I'd like to call the February eight, 2021 Policy
Standing Committee to Order at 507.
And if we could all just go around the room
and state our name and our position on the committee for a roll call.
My name is Tricia Steiner, and I'm a school director.
There you go.
Chief.
Jason Rice, Senator representing the administration.
Michelle Agee, Board Secretary.
Seth Olmstead, Citizen Advisor.
Kip Shah, School Director.
Lindsay Drew. School Director.
John Abel School Director.
Welcome, everybody.
Our first item on the agenda for this
new calendar year is the election of a chairperson.
So I'd like to open up the floor for nominations.
I would like to nominate Dr.
Shah.
Are there any other nominations
here?
Sure.
Yes. No other thing. Thank you.
Yes, I'll accept.
Hearing none.
Is there any discussion?
We have we have a motion on the floor for four Dr.
Shah to be chair.
I just like to say thank you for the work
that you have done as chair for the last couple of years.
Thank you, Ms..
Drew.
And I do want to thank everyone on the committee for supporting me as chair.
I have enjoyed my time
for the last three years
chairing this committee with Dr.
Rice, Snyder and
I just want to thank everyone.
So I've learned a lot.
And thank you, Dr. Software.
I'm stuck in that chair.
You're welcome.
Then I'll. I'll try to do the position justice.
Thank you very much for your outstanding service for the last couple of years. So
if we're already, then let's roll.
First item is, Oh.
But I love your interview,
and if there's no further discussion,
all those in favor say I, I.
All right. Congratulations, officer.
It's all yours.
Thank you.
All right, well, then, then, let's roll.
First item is approval of the minutes
from our November 9th meeting.
That seems a long time ago.
And if anybody's ever had a chance to read them.
But I'll need a motion to approve.
So move.
Tricia Steiner.
Second, John Abel.
Any discussion?
I'll be abstaining from this because I was absent for the last one.
Okay.
Thank you.
Any remote, any online discussion?
Okay, then we'll vote.
All those in favor.
I, i Anyone opposed?
Okay. Thank you.
Motion passes and we'll move on to unfinished business.
I don't think we have any unfinished business.
All right.
In which case we'll move on to.
Policies are up for revision and review.
First policy. One, two, three.
Actually, one of three.
And, uh, 252.
Both are being are both in need of revision
because of
legislative requirements.
So go with one of three.
First nondiscrimination, discriminatory harassment, school classroom practices.
Mr. SLATER
Yeah,
one of the three, as you said. Dr.
Schell One of the 3 to 52 and also to 18.3, which is a new policy.
All are being up for review
by the Policy Committee because of the discipline
and placement of students convicted or adjudicated of sexual assault.
So this just includes that language
in this policy as well as the next policy.
That's the only change to the policy.
This is relatively recent legislation.
I think it was just signed into law in November.
So sort of since our last meeting, that's
anyone have.
Well, I guess first we should
could have preliminary discussion anybody everybody have a chance to look at that.
Anybody have any questions or concerns about the first.
We'll just go with the changes to 103 and 252
since they're the wording is
virtually identical and it's
has the same origin.
Okay.
In that case, entertain a motion will take both of these together to make sure.
Absolutely.
So is this just in the event that the district was not already aware of
something so the district was made aware of the conviction
or adjudication of a student, then we would be
that's where this would come into place, that we would
then take disciplinary action from that, not if the school
was aware of the proceedings.
Say that again.
This is upon notification of a conviction or adjudication of a student
in the district for sexual assault against another student,
that we would comply with the disciplinary or placement clearance.
Does that mean, A, if we're notified of something.
That we weren't aware.
That we weren't aware of, but does it also then supra, cede any of our own
disciplinary measures that are in our other policies,
possibly
meaning it could be less
punitive
based on whatever the ruling was than what our policy would dictate?
That's not my understanding.
I can check into that.
It would be if it
so my understanding, according in seen with employees that the district
can always set more severe consequences, but not less severe.
Okay.
So that's again, I just want to confirm that that we wouldn't be compromising
or having to reduce whatever our set policy was
to match that.
That's that's my understanding.
I can definitely check with our solicitor just to confirm,
but that's kind of been the trend with employees and students in the past.
Okay, I'm okay with it, but.
So a motion
to approve the revisions to those two policies as presented.
So moved.
Second, John Abel, is there any additional discussion.
This is in center.
I just want to say that, you know, this this part of these policies, the
the language updated along with the new policy
to me just stresses the importance for comprehensive sexuality education
to include discussions around consent,
mutual respect, caring and empathy and relationships,
romantic and otherwise, so that we can try to get
to the root of these problems so that we can try to prevent
these sexual assaults from happening in the first place.
Good point.
Any remote discussion?
No. Okay.
All those in favor.
I think anyone opposed
those pass and move on to new policies
to 18.3 discipline of student convicted and adjudicated of sexual assault.
This is a new policy that was is required by the same legislation
which resulted in revision of the two previous policies.
That our last motion covered the dating violence one as well.
Or do we need a separate vote for that?
I think I asked for a motion to combine
one of three and 252 okay,
sorry.
So Mr.
Refsnyder to 18.3.
Yeah.
As we can see in the notes at 110 of 2020, which was signed into law,
I believe in December, just requires us to expel,
transfer, reassigned the offender to another school or educational program
if they were adjudicated or convicted.
Any, any comments?
Okay.
So another school.
Okay. So it's within the district.
So this would be to an alternative education program like River Rock? Yes.
So so in our school district, we don't have the luxury So much of having
multiple high schools and lots of schools are elementary schools.
So so this would be a different placement.
So if we had two high schools, then they were saying that a convicted.
Could could go to another school within that district.
Interesting.
But in our case,
it would be an alternative education program.
That's that's one possibility here.
Okay.
Any any comments online or remote?
Okay.
Just one question.
Under transfer, students.
So if we are to receive a student who transfers
that had any sexual assault, conviction or adjudication,
so the district may assign that student to an alternative assignment
or may provide alternative education services.
What is the criteria around deciding what whether that placement would be
the same as kind of open for
interpretation as to whether or not we would allow a student into?
And I have a feeling
that this is going to get revised a couple of times since it since it's
brand new and I think written just to comply with the law of the last couple
employment law seminars I've been on that deal with student issues.
This has been brought up several times, so I would imagine
it will get fleshed out in the near future.
I don't have a good answer for that.
I do know from past experiences and unless a student is expelled
and the reason for the expulsion, it's not as easy as
as one would think of just automatically
moving that transfer student into a lot of college setting.
Right.
I'm thinking about, you know, a scenario where a student was in another district,
received a conviction of a sexual assault, and their alternative
placement was not sufficient, you know, for the student or the parent.
And so they move into a new district
and then would start attending here.
So that's when that would kick in.
One, is there a requirements for disclosure of that
for a new student transfer?
And that's all things, I think, that are still possibly getting worked out.
I don't I can find the answer out.
I don't have the answer today.
So would it be
is this something that from a statutory requirement that we need to get
it passed or is it better to table this and wait for more guidance
on clarification of the language before going through full board
approval and 30 day review?
So my recommendation is that we would pass pass this.
It is part of the law.
So even if it were to happen, if we wouldn't have this policy
and this situation would occur, we would still have to address it
as a school district.
And I think at least with having something in place,
provides the district with a little bit
more protection than than having nothing in place.
Two questions are, is this
and a no criticism here is this
is this pretty much verbatim from the SBA?
This is their policy. This is their policy. Okay.
All right.
And not knowing John's help on this,
not knowing what refinements or
details are going to be provided in the future,
is it is it worth our time to try to refine it now?
I mean, I think we all agree there
probably needs to be some refinement to that last
paragraph that last section,
but not knowing what it's going to be.
Is it worth our time now or
is it better to have the policy in place and then revise?
I think Dr..
And again, I defer to our counsel what I, I agree.
Mr.. Ryan.
I think given the legislation has been passed,
there are certain requirements in the legislation.
Apparently we're better off getting this in place now sooner rather than later.
In the event there would be an incident,
we'd have the policy, we're compliant with the law and then fully understanding
that this is something that may have to be revisited in the future.
But I'd want to get them over now, now, to be honest with folks.
So what's interesting to me is in the legislation that was passed,
when you look at that,
it addresses the transfer as the policy is written,
but then there's a section right under it that talks about that prior to admission
to a public school entity, the parent guardian or other person
having control or charge of the student shall, upon registration,
provide a sworn statement or affirmation stating whether the student was previously
or is presently expelled under the provisions of this section.
So this policy does not incorporate
all of the language that
the legislation lays out that I think gives
some stronger clarity to it
right.
And then it also
further goes on to say that each public school entity
shall sorry, might
computer just disconnected.
Each public school entity shall developer
update its written policy to ensure compliance.
So it's giving us
the ability to create our own policy.
So I'm just wondering if perhaps we include
that language
about the sworn statement just so that that requirement
as codified in our policy.
Is there any standard
disclosure that happens with any transfer
in general?
I believe
and I'd have to check, but I believe that's the same case
with weapons violations saying they haven't committed
a weapons violation in the other in their previous district.
But I don't want to say 100%
that that's the case.
Now, what's what's on the screen?
What's being projected is a Senate bill, certain printers version.
And there are some in process changes, some items lined out.
Do we have a copy?
And I mean, if we're going to discuss further,
do we have a copy of what was signed into law?
So so
this is what the speaker has provided us.
Okay.
Please go back to the top a second, please.
So. Yeah,
so if you go back to the 70,
Jason, I don't know.
I'm going to email you.
This is your computer up on the screen, right?
No, I have the actual act
language of what was passed, not just the markup printer version.
So that saves screen on the computer.
Yeah. It's yours. Oh, yeah.
So who should I send it to if we want to put it on the screen,
the link.
You can get your district email in there.
I know that's not a good idea because I, you see my email,
I think.
I mean, this is a language I don't think we need.
It doesn't have the straight.
Get you I guess I guess the issue is really are we going to
modify the VA policy currently?
I guess that's that's really the question for us to answer.
Not so much.
Right.
How we're going to modify it, but are we going to modify the
the VA policy
given the information we have?
Yeah, I think, you know, this is Johnny.
We rely on those folks to kind of be on the cutting edge and be tracking this.
I'm reluctant to deviate much further from what the PSB has given us and also
remind me the next time this council would meet, this
this committee would meet, would be in two months, May, May.
So that leaves,
you know, several months with no policy and almost I would almost have to go.
I'd recommend going with what our folks at the SBA has put in
front of us to get just to get this thing moving towards the board.
Yeah, I'm okay with that because I recognize what you're saying.
It's better to get something moving.
I guess I'm just disappointed that the PSP provided us a policy that doesn't
have the extent of the language that this bill very clearly,
you know, outlined, including language on references
and complying with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act as well.
So just for the record, it's
disappointed in the lack of context.
You know, that's a good point.
And that it leaves us open to potentially not receiving
verification or sworn statement of
a student transferring into the district that has a sexual assault
conviction.
This is a signer.
So if we go ahead and just approve it,
you know, as it is now, we at least have something.
And then if we sort of earmark it
for our own purposes so that even if SBA is slow
to make those changes, we could at least make sure we keep it on the radar.
You know, we could we could pass it, move it to the board.
And then under unfinished business, we could just have
a review of this policy as an unfinished business item.
We can certainly do.
And and just thinking of the food services policy that was there for a while,
it seemed like it was on every board agenda or every policy meeting.
Yes, yes, yes.
So, Mr.
Abel, can I take that as a motion what you said?
Yes, yes, yes.
I'm so, so moved. So move.
Second, trying to revisit it.
Is there a second?
Well, yes, I will. Second. Thank you.
Is there any additional discussion and any remote
discussion?
Okay.
This isn't done for me, Right?
All in favor.
Say I.
I anyone opposed.
Okay. Thank you.
And Jason, as always, thank you for your work on on this part.
Next, the new
policy is 142 migrant students. Yes.
So I don't have any notes from the SBA.
But this when I sent our previous set
of policies to the SBA, I got an email back saying,
Hey, listen, when I was reviewing things, it looked like you didn't have policy.
142 Here's here's 142 So when I went back and looked in,
I believe this was created in 2013,
right before I got here or right around the time that I came on board.
So this is just a policy that was missed that is now being
reviewed.
Do we have a program in place for migrant students
and identifying and assessing their educational related
health and social needs and all the things the policy addresses we do?
I would just like this is Tricia Steiner.
I was just thinking that maybe we could
reference our policy
830 to our equity policy
so that it's a cross-reference so that it's grounded a little bit more
and maybe even throw in that, you know, the board establishes
a program to address the needs and provide appropriate and equitable services
to migrant students.
So that was that was one suggestion that I had.
And then also
under the guideline number three,
it lists, you know, provide a full range of services
to migrant students, including applicable Title one programs,
special education, gifted education, vocation, tional agitation.
And so that word vocational to me
seems like an outdated word, especially if this is from 2013.
It's really not a it references.
What's referenced is nine, which is our policy 115
and the name of that policy is career and technical education.
So now where in our policy 115 is vocational, right?
Yeah, I agree.
Vocational education would refer to programs that are most often established at
CPCs or tech centers.
So agriculture education is a vocational education program,
so we can certainly update it.
But that I don't believe that language is is necessarily outdated.
Okay.
To me, it just seems like, you know, biotech and vocational
have a definite stigma attached to them
and the move forward, you know,
career and technical education seems like that has
been pushing forward.
This is actually Career and Technical Education Month.
So I just you know,
I just don't want to have that word in there and a migrant policy
to just add to additional stigmas that people already have.
I understood
I would agree with that.
I think that we've made a very concerted effort over the years to not
to call it fair and technical school versus vocational school.
I mean, talking having technical school used to be low tech.
So and I know it's still low tech in the law
and I know all of the things that I you know, advocated to change for.
We can't change because we stuck it in the law, the language of the law.
But if this is something that we have the ability to change,
I think it would be valuable
to make it career and technical education instead of vocational education,
just to make it consistent with our other policy.
I'm in favor of that.
In addition, what was your other proposed amendment?
You would add a number seven
or I didn't quite get the language you were suggesting.
Referencing equity policy. Okay.
And that would go where?
Well, I just thought we could throw in the word under authority.
The board establishes a program to address the needs and provide appropriate
and equitable services and where it references,
you know, all our other policies actually that reference the law.
But we could also reference our policy
and we could add an additional reference like number 11 for policy.
832, which is our educational equity policy.
And it could be
referenced, you know, under number three or four or five.
All of these really fall in line with our educational equity policy.
So for making a motion to amend
what is the specific amendment changed?
Like what is the specific amendment language
that you're suggesting for that?
The board
establishes a program to address the needs and provide appropriate
and equitable services,
and then with an additional reference like number 11
to reference policy? 832
And I guess that's just sort of a general question.
I have two more for Mr.
Snyder, but also for the committee.
Like, you know, now that we have our educational equity policy,
one of the things to to ground it so it's not just sort of a standalone
policy is to sort of ground it
and looking at all of our policies through that equity lens
and really cross-referencing it whenever it seems applicable.
And I'm not saying that we need to do like a thorough deep dive
search into every single policy, but as they come to our agenda
and we're looking at them, if we could, you know, review everything through
that equity lens that lends itself through the equity policy
to any appropriate cross-referencing that we can add on.
I think it will just grounds that work even deeper across
the spectrum of our policy manual,
which the equity policy really addresses anyway, because it has a specific section
about the equity lens and making it
a continuous practice.
So then I would make a motion
to amend this policy
to include the addition of language
in the first paragraph of appropriate
and equitable at a reference link to policy.
832 in section number guidelines.
Number three
and Change
Vocational education to Career and Technical education.
Second, that motion
John Abel
Any discussion about the motion to revise?
Thank you Mr.
for articulating that.
So we need to vote on the amendment and then vote as amended any.
Any remote
input.
Okay,
so now we're going to vote on the amendments as presented.
What are we to approve the amendment?
And then vote as amended? Yeah.
So we need to take a second vote on the right, right, right,
right, right, right, right. We're going to vote on the amendments.
Right.
Motion to vote on the motion to approve the amendments, right?
Yeah.
So I moved John second right.
And we discussed.
So all in favor by anyone opposed.
Okay.
All right.
Now motion to approve new policy 142 as amend as revised.
So Drew. Seconded by John Abel.
Any additional discussion
and nothing remote.
All right.
All in favor. By.
Anyone opposed.
Okay.
Excellent passes as advised.
Moving on to some policies
that we no longer need.
Yeah.
So when we had past policies, our nondiscrimination
policies that were updated for Title nine,
we had talked about remove in policy 248 and 348
and because they're somewhat redundant and also PSB said
they no longer going to maintain those
and update them for us when when changes are made.
So I think now is a good time to to remove those
policies.
Now when when policies historically or when policies are deleted
from the policy manual, then are they archived.
They are in the new system. Yeah.
No they'll always be there.
Right. Policy.
So then what we're let's see what we're looking for.
We'll take them together.
Policy 248 and 348 A motion to delete these policies to permanent archive.
So move on April 2nd.
Tricia Steiner.
Any discussion.
And just to confirm all language from this policy
has been captured inside of policy one, two, three and accompanying policies.
Yeah. So well, not all.
So the new title nine language was not included in policy 248
and 348 because once again, SBA wasn't going to provide us guidance on that.
But when we originally did the overhaul, I think that was two years ago,
maybe three years ago, at this point in time, we had to go back in
to 48 and 348 and change that language to include those groups.
Yeah, So it's really reflective of one of three
and 10421, two, three is for students, one, two for us, for our employees.
And I think it's a good idea to to get rid of these.
This is something that we talked about doing before.
We just always forget about it, which is why we need to get rid of them
because it's not something that comes across over
and it's just an additional policy
that actually leaves us open to liability because we don't have the
means to update them on a
regular basis without unless we, you know, make a concerted effort to remember it.
So and it is in there and it's duplicative of 103 and 104
and all the types of harassment that are defined
inside of these policies to revoke are Title nine applicable harassment.
There's not anything else that's not Title nine
so specific, but still.
All in order.
So harassment is contained, but it's not Title nine Sexual harassment
that has a special meaning and definition and a procedure.
But the policy contains all types of harassment, bullying and so forth.
And one of three and one of four.
Okay. I only mean stories.
You know, sometimes it's not a Title nine offense, but we don't want
to inadvertently remove any ability to.
Yeah, that's still.
Investigate and discipline harassment in.
General that's still covered in one of three and one of four
I'm sorry additional discussion.
Anything
remotely
okay are all in favor of deleting these two policies which had been superseded.
I. I.
I anyone opposed say no.
Those policies have been deleted
to permanent archive.
The final item on our agenda is
discussion of the policy
of student representatives to the school board
and Mr. Steiner.
Do you want to take the lead on this or would you look. Yes.
Oh, well, thank you.
Yeah.
So I asked this restaurant, put this on the agenda just because this
had something that came up
from some board members after the curriculum Council
moved to have a policy,
not not an official policy, but a sort of a policy
for curriculum council, a procedure rather, to have student
representatives on a curriculum council, which is something that is new.
And they looked at our policy
that we currently have 004.140 visitors to the school board
and they using that as a guide, they they knew that they wanted
to have something more inclusive, something that would capture
the more representative of the student body in the high school
and give more kids an opportunity to participate and that type of leadership.
And so
having gone through that experience,
it was also brought to to the board
at one point, or at least certain board members,
those on the curriculum council, that this is something
that we would like to possibly extend or at least have a conversation
to have this same type of inclusive
policy for our senior representatives on the school board.
And so it's really just sort of opening it up a little bit
because currently, you know, our policy
dictates that that one of the two
members have to have it has to be on the student council
and has to have an 85%
curriculum.
Council's lowered it to 80% just to open it up a little bit.
And the
Curriculum Council also opened it up to underclassmen as well.
So it wasn't just seniors and also gave an opportunity
to serve for more than one year, to serve for two years if they wanted to.
So and also with the
deliberate intention
of having a commitment to inclusion and diversity, they even state
specifically that the selection committee will be sensitive to implicit biases
and an an anti-racist anti-sex a selection process, attention
paid to insurance, and a representative sample of students who historically
get overlooked for leadership opportunities such as this.
And so I just thought it was worth at least having a discussion.
It's was something that we wanted to pursue
and a broader range for our school board representatives.
I'm completely in favor of
updating the the policy for student board representatives.
I think that it's incredibly limiting as it stands right now.
And while our student board reps are incredible students
and are great representations, I think that we're missing the opportunity
for other students to get involved who are prohibited just because of things
like grade point average.
I would also, you know, be in favor of looking at that process.
You know, that did come up this year,
I believe, an agenda planning or something.
We were part of that conversation that we're like, well,
how does this even happen and how, you know, are certain students
being overlooked?
Who's making this these decisions?
It really came down to an inclusive and
conversation around diversity and making sure that our student
representatives are like
an appropriate representation of our student body.
So perhaps we need to diversify
the selection.
I don't know what the process is for for doing that.
So are you just suggesting that we take.
Yeah, I mean, some of the items from that proposal
are incorporated into a draft so that we could
right next time, you know, look at a revised policy.
Yeah.
I mean,
I guess I was looking
for a general consensus to see if there was support from the committee
to, you know,
to modify the, the,
the policy and then, you know, we could put in some of the modifications
that the curriculum counsel moved and then put those up on the agenda for the next
meeting to for further revision discussion and possibly approval.
I, I would submit.
I'm sure, all in favor of it.
I know I've been able to observe some of the curriculum council meetings
with our student representatives today, and I think it's just been wonderful,
their input.
So I would be in favor of going back and rewriting
the current policy to accommodate
some of what we have here for the Curriculum Council.
Thank you.
I also think it's important to just for the board to like see the policy
and to be aware of it and
and maybe to use it to empower our student representatives
a little bit more because even in the policy, it states that
the physician will serve on presenting the students viewpoints to the board.
And I know I, for one, would certainly like to hear more than just,
you know, the happenings that are going on.
I certainly appreciate and I enjoyed the student reports that are provided.
I would definitely love to hear more of their input about
some of the things that, you know,
really affect them on a day to day basis and how we as a board can can affect
some more changes that
directly have an impact on them and sort of center their voice as more.
And some of our conversations.
So I know this policy is up for discussion tonight
at our next meeting and I'm not trying to to push anyone in a direction or not.
Our next meeting is in May.
If we look at the current policy,
the selection happens in the spring, which would be
well after May, which means that no change will be made for next school year.
So just as we're as we're
thinking about this, we have about 15 minutes left tonight.
If I mean, if the committee's reading willing to discuss it,
then a change could be made in time for next year.
But if we wait till May,
it will be another year before this policy would would actually take place.
So because this past year it didn't happen in the time frame
that it was supposed to be because of COVID.
That's what it wasn't.
The selections weren't made
until maybe the first week of school this year or something like that
because of the pandemic.
So following our normal policy,
unless we moved it to the board today
and put it to 30 day review, it wouldn't even have time
to get up there through like a march or April timeframe right now.
So if if the policy committee approved it
today, it would go on the board agenda for the 22nd,
which then would be 30 day review, would be the first meeting in April,
because there's only 28 days and we miss it, I think by
just a little bit with only having February, having 28 days.
So it's actually would be the the the first board meeting in April.
So if if if we knew that the likelihood of this passing were to happen,
I would reach out to the high school and say just, just wait.
Because the selection process as it's written for
the curriculum council is to occur in the fall.
So I don't know if we would want to adopt that same
procedure.
If the intent is to involve more students
than the term should remain one year
because two year terms
would give fewer students an opportunity to serve.
This might be a little different in the new curriculum council in the sense
that you may want to limit this to seniors.
Just another year of education, a year of maturity,
more experience with the whole milieu of the school.
I mean, the rest of it, I think it's fine.
Oh, and just to state the obvious, they don't get to vote
at the board level.
Yeah,
I would agree that I think it's okay to keep it to seniors.
So I expected this to work out
so that we can track the changes.
Are we comfortable with
with having it go from a 85 to an 80% average?
And do they need to be involved in other school activities, or
can we eliminate that?
Can we just say student must be able to maintain an 80
an 80% average?
I'm fine with that.
Mm hmm.
I'd also
like thoughts on the student.
Must not have received any disciplinary action
as per the NHS guidelines from Hershey High School.
I don't know what the NHS guidelines are, but I also don't think that
it would necessarily be appropriate
to limit participation based on NHS.
If we're looking at students who would not even qualify for NHS.
Yeah, I agree.
I think we can just eliminate that
sentence.
The NHS part or the just the NHS, right.
I'm fine with all discipline.
Not all.
Yeah. Certain. Like that's why.
Yeah.
A certain level of discipline.
I mean they still have to go through the selection process so
what's the let me put the discipline.
So with that,
with the levels of disciplinary in the student handbook,
the specific one, they.
Are, I believe there's four different levels of infractions.
And this serves me correctly.
I mean, if we just eliminate the whole sentence and
you know that the students still have to go through
a selection process that involves, you know, at least a
high school administrator, you know, you're not comfortable with that doctor.
So now there has to be some limit of
there has to be a disciplinary hurdle, which they've got to clear.
I think that's I mean, some sort of behavioral hurdle they've got to clear,
although although I am
fine with removing the one from the student council
that whole sentence and take that out and.
Bear with me.
I'm just pulling up the discipline here.
So there's
level one, two, three, four.
So level three, for example, would be criminal, trespassing,
gambling, harassment, you know, sexual harassment, sexting, theft.
Oh, for assault and battery
level two
is disruptive or inappropriate behavior in assemblies, cafeteria
failure to return required forms, a hall pass
violation.
I'm sorry, that's a level one.
Level two is cutting class, defacing school property, cheating or plagiarism.
So I would say that my suggestion would say
no further, no disciplinary offenses beyond a level
one violation.
Because I think to Dr.
Sharma's point, you have to kind of set some threshold of expectation
for behavior and holding students accountable and
doing that, but not
creating a situation where, you know, they're
being tardy to school or class becomes
a barrier to opportunity.
So the student must not have received any disciplinary action
beyond a level one
discipline.
No event as per
the student handbook
from Hershey High School.
Does that make sense?
Jason I think it works.
John Abel
Okay, so just going through so under qualifications,
a student must have attended Derry Township
School District for the period of one year prior to the appointment.
One student must be active member of the High School Student Council
and one a member of the student body at large.
So we're just going to say students,
we're just gonna eliminate that.
And then student must be able to maintain an 80% average and student
must not have received any disciplinary action,
a level one disciplinary event as per the student handbook from
Hershey High School.
Can I just ask
your boss, would that be for the year they're applying
or would that be their four years in the district?
That's a great point for. The.
For the period of one year prior,
because you're for applying when you're a senior
with something your freshman year
preclude you when you're a senior.
But I think it ought to be cumulative,
cumulative that might happen in 45, the form said citizen advisor.
This is this is kept showing I agree with Beth there.
Yeah cumulative.
So do we just add something from her?
She has well during their time enrolled at the school since there's
the period of one year requirement of attending.
Okay selection
process two seniors will be eligible to serve as representatives.
Selection shall occur annually
in the spring of the candidate's junior year.
We're leaving that as as
as long as we can get this together,
I guess.
I mean,
the only thing is, is that, you know,
it would be kind of nice to sync it up
with curriculum counsel.
I don't know.
I'm just thinking and logistically, if we have some of the same students
applying from both things,
if that could sort of have
if we could sort of go through that selection process at the same time.
So yeah, I hear what you're saying.
I actually kind of like having one in the spring, one in the fall.
So if you apply for this in the spring and you don't get it,
then then you could apply in the fall and possibly sit on the curriculum council.
Okay. All right.
Yeah, that makes sense. But that's better.
Senior class members who meet the criteria stated above and desire
to serve as a student representative may submit an application.
A selection committee comprised of one high school administrator,
a school counselor, an academic teacher, senior class advisor, and student council
president will review the applications and conduct interviews.
The committee will select two representatives and one alternate
representative by consensus.
So we want to have
the school board president be on that
or a member
from the school board, a designee of the school board
or a school board president or their designee.
I think that it would be appropriate to have a school board
representative on there selecting it because it's the school board
representative right.
If we're removing the student
council president
or the student council requirement,
do we still keep the student council president as the review process?
I think so. Just to keep a. Student in that.
Yeah, I think you want to definitely want a student in there.
And I'm not sure how you would select the student that represents
the students to represent the students, you know, So.
The school board president or school board designee and student council
president will review the applications and conduct interviews
should have vacancy occur.
That is not covered by this procedure.
Then the selection committee shall recommend
a student representative to satisfy the remaining term.
Are there any things from the curriculum selection process
that we wanted to add in that is committed to inclusion and diversity?
The selection committee
will be sensitive to implicit biases and that language under selection process.
Yeah, I would like to do that.
So I bring in the first two sentences to do.
We bring in the third.
I think the first two are really important.
The attention will be paid to ensuring student representatives include students
who historically get overlooked for leadership opportunities such as this.
What are folks think?
I mean, my my gut reaction is I don't know why it is
sort of the same thought, sort of the same genesis of a thought.
So I wouldn't want to
exclude it here because it would seem to suggest
something that we don't intend.
So I'm okay with bringing that paragraph over lock, stock and barrel.
Yeah,
I mean, it's consistent.
And then I think our responsibilities
stay the same.
Yeah.
The only one that I sort of question was one, two, three, four, where it says that
representatives should be willing and able to attend a public and work session.
So, you know, for us those are our committee meetings.
So it's not really to say
so all public meetings.
Yeah.
So I don't know.
I mean, I think we can get rid of that.
I wouldn't want to obligate any of our students to having to come
to Ohio because we operate by committees instead of as a whole.
The board, like some of the work sessions, like some boards do, like a
and so have committees have a work session before their big meeting.
And we don't operate like that.
As a time check.
We are at the 6 p.m.
hour and executive committee starting.
Well, it won't start without us, but it's scheduled to start.
So if we just delete that, delete that because the next one
the student represents will not attend. Executive session.
So that's sort of Council's itself out there.
I think that's great.
Thank you so much for working through that and getting this done.
Thank you Mr..
For putting that together in your email.
This to you at the track changes. Yep.
And then I'll go back and the reason I'm not writing anything,
I'll go back and listen to the audio and just to make sure we captured everything.
And then one more thing.
I just wanted to note that I apologize for skipping
the roll call for the people that attended virtually.
So I apologize. So it's Nicole
then Who else is attending?
Keith Graham.
Okay.
Thank you.
And I apologize to those of you virtually.
I don't have you on my screen and I'm sorry that I missed you
from this.
I bet a lot of us. Yes.
We are.
We do need to vote on our butts.
I mean, we're going to somehow need to look at the.
Well, it'll come to the all the amendments that we just made
will come to the full board.
Well, then I'll double check it all.
But also all the committee members should should see
a great clean version of this so they can say, well, wait a minute.
So they have an opportunity to.
So we could vote
to move to the board pending
review of the final copy by the committee members.
We could do that.
And I think
a vote on a motion like this would
refresh.
My recollection would be only my board members.
In any event. Right, Right.
So I am all. Here. Right?
And I am copying all board members on this email to Jason with the policy changes.
So so we could send Kip or Dr.
Sharpe and send it out to the rest of the committee members.
And unless there are any objections, if they want to give him a call
to no objections, then we can make those notes
noted at the next board meeting when this comes up for discussion.
So that's fine.
I think we need a motion that I move to approve
this are the changes to our current policy with the conditions that we discussed.
Our second. Tricia Steiner
Any additional discussion,
including any remote discussion?
Okay, on favor, say Hi. I.
Am anyone opposed? No.
Okay. It passes.
Is there any public comment?
Any public in attendance?
No, No public in attendance.
Therefore, no public comment.
Motion to adjourn.
So move.
John Angle second next meeting that made on May 10th.
Okay.
Any objections to adjourning?
Okay, great.
Everybody, thank you very much for your time and effort and see you in May.
Thank.