] since simply.
[15:36] I think we just counted four versions. There's an April version of June version of July version
[15:40] and then a September version.
[15:43] So you've got four versions floating around.
[15:48] Well, in each time we put it in simply and it has to be updated, it will be updated
[15:53] as the most recent last revised date. So, you know, from the time that it was originally
[16:01] reviewed, that was back in April, and every time you tweaked or changed it, or even if it sits,
[16:08] from one meeting to another, you'll have to update the date.
[16:16] Okay. So, I'm just writing
[16:18] down going with the premise that the assembly, the nine, 14 version is the most, all right.
[16:34] This goes back to one of the other things I was talking about, the policy of policy, which
[16:38] we guess we need to resolve of how we do all this to make sure we're not, I'm not stopping
[16:44] over ourselves.
[16:45] So, okay, I will add it to my list to look at all four versions of the policy, and you
[16:54] determine which one, it's determined at the 9-14 version is missing anything from the previous versions.
[17:02] 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.
[17:10] Is that correct?
[17:15] Yeah, believe so, Mr. Chair.
[17:19] Okay.
[17:20] Ms. Moskey, do you have any different understanding, or are you?
[17:23] No, that's correct.
[17:24] That's right.
[17:25] I did have one comment about VA.
[17:29] I got it.
[17:29] Let me get the assembly version up now because I don't have the assembly version up.
[17:34] But we're still using the word.
[17:36] At least the version I looked at, we're using the word equitable.
[17:39] and I thought we were changing equitable with access and opportunity or the proper context
[17:48] of that expression, or is that not correct? I'm going to get that wrong.
[17:54] Mr. Dipper, in the assembly version, can you point me towards where do you see equitable? I'm looking
[18:00] 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
[18:31] You know, outside of the law or anything of the sort to just say we want everyone to have equitable access.
[18:40] I recognize there's some sensitivity to that word because of the current administration's posture,
[18:45] but I don't know that that word is like, you know, impermissible to use in an educational context whatsoever.
[18:53] Ms. Key, I don't know if you have some perspective or Mr. Denmark as well,
[18:57] 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.
[19:05] That's just me speaking personally, less, you know, maybe less professionally.
[19:09] But Miss Key and Mr. Denmark, might you, might you weigh in from a legal perspective?
[19:20] Miss Key.
[19:20] Oh, sauce up.
[19:21] Good, guys, sir.
[19:23] Sure.
[19:24] So you have to be correct that there's no prohibition, no illegality about
[19:30] 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
[19:51] on understanding the potential for backlash.
[19:57] And we may say that potential is remote and extremely unlikely.
[20:03] Or we may feel differently about it.
[20:05] But whatever decision we make, we just need to make the decision without eyes wide open,
[20:10] understanding the potential for backlash,
[20:13] and also recognize that we've done nothing illegal in that regard.
[20:21] Mr. Chair, I'm just curious, so why was this policy item actually recommended for any amendment?
[20:35] I'm just curious as to how did it actually end up being on the agenda was it like just to change the world?
[20:46] So I'm just curious, this is a brand new policy.
[20:54] So we're working through a brand new policy.
[20:56] It has not existed before, so it's new.
[21:00] And so the changes are changes from the initial draft
[21:04] that we made a few months ago.
[21:10] So I believe Dr. Weaver and her team and Ms. Kee,
[21:16] We originally, these changes with Mr. Darien, I believe, is in my accurate.
[21:25] We worked on it mostly with Miss Key. When we started getting the policy ready,
[21:35] so Miss Key was right there with us for most of the revisions, and then Mr. Darien kind of
[21:43] step in now that he's looking over the policies and I just wanted it to add one thing that
[21:50] when we were looking at the word equitable there we also wanted to have the tie to our strategic
[21:56] plan and our strategic goal area one has equity and access in it and so that's a tie and so
[22:05] that's one of the reasons why it's in there not justwithstanding exactly what we're talking
[22:10] about, but also it ties us to some language in our strategic plan.
[22:17] Okay, so just for my own personal benefit, so I'm assuming at some point in time, you
[22:23] know, there will be some global jerks through our different countries.
[22:30] The entire website for the word equity equitable.
[22:36] 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.
[22:51] But
[22:56] I'm trying to keep us out of any sort of radar of any possible lead election or anything
[23:01] that will cause us any problems inside of our district, and so about your sauce, you're
[23:07] willing to, you are okay with leaving that in there, and to have the district manage any
[23:15] consequence of us keeping that kind of phrase in there, because it was a big buzzword,
[23:22] discussed last time. Well,
[23:27] that's the right question Mr. Ziffer. That's the right question. So
[23:32] you know, I suppose this is the right space to deliberate those kinds of parsing of words. So
[23:38] you know, if it were amenable to most or all of our committee members here, I suppose we could
[23:45] you know, just use a different phrase theology, you know, in the district, because committing to
[23:49] sharing that each student has the access, they deserve the access, they require, has appropriate
[23:55] access to educational opportunities and resources, et cetera. It doesn't change the
[24:01] veracity of the intent of the policy, but if it might help us stay off a radar screen,
[24:07] and we don't desire to be on, and so be it. So, yeah, each student has appropriate access to
[24:14] educational opportunities, is that the spirit of that the same thing?
[24:20] I personally think so, but equitable means that you're giving each child what they need,
[24:29] appropriate kind of tangentially means that, but not specifically the same thing.
[24:34] So appropriate access to educational opportunities that they deserve or that they need.
[24:39] You know, I might add in need or deserve to be a doctor's office.
[24:45] I'm going to leave this to you, like, you and your team, you know, Ms.
[24:49] Ms. Key has their hand raised.
[24:51] Yeah, I was just going to add that, you know, really this policy is a broader
[24:57] policy for all students and to make sure that we're changing or addressing any kind
[25:03] of instructional gaps or learning gaps across all students in the district.
[25:08] And so, when we look at equitable, it broader the most folks would normally assume it to be.
[25:20] And the definition has usually affiliated with the word equity.
[25:25] And so I just want everyone to bear that in mind.
[25:29] This is something that Dr. Weaver and Dr. Outlander and I talked about at great lengths.
[25:34] And
[25:40] so your consensus was, you did actually have this conversation internally and your consensus was to leave it in, is what I'm hearing.
[25:48] That part, just the title to the strategic plan is Dr. Weaver said, but in terms of the intent behind the policy,
[25:56] when you read the remainder of the policy, it is essentially saying that this is the objective to treat all students in the district.
[26:05] it equitably so that they have access to resources and, you know, we could certainly change the
[26:13] wording, but that was the intent behind it.
[26:24] Dr. Weaver, in this case, are you hearing that you're just, you're fine to leave it as
[26:31] as
[26:34] is? And I'm assuming Dr. Weaver, yes, of course I will definitely, you know, to the way
[26:41] of the board but I do feel very comfortable leaving it in and just to say you know in other
[26:50] documents that we have equitable and strongly infused in those other documents and we have
[26:56] not gone back to taking the of those the term out of any of those documents and so I think
[27:01] it can connect but I also think that it sends a message that when we are talking about access
[27:07] opportunity we're talking about equitable opportunities for all of our students and I don't I think
[27:14] it will be a stretch for somebody to try to tie it to anything else. I can't say it's impossible
[27:19] because we know that that's there are no absolute but I do think that it will be a stretch to do so
[27:26] and I think that if we remove it from here as you previously indicated we would have to be searching
[27:33] every single document that we have in this district. And I think it shows up many, many times,
[27:39] most notably in our strategic plan.
[27:43] All right. So I just noted in the notes that the staff and
[27:49] discuss this internally and are okay with leaving the word equitable in the first sentence,
[27:55] the policy and the most there's any objection. You've got Mr. Mr. McGinnett's hand raise. Mr. Chair.
[28:03] Mr. McGinnis with the gigantic dog.
[28:08] Well, I think we kind of came to the conclusion I was going to say, which was that our strategic
[28:15] plan has the word equity in it.
[28:19] So I don't think this policy having that terminology is going to put any more of a target
[28:27] on our back than we already have by nature of the strategic plan itself.
[28:34] 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.
[28:51] And I think if equity is our priority as a district, we shouldn't be afraid to state that.
[28:58] Um, but the, the other thing I wanted to do to say is to go back to Mr. Fulfoldi's comment
[29:07] because I think I actually did miss interpret what he was saying, uh, when I first looked
[29:14] at the assembly version, I'm used to the green being new stuff, which it is, but then I also
[29:21] did notice that there are some strikeouts in the green, which I am interpreting to be things
[29:30] that have been removed from previous versions of the new policy.
[29:36] And so effectively there is a red line, even though there's no old policy.
[29:41] And I believe that that comment is actually referring to what, if I'm reading correctly,
[29:48] is deleted language that says DCSD will annually monitor and publicly report this aggregated
[29:57] data related to access and opportunity.
[30:00] Student outcomes associated with various aspects of this policy, IE student achievement, attendance, discipline, teacher, attention.
[30:08] 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.
[30:21] And I mean, we kind of know if the board is being provided this information, at least in a board meeting,
[30:30] it is tangently, it is also available to the public because our board meetings are public.
[30:37] But it is a little stronger, I guess.
[30:41] There are some details like the specific reference to disaggregated data and that it will be a public report.
[30:49] that doesn't seem to be in the language that is currently being proposed.
[30:55] If I'm interpreting the simply document correctly,
[31:00] so I just wanted to, since I was the one that said I thought he was agreeing
[31:05] with the current version, as I've looked at it closer,
[31:08] I think he's actually referencing a sentence that appears to be
[31:12] slated to be removed from a previous version.
[31:19] I remember this conversation in the annual reporting, I believe we were going to move to a regulation.
[31:28] This could have any recollection of this, because that one sentence is very detailed.
[31:36] DCSD, Alignular Monitor, Publicly, Report, Desiree of the Data.
[31:39] And it's actually not giving this early border advantage to seeing that we're reporting this.
[31:45] And so I'm wondering if this was sentence was actually moved to a regulation.
[31:49] or the consideration for regulation.
[31:53] I do recall some conversation around that Mr. Ziffer because it seemed like it was getting into the house.
[32:01] But I don't believe I think that was kind of right around the time where I went out.
[32:07] I don't know that we've gotten to a regulation.
[32:09] And maybe Dr. Weaver, Dr. Outler, can weigh in.
[32:12] But I know that we went back and revised that language for that reason.
[32:19] Yes, and what I will offer is that we can definitely have that more in the regulation based
[32:26] on what you talk about around the how.
[32:29] And then keep in mind that a lot of our data is already disaggregated and reported out by some
[32:36] of our group.
[32:37] So that information is already in many of our reports.
[32:40] We can just make sure that if we write a regulation, if we see that we need to go in that direction,
[32:49] that we will make sure that we have that.
[32:50] But if we think back to a lot of the way that we report out, you know,
[32:56] even one that's coming up in this board meeting,
[33:00] there's some disaggregated data out that will go with that.
[33:04] We would have to look a little bit more for some of the HR reporting,
[33:07] but I do know that that's also available.
[33:09] All right.
[33:11] So what I did is I added that sentence into the spreadsheet for a regulation comment.
[33:17] And so I archived it there.
[33:19] And the other things that were removed and that were from this policy will those be
[33:27] considered for regulation or is there anything else that should be considered for regulation?
[33:37] I am under the belief that when we have that catch all that says that we will make sure
[33:42] that there's a lot of trained public reporting
[33:47] of the information like, as Ms. McGinn is saying,
[33:50] it will be available if it comes before our board
[33:53] during our board meetings, then it will be archived as such.
[33:56] And we regularly report out information
[33:58] around that already.
[34:02] Look, I'll just leave the comment in there.
[34:06] And then, are we having more comments on VA?
[34:12] I just want to make a quick comment.
[34:17] I believe that I think it would be a lot better to make sure going forward to try to be,
[34:32] I mean, we don't probably have to stick with some words.
[34:37] Instead, we care more about the intention of the policy, Dr. Saul said that if we're not going
[34:45] to divert from our work, we wouldn't hurt to use alternative words instead of because we should
[34:58] not be held liable for something that was done predates the environment.
[35:06] 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.
[35:22] I mean, even though, I understand, we have those concepts or terms in our documents, but
[35:35] those predate the current environment, so we probably may be okay to have it in those
[35:40] and with, I'm not an attorney, but I believe that we should not be retroactively
[35:46] liables for something that was done in the past and we probably don't have to come through our website
[35:53] trying to decenetize our language but I think going forward I don't think it hurts to make sure
[36:02] that we don't get flagged. Thank you. Thank you for the feedback. Are we good to move forward with
[36:12] because B.A. will be ready for action at the next board meeting.
[36:17] Thank you for other suggestions.
[36:20] I'm going to thank you.
[36:22] You know, the comments I sent in earlier this week.
[36:26] But I will not hold up the rest of the committee if I am outvoted.
[36:31] Miss McGinister would like us to combine B.A. and J.A. rather than keep them as two
[36:36] separate policies. So that was those those Mrs. McGinister's feedback.
[36:41] I had some other feedback too, but yes.
[36:43] Well, I was or other, I'm sorry, is it in the spreadsheet, did I miss it or I know you sent the email?
[36:50] I sent an email.
[36:52] You don't want to look at the email mail? Okay. I'll look at the email.
[36:56] I mean, I, I, I, I recognize I have come in late to this conversation.
[37:01] I think if if mystery asks you and yourself are comfortable with the B.A. as it is, you know,
[37:09] It should move forward and I will vote accordingly.
[37:20] Okay, you brought up concerns about hiring, paid promotion, workplace discrimination.
[37:30] For policy BAA, so BAA is focused on students I believe and then you asked about basically staff, also just BAA applying to staff.
[37:46] Yeah, I mean, so my overarching I guess concern is that we currently already have two sort of parallel policies that, you know, well,
[37:59] I think they certainly could be expanded on,
[38:02] are addressing basic equity equality issues.
[38:09] J-A-A-A already exists, and it addresses these issues
[38:14] as they relate to students, and then J-A-A-A already
[38:18] exists as these issues relate to staff hiring practices,
[38:24] et cetera.
[38:25] 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.
[38:48] But I think that it needs to combine the issues of equity or access and opportunity as it relates to both staff and students.
[39:01] So basically, my overarching premise and concern is that I think either if we're going to have a policy BA,
[39:08] And which my vote is that it's B-A-C not B-A, but I'll put that aside for a second.
[39:17] 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.
[39:32] A, I don't know if I had the right number raised there, and I, you know, I think for reasons
[39:39] we've sort of already batted around, the reality is our B.A. policy is a little, you know,
[39:47] it's aspirational, it's not super tangible, you know, there aren't specific metrics that
[39:58] we're looking at. And so, you know, I don't know what it's really adding beyond what we already
[40:04] have in J-A-A-A-N-G-A-A-A-A-A, and I think having all three is just confusing.
[40:13] I appreciate the feedback. I think we've spent 45 minutes on this, well, then I thought
[40:20] I was going to take 15 minutes, so I'm looking at the rest of the day.
[40:27] But like I said, I'm late to the party.
[40:30] I think you said these discussions have kind of already been had
[40:34] and you've decided to move forward as you are.
[40:38] I'm not expecting the whole process to be stopped to accommodate my comments.
[40:46] All right.
[40:47] I understood.
[40:48] understood. All right, so let's move on and so BA will be ready for action at the next board meeting.
[40:58] And I just want to do JAA real quick since there and JAA was just made shorter and to remove
[41:07] any duplication from BA. And I believe at the previous board meeting I'm looking at our right now JAA was
[41:17] first read and other than Miss Venus' comments about possibly combining J.A. with other
[41:26] policies. Did we receive any other feedback on J.A.?
[41:40] No, we haven't.
[41:43] All right, there's some feedback that I gave on 8.9, but I think the feedback was basically
[41:47] just to do what we've done now, separate them.
[41:49] So, I'm going to say that was resolved,
[41:56] and do we have the right versions?
[41:58] So the version inside this agenda is from June 10th, the version inside the spreadsheet,
[42:22] I think is the June 10th version also, it's a simply version,
[42:28] June 10th, 2019,
[42:31] and then if we
[42:31] So there
[42:34] is a 914-2026 version, and so if we look at that one, it's significantly shorter.
[42:44] And so that is the one that I believe we would, if there's no comments on this one,
[42:50] I'm happy to move this one to a ready-for-action to get this off of our queue.
[42:54] So does anyone have any comments on JAA?
[42:57] team
[43:05] on our side, any of our staff, anyone we'll turn in or miscave Mr. Daryne or y'all
[43:12] comfortable given what you see.
[43:19] Yes, I am comfortable. All right. Well I'd like to
[43:22] suggest that we move this one as ready for action at the next forward meeting. Would there
[43:28] be any objections to moving this to a ready for action? Mr. Yosu is a yes.
[43:36] Any objections?
[43:38] there's no objections I think. Okay. No. I mean I do object but you I'm out
[43:47] voted so it's not.
[43:50] We have one objection noted and Mr. Yasu and I agreed to have
[43:55] it move to the next board meeting as ready for action. All right so those are the
[44:11] now, and we have 12 minutes.
[44:15] I would like to say that we did add two new,
[44:19] big knobs that we did add two new,
[44:21] actually three new items to the board committee.
[44:26] I do not want,
[44:29] unless there's an objection to this,
[44:30] I do not want DO for DJAE to be a first read yet
[44:37] because if it's gonna be a first read,
[44:39] it's gonna be a first and second read forever.
[44:42] B-B-E is going to probably be a little bit easy, maybe we can do that in eleven minutes,
[44:49] 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.
[45:00] I'm going to be very complicated and I almost think we need to dedicate an entire meeting to those
[45:08] to have a working meeting on those policies. Does anybody else have any feedback on those two?
[45:18] of how we kind of attack on those.
[45:22] Mr. Chair, I think it would be wise, personally, that an additional working time is scheduled on those.
[45:31] Maybe a little longer run way too, maybe a little longer scheduled meeting.
[45:36] That agrees with all of their most of our schedules.
[45:41] And do we have a more of a working meeting that a public meeting or whether it's been working
[45:47] meeting for you to have a turnally before it comes here, how would you, what does this look
[45:51] like to you?
[45:54] I think if we could have a working meeting that's not required to be public and I defer to
[46:01] our council on the call, if there's a space for that, there's permissibility for that.
[46:06] But I think it's I think what's but would be good is if it's has almost like an internal
[46:11] workshop with your staff to make sure we're incorporating all the comments and then once the
[46:16] comments are all incorporated. Oh yeah we certainly can do that if it was comfortable for the
[46:24] board members who are on this committee that we did so you know and then brought it back to the committee.
[46:31] 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.
[46:43] Because we get them, we get them, we get them, we get them from a turtle staff, we get them from stakeholders.
[46:54] So the feedbacks coming from all over the place.
[46:56] So we somehow have to consolidate all the feedback.
[46:59] And not all of the feedback, but what are other districts doing?
[47:06] Are we going to lead on these policies, or are we going to follow?
[47:10] And there's all sorts of strategies I'm going to do because it's all new and we're creating it right now.
[47:18] Yes.
[47:20] I will be okay to forgive me.
[47:23] No, no, I'm sorry.
[47:25] I think I'll be okay with IFBG internet acceptable use.
[47:30] Probably is lesser than the AI, but AI definitely needs a lot more robust discussion,
[47:43] but I think the internet acceptable you might be a lot maybe relatively something we could pass or discuss I guess.
[47:57] Okay. So why don't we do this? And why don't we dedicate our next meeting?
[48:03] Well, Dr. Sossmaske, do you have a priority of the three ones that have been sitting on the
[48:10] 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.
[48:17] 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.
[48:26] more discussion. Well, I have not received any additional feedback regarding IFBG. We haven't
[48:34] received any additional feedback from the last board meeting on anything except for BA.
[48:41] So, and that was the comment that is in the spreadsheet. So, I do understand that a lot
[48:48] the feedback received was related, previously was related to IFBI and the AI and using AI and all
[48:56] of that.
[48:57] I do agree, I also agree with Mr. Yasu that IFBG is probably not the policy that's causing
[49:04] most of the consternation, it is likely the IFBI, but again we have not received any feedback
[49:11] on any of those policies except for B.A. since the last board meeting.
[49:18] All right, so that I'll, how about this then?
[49:21] The next meeting we focus on finalizing K.E.B. and IFB.G.
[49:26] And then Dr. Sauss played a, possibly have this, you know, this workshop, almost,
[49:34] works up like meeting internally on AI. And I think that's going to have to be, I mean, that's
[49:43] going to be one that's not to be pretty well researched in, you know, what are other districts
[49:48] doing, what are the current policies, where are the current discussions? It's going to be,
[49:51] it's going to be beyond just public feedback, is my point. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair,
[49:58] and I see Ms. McGinnis's hand up to, I have no issues with that. I think it's a good idea,
[50:04] But I do want to be clear that it's not as if this has not been already researched, including
[50:09] what other districts are doing.
[50:11] We just know that there are widely divergent views amongst the public about what we
[50:17] should or shouldn't be doing with AI, what control should or shouldn't be in place.
[50:21] And so I think the feedback reflects those widely divergent views.
[50:25] But I wouldn't want our committee to presume that there wasn't due diligence done
[50:29] by the task force, what we've presented,
[50:31] and it's just a matter of does it suit our needs,
[50:34] does it work for us or not?
[50:36] And of course, this is an evolving issue
[50:38] every day of the week or my AI.
[50:42] So I would offer that, apologies, Ms. McGinnis.
[50:45] I think I came in, as you were getting ready to say,
[50:47] something as well.
[50:49] Go ahead, Whitney.
[50:51] Oh, no, no, fine.
[50:54] So I think I've said before, you know,
[50:57] as much as possible in favor of reviewing sort of similar policies together because I think
[51:05] they feed off of each other and we want to make sure that our policies are consistent across
[51:12] different policies and so given that we have IFBG, IFBI and also I mean I think in the works potentially
[51:24] a screen time policy, I mean it feels to me like these are all very closely related topics
[51:33] that probably we want to evaluate the policies together.
[51:41] So I mean I know part of the reason I FBG didn't pass for so long is that we were
[51:49] to incorporate AI information into that policy, and then clearly we came to the conclusion
[51:56] that we were just going to have a separate AI policy, but I think that speaks to the fact
[52:01] that these are policies that we need to make sure complement each other, and I would just worry
[52:08] if we pass or discuss one, and then three months later pass or discuss another one,
[52:18] you know,
[52:19] the same thing.
[52:22] Okay, and as much as I hate to suggest this,
[52:25] Miss Lloyd and I, and kind of mystery asking, and I, we did talk.
[52:30] Talk about a backup date for policy meetings. If we don't finish all of our content in the first meeting.
[52:39] And so with there being objection to using our October 1st at 4pm slot to try to get
[52:56] K-E-B and B-B-B-E reviewed and one step further for approval, I think K-E-B-Gand-B ready for
[53:16] board action and then B-B-B-E is fairly simple, I hope, whether it be in objections
[53:25] to doing that October 1st, 4 o'clock meeting?
[53:31] I'm available.
[53:33] Dr. Yasun?
[53:35] 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.
[53:48] If we have two of the three board members on the call, is that sufficient to have the call?
[53:55] Absolutely, you can go ahead with that, I mean.
[53:59] Okay, Dr. Sawas, Ms. Key. I can't, I can't, I can't in for on the first.
[54:08] Ms. Key?
[54:13] Oh, yes, that works for me.
[54:15] Okay, I know.
[54:16] And I would just like to, I think, maybe, because I newly joined the policy committee,
[54:22] I don't have access to some of the versions that are linked to in the Excel spreadsheet.
[54:29] Like, I couldn't look at B, B, B, E ahead of this meeting because it says I didn't have access.
[54:34] 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.
[54:46] I'm sorry, Mr. Denmark, did you actually join to talk about BBBE?
[54:54] No, sorry, I just wanted to, I said what I needed to say, but I'm good.
[54:59] Okay. I also don't have access to the BBBE policies on the spreadsheet.
[55:06] So Ms. McGinnis is not alone I do believe Ms. Key is working on access to that spreadsheet for everyone
[55:16] It's not the spreadsheet. It's what's linked in the spreadsheet the links. Yes, yeah, the links. Okay
[55:23] 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
[55:31] yeah
[55:33] Okay
[55:36] All right,
[55:38] so Ms. Lloyd, Ms. McEwan, do you have what you need?
[55:41] And we're going to have the meeting next week, next Thursday at 4 p.m. again.
[55:49] Are you good? Yes, I have. I have what I need. Thank you.
[55:52] Okay. And so any other discussion points?
[56:03] All right, so this concludes this September 24th,
[56:05] 2020 six policy committee meeting. As a reminder, any policies for first reader second read are
[56:12] available for public comment from the day after the B, the Board of Education meeting for two weeks.
[56:17] The next policy committee meeting will be scheduled for October 1st at 4 p.m., and you'll
[56:27] receive the email confirmation with policy information to be discussed during each meeting
[56:31] prior to the next committee meeting, and thank you for being here, and it must as an
[56:36] then getting is adjourned.