Okay, we're recording. Thank you, Betsy. Welcome to the April 28th, 2025 meeting of the Brookline School Committee's policy subcommittee. We have two items on the docket today. One is the is a proposed student civil rights
policy/non-discrimination policy and one is a building access and use policy. We'll start though with an approval of the minutes for April 7th, 2025. Can I have a motion for those? I move those minutes.
Carolyn, do you want to second that? I'll second it. Okay, Jesse, how do you vote? Yes. Carolyn, yes. And I vote yes. Okay. I'd like to switch the order of the two agenda items if that's okay with
you both because I think the second docket item will be relatively brief and the first item will be relatively lengthy. So, I'm going to start with the building access and use policy. And Betsy, I'm going to share my screen if that's all right with you.
Did you just switch it around or something? I thought you said you were going to start with the one that's going to take longer first. I thought No, I would like to start with the one that will take shorter. Oh, yes. Okay. You said it the other way around. That's what I'm saying. Thank you. Sorry about that. I'll start with a short one.
Yes. Can you confirm that you can see my screen, everyone? Yes, we can. Okay. So, this is the school uh a proposed school policy on building access and usage. Um where we left it last time is that
um I was going to send it around. Thank you, Jesse. I think you wrote the initial draft. Is that right? Yes. Thank you again for doing that. Uh I was going to send it around to um after school coordinators and their
boards. Um and I did that and we received only one short comment uh which was that we uh it was the same comment received from two different afterchool
coordinators and it if I could summarize the point it was that they would be willing to pay extra for security if that meant that security would be available to let students into the building and that this the after school
programs themselves wouldn't be responsible for for that task. Um the the issue is that um without security's availability,
their own personnel is taken away from after school responsibilities to perform security duties. Um that it's a burden on their personnel. it's something that they shouldn't really be doing in the first place and they'd happily pay a fee
for it. So, I put a version of some proposed language right here. It was echoed by one of the board members for for that uh after school program and by another after school coordinator. So, I just want to draw
your attention to it if you haven't seen it already. and then otherwise I just want to open it up for comment. Um so on that on that one that's in the pink um Stephen since I'm I'm only seeing this for the first time. Sure. This paragraph
[Music] um is this because after school programs are less people in the building? I mean, I go to a lot of the elementary schools for meetings and stuff, whatever. There there's no there no security personnel there. They're just locked doors and stuff like that, right? They want
security personnel there and they'll pay for them. They're doing the Yeah. Why are we saying they'd be subject to fees? Why don't we just say that um uh after school programs can on their own accord, you know, hire security, you know,
vetted security personnel to provide physical security if required or as required. I think what they're saying is they want to um they're proposing that existing security uh be made available at a cost to their
programs in the buildings as a first priority and as a next priority they could consider something like that. So I don't understand it because I mean these fees should be directed to the provision of door security. All the schools are locked. I mean, you know,
you have access key cards and all this other stuff. What What is What fees are we going to charge with the buildings already locked down? I I don't I don't get it. So, there are currently building security during school hours and they're
proposing that that building security be extended beyond regular operational hours and that the after school programs kick in for that cost. So again, provision of additional security. Is this human security or is this Oh, well,
you should say that then because this to me just reads have better door locks or have better I see. So personnel. Yeah. Yeah. There you go. There you go. Because I I don't generally see security personnel in the buildings. I mean, maybe they're hidden or something. I just see a lot of, you know, card key
access and stuff like that, locked doors. So, I mean, this is news to me that like after school programs at Hayes or something would want security personnel um after 2:30 or after 3:30 to 5 or something, right? Actual like security
guards. Part of the problem too, I think, is they're saying that they're being asked to, for instance, let um somebody who left a book behind or someone who needs to get access to the building into the
building. They're being asked to let them in. And they're trying to operate their after school program and it's a conflict for them and it's not always easy to say no because they're known to the community. So, it's a difficult
situation for them to be placed in. It's not just like they want to hire their own security. They want to see if they could work with existing security personnel. I I'm trying to I'm just trying to share what I I mean I know that when I have to get in like for
picking up my grandkids or something, if I knock on the door and no one answers, usually like a or if I buzz a um somebody from the school maintenance crew that's cleaning the floors like after main school is over, opens the door, says hi to me, I say hi to him and
I go in, you I mean, it's I I I'm not I'm not getting this idea of all the schools now having additional security personnel and that we're going to subject to fees meaning that they're going to pay 100% of it or they're going to be char how are we going to decide
how much by this policy how much of um to the extent possible sort of leaves leaves it pretty wide open to interpretation. Are we going to charge them the full 100 bucks an hour or something it cost for a security guard or they seem open to that. They just want to regularize it and they want to
they can't um they can't make the request directly. Who can't the after school the after school programs they're making a request that building security be available um even if it's at a cost to
them. They don't want to bring their own security systems into it because that seems wasteful or unnecessary. If I'm not doing the point justice, I apologize. The other thing is is that the questions, Jesse. Yeah, the fees that Well, I mean, yeah, the fees in the
second sentence don't don't relate to personnel, Stephen. They just say the fees should be directed to the provision of door security. I get it, right? And the security access, which is already all there. That's what the I think it's really I think it's really
about personnel. Okay. Uh door security suggests a passcode. Who who's Yeah. Who who's going to um right who's going to like who who's who who in the um school district's going to take responsibility for managing all this these security personnel that are
suddenly going to show up like through a company FiveStar or somebody and No, no, no. Right. So they're not asking for add for door security that is unknown to the schools. They're asking for security personnel
that are known to the schools who are made available for additional hours to the extent possible. Uhhuh. So this would have to be negotiated. I I don't even know if these are hours that would be acceptable to existing
security. So before this would ever get voted in, we'd have to determine whether this was feasible. Yeah. Yeah. And the other thing is is that I mean from what I know about some of the after school programs, their their budgets are super tight. This is coming from them.
All all eight. This is coming from the two that participated, right? I think I'd want to I think I I think it'd be only fair before we were to move this forward though to send this clause to all the other ones saying just so you're aware, you may be subject to additional
fees for for man or personnel, right? Human security uh after hours for which you're going to have to add into your budget now at your building and then see what they say because this is sort of like an additional How about this? habit after school programs will to the extent
possible be presented with an option for fee based additional security or something like that. Well, I mean to the extent possible or just if required. I mean I mean it's up to them, right? You're we're saying that the policy says
that if if an afterchool program wishes to add human security, then they have to bear the cost of it. If if if it should even be in the policy, but okay. I mean, that's sort of what I'm under what I'm hearing. And maybe I did a poor
job phrasing it. Andy, just to catch you up, we're discussing a paragraph that came at the request of two of the afterchool programs requesting the facilitation by PSB um between after school programs and
existing PSB school security that they would pay for so that their afterchool programs didn't have to uh let people into the building during after school time, which they're finding to be um a burdensome activity. people banging on
the doors asking to be let in to to retrieve missing items while they're trying to conduct their after school programs. So I think what I drafted is not very clear, but they're essentially willing to pay
for pay to be pay for additional security personnel who are known to the schools to provide regular services during after school time. So are we saying something like after school programs may
utilize you know security personnel beyond regular operations to provide entry control and that's it. Yeah, maybe that's what maybe that's what we should say, Stephen. How would you put it?
After school programs may utilize um now is this are these existing security p existing PSB security personnel? Yes. Is that what who they are? People we hired. So after school programs may use
existing PSP circular hotel to provide a necessary support. I mean, whatever it could be, right? That whatever it is. I mean, that's okay with me as a policy. I mean, they can they're allowed to do it. That's what the policy allows them to do during after school. Uh, you know, during their hours of operation, maybe
for the after during their during their hours of operation or something and that's it. I mean, that's all that's all that Andy. Now, you want to talk about what it's going to cost them? Mhm.
Okay. So if if we're charging them 100% of that cost because why should PSB pay for it? I mean now we're adding to the fee but it'll be uh um such you know um yeah I mean that yeah programs may something like that.
Well, I mean, are we going to say PSB will charge the afterchool program for this? That's all. That's what I would say then. PSB will charge the uh the after school program for this uh for this um not benefit for this um uh option or
something like that, right? For for for the use of this option. Yeah, that's I mean that's what we're I mean that's pretty direct. I mean we're saying they're allowed the policy allows them to use PSB security personnel but they'll also be charged to do so. So that basically the district isn't taking
any we're not losing anything here but there'll have to be some methodology by which by which you're there there already is methodology for um for billing after school programs. So this would just be integrated into that. Well, billing. I'm saying the scheduling
of the security personnel also, right? The billing. I get it. But also, it's how do you work out what, you know, how many hours per week in which location you need a security person by which door to do what tasks, you know, all that stuff. Okay. Andy, Caroline, any thoughts on
this? Any other thoughts on this policy? Um, no. It sounds like you guys are are doing a better job than I would on the details. Um, I don't have any other Go ahead.
Sorry. I don't have any other proposed changes. Does this um significantly modify the existing building access and usage policy, Stephen? Yes. Would it be helpful for us
to look at a sidebyside or something so we know what what what's going to happen here after we you know if we bring this forward to the full school committee I'm wondering if someone's going to ask well is this similar is this about halfway or is this completely different Beth did do you recall where in the handbook the
existing one is the other thing is um Um the the just wanted to double check when we're talking about security and after school program. Stephen, the thing is we only talk
about after school program usage um in the next to last section. So we haven't even like um because I didn't have this security piece in there before like this. So the after school program usage, do you want to put that paragraph the
the one that's in different the one Yeah, I thought about that. I think it belongs here because it's under I think it's fine to be here even though the policy hasn't introduced after school usage is even a I think so option. Okay. Um I found the existing
policy. It's in section K uh K1 community use of active school buildings. Do you want to share your screen so we can look at it? Sure. Let me pull it up. Can everyone see it? Mhm. Sure. So I think this is our existing one, right? Community use of school
[Music] buildings. fees, administrative guidelines, right? Payments, right? I remember that, right? I I don't have any concerns. I I like this draft a lot, Jesse. Thank you. Um,
would anyone like to move it to advance it to Sorry, I do have one quick question. Sorry. And now I I don't know if I don't have in front of me the draft screen again. The part about there was something in
there about cameras. Um, yes, there is in that same security measures paragraph. So, I just wanted to see that again. It's that second sentence. Cameras may be installed.
So, I mean, I don't have a problem with that except when we had the conversation about um exterior cameras at BHS, you know, it was like a more in-depth conversation. And
um I just don't know. I I don't know if this is like we're putting something in here that actually would um require a bigger conversation.
Do we even have like indoor security cameras today? I didn't think so. So maybe I agree with you. I agree with you. Oh, but so when you're saying may Oh, but it's I mean Yeah, I don't think they're indoors. I think that that's what I'm saying. So
yeah, but I actually think that's a good point because I think that's superseded by the um the surveillance policy that we're going to discuss um Okay. Thursday anyway. Yeah, I Yeah, I feel like we're kind of jumping into something. Yes.
Okay. Yeah, I agree with that. Okay. Would you would is everybody okay with me taking that out? Yeah. Okay. I am. Okay. Thanks. Thanks Carolyn for find. Yeah, it didn't. Yeah. Okay. Would anyone like to move to
advance it to the full committee? I will. I'll second. Great. Jesse, how do you vote? I vote yes. Uh Carolyn, yes. Andy, I'll abstain because I had to miss most of this discussion. Sorry.
It's all right. And I vote yes. I would suggest though um um Stephen that um Betsy renamed this to sound the same I guess as the one it's replacing when I wrote it I think that school policy on may could come out probably it could say section whatever it is. Yes. Okay. Yep.
So you know how to do that part. I mean you know Yeah. We'll take care of that. Okay. So it looks more like it's about to drop into a policy manual. And that stuff with the dates and all those other things that all gets like sort of carried along. Yes. It it will. Yes. If our intent is to have this
replace section K, you know, whatever it was. Yeah. Yeah. Super. Okay. Thank you. Um on a roll. Let's move to the a proposed. Can you still see my screen or do I have to re No, it's fine.
Okay. So, before we move to this, uh let me bring uh Becky in to go through this slide. So, um, we're going to spend the rest of the meeting discussing a proposed civil rights and/or non-discrimination policy.
I thought our process for doing this would be to go through it section by section. And our goal could be to see if we could get to a place where we could advance. We could take a vote to advance it. We don't get there, we don't get there. Um, but that's my goal.
Um, and if I thought also if we don't agree on whether to make or revert changes, I thought we should keep both versions available on uh keep keep um keep either a changed or reverted
version, but keep something in the comments so that the school committee could see both versions when they review it. That's my thinking on a process. Um, so let's go to Becky. I just asked her to uh do a quick
refresher on why we're doing this policy in the first place. What are we being brought into greater compliance with specifically? So, over to you, Becky. Great. Thank you, Steve, and good to see everyone.
Um, so the policy is designed to bring the public schools of Brooklyn into better compliance with multiple state and federal laws. Um, we just lost this. No, I just stopped sharing it so I could watch just for a minute. Oh,
please come. I'm going to share it again. Okay, no problem. Um and and the existing um policy when I was brought on by the public schools of Brooklyn um had some good elements but
it was not up to date in terms of the expectations of the implementation of title six which is the federal law regarding student um civil rights and as members of protected groups. um title nine which protects students from um any
discrimination related to gender and sex including sexual harassment and sexual misconduct of various kinds and then um three state laws in particular chapter 76 151c and 199 which also protects students civil rights in
Massachusetts. Um we also made sure that the policy the the new draft policy is consistent um with department of elementary and secondary education guidance regarding non-discrimination on gender identity. So um almost as we go
through it today um many sections of the policy are very specifically drawing language from these statutes. Not because the goal of the policy is to turn the public schools of Brooklyn into law enforcement. We're not law
enforcement. We're not civil rights law enforcement. We're not um criminal law enforcement. But we want to make sure that we're holding our students and our employees um to the standards of the law so that we're in compliance with the law. And the policy is aimed to be
written in an understandable way um to ensure that no one would ever be um violating either state or federal law by their conduct. And we as we talk about it, we'll also notice sections where we've gone above and beyond the law because I believe that's consistent with
the values of the Boston of the Brookline public schools. Um, and we want to make sure not only to be in compliance with the law, but to be an affirming, welcoming um place for students to learn and for our staff um
to be their best selves. And I just mentioned that um the the policy is largely drawn from previous work I did in the Boston public schools which is hence my slip a moment ago. Um and that policy has won wide recognition in
Massachusetts and nationally including from the attorney general from the Mass Executive Office of Safety. um a team at Nor Eastern that specialized in hate crime prevention um held out our policy as a national model to schools across
the country and we're trying to make sure that Brooklyn is compliant with the law and also um is applying best practices. Thanks Becky. Any questions before we start or shall we jump in? I do have a
question. So Becky, when you say to bring us into better compliance, so this is helpful because what I've heard before and maybe I didn't listen carefully enough was to bring us into compliance which implied to me that we
were out of compliance. So in what ways? So you were talking about degrees of compliance. So can you be specific about what was insufficient or was felt by
someone in PSB? I don't really know how this was initiated actually. Um in what ways is our existing um policy not compliant enough? Yeah, many
of the sections that were added to the policy are aimed at compliance. So, I'll give an example. One of the sections that didn't exist before that is in the new draft is around the rights of pregnant and um parenting students. This is required under title 9. Um that is
mandatory language. So, um and there are many other examples that we can go through together. The section on um gender identity that was significantly update updated from the existing policy is consistent with guidance from the department of elementary and secondary
education rooted in Massachusetts state law regarding gender identity and and student records. So I would say the majority of the additions to the policy are new areas of compliance and some are
aimed more towards either best practices or responding to school administrators concerns that schools were varying tremendously in their policies and protocols in terms of how they were implementing um their understanding of
the pre-existing um district policies. So I was hearing from school administrators and I was you know fortunate to spend quite a bit of time with some of the school administrators who said at our school we do it this way at their school they do it that way. Please help us have consistent
protocols. Help us define what is a policy violation. Help us understand what a good investigation is. Um give us examples of conduct so that we can consistently identify what kinds of conduct would violate the policy. So the I would say
there were three motivations in as I made changes. One is very basic requirements. Um for example the language about um natural and protective hairstyles is bringing us into compliance with a relatively new law called the called the crown act. So
there's lots of improvements to compliance. Second best practices in terms of what works in policies. And third, a direct response to what I was hear hearing from school administrators and also to some extent from parents um and families in Brooklyn who wanted to
see more consistent practices. Thanks Becky. That was really helpful. I I think maybe one way that you could be helpful to us as we go through the policy section by section is you can let us know if we're debating an area that you've changed to make us more compliant
or you've changed to change to help us uh put us into to to update us so that we're proposing good policy practices. So that if we have a disagreement um at least we should be um making an
update to improve our compliance, but we may not want to adopt a practice that you recommended. Does that sound fair, Jesse, Caroline, Andy? Okay, I think so. I'm I'm I'm processing what you said there. Okay. So with that,
I guess I guess one one question I do have Stephen then or maybe for Becky is if I look at other um cities and towns have already put gender identity for example because you mentioned that as a specific thing that would be a improvement in our policy over existing
policy. Um other other cities maybe they're not fully compliant. I think from my reading through the you know online MASC policy manual for many towns seems like they are. um they they they're much shorter and they refer in
their um uh in their legal references to many of the uh laws that you you know that you have referred to like Title Six, Civil Rights Act of 64, uh Rehabilitation Act of 1973, No Child Left Behind, Mass General Laws, cross
references, and things like that. So, I'm just wondering, I mean, they they they get the gender identity, for example, as an example, or gender expression, a point across in their policy for non-discrimination, um yet they're not
um spelling out, I guess you were saying, that parents want to see more detail or something. Um they're not spelling out in these other online, you know, copies of other cities and towns in Massachusetts policies such a like a flourishing amount of detail.
Yeah. So I think um as the more detailed version of the policy has been looked at by those who with the deepest expertise in the field um they feel so legal experts um folks who are involved in
civil rights law enforcement um you know I've I've partnered over the years with people many people who have worked at the um US Department of Education Office of Civil Rights. it is more effective to have a detailed policy than a bullet point policy, I might call
it. Okay? um because we're providing guidance to folks who are on the ground who are saying, "Okay, a student used this inappropriate term, but the other student said it was okay with them and it was their nickname and is this really
going to like they every situation is unique and the more detailed the policy is, it's more useful to the folks on the ground trying to implement it." Um so that level of detail is very important to school administrators. um it's very helpful to them. Okay. Thank you. And I
guess I'll just say one other thing. It is a very um deliberate decision not to reference specific laws in the policy. Um and the reason for that is um districts have created liability for themselves when they say, "We
investigated this and we determined it was a violation of Title 9," for example. Because then what happens is if there was uh litigation and a parent says I believe that u my child experienced um sexual violence or was sexually assaulted by another child and
here is the district's investigation right here that says it violated Title 9. So therefore there's liability by the district. They they broke the law. Instead what we want to say is this child's conduct violated the policy. We're not pretending to be law
enforcement. We can't we're not authorized to make legal conclusions. And it's a district um it's a mistake that many districts make by um making it seem as if they are have the power to determine a violation of the law.
Well, that's interesting. Thank you. You're very welcome. Okay, let's start with the beginning. Um um so at the very beginning um well I guess we should just jump into the first issue non-discrimination versus bias-based uh discrimination
versus bias-based. Becky, can you can you say a little bit about why you chose bias-based versus discrimination? Yeah. So, um this is very similar to the issue I was just referencing about why we don't
um mention legal violations in the policy. By saying that discriminatory conduct occurred, that would be a violation of civil rights law and there is liability associated with it. So instead we say bias-based conduct occurred and should there be litigation.
It is up to a court of law or um the US department of education office of civil rights to determine whether it rose to the level of discrimination which is a civil rights violation that comes with um liability.
I sorry I got to jump in with a question that sort of goes back to even further towards the beginning. I think I'm following you Becky when you're saying that an intention here is to protect the
district from liability in terms of the law. and you're drawing a distinction between the law and this policy. And you just said something
about protecting the district, I think, from I don't remember exactly what you said, but this is called a civil rights policy. So that sounds like if you violate the
policy, you've violated, right? Yeah, I don't have a problem with rights as defined under the two laws that I don't know if we call them laws the ci the civil rights legal protection. So I
guess I just struggle to sort of understand that distinction but I'll I'll keep following. Yeah, I I'll just give it one more example. Um unfortunately in my career I have been deposed in litigation multiple times and
I'm and often one of the first questions that the um plaintiff's council asks me is so I see here on this investigation that you determined that this um was discrimination and I say no we did
not what but it says right here that you found there was bias based conduct. Yes, but we did not make a determination that it was discrimination. We don't actually have the right to make that determination. It's it's a common error that districts make um in writing their
policy as if it were capable of making legal determinations. And um frankly, I don't I wouldn't ever want the district to be in a situation where a policy violation is considered an emission of a legal violation. But it's a civil rights policy. So I
guess I would ask then when you say so you're saying no if you were deposed and you say no I didn't say somebody discriminated. I said they violated the policy but the
policy is a civil rights and non-discrimination policy. So that's where I'm a little lost. Yeah. I mean, I think Go ahead. I I I see where Caroline's going. I think it they seem like equally legally binding categories, right? Is that what you're saying,
Caroline? Like both discrimination. I think that's probably a way of saying it. And so that's where so I'm struggling to understand how this is not what you just I think you articulated it was understood. Yeah. I
mean, I think I don't honestly feel super strongly about the title of the policy. I think either one of those works. Um, or it could also be called like bias uh the policy to protect students from bias-based conduct and sexual misconduct if you prefer that
phrasing. But where I do feel more strongly is in saying this is about discriminatory conduct. So, one is trying to imply a commitment to prevent um any legal violation and another
sounds like we're making a conclusion that there was a legal violation. So, I'm flexible about the name of the policy. Um I see what you're what you mean, Carolyn, and and I think if you thought there was ambiguity there, um it certainly could be changed. And really
my question, I'm using the title as an example, but your what you just described speaks more to what I'm struggling with intellectually, just what it is that this is aimed at achieving. And so I think when you
talk about conduct, that's probably helpful. So I don't need to quibble over the title right now. I'm really still at sort of like lens but and I also don't want to hold this up. Okay. Yeah. But I
I I also don't opinion here. Yeah. I just just to jump in for a second, Stephen. Um I'm a little cons I'm a little concerned about like the language here because um Title Six itself prohibits
discrimination. That's the word. It doesn't say it prohibits bias-based conduct. And I'm I'm having an issue here with like dividing between what the what the what the what the actual Civil Rights Act says and what we want the district to do. We want the district not
to talk about it in terms of people being discriminated, but rather we want to talk about it using language of bias-based. Um that's right. because we don't want to put a principle in the role of making a legal conclusion and saying this child discriminated against
that child would be a legal conclusion or this or this child's conduct violated Title N. That would be a legal conclusion. Yeah. But but but but you know um honestly it's the same thing. You're just using a different word to protect the district against a
legal challenge. Is that it's actually not. It's setting a higher bar. It's saying we're not going to wait for until conduct happens that would violate the law. We're actually going to address conduct that's unwelcoming. That's bias. I mean, if it it let's say it just
happened today in a school. Okay. I mean, it's not it's not developing, Becky. It happened. It was discrimination, let's say. So, what why would that be why is there like this earlier step of bias-based contact that we want to Yeah. intervene and we want
to let me let me give you an example. If one child was affectionately calling another child um a um racial slur and they saw this as as friendly, right? We want to address
that. We want to tell them that's not a word we use in the public schools of Brooklyn. But if a parent was to bring that to a federal lawsuit or a lawsuit in Massachusetts, it's highly unlikely that would be found to be discriminatory if
the intent was friendly. In that situation, we want to educate them. We want to tell them if they do that again, we're going to have to apply the code of conduct. We're going to have to explain that just because the two of you think that word is okay doesn't mean other people around you aren't going to feel harmed by it. So, we're going to address
it under the policy that that word is not okay, but it doesn't rise to the level of discrimination because of the content context, the intent, sometimes the age of the children, um the fact that it was um cons mutually consensual.
All those things would go to that it doesn't rise to the level of discrimination. Sorry, it's not I'm sorry. Isn't it not that it doesn't rise to the level of discrimination, but that there's a jurist credential difference that the PSB
policy has juristp prudence over bias-based conduct, but we don't have juristp prudence when it comes to discriminatory conduct. That is also true because we're not trained in making that determination. The policy is providing the guidelines
for what we believe to be bias-based conduct based on our idea of best practices and now our our efforts at compliance with a standard so that it at the very least falls within compliance with a legal standard
that is a discrimination standard but also best practices that have an educational um have educational judgment so That that's our ballpark. Discrimination is not our ballpark here. Correct.
That that's my understanding of of it's both introducing bias. Yeah. It's both that we don't have actually the the right to make legal um determinations that can only happen in a court of law or civil rights law enforcement agency. So, it's partly we don't have the right,
we don't the training, we don't have um the jurist prudence. You're absolutely right. the jurisdiction, but we also want to hold a higher standard. We don't want to wait to talk jurisdiction, not juristprudence. Yeah. Yeah. Jurisdiction.
Yeah. Let let's let's can we dive in and then maybe we can come back to this if we have time. I I just have another question about Becky's statement. If you can help me out, Becky. So if if a um if a building leader was to um was to
examine uh potential discrimination or harassment and if a big if a building leader was to make a determination about allegations made and if a building leader was to summarize in that
determination that there was either sufficient or insufficient evidence to support a violation of mass general law XYZ. See, is that out of turn? Is that considered stepping way out of the boundaries or something based on what I learned from you today? Yes. Ah, okay.
That's interesting. And then and then in addition, it could actually, like you said, um there could be a prohibition on let's say harassment in a district policy like this one, right? Or retaliation. The policy could be referenced, but MGL should not. Is that correct? Exactly. Thank you. Okay,
that's very interesting to know. Thank you. All right, that helps me, Stephen. Okay, thank you. Thanks for that was really helpful to me as well. Okay, so let's go to the comments here. So, I hear you both. I hear you Jesse and Carolyn
that more succinct is better. So, let's let's do it. Um um the only suggestion of reversions that I had in this first paragraph were um
one where it says where you crossed out physical and mental disability. Jesse, I suggest leaving in physical and mental um because families of students with disabilities tend to want to articulate specifics of disabilities.
So, I'd like to propose reverting that, but otherwise, I didn't have any um I have no problems with the with the cuts that you suggest. Just the one other is the natural based and based on what Becky said, leaving in protective
hairstyle. Um given natural or protective Yeah, I linked to that. Okay. Is that supposed to say Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead, Carolyn. Is that supposed to say protected hairstyle? No. Natural or
protective hairstyle is the exact language of the Crown Act, which is specifically aimed to protect young people of color who have particular hairstyles that some school districts have unfortunately prohibited. Um, so this is a very specific language of the
law, right? Is it or No, it's protective. Um, do you want to explain that? Can we just Can we just um Can we accept that it's part of the That's fine. I
don't I'll look it up. Okay. Um, do would you be okay with reverting this specific cut, physical or mental? Yeah, that's fine. Um, as long as we're consistent all the way else through, you know. Okay. Um, and then, sorry, I also,
this was one of my questions. genetic information. Yeah, this is also part of the law. Um, this has to do with protections from there's a growing science um around genetics. So, for example, um I bet
everyone here has heard of the BA gene um which makes someone more likely to develop certain cancers later in life. Um and there is protection from discrimination based on having the BA gene or other um genetic information. And this is of course a very um widely
growing field um where increasingly you're able to gather information about your genetics and conditions that you're predisposed to developing in the future. So to give a really far-fetched example that hopefully is illustrative, if a child were to um come in the door and
say, "I want to go to the Boston public schools." and the district had records that they are likely to develop a certain condition imminently and they were turned away from the doors of the district for that reason that would be considered um discriminatory. So this is another area of
protection under the law. Um okay. So um I don't know how come this isn't so I'm I'm just accepting changes unless I got it. Yeah, sure. No one wants to do it. I'm accepting. All right. So then
over here, discriminatory conduct. I I didn't have any problems here. Is it okay if I just continue to accept Jesse's changes? So again, say bias based conduct. Oh, I see. Yeah, that's what I was asking about before, whether that should
be changed. So here, yeah, everywhere. I mean, I'm I I hear that. So I I'll do everything above like the district prohibits discrimination, right? Most people you walk down the street, you say discrimination, everybody understands what you mean. Nobody's thinking about the legal side of it. They're thinking
about being discriminated against. So if you say there's some bias based conduct happening at you, they're going to look at you like, you know, what are you on? So I'm saying to me, that's a very complex term for most people, bias-based conduct. And the policy has got to be something our parents understand and,
you know, casual readers understand. I think they all get discrimination. I don't think everybody's going to get bias based. It has like a separate kind of um do you think it should be defined in the in the policy? It is defined in the policy. It is. Yeah. Yeah. There is
somewhere. Okay. Um Okay. Then here so then so then in the first paragraph even what do we mean by discrimination where we say prohibit discrimination? Is that legal discrimination or is that bias-based behavior? to be consistent. the third the third
line of the third line first third third first what is what are we going to do there there and also in the first in the second sentence a district prohibits discrimination I think we're still against discrimination I think um it's just it's
a legal standard that we're not referencing as often as we're referencing bias-based right I mean we could still reference a legal standard but we're really articulating an a a pract practice like a I don't have the right
words for this, I apologize. Like an education relevant practice that our policy is oriented around. Yeah. But here's here's the here's the problem I have with this. Um, a student could come in one day, right, with no history and
for or come back on the first day of school next year and and and um conduct themselves in a way that's actually discrimination. It's not a question of bias-based or not bias-based. It's actually real discrimination under the law. So like, you know, that's what I
mean, are we saying that's just what bias based really means? I mean, let's say a kid actually comes in or an employee and actually does something based on one of those protected things that you have there, you know, age or So, doesn't a reporting requirements articulated in this policy still trigger
an investigation that can have a finding of discrimination that has legal consequences? Got it. Okay. Okay. Okay. So, let's keep going. Retaliation against Right.
[Music] Um, yep. And then you added Did you Did you add these examples, Jesse? I I believe so. I believe they were there, right? Okay. Some of them. Yeah, they were there.
Um, right. And then you added this. Okay. Here I wanted to suggest reverting this one too because this was also um more legal than I think our policy needs to
be. So this was along the lines of Becky's comment that um we just need to focus on articulating standards for PSB, not This was just this was just sorry this was just a
rewarding of of what was already there. So if you want to I mean I didn't I didn't add this. I just rewrote it. So yeah. Hold on. Let me just see what was Oh, I see. So you're just tightening it up. I tightened it up. Yeah. Okay. Um I would just end it right here then.
Uh yeah, sure. Okay. you. Oh, you want to take out the name? It's just that it also applies to employees. So, I think you have to reference either ah you're right. Um employee code of conduct or employee policies and expectations or some some language like that. Is there a
code of conduct for employees also? No, not really. So, so whatever employee So, what did you have here? These are all examples. I think it's all right. I think it's not reference specifically there either. So
want to tighten up. It's okay. Um so what what page are you on now? I'm sorry. Can you see my No, I can see but top of page two. Top of page two. Yeah. So this is this area here that you have with the lines through it. Now
Stephen, that bulleted list is the one I moved up when I re redesigned this section there. You see that? Got it. Take it over. You can take um All right. So wait, wait. So Okay. So
Carolyn and Jesse and Carolyn agree on getting rid of all this. Well, that's the the bullet part you already have upstairs, so you can get rid of it anyway. Okay. So, I'm going to another part um that policy aimed at promoting learning environment thing that's been
already spoken about I think in sentence one or two at the top in the intro. Okay. Okay. Um I'm fine Andy. Feel free to um I feel like I'm bulldozing you. Um I'm just accepting all these changes. I
don't have any objections to these. Um Becky, feel if we're if we're taking out critical language, please let us Just two things. Um, one is at the bottom of page one, I do feel strongly about the footnote that is there. Right. Right. I agree with you actually because
if we're if we're using any of the language you used previously, then I don't want to plagiarize. So, I I would like to revert that, Jesse. I just think we should it there's no there's no harm in chatting out the BPS policy if we're using some of their language, and I don't want to
plagiarize. Sure. Okay. Um and the one other point just in removing um in the section that where we just were looking at a moment ago regarding the student of code of conduct, the original language stated that um employees may be subject
to discipline up to and including termination for violation of this policy. And I think it is important to have some reference to employee discipline along with um the student code of conduct. There's different ways to phrase it. I don't feel strongly but
somehow to make it clear that employees are subject to discipline based on violation of this policy. Obviously, if we were to have an employee who was engaged in egregious bias-based conduct or sexual misconduct toward a student, we want to be uh make it very clear in the policy that that would be taken very
seriously. I I think disciplinary action is sufficient. That's fine with me. You want to do you want to include after violations of this policy by students, staff, or employees? That way you're covering all the Great. By students or employees?
Uh yeah, that's Yeah, I guess employees would cover staff. You're right. Yeah. Yeah. That way it covers everybody the way they're supposed to be covered. Okay. Um I'm just I I think this is all taken care of. So I'm going to accept these changes
here. Becky, please yell at us if we're doing terrible harm. Um same here. Um, I just shortened it to there. That's Yep. All official publications. Yep. Same here. Must include the
following notice. Okay. The So, what was here previously? Oh, right. Prohibits discrimination. Again, it's the same word issue I had at the beginning that Yep. That's sort of what you see in the whole world. Everybody writes discrimination. So now we're changing it
and we're saying that we don't discriminate. Oh, wait, wait, wait. That reminds me. We previously had this as sex gender. I'm assuming that was standard language. Becky, was it? Or was that I am okay with that given that gender identity is next to it. I prefer
it the other way, but it's it's okay. Um, Jesse, if you have a preference, I'm happy to defer. Well, I'm saying if if if gender identity for Becky uh cleanly substitutes for the word gender after sex slash, then I'm okay with taking one of them out. Yeah.
I mean, as long as we're covering all our bases, I'm fine. Okay. We could take that out. Yeah. So, I'm going to leave in natural or protective hairstyle. Correct. And then we had to add military veteran status because of employees. Correct. Which is fine.
Okay. Um now where we say then at the back end of this the second line from the end or bias based intimidation threat or harassment um that interferes with the learn why wouldn't we just say discriminatory just like we said at the beginning of the
paragraph we sort of switched language because we can't determine what's discriminatory. Yeah. [Music] Let me just read the whole thing though. Okay. Base color age current record increase
all my disability. So how come we don't have um physical or mental disability here like we did above? Do you want to I'm just Thank you. Can I May I add that to be consistent? Yes. Thank you.
I just want to make sure we're say and or or I think you said or you said I think before it's one it's at the end of the right yes friend or okay pregnancy homelessness
okay sexual orientation oh genetic information not genetics and the fourth row fourth fourth line second Thank you. Yeah.
Okay. I proposed 1B. I don't know what you will think of it. Um, given that we're shortening it, I'm thinking you probably don't like it. However, given the current climate, I wanted to put something that protect
that was an articulation of a proactive view of our view on our students rights. This was when it was still more of a non-discrimination policy. Um, I'm curious what the com
what the subcommittee thinks whether whether it's worth having it in there. I I need to read it a second time. Hold on. Sure. Yeah. I I this like this reads like a like a
basically a speech policy which I'm not sure needs to be part of a bias-based conduct. Well, I'm seeing this as part of a civil rights policy that we're committed to
free expression as a core civil right. So that's where I think so I I think I understand that that's the goal of this Stephen, but I
think I tend to agree with where Jesse seems to be going that it's like seems like something different. Um and and brings in
more stuff that is um really subjective. Um so that definitely gives me pause. Andy, what do you I think it's laudable,
but doesn't seem to sit very naturally inside this policy. It's gone. Okay. Next. I think we Andy, you're so clear. This is now bias-based. Um Oh, did you just add this just now,
Jesse? I didn't touch it, though. Okay. You It might have uh just No, just been over. This is all This is all good. bias. We're keeping bias-based [Music]
uh gender. We're keeping that. You got to take the slash out, I guess, though, after the word sex. Yes. What was the concern with retaliation? I feel like you took it out in a bunch of places. I I thought we I don't believe I don't believe it was at the top. Oh, you're
right. You're right. Yeah. Yeah, it was just a mistake just a mistake or an oversight that it was in there at all. So, right, it should be consistently present. It is required by both title six and title 9. Okay. So, it should be
discrimination based on retaliation. What it means is that when you bring forward a complaint and you say, let's say a parent comes to a principal and says, I think my child is experiencing bias-based bullying based on their sexual orientation. We can't then flunk
the child on their next test to get back at them for raising the issue. It's about getting back at someone for exercising their rights under the policy. Okay. It should be physical or mental what you just typed in there. I know. I'm I'm going to change it. Um, so this is after ancestry retaliation. So
I'm just going to copy and paste this. So we had this. There's one other place for pass. You just passed it right there in the middle after two. Yeah, based on and then you'll have to clean it up though because that also Yeah, here it changed
to housing status rather than homelessness, but the one above said homelessness on I'm just restoring it like that. Okay, where's the homelessness one? Oh, it's in the middle there now. Okay, good. Yeah, that's better. I'm just copying and pasting
from now on. Actually, do we need to say it again? Well, you it was inside something that just disappeared. Sorry. I see. Yeah. Sorry. Let me let me be more careful. Um bias-based contact
that constitutes discrimination based on If I was you, I would only pick it from the word race in the middle of Yep. That's what I'm doing. That's what I'm doing. Yeah. And didn't just replace it that way. And that way it got it. Thank
you. Yeah. All right, employees become aware. I'm accepting all your grammatical stuff except for bias-based. I'll do a full um read through for grammar afterwards. I'm
trying to I'm trying to follow as you go. Yeah, I'm just taking your edits in real time. Yeah. So, is this the part that may trigger an impact bargaining obligation um that employees who become aware of conduct a
certain kinds of conduct um have to report the soon? No, that's the reporting section below. Okay. So in there right where you are right now um Stephen the conduct conduct needs a space conduct potentially and then up above one there's some issue there
property damage or disruption now the line right above got messed up a little has a T in front of the word damage or something thank you and then I don't know what happened with the what that is yeah property oh there you go students education school activities okay here is a big question
so here is the use of examples again. Yep. Um I like having these examples. This is where I think um administrators are going to get real guidance about how this policy can be used in real
situations. Yeah. But like the first sentence just a rehash of what we already talked about. Like in other words, conduct includes treating students differently because of blah blah. You know, that's fair. That's fair. I'm really talking about the this the elimination of all the examples. issue my issue is is that maybe um or at
least my suggestion is that so those kinds of things should be part of training when you train people in the policy you know about policy adherence or when people new employees come in or we're doing PD at some time with the teachers and you know in a K to8 school we're going through different policies they need to know about or they got
updated part of the training for the civil rights the um discrimination policy is here are the kind of examples you might you might want to keep in mind but the policy itself doesn't really need to spell out every sing, you know, we have examples
throughout the Go ahead. Sorry. I mean, let's compare this to various definitions of anti-semitism that are being proposed. The heart to me of any of those definitions is the list of things that are and in some cases are not anti-semitism. Without that, um,
they'd be very hard to interpret. So I I think if we're serious about this, we should define examples of um the kind of behavior that we don't want. I think it's very important and um you see examples like this in for example the Massachusetts Commission Against
Discrimination has a model sexual harassment policy that requires every employer um to have examples in their policy. Um and the reason is otherwise um people may make mistakes in both directions. They will either a parent
will say, "Oh, that's just, you know, how kids are. You should just be okay with that to their child versus looking here and saying, "Oh, maybe that actually is conduct that matters." Um, so sometimes people um understate um what should what is concerning and other
times people overstate um and you know, somebody looked at my child funny and I'm sure it's because of a group they're a member of. that's not enough to violate the policy. And school administrators um when we went through the policy together in person um a few
months ago, this is one of their favorite parts. It really provides them with some sense of concrete examples that they can hold up against the facts of a particular situation to make a determination of whether it's a violation and how serious a violation it
is. And so when we're getting into this sort of concrete enactment conversation and and I'll kind of bring in also the example um that Andy raised
about various definitions of anti-semitism or maybe not even go there but I guess for me it's like when you're getting into concrete. And then I just want to confirm like all of this is to be connected to
um actions or or or um disciplinary actions or um interventions. Is that correct? Yes. And and I think Jesse's point is
absolutely Sorry, I wanted Oh, go ahead. If I can just finish. So, I would just and maybe it's a conversation for another day. I guess I would argue that the notion of adopting the IRA or any definition of anti-semitism, if not
connected to um interventions is different than what we're talking about here because this and what we're talking about here is so so I got to go to my version here.
So, it's something like um I'm going to temporarily um reject these changes so I can more easily see the stuff communicating derisively about a student of a particular
group, a protected group. Where where is that in the here? The like the first bullet. Oh, speaking wise I think this will lead to wait this one. Oh, here. So or refusal to use the gender identity
affirming name and or pronouns that a student has stated. So I guess I just struggle with and maybe this is just the purpose of this but I'm just being honest. I struggle then with these kinds of things which are in some cases subjective, in
some cases I think are a standard that is very difficult um for various reasons to define or a very difficult standard to not
like. So when you're talking about activating intervention, but somebody's still making a judgment call. I guess I guess what I'm struggling with is like I get that examples are helpful for definitions, but some of
these still feel or read as to me and come across as to me um pretty open to interpretation, subjective and and otherwise just tricky. So that's where I just I kind of
struggle. And I'll the example I'll use the I'll use the last one like if let's I don't know let's talk about uh an eight-year-old
kid and I mean we have I don't remember what age fourth graders are. Are they nine nineyear-old? We have fourth grade classrooms or have had where kids come in and the teacher says, "What gender do
you want to be today?" And there are stickers available. So, it changes frequently and that's an offer made by the school. And then if a 9-year-old kid like makes the
mistake that day because somebody changed their mind of what pronoun they wanted to use one day to the next. I just think we're getting into Yeah, that's exactly why the word refusal is there. Making a mistake is not a
refusal. So, oops, I said he and I meant to say she. That is not a violation of this policy. It's a refusal saying, "I don't care what your pronouns are. I'm not using them." And is that really something that you see that is a problem that needs to be called out?
Unfortunately, yes. Among children, actually, it's rare with children. It's more common with staff. Yeah. And I I guess I thinking on the when we were presented with the um the the
psychosocial report out from Matt Dubis a while ago about uh about various indicators showed that our student trans population was a much more at risk category at PSB. though it's not
surprising to hear that finding. It's not surprising to hear. So Becky, you're saying this is more the refusal word more would typically or or can apply to staff, but this says
student. Um that doesn't it's saying the pronoun of the student. So the refusal is by the staff member. The student is the one with the pronoun. the staff member is often unfortunately the one making the
refusal to use that. Okay. In my experience, um the younger generation is much more comfortable with um respecting a student's requested pronouns. I guess I would ask are are there
examples that we would want to strike or that we would want to change the language around and I would underline I think that Jesse's point is excellent in terms of the importance of training um because these things need to be discussed and
much more detailed um fact patterns um need to be part of that training we look at the nuances of um you know what reality looks like these but this is designed to give some framework um and I think your school administrators well they've already told me they find this
framework very helpful um because you know on a day-to-day basis something happens and they're like whoa I've never heard this one before let me go back to the policy and see does it fall in any of these categories is it similar to one of these can be very helpful um to
school administrators Would it be helpful maybe if in the introductory language to the example we specify that [Music] um Caroline I'm Jesse Jesse I'm thinking
about how to frame these examples in a way that that would make more that would that you feel that you'd feel more comfortable with. I mean, I can, you know, continue to contemplate and integrate this into my thinking.
I think I feel pretty strongly about the microaggression section. Okay. Wait, wait, before we get We were talking about the Can I um can I decline these changes? Are is there anything specific
in these changes that you want to maintain that you want to get rid of? Yeah, the first sentence. Okay. I don't think it's required because we're about to show examples if if we and here um
or staff. Yeah. Students or staff. Oh, yeah. Yeah, you're right. Um that's fine. Or Got it. And then that's I'm not sure what the comm is doing there, but thank you. It's it's
it's uh it's up to no good. School sponsored it. So hang on one second. Behavior outside. No, that's pretty much that was pretty much a uh No, no. I appreciate this. This is great. Um you're
tightening it. Um Oh, right here. This was a question that you had Carolyn. Uh students ability to participate in the educational process is I think this is straight title six title N language. Um
ability to participate or ability to access education. That's um that's fine. I really struggle with and I know many many parents do. Um, and I would imagine that if this
Sorry, can you This is going back to Yeah. So, back to microaggressions. No. Back to Yep. The last Keep going back up. Uhhuh. Yeah. [Music] Um, behavior outside of school building
or school hours. Uhhuh. Yeah. This is also required under Title Six and Title N. So, I'll give you a quick example. If on Sunday night um a a ninth grader posts on Instagram some derogatory comments about a the immigration status
of a student's family and on Monday that student flunks a test. Um that conduct would be considered a violation of this policy. even though it happened on a Sunday with the students personal cell phone and their personal Instagram
account, it affected that student's ability to access her education. Um, and this is okay. So, oh, am I still in? So, um, I understand your example. Um, if we were really discussing that, I would,
you know, I I think you could argue like how do you know that's why? But be that as it may, that's not even in my experience, direct not direct experience with my family, but direct experience being informed by the public schools of
Brooklyn um of of um what were considered incidents um that has included incidents or activities in people's private homes.
um with no connection to any kind of impact that I I've never heard it described that way. So hence the need for this policy. Well, I guess what I'm But what
I'm So, you're saying that the need for the policy is specifically may still be subject to this policy if the conduct negatively affects the students ability to participate in the educational process. So, you're saying that those kinds of um
public reports would could be described as having been mistakes on the part of PSB administration. Obviously, I haven't I'm not familiar with the cases you're talking about. So, I'm absolutely not stating my own opinion of those because I I don't know.
But what I do know is the policy should make it clear consistent with Title Six and Title 9 that conduct that happens off site, off hours can be a violation if it is
shown I mean does it have to be shown to how how is the proof of that connection that hap that's part of the investigation is finding out about the impact.
So, can it say if the conduct is shown to or is proved to or something like that? That's part of that's part of the investigation section. This just says that that's fair game because that's what the that's what
the regulation requires. You're absolutely right, Caroline. It must be demonstrated by the results of the investigation. that that's those are very important questions to be asked by the investigator and sorry um because I don't have does
the invest whatever we now have for investigations specifically speak to this is there a reason that this part can't reference that like if the con if
investigation into the conduct is shown to just to clarify ify because you know another thing with this and I think I'm an example because I'm I'm a school committee member but I'm a parent I'm um the public you know
if I have this question I think other people would so I think to make this optimally clear and sort of user friendly um and and and where this question
of things that happen outside of school sort of comes up over and over as a topic of of conversation and concern. Um, I think it would be helpful to sort of make make that clear here even if it comes back because it's
a lot to kind of have to dig through. What if I what if I added here Caroline C section five which is the investigatory process? Would that be sufficient? Um, I mean, or or do you have language that you think would be stronger here
that would make it I feel like it I mean again for me having had to ask this question and having Becky explain it to me which is is helpful and clear once she has explained it to me. I do feel that if there were a couple of words
added in there to to make that clear that what if it says if the conduct is found to have negatively affected great and then if you also wanted to say C-section
five yep five I think that would be really helpful because this is just a lot you know and if and if it's meant to help us all understand about that. Thanks. Great. I I just want
to have a Yeah, I was going to ask the same thing, Becky. Um because I I think a lot of what's coming is very consistent with what we already discussed and it will go more quickly, but I I do have a hard stop at 7 o'clock
to have negatively affected the students a student's ability. Yeah. Okay. I was just going to ask you, Stephen, where we were in terms of a journey at 6:20. Maybe we could just finish this section and then typically we go to 6:40. I I'd like to propose going till 7 o'clock tonight if that's all right with the rest of you. I need
to leave at 6:40. Okay. So, we probably won't get to a vote tonight, but let's go to 6:40. Um, let's I want to propose uh just finishing this section off and then going to a few key points and then we can be done. Um, Carolyn, what were you what was feel
free to raise your concern about the microaggression section. Sure. Um, and I I think that and we tal we started to talk about this last time. Um, and my understanding
of of of what Becky described was that this was sort of a like examples of what's not a vi violation. And my feeling, my my my view on that is it's sort of like
um it's like don't look at the, you know, don't look at the pink elephant in the room or something. This is really super awkwardly put, but it's like why bring it up and put it out there? Like now
things this is out there. So there's two reasons. Um the first one is because sometimes um well I'll speak for myself when my child experiences a microaggression sometimes I want to take names. You know
I'm really upset I love my child and it hurts her feelings and I come in saying I want to see action. I want to see the child who said that to my child be disciplined. You know whatever. And it's a way of saying well let's look here. It looks like what happened was consistent
with our definition of microaggression. And so that's the first is to try to educate people about things that yes may have hurt your child's feelings but don't rise the level of policy violation. And second to make a distinction between the remedies. So the
intervention with a policy violation is is more significant than an intervention with a microaggression. with a microaggression. Um, I would hope my child's teacher might say, "Sage, can you explain to your classmate why that
hurt your feelings?" And that might be a sufficient intervention in that moment. I understand. And I guess we're going to, you know, I don't want this to sort of devolve into a I I don't know that it needs to be kind of like a theoretical conversation, but
so you're calling something that hurts your child's feelings a microaggression. Now, it's in a policy. That's a policy that's either going to be have the word discrimination or civil rights in it. Um,
so maybe what you're calling a microaggression in this policy is like stuff kids do that hurt each other's feelings. And so again, it troubles me if it's
not in what's prohibited by law. If it's not what needs to be covered from a liability perspective, um I don't I don't like it in here. I just don't I'm not comfortable with it
in here. Um and then in particular then going further, not just talking about, you know, stuff kids do or things that hurt your feelings and calling them microaggressions.
Um and then talking about remedies. Um I just think it's for me it's too far. Andy. Um, I had thought that listing these as microaggressions was actually in the service of deescalating the uh the PSB response to incidents of this
kind. Um, I think last time I suggested that maybe we can change the word will to may um in the paragraph about the response all the way at the bottom. So, the administrator or PSP design may partner with the student. So then we're not necessarily requiring
uh bringing in the parent caregiver for example depending on the nature of the the incident. Jesse. Yeah. Um my issue with the word microaggressions is that one of the pro I guess two problems. one is it has a slightly racial
overtone at least in its the way it was originally coined and how it does find its way into the English language as a as as a term. So, there's this subtle um racial overtone when I see the word.
Maybe I'm the only one who sees it that way, but I'm saying if you search around on it too, you'll find that it does at least sometimes get criticized as being a term that carries some racial overtone. Um and and secondly, it's
really just a kind of a behavior. It hasn't yet become anything that um in any way violates a policy. It's just I mean maybe to to to parallel with
what Carolyn said um students or adults um saying something that's a behavior that could make somebody feel uncomfortable and that's part of life. But that's not a discrimination. that's not part of a civil rights um violation.
It's not a behavior that's rises to any level of um of um of of a a violation that rises to a level where it requires like legal action. I mean, this is this policy to me should not include a section that
discusses um I'll call them gentle misbehaviors maybe, right? gentle misbehaviors that require gentle um addressing. Um same way that a teacher at the playground, you know, at recess or something, hear
some kid go, you know, some one kid say to another, "You you did something in a way that makes a kid feel bad." And the teacher goes over and says, you know, the two of you should not really have been talking that way. Why don't you try to be nicer next time or something like that. Um there's no discrimination
there. There's no um right it's it's it's a mic it's a tiny it's like a gentle tiny behavior thing that happens you know it happens it's just life I I don't know I don't I don't this this this word aggression in there it rubs me
really the wrong way so I I also think it's helpful for the purpose of warding off es as Andy said escalations so that if somebody says I'd like to use this policy to um trigger an investigation of
a microaggression. We could say like actually we're saying that this behavior is explicitly not going to uh be used to um trigger an investigation. In that way, it's helpful. I hear what that you're saying like if it's written down
in a policy where officially endorsing the concept of microaggressions. That's not really how I see it. But for the purpose of this discussion, since we only have a few minutes left, I just like to propose uh leaving this in for further discussion among the next policy subcommittee or the full school
committee. It's neither endorsing nor endorsing this section. Well, can I just Andy has Yeah. Can I just say one thing which is I mean I'm personally not wedded to the word microaggressions. I certainly don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater here. I think, you know, the purpose of listing these
is really to, as I keep saying, to prevent an overreaction by PSV to this type of incident. I I really think that's a valuable thing to have in here. If it means dropping the word microaggression, that's fine. It means students sometimes experience verbal or non-verbal communication that's implicit
bias, etc. We can get rid of the second occurrence down below as well, as long as we list these things and say that these are not things that rise to the level of a full-fledged investigation. Um, and sorry, Stephen, I know you want to move on. So, I understand what Andy's
saying and I think it I think this idea um requires more conversation because I guess I I would I would offer like okay I think we just need to talk about that more generally. But I'm also going to say again um as a parent with
many years of experience in the district um including in the high school for the past five years you know like these examples. There's a way in which a lot
of behavior has become policed is probably a little strong but um um restricted confined. My worry would be that the the
confines of behavior being discussed in great detail in a policy like this can be confusing. um can be confusing for children, can be confusing for
teenagers. And I experienced this even when I participate when I attended um one of the days of events at the high school where two different students
um delivered a different message like don't assume that I'm something because of how I look. Ask me first. And then someone else was saying, "Don't ask me questions just because like and
so like asking a student about their disability without their consent." Um, sorry. Like that I think that is just confusing and I find it overly confining. So, while I understand where
Andy's coming from in terms of the potential usefulness of like what isn't um these particular examples really reminded me of of um of
mixed messages that I've heard directly from students um and that I think as a parent um are confusing. So, I think we definitely need to come back to this. Um, thanks Carolyn. Yeah, I I just need
to get to two quick things before I leave the policy subcommittee entirely. One is section five. I think this is the heart of the policy no matter what form it takes in the future and I really want to strongly suggest reverting it. Um, so my and Becky correct me if I'm wrong
here. My understanding is that educators are mandatory reporters. Um, one way that we the previous policy was deficient is in the lack of mandate that we provided as a guidance to educators on filing a 51A. And the way that we
fleshed out section 5 and the reporting requirements was a major way that we were um bringing our policy into compliance. Um so I want to restore this section especially uh providing all the specific
detail about uh how and to whom to file reports. So and that was a frequent question I got this year from school administrators was some of the nuances around 51A. Okay. So unless Jesse you have a a
strong objection otherwise I I really would like to revert this section. I'm not sure I'm not sure where the the first sentence that says who became aware of a possible innocent a sexual misconduct why that would have actually ended up in the reporting requirements anyway. I'm not sure where that came
from. So there's there's a um so in terms of the law, there's a requirement to report anything that might rise to the level of of child abuse or um I know okay but I'm saying I'm something
changed and I'll have to look at my other version or something because okay it starts reporting allegations of bias based and sexual misconduct and immediately it says we'll become aware of okay this is the original this is an earlier version. Um, Stephen.
No. Oh, yeah. I'm not I mean, this makes sense to me. I mean, what you're what you're showing sense. Okay. May if there's something they got confused, I understand. I think that whole section's look. It's fine. Yeah. You left it out in black. I think that's fine. Oh, all
right. I mean, I don't see a issue that that has the issue about going all the different offices and Yeah, that's another version. That's I was confused about that. The other thing I wanted to raise was um the gender identity section. Was that
part of that section? Um there was there. Yeah, I I really would like to leave this section in. Um and and it's it's still consistent
with DESIE guidance. It's under attack nationally. I I don't see a reason to remove it. We're in Massachusetts. Where are you? Section. Section eight.
Section eight. I I um I feel quite strongly about this. I wanted to raise it before this meeting ended. Well, I think we could take the like the second and third sentence out without
losing anything. If you if you just want to state we you know prohibiting bias and discrimination we already talked about we don't need that it would set it above gender identity is a protected class and the all students need a safe and supportive thing we've already talked about as well every plays important role as a generic statement
but if you want to started with this policy is intended to create a culture in which transgender gender binary gender say to meet each other yeah that one sentence could be an introduction to this I would take the first three out part of this was just trying to shorten it up but I get you I get I Yeah. So you can start with this policy.
I see. So So it would be to take it would be first though. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. That that gener So now we got gener now you got terminology. So there was like a whole bunch five or six of them. I mean if this has to be in through desi uh Becky then yeah let's just keep it
in. I mean of course okay I mean there's no we don't want to run a foul of anything. Right. And I I understand that. I just want to ask Carolyn. Um, did you not want to have this in the policy?
I have questions about the age issue and it's I mean, we're not going to be able to it's the Desi guidance, right? I understand that
you've said that before. Um, so my questions have to do with sort of Brooklyn parents. Um yeah, it's just I as a as a parent in this community who
has conversations with other parents um for me this um and has conversations with child psychiatrists who are friends um and who are you know deal with this realm. Um,
to me, I think that this section would surprise a lot of parents. So, we don't have time to get into it now, but I think it needs I'd like to just talk about it more.
Um because I think that [Music] um I'm I'm I don't feel confident that that the 14 would sit well um necessarily with the community. So I
just need more conversation about it. I mean, my my um my my question about this paragraph um um Stephen is that I don't at all disagree with the last part. Please see a document for PSV's gender support plan. That's really just
a reference from this policy. There's nothing really I mean, I'm not seeing the rest of the paragraph as something to do with specific um how shall I say specific like um bias-based conduct. It just says you have to keep it private.
It's confidential and private. So breaking the rule would be not keeping it private. That's that's not that's illegal. You know, it's not a question of whether you're discriminating against the student. You're did something illegal because it's required that it be kept private and secure. Whatever the
rule is, that's a law. So is the gender support plan a way of providing um support to students and their parent caregivers when it's broken or is it this whole thing? because otherwise I'm not sure why this isn't a discrimination policy. Well, it seems like that's a good reason to call it a civil rights
policy rather than a discrimination policy. To me, it's an argument for reverting to the original title of this policy. Well, but I'm not sure why it why the paragraph's in here. It it doesn't really because it to me it clearly falls under civil rights and
that was the original title and purpose of this policy. Oh, I see. Okay. Um Okay. So, we're over time. Yeah. Uh, I want to thank everyone. I'll clean up the grammar on the sections that we reviewed. Becky, thank you again
for your work on this. My pleasure. And I appreciate the constructiveness of the conversation tonight. Yeah, Becky, your examples really help bring it alive. So, thank you. You're very welcome. And thank you to the entire policy subcommittee for all your work this year
and for your patience with me as I tried to navigate what MASC told us to do. and I tried to find a way forward. Thank you for your patience this year. Have a good night. Thank you for your leadership. Good night, everyone.