Okay.
I'd like to call the November 12th, 2018 Policy Standing Committee
to Order at 5:12 p.m..
I'll just go around, do a quick roll call.
My name's Trisha Steiner.
I'm on the school board.
Kathy Seger School Board.
Kip Shaw School Board.
Stephanie Patton, Citizen Advisor.
Josh Suzuki Citizen Advisor.
Jason Rucker Center Administration.
John Abel School Board. Great.
Thank you all for coming.
Sorry that we're getting a little bit late start.
We'll try to get through as much as we can.
The summary minutes are attached.
If anybody has any questions, let me know.
We'll jump right into policy.
Two 10.2 Possession.
Administration of asthma inhalers, epinephrine, auto injectors.
Yeah.
So this policy is just
coming back to the committee based on questions from the last meeting.
So I did have an opportunity to touch base
with our solicitor and the language that's being recommended by
SBA is as a result of changes to school code. So
I actually had a conversation then with her, some nurses
and for the most part we comply with those regulations anyways.
It's just a matter of updating one or two of reforms
which will be in the process of doing after this gets approved.
So they didn't seem to too troubled by the changes.
So that's my update.
But thank you for checking in that cause I know last time we had questions,
if we were adding an extra burden on to the parents
and the students who need to have access to any type of EpiPen
or inhalers, because we thought that we had added two more forms.
But you confirm that first of all, we have to because it's the school code.
And secondly, our nurses didn't feel that it was actually more forms
because it's there are some components that are parts already of a form.
That's correct.
It's adding, I think, one or two more lines to the current form.
Okay.
I like that better than more forms.
Just the same form.
Just another line.
Consolidating. Yeah. Yes.
So I don't see any issues with it
since you did all that background information and work on it.
Yeah.
Can I have a motion to move policy
to a couple of very minor points
in the very first line under authority?
If this includes the middle school, should it be in district schools?
Should that be a plural instead of in district school?
Is the copy I got.
Yeah.
That being district schools. Okay.
And the second second minor point is if you scroll down
under definitions and you've got asthma inhaler.
So I mean a prescribed device
primum teen mist is back on the market.
So this is an over-the-counter meta dose inhaler for asthma.
It's epinephrine and it was removed from the market
and because of propellant was an ozone depleting means it's back in the market.
I you know, I think it's unlikely, but it's certainly
could show up as being an asthma medication for kids.
So if you just took out prescribed, I think you're okay.
Or if you wanted to address prima teen separately, if it came up,
that'd be okay too.
Just to be aware that that's out there.
You just going to remove the word prescribed?
Okay.
Are there any other items for discussion?
Can I have a motion to move policy
to 10.2 to the full board for 30 day review approval?
So moved second.
Great.
And is there any further discussion?
All those in favor say I, i any opposed.
Thank you.
Motion carries.
Next is policy 246 School wellness.
Do you want to introduce yourself?
So we just have you on record.
Beth Olmstead, Citizen Advisor.
Thank you.
So this policy was brought back to the committee based on a comment
based on discussions at a recent board meeting.
In particular, when we're looking at this screen,
not sure what page that is, but the section that deals with classroom
parties and celebrations and in particular Part A
and part D,
So just some background knowledge of this particular policy.
This actually goes through our school wellness policy currently
called the Student Wellness Committee.
So this actually goes through that committee.
This was a recommendation that that committee made a number of years ago
to mirror what's actually in our elementary handbooks.
We recently had a school wellness committee meeting
that was held, I think last week or the week before.
So I brought up the recommended changes or not recommended changes, but the changes
are for consideration and
that committee felt like this language is what their intent was.
And so that committee is recommending that we keep the language as as is
to follow what the practice at current practice at the elementary school is.
Our middle school principal was there and did not see a need
to change the language as well.
So that's that's where we're at.
Okay.
Can you can we go over exactly what that was referring to?
Yeah. So
which, which part, Kasie?
What you were just talking about.
Yeah.
So they were referring to classroom parties and celebrations.
Classroom parties shall be limited to no more than four
per year in each classroom.
Okay.
And also, food celebration shall not occur
until 30 minutes after the end of the lunch.
But didn't you also mention when we had a meeting
about setting up the agenda that this is part of a federal
program of wellness that we have to adhere to?
So classroom parties and celebrations are at the discretion of of the committee
or the school or school districts.
You should put a limitation on it or some sort of language
that notes how many can occur because it is an exception
due to the fact that it's competing with.
I think that's maybe what you're talking about.
It's actually competing with your your competitive foods.
Right.
Well, and that this is also
you. Excellent.
This is also a guide and that there's an assessment done correct
by annual basis so that this is something to to work toward.
But if it if we don't meet
all the other standards, it's not it's just sort of a self assessment for our.
Correct.
So if you look at the school wellness policy
and I'm referring to it as the school wellness, but it's still
just the student wellness committee or student wellness policy.
The new requirements
do require that each district completed triennial assessment.
We've
decided to take a look at each of our buildings one year at a time.
So last year we took a look at our elementary buildings.
This year
we're in the process of doing the assessment
for a middle school, and then next year would be the high school.
But yeah,
part of what we would do is take a look.
Are we meeting this particular standard?
So are we limiting to four classroom parties per school year?
The answer is yes.
Then we're in every classroom, then are in full compliance.
If not were in partial compliance and and so forth.
Do you want to make a comment, Lindsay?
Because this came back to
from the full board because of some comments that you made.
And when I when we were planning for the agenda, Jason explained it to us.
So it made sense to me at the time. Sure.
So I was the one that had moved to bring it back to committee
and not go to 30 day review.
And the reason for that is because at the elementary school, it's
actually not the practice that classroom parties are occurring this way.
For example, the third grade, the way their instructional periods are set up
when is done at the end of the day and can't be moved around.
So all parties are held prior to lunch for the entire third grade.
They're actually in the last lunch period.
And so to do it 30 minutes after the end of the last lunch period
would be after the 2:00 hour.
And that's when they move
into the when instructional period.
So my concern is that by having this in the policy,
we're automatically pushing teachers and the elementary school
in general into violation of policy by having it state that
and then with the classroom parties and celebrations.
I'm not opposed to adhering to the for with food and beverages, but
I know that there are a lot of teachers that utilize
additional class parties and incentives to work towards
they're doing
they've been doing one recently that had to do with their door decorations
and the students earned a class party and they were able
to have a snack during that time as well while they were having it.
So my concern is just that being at this level of detail within board policy,
we're automatically going to be violating.
Okay.
So there's the two issues to A and two D, So
so the celebration shall not occur until 30 days after the last of 30,
30 minutes after the last of the lunch period.
So that, you said, is a wellness issue.
It's a guideline because you don't want the kids to be nice.
So if you're having a party cake later, correct.
If you're having party before lunch that the chances are increase
that students won't participate in the healthy and nutritious lunch.
This is my party.
You got it.
So it's it's a guideline, but it's a policy.
And you're saying third grades violating it
because they always had the parties for lunch. Right.
Where's that?
So what does that happen again.
So I come to come back to this is
the way that this policy is enforced
is through the annual assessment of the triangle assessment
so that the worst case or the worst thing that will happen is
we put that we're not in compliance with this particular statement.
I guess it's it's it's ideal, but
you can say that you're not in compliance
because of the way our lunch schedule runs,
and that's permissible.
Absolutely.
I look at it because as a parent, I'm a room parent
and in there participating in that class
party, but I'm also a board member and some violating the language
of a policy by participating in that under Understood.
And, you know, I
so this is part of the policy.
I mean, any time that a decision is made to go against the policy,
I mean that that's something that the Skagit
teachers have to consider
is third grade, the only instance where this set of circumstances occurs.
As far as we know, I don't know and I'm specifically commenting on it
because you said talking to the building level
in accordance with the handbook, they were saying that they follow
these guidelines, the classroom parties.
Right.
It's in their handbook that they're right.
But that's not what's happening. Right.
So, you know, our office, where I'm going with this, if if the third grade
is the only instance where these set of circumstances occur,
then we could write an exception into the policy for third grade sake.
Given the constraints of the third grade schedule,
in this one instance, we'll make an exception or perhaps have
no I don't know if it's third grade this year and it's third, second
grade or fourth grade next year, but maybe even just having some language that
that allows for deviation from this
in order for it to accommodate the the schedule for the day.
If you put something in there that just says every every effort
should be made to allow for this.
And what they're not saying
about four times per year in one grade, it's
yeah, I don't disagree.
I'm doing it on the principle of Right.
It's written in policy and we have an obligation to uphold the policy.
Yeah.
I think if you put something in there that just said every effort should be made
to adhere and any exceptions,
you know, just should be requested.
So I guess the real question is,
is it absolutely necessary to hold those parties before lunch?
I think that's a decision that someone's making at the building level,
right, because of the schedule and the instructional periods.
Other than to say if you I mean, if you put it in the policy, then wouldn't
that help drive maybe changing the way the class is set up for third grade
in that instance so that they could abide by this policy
and keep the healthy initiative
and moving
when class or adjusting lunch or is in some way.
You know, I think there's only so much time they have for a lunch.
So I don't think there's any room in the schedule to allow for.
And why is why can't four times here when not happened that day
when when you have a party, something doesn't happen,
some kind of academic training.
So I questioned it in in the classroom
and you know, it was told that it's not allowed.
So I think we're back to this was a wellness.
We have a district wellness committee.
They've approved that. It's actually going back again to them.
So if someone's violating this, then I think that's an administrative issue.
Less less has changed.
The policy
is there for good reason.
You don't want to have cupcakes and cake at 11 and then go eat lunch at 1130.
It's therefore a good wellness guideline, right?
I don't disagree with that.
But because we knowingly have the policy being violated,
that's where I was, you know,
bringing up in question because we're obviously putting
some segment of elementary school staff and student population
into that situation.
I say we leave
the policy as is and then have that
you you try not to violate policy if you can't help it,
but I'm sure there are circumstances.
It's a wellness guideline.
Couldn't they just ask for an exception on those few days?
Sure.
Anything
from a procedural standpoint, then it would make sense to just
receive approval to deviate from the policy.
I served with the if it's a
guideline, then it's not in policy because guidelines can be changed.
And we, you know, always talk about guidelines versus policy.
If it's a policy, it's supposed to be adhered to.
So I don't know where we pick and choose.
Then on issues larger than classroom parties,
I mean, I guess that's why there's no policy police.
So obviously
I see what you're saying.
If we let this go, what else do we let slip?
But this isn't
killing anybody or I mean, I don't know.
It's not detrimental with four times a year.
I don't know. I don't know where to go. I don't want to get stuck on this.
We have bigger fish to fry.
So I'm just I'm just making this plan that
if it's a guideline, then should it be written in policy?
And if we're knowingly violating policy
just because it's classroom parties, then
how do we justify violating, like violating policies, violating policy?
So we we brought this forward because you wanted to add something
about safe drinking water because that was from the school code and PSB
When does the wellness committee meet again?
Not until December, sometime in December.
December. Could you bring that up to them?
That there is a problem in third grade?
And absolutely, they've reviewed this policy, but
do they understand that they're violating policy and or
what?
Let them look at it again and give us another suggestion
that the wellness committee or the Elementary Wellness committee, or
are there representatives
from the elementary, not this year because we're focused on the middle school.
Do you have any suggestions, Jason?
I mean, we so d
I mean, someone had the idea of
to to change that language to a,
you know, food celebration shall strongly be encouraged
not to occur until I mean, we can we can do
that.
It's it's really your call
and I know this is the reason it's classroom parties.
Well yeah the reason that was put in there
so people aren't eating cupcakes and chips and so forth before.
Yeah.
So it really comes down to what the board is comfortable with.
And if you're okay with that, then adding, I'm okay.
Yeah, I'm okay with adding those words
because we know it's not every grade violent and we know why
third grade is because they have the last lunch, right?
Is that why?
And then they go into that like a 2:00 in the afternoon.
So they're trying to get in their academic when
right.
Okay.
Do do you want to
say that again.
I'll go back and listen to what method said.
I thought she said it fairly well.
I, I just suggested that
every efforts should be made to adhere to these guidelines.
If an exception needs to be made,
you know, it can be taken on a case by case basis with the principal
or whoever you would designate to administrate that decision.
So how about we change it?
The food celebration
shall not occur until 30 minutes after the end of the last lunch period,
unless there's an exception made by the building principal or
some cause or something similar to that.
Yeah.
Okay.
Thank you.
So. So
we need to move that with that amendment.
Can I have a motion
to would that does that need to go back now for a three day review.
Jason.
Yeah, because it was never on 30 day review.
Okay. Okay. Just came back. Okay.
Okay.
So can I have a motion to move policy to 46 with that amendment
to the full board for 30 day review and approval.
So moved
second,
any further discussion?
All those in favor say I, I any oppose.
All right.
Policy to 46 moves.
Next on the list is policy 309
assignment and transfer.
Yeah so similar to policy 246
the board had had asked that this policy be brought back to the committee
because there is somewhat conflicting language in the policy.
And if we look at the very bottom, the policy, I
think it was still any transfer
that occurred during the school year would, would still need board approval.
So in order to change that.
So it's consistent with what what we're trying to do.
We just change it from approval of the board
to approval of the superintendent.
I'm okay with the changes
as it reads now
any further discretion Agreed.
Sure.
I made the motion to move this back to the committee
and not proceed with a 30 day review because of the language on the first page
in the second paragraph that is currently redlined that says.
And when such assignments
involve a transfer from one building to another,
or when a position requires a certificate or credentials,
other than that required for the employee's present position.
So it would be
removing the current requirement for the board to approve any transfers
that follow after
initial assignment of employment.
I made that recommendation because of the
confusion around this policy and the lack of adherence to it.
When we went through the transfer and reassignment of teachers
in the elementary school and middle school
at the end of last school year and feel strongly that
given the information that we received, the public comment
and the board's lack of knowledge, as well as the administration's
lack of knowledge about this policy,
that it would be inappropriate to change the language at this time and
that there should be checks and balances when making those types of changes.
Section 1106 of the Pennsylvania School Code
seeds that the school board shall employ the necessary qualified employees.
Well, there's no specific language in the school code that addresses
the transfer of existing employees.
I do feel that that relates back to the fact that we are obligated
as school board directors to approve and govern the employment of individuals
when we approve an initial assignment.
They're being approved for a certain position
and we're reviewing the information provided to us for that position
to not have any say or review of the administration
upon transfer out of one certification to the other,
whether it be from a teacher or to an act 93 or to house
or to any of the other employment categorizations that we follow.
I feel
leaves too many things outside of the normal checks and balance that
that should exist between the administration
and the school board.
Thank you
for your explanation on why this came back to the Policy Committee.
I would prefer to approve it.
With this.
It struck out because we don't as a school board
or by law, we don't have to approve transfers in the building.
We are never privy to enough information
because we are not in the day to day operations to understand it that there is
some level of trust that we give to the administration to do it.
And so I had gotten the vibe from most of the board that we wanted
to stick to what we what we are supposed to do with school code and law.
So I don't know if there's any further discussion now.
I agree with I agree with Cathy as revised,
this policy is consistent with school code,
and I think that the two the only thing I would like to add
is that everyone agrees that the policy is previously written
contributed to some turmoil and some chaos.
So that is when a situation occurs and the existent policy
contributes to confusion or chaos that mandates a change in the policy.
Because to leave the policy intact
just guarantees that there's going to be confusion and turmoil in the future.
So why anybody would want to keep a policy that's going to create that,
I don't know.
This is the changes are consistent with school code.
That's what we should be doing.
I would concur
and I appreciate your comments in terms of what is the appropriate role
for the board. I happen to think that,
you know, the this is not a board decision for assignments.
And I wanted to get clear that it's not meant to be disrespectful
to the folks that had concerns from the public
from the last time they were legitimate concerns.
So I did as as as Kepa's point out, it did create some consternation.
And it seems to me that the responsible thing for the board
to do at this point is to clear it up going forward.
And there's no reason for delay.
And again, that's not to downplay or diminish
some of the concerns that folks came forward that were were, you know,
well taken.
But I think as a board, we we got to straighten this out
going forward from here on out.
And I happen to think that this is an appropriate way to do it.
I mean, I would agree.
I understand the sensitive nature of that
and the concerns that Lindsey brings forward.
And I you know, I'm conflicted and and that
but I don't feel that I would ever have enough possible
information to make those same decisions that the administration
has to make about where the teachers are and what's best suited for them.
So at the end of the day, I have to trust the process
that the administration gives to us and
and, you know, I don't the position that we were put in
before where we had to make a decision,
I don't want to be in that decision again if we're not going to be given
an if we're not going to be privy to all the information
that's involved.
The other thing we could put in this is that the board shall approve
the initial assignment of our employees at the time of employment
and recognize transfers, because that's what we talked about at our last meeting.
So that are still they still come to the board
and they're posted under personnel.
They're not they're not voted on that.
We do you remember we had that whole discussion
at the full board meeting that we want to approve
new hires and recognize transfers so that we're aware of them,
because ultimately our responsibility is to
hire and fire the superintendent and evaluate him and create
policy
passed that.
How do I know someone's qualifications for transfer and assignment?
But at least if we recognized it,
we then can ask the superintendent about it
and we'll know
if it's happening
or if it's coming or
do you want to come up, Maria,
we now know that there's an answer to what I'm going to say, but I want to know
like why historically it was written the way that it was originally.
Like maybe Jason knows or Kim is in the back.
Like, why did we have to like, I'm okay.
I hear what everybody's saying and I agree with it, but like,
we have something so why would we give it away?
Like, I wonder what the thought process was, why we weren't
given the authority to approve transfers to begin with.
I think that was just standard language that PSB
provide it to most school districts.
If you look at other school districts, I think you would find that their policies
are very similar. So at times
this this board and previous boards have decided
they like what PSB ahead to said and other times we change our policy.
So as far as in historical context, I don't I don't know
any more than that.
It's hard to agree to give something away that we have.
But I agree with Cathy's thought process of
we don't ever really have enough information anyway to look at it.
So it's it's it's a very odd position.
And Kim, our solicitor, is sitting in the back.
But we if we change this and just approve
initial assignment of employees at the time of employment,
that is within our jurisdiction and school code
approving transfers was not even I understand what you're saying Lindsay.
You're saying it's it's our duty and our obligation here
because it doesn't explicitly say that
we're then choosing to interpret that it doesn't cover transfer,
but the PFA recommendations and what other school board have in their policy
includes that language.
To say that we're not
to say that we should change it now
because when it comes to microphone.
But Kim, can you
can you confirm that you're Yes,
there's a microphone back there to
the scorecard only requires
Kim's our fabulous
solicitor of record all knowledgeable
I can talk loudly and the school currently requires the board
to hire fire and police in terms of the assignments from within,
that's usually considered a managerial right and a supervisory
right of management to do that so the board doesn't have to approve
an assignment building, building or different certifications.
I'm not sure why the SBA would have
to proposed that
in Pasadena,
and there's no real statutory support for
and it would be fair to say it ought to be, obviously.
But but to the extent some superintendent now in the future
is making these assignments or transfers willy nilly or in a way
that we think as a problem, then that superintendent
is going to be accountable to the board for those decisions in our evaluation.
I mean, I think I think that's that that's the role of the board.
If there were, you know, improvident transfer
that, then that would be the board's prerogative
then to evaluate the superintendent based on those decisions rather than us having
sort of veto power over the transfer
assignment in the first instance.
And I also look at it as it's not just the transfer,
but it's the promotion and change and certification.
So if you have a
second grade teacher being moved to fourth grade and then, yes,
I believe that that is something that any administration and,
you know,
would be in managerial because it's one in the same elementary as elementary
when we're looking at moving outside of certification, if you're moving into
an administration role and are a long term substitute
who is approved there, that
there's there's a difference between those.
So, you know, I respect the decision of the committee.
I'll continue as a board member to exercise my voice and disagree with it.
But I also want to say that I don't think that we should use the situation
in the past
as the reason to make the change, because the only reason that we were not
given
information from the onset of the decisions to make
the transfer was because administration did not adhere to policy,
because they didn't realize the language was in there.
So I think that it's unfair to state that
this particular policy caused the confusion
when really it was that this policy wasn't consulted and adhered to.
Well, any one of us could have read the policy.
I mean, we do rely on the administration. Yes.
But I'm saying I don't think that it's my fault, too,
for not reading the details as well as.
Right.
And to not follow up and get that check, because we as board members
asked the administration specifically
for guidance on what was the role of the administration versus
what was the role of the school board.
And we were told the opposite.
But it was a lot of miscommunication across the board.
And so as board members and, you know, in the future,
we'll have to go back and look at policy as it pertains.
But I just disagree with it being used as exempt for this.
Okay.
Well, I
I understand the frustration that that caused us last year,
but I also know that everybody makes mistakes and I myself make mistakes.
And I feel like we keep revisiting this issue.
So if we could just I think we've all spoken our piece so
yeah, so we need to have a motion
then to move this back to 30 day review for full board approval.
So moved second,
any further discussion?
All those in favor say I, I any opposed.
Okay. Policy moves.
All right.
Next on the list is policy 707 use of school facilities.
So I have a suggestion that maybe we don't want to want to go in this order,
but I have a feeling
the use of school facilities could could take some time to discuss. And
I think maybe
some of the other policies we might be able to get through today.
So maybe we move on to the next policy
and then come back to use of facilities if we have time.
But that's really up to you.
It's just a suggestion that I have. Yes.
Thoughts?
I'm going to leave about 15 minutes.
Well, we want to save some time to talk about what actually the next steps.
Okay.
So because if we don't get to it,
I don't know, maybe we can make this quick.
The issue with use of school facilities appears to be complicated
and multi-discipline scenery in its nature.
And so maybe what we need to do is create an ad hoc
subcommittee similar to what we did with the TIFF
and have that subcommittee and then draft a policy
to bring back to committee because I try I just I tried working on this myself
and I'm saying you've got to talk to everybody at every stage of this.
And so maybe we can do that.
Yeah, it was at agenda planning and we kind of talked
about what we had discussed with the setting up the agenda tonight.
And the idea then would be that there's a subcommittee would be
Mark Anderson, our director of Building and Grounds.
Scott Governor athletic director Jason are liaison with policy and possibly
three board members so that we can get all the players
at the table to look at this instead of continue to talk about at the board level.
But I do like the revisions are solicited or did take a look at the policy
and add some revisions from our last policy meetings.
I'd ask that the committee start with that because we added three sections
about conduct
and code of conduct that,
you know, like no bullying and harassment and things like that.
So I would hope that they could start with this version
because we did agree to that the last time. But
we would have to ask
the full board to approve a an ad hoc committee.
Correct.
Here comes Kim.
All right.
I like the idea of a subcommittee.
It's a very bulky policy.
And if I were an outside group wanting to use the facility, I probably wouldn't
really get past the first three categories because then it kind of loses.
And I tried to recategorized some of it so that it seemed to flow.
But I think if you had a subcommittee that all the parties who have to be
notified could weigh in on it, that would be very helpful.
And then maybe as a result of that,
you had you change the form or have at least a checklist.
So everybody has it almost at a glance, What is it that I need?
Do I have it so that you don't have to constantly go through the whole policy?
So I would certainly that because it's a very bulky
and somewhat convoluted policy.
Well, even for the TIFFs subcommittee, I was even thinking of the four day
kindergarten subcommittee.
We had administrators like teachers, whoever wasn't but
three board members, and we did have citizens
so we could as citizen advisors, we had a nobody was on that committee,
but we had about three or four parents sit on the committee as well. So
do we
want to move forward with that right now or just move to another policy
and then come back to it? Tricia, what?
Well, can we what do we need to do to move forward with the ad hoc subcommittee?
We have to take that to the full board.
So to have it approved
like we did for day kindergarten
and we would have to kind of set up a structure for it and and a mission.
The mission would be to review and revise this policy.
So that's something that has to be put on the full board agenda to be voted on.
We could put it we could talk about tonight and move it to new business.
Maria, did you want to say something?
Just this kind of I don't anybody else is feeling this
a sense of urgency because that whole conversation
we had last week about the guys playing basketball
and I think we only approved them through January one,
I love the idea of a subcommittee, and I think that would be great.
But like, how quickly
can we get it moving so we can get this cleaned up and move forward?
And is that June?
Is that January one year is a school year where I think that
that nothing's going to happen quickly here because we just approve
this new policy and then send it out to all the organizations.
I mean, I kind of like you.
You have to let this policy sit, work on it
and actually not approve a new policy, perhaps until May or June,
because we just notified all the organizations this, what August
that this new see, we went from five groups to three groups.
And now I guess we're finding that we need more clarification.
Like we
we are waiving every fee that comes by because there is a waiver on here
just for citizen advisors at the board level.
And we're getting frustrated with all the waivers.
And what we don't want to do is wave fees
and then
we are paying costs for like a custodian on the weekend.
We would like to kind of set up a rubric like CAP suggested that
if we're not going to waive a Sunday evening custodian
because then we have to eat the cost, we have to just kind of figure this out
because we're constantly waiving fees, too many fees,
and it's just becoming so complex.
So I don't know if we it's not going to happen by January 1st.
So so the good news is, according to your board
operating guidelines, an ad hoc committee can be created, charged and assigned
a fixed termination date by the board president.
So it doesn't appear as though it needs board approval.
Okay.
I would like to move to create an ad hoc committee for you.
You don't even have to move. You can just do it. I did it.
Yeah. Okay,
so let's do that.
Okay.
All right.
So we'll do that, and then we will move on to policy.
249 Bullying, cyber bullying.
So this policy was brought up at her last meeting as well.
The recommended revisions were included,
and those revisions
talked about the role of the bystander and what they're supposed to do.
It also encouraged
parents of students who have been bullied to report such incidents.
We also talked about, including the poster
that is developed by the PD and making sure that that's displayed
a prominent place similar to our child abuse policy.
We also talked about student code
of conduct to make it a little bit easier for people to know where to go.
And then we also
wanted to see how the committee wanted to see
some language
that addresses individuals who make a false knowingly make a false report.
Finally, there's two more things.
We were asked to include resources, which we did.
And then the last one is an
and in that time we said we were going to get together with
an administrative team and come up with more.
This this is boring.
This is picking on.
But what I actually found was a document
from of us which I think
I don't see a need to recreate something on our own
when this is kind of a nationally recognized program.
And to me it does a great job of showing the differences.
So that's that's where we're at.
So this would be attached to the policy are linked
or it would be in it would be an attachment.
Okay. Yeah.
Can we just reference the attachment under the definition somewhere?
Absolutely. Just so people know that it's there
if they need more information and as well as
the reference or the resources at the end of the policy,
I think between the resources and the attachment,
I'm satisfied with that additional information
that we're providing.
And Jason, did.
Lisa miller take a look at our additions at all?
You know, no, I'm not.
There is nothing on here that it wouldn't have changed anything.
So it doesn't mean no, it doesn't change the way that the policy
is enforced or she's our director of state and supportive schools.
Yeah,
I think the policy looks good with the edits that we talked about
last time with the inclusion of, you know, bystanders witnessing things.
I like all that stuff. So, yes.
All right.
Can I have a motion to move policy 249 to the full board for a 30 day
review and approval so mode
second.
Right.
Any further discussion
or just make sure we capitalize board there and the additional paragraph.
Jason And that's good.
Okay all those in favor say I any opposed
okay policy 249 is moved
policy 103 point to nondiscrimination
diversity, inclusion and equity.
Yeah.
So this would be a new policy for Derry Township School District.
At our last meeting we kind of talked about this
just in generalities without giving it a number, since it deals with
since it relates to discrimination or nondiscrimination,
we tabled both of the new policies if if approved nondiscrimination
and then the actual title of of the policy to kind of go with that flow.
Nothing major to add.
I mean, as far as protected classes, it's
the same protected classes that we we use and the other one and otherwise it just
outlines how we intend to promote and protect the rights
and dignity of all individuals that
are part of Derry Township School District three.
The only other thing that I was thinking of was maybe adding
indigenous peoples somewhere.
I thought maybe under number five
curricular materials and educational practices,
which are free of bias toward any protected groups or individuals,
including women, men, indigenous, Indigenous
members of minority groups, just to cover Native Americans
and any other indigenous peoples that we learn about throughout the world.
Other than that, I appreciate you
helping to develop this and work on this and
including this for our students.
I like how we're adding it to 103, like 103.2103.
I think it fits well. Yes.
Are there any further comments?
Can I have a motion to move
policy 103.2 to the full board for 30 day review and approval.
So moved second,
any further discussion?
All those in favor say I.
I oppose
fantastic policy 1 to 3.2 lose.
Next.
Real quick, we have policy one and 3.3 nondiscrimination
for transgender and gender nonconforming students.
Oh yeah.
So this policy, as we discussed last time,
the actual policy is relatively short and once again pretty much just says that,
you know, as a district, we support support
learning environment that protects the rights of individuals.
And the reason
for making this part of the policy very general is because this is a
a debate and a conversation, and that really has
no legal
standard behind it and it keeps fluctuating.
So this way creates latitude
with and flexibility without having to change the policy.
However, the meat of this particular policy comes
in the administrative regulations,
I think I added I did that the school director
shall approve the regulations prior to the promulgation of this part.
I think I prior to the promulgation, which just means that
unlike most administrative regulations, this one actually will come to the board
for approval. Having said that, the
majority of time should probably be spent just looking
at those regulations.
The only comment I have is,
is there space in the policy, not the administrative guidelines, to add
something about a directive for students so that they know what to do or parents
something like, you know, transgender and gender nonconforming students
and or their parents
or guardians are encouraged to schedule a meeting with the superintendent
and or designates.
The purpose of the meeting will be to evaluate
the needs of the student and to plan for any accommodations that may be considered
to facilitate a supportive and inclusive learning environment.
I bet you had that written down somewhere
that I just put it opposite than that I can borrow or use.
I think instead of using superintendent,
their current procedures would have them meet with the principal.
So maybe we put building principal or designee instead of superintendent.
But yeah, we can.
That sounds good.
Yeah, I think that's that's better, actually.
Yeah.
I think we just want to give people I'll go ahead.
I'll just say you have a typo in the first district
missing in our.
Yeah. Thank you.
And along those lines and this is very well done Jason thank you for this.
And the other one I was thinking there in that in that last paragraph
we see the school directors.
I'm going to suggest that you see the board
just to be consistent
rather than as the school directors, the boards
out with the regulations.
I have one
comment.
I don't know if it's
appropriate or not with this.
Were does this affect athletics at all?
If you look at the regulations, yes,
it would have an implication on what athletics did.
The athletic committee have any did they are they okay with that?
So this has not been
put forth to any other committees except for the policy committee.
Okay.
Well, doesn't it already have standards and directives
because you, a transgender student, can participate in their gender
sport? Correct?
I that's my belief.
But I,
I don't want to go on the record as saying that is an absolute.
You can and the NCAA
like you can
I mean it is part of the part of this administrative guideline
is that participation in competitive athletics, internal sports,
athletic teams, competitions and contact sports shall be facilitated
in a manner consistent with the student's gender identity.
And I references Griffin and Carol 2010 in accordance
with the Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association bylaws.
So that would make me believe that that is the case.
But without actually looking, I, I'd hate to say something
that may be incorrect and just a small typo on there.
Just under sports athletic and physical evaluation forms.
Okay.
So we're just voting on the policy today, right?
We're not voting on the regulation, correct?
Well, the regulation is part of the policy.
So the part so the regulation will be attached to the policy.
Okay.
So that's, you know, just so that students and parents are aware
that this is the these are the regulation guidelines.
So I have a question about on a on page five.
And it says that a district shall permit a student or a parent
or guardian to request a change of name
and your top appoint there
and district shall
that one right area.
What's what would be the case where if the student
and the and their parents do not agree, who would have the right,
you know, with the parents
have the right to change it back if a of a student requested a name change.
So so my understanding
that's a lot of that is dictated by the age of the student.
So we actually have an email out to our solicitor
addressing something very similar.
And part of the regulations deal
with names and pronouns, and if the student wants to be addressed,
I think it's actually the first one under names and pronouns
by by a certain pronoun.
This regulation says, regardless of their age, that they'll have
a right to do so.
We do have a question and to make sure that that's actually
holds up to to some legal
requirement.
So my experience, a lot of it is based on the age of 14.
So we have we have that question out there.
I would imagine the same would go for for your particular scenario as well.
So I have not heard back from our solicitor.
You asked the question because it is skyliner, because of a situation,
because of this guideline, when I had different members of the administrative
administrative team, take a look at it to see if they had any questions.
That was one of the questions that came up.
So that's that's the reason for for having our solicitor look at that.
So do we want to wait
on solicitor advice?
So the advice would be either to add anybody
older than above the age of 14 or it's okay.
As it stands.
So that would that would be the only change
that I could see coming, unless there's other concerns or.
Well, it's 604, so I don't know.
We have this in dressing and grooming and protected class.
So what what do you want to do with this?
Can we,
can we move this or do we want to wait for.
So I can just tell you what's happened in previous policy committee meetings.
If there's a if there's a change that everyone knows,
it is either going to be adding language to deal with the age or it stays.
It is. I mean, a lot of times you can say move to the full
board, move it to the
full board for approval or for 30 day approval pending
solicitor recommendation.
That's happened in the past.
Okay, Everybody okay with that?
Just one inconsistency in the guidelines.
Under your definitions, under you on the second one,
you define you define success biology.
If that's if that's so, then then the biology is not assigned at birth.
I think what you want to say at the top there isn't going to see assigned gender
at birth, not assigned sex at birth, because in the second one
you say it is you know sex is biology, obviously.
Ergo, I mean, obviously biology is not assigned at birth.
Okay.
Thank you.
But sex refers to the refers to the anatomy.
Gender refers to.
Am I just reading something?
No, I just I just a comment that that
in the second one it's sex is defined as biology.
Okay.
You're anyone?
No one's biology is assigned at birth.
I mean, a gender is reported or assigned at birth.
So you can certainly see that
gender assigned to gender at birth
is a designation, male or female, assigned to a person of birth.
I think I think that's that wording is fine, but it's inconsistent
with the second one where you define where sex is defined as biology.
So what would you say?
Remove where sex refers to biology
or you removing those words?
No, I think all you need to do is just say
at the first you say assigned a gender at birth because and then you say
the gender designation, usually male or female, is assigned to a person in birth.
And that's a true statement.
But these are terms that are used by the transgender community.
So I think that and sex and gender have different meanings.
I'm not I'm not disputing that.
I yes, I see that.
And I'm just saying that if you say that sex is biology, okay, then you
then it's inconsistent to say that sex, i.e., biology, is assigned at birth.
It's just it's just inconsistent.
It's I think it's for the cases of of sex transitions
where they have an assigned sex at birth and then you can have a sex change
at a later time point. You still have your assigned sex at birth.
I think that's the rationale for that term. So,
yeah, I'm sorry, I'm not following.
To me, they're two different things.
What are two different things?
Sex and gender?
Yes, of course, I guess. But.
But to say sex is biology
and then to say biology is assigned
at birth is inconsistent.
You read it that way.
Sex is biology.
Biology is assigned at birth. No, it isn't.
Gender is assigned at birth.
Just to say gender is assigned to birth.
That's what that's what has been reported.
And that's what is that is what is out there in all sorts of publications.
The genders assigned at birth isn't gender or cultural, though.
Should should, in the sake of time, should we have our solicitor review
definitions and whatever they say, that's what we'll kind of go with it. Yes.
Okay. Okay. Okay.
And I think it's I mean, my own sense, as I had
I appreciate your suggestion, Jason, that moving forward pending,
but I I'd like to keep it here until the solicitor takes a look.
That's my own view.
I'm okay with that because it feels rushed to me.
Okay.
We need to go to executive session.
And I'm like, absolutely.
Okay. All right.
So we'll keep that here as long as keep it here. Yeah.
With the with the with the dress code.
I think we did a good job today. We did.
We did a lot.
Should we trade dress and grooming and probably take 30 seconds?
Well, I don't know.
Okay.
Yeah, I was I was trying to be optimistic.
I know. Yeah. 609. All right.
Okay.
Now the next meeting is the curriculum.
Counsel would have gone over. We could have finished.
I'm sorry.
The next thing is that scheduled until February 11th.
So do we want to hold these until then?
I'm comfortable.
I don't I don't see either of these policies
making a huge difference in our our day to day practice again.
Okay.
All right. Well, thank you all.
Meeting adjourned at 610.
Thank you.
I'm sorry about curriculum.