Good evening. I would like to call this uh committee meeting of the policy review committee to order. Uh the date is May 19th and the time is 5:00. Uh thank you for everyone uh joining us in person and anyone watching online. We're always appreciative of uh interest in
the do going on of the school board. Uh so first I would like to start with uh policies with changes and our first uh policy is number 604 uh instructional curriculum and presenting uh will be Dr.
Chris Belmont assistant superintendent. >> Thank you Director Mickelson members of the committee. um policy 604 instructional curriculum. Really minor changes to look over there. Um if you actually see the red the the striketh
through on the note, that's from the Minnesota School Board Association um prov providing additional insight but not actually recommending um policy change. Um and there's an added court
case in the legal references that relate Yeah, I was just kind of curious as far as why, you know, we're removing the note exactly at this point since um the you know um it hasn't um it is still in final legal review as far as the health
academic standards, but it is just a note. It's not affecting the policy at all. >> Right. >> The notes typically are not included. every once in a while they get left in for specific reasons but for the most part
are just for administration to understand the changes but they don't typically like to leave them in there. So this one was one that we found that was still left in there so it was redlined out. >> Sure. Thank you. What she said >> that that helps to explain it that yes
they're just not normally there and yep that answers it. Um all right so I think that can uh easily go on consent. Uh then our next policy is number 616 uh the school
district system accountability and again Dr. Balma. >> Yeah. Um policy 616 provides multiple layers and comprehensive review at both the community site and district level around the selection implementation of
um curriculum and instructional resources. Um there's some changes in section C number three around our sassiac um committee and just some of
the um some of the verbiage around their function. Um, you know, when we hire our our new elementary and secondary directors, we'll draw their attention to this this need to kind of continue on with the committee
and what the statute and local policy recommendations are for it. >> Yep. Any kind of >> Looks good to me. >> Yeah. Yep. Yep. Uh, no questions here. I
think that's fine for consent as well. Um, and number 620 is our uh next policy, credit for learning. And again, Dr. Belmont, >> policy 620. Um, very minimal changes to
recommend from um both director's review and the Minnesota School Board Association model policy. Um, this is a policy we used, we leaned on quite a bit during Operation Metro Surge this year. So, believe it stood strong and provided
the right guidance for our staff. >> Sure. >> Especially at the high school. >> Any other comments? >> No. >> All right. Uh, that one >> was the actual change though. I don't see it rather. >> Just a legal reference. >> Oh, just the legal references. Okay.
>> Yeah. It's almost even just the terminology within some of the references, but yeah, thank you, Director Anderson. Yeah, right towards the end. >> I kind of like the last one. They seem to just be changing the name of the statute. >> Sometimes the numbers shift some numbers. Yeah,
>> that one should be fine on consent as well. >> Okay, thank you, Director Michaels. >> Uh, so our next policy with changes is number 520, uh, student surveys. And again, Dr. Belmont.
>> Um there's more frequency of changes from the Minnesota School Board Association um around the surveys, but a lot of it is additional verbiage. Um I believe she mentioned specifically around like delineating between the
student and the parent role um when it comes to the the policy. Um, also I think it um there were some statute revisions around
I think it was at the federal level um around parental access um for what we're asking from students for them to be able to review the tools and the resources as well as like um instructional materials that are
associated with it. Excellent. >> So, a lot of statute updates. Nothing like major as far as changing the content and the intent of the policy. >> Yeah. Yeah, definitely appreciated cover. Yes, that designated when there's a student when there's a parent that
Yeah. Just getting that verbiage in there. >> Um, any question? >> I just think we're having been in this role for several years, like I feel like we have pretty sound procedures in place. We're continuing to kind of fine-tune them and making sure we're
always balancing between the need for to make sure we're upholding Furpa and student data privacy, but also being as like open and transparent, especially around instruction as possible. >> Sure. >> We'll try to keep on with that.
>> Yeah. Um I think that one can uh go on consent as well. All right. Then uh for our next policy, we get to uh switch over it looks like um to uh get give Dr. Bellmont a break. And uh
the next policy is number 427, uh workload limits for certain special education teachers. And presenting is Amy Petowski, director of student support services. >> Hi, good evening, Director Mickelson, members of the committee. Um I have three policies that I'm bringing forward
with um a couple changes for the first one. Policy 427 is the workload limits for special education teachers and it defines the biggest change is the um definition around the indirect services that the special education teachers can provide ind or special education or
related services can provide indirect services to pair professionals to teachers to general education teachers regarding a student as it relates to their IEP and their specialized direct instructions or >> that makes sense to me.
>> Yeah, I I like the additional detail in there. That's good. >> Mhm. >> Yep. There's actually we So, there's a lot of times where questions come up around that. So, it's good that it's policy. Yeah, it is good. Um so uh if anything uh just uh perhaps
uh just as what you're saying that because it does come up with questions and having that well um uh let's do that as a first read just so we can make sure that it's mentioned at the uh school board meeting uh that yes we're getting
that in policy since it is something that comes up. Um okay and then our uh next policy is number 530 immunization requirements and uh again Amy Pashski. Yes. Um policy uh
530. The um most significant change that I can see is there's just a couple things added to the Minnesota Department of Education. some minor changes with that, but the biggest change is in the immunization of records and sharing the records and that um individuals need a release of information to receive those
records. Um and that is a release of information even if a student is going to be transferring to a different school district, which our system is, you know, it's always set up to they release all those records, but um immunizations will be part of that release.
>> All right, that's great. Um I think I'd like any questions or any concerns with No, I don't have any either. Um I think we'll do that on our first read as well. Just again since it is something with requesting the information and being sure that that's um presented there at
the meeting um to know that yes, that's now in policy. Um okay. And then uh we have uh number 615 testing accommodations, modifications and exemptions for IEPs, section 504
plans and EL students. Uh also Amy Pashowski. Yeah, 615 has um some pretty significant changes. One of the um main reasons is because they are actually changing the MTAS which used to be the test Minnesota test of academic skills um and they changing it to an
alternative test. So it'll be the alternative um science MCA or science alternative MCA test instead of just a skills test. And so because of that the um a lot of the schedule changes. So for example in 25 one of the tests were already changed because they updated
those standards on the MTAS with science. This year they updated them on the MTOS with this reading and next year will be the mathematics. And so what this does is it puts the language in that it can be either the um alternative MCA or the MTAs into policy as we're
working through the IEP process. Um some other definitions that kind of have gone is like the they've also taken the um access alternative access tests. So they've moved a lot of the tests into alternative assessments for students with significant cognitive disabilities that we won't get um good information
from that regardless. What they kept in here is the process and the procedures that we use when making decisions to determine if a student can access either an MCA or an MTOS even with accommodations or modifications um with their environment or whatever. So that
process um pretty much stays the same. It continues to consistently flow through the IEP team. Um it also um did a really nice job of determining the reasons why the MA uh is not appropriate for a student. And so really being able to put language into
it so we can have conversations with families and IEP teams as we're making these decisions. Um, as far as the MTOS and um, a lot of the other stuff was just kind of rearranged because they put all that information up at the very front. So do you have any questions
about that? Um not so much about the policy change in itself um or any details of it but uh >> do you think that the change in the
policy will help um minimize the number of students who are opting out because they will have the alternative testing versus this whole other test. Does that make sense? >> No. Um the so there is some criteria that go around the alternative
assessments and so there are some um um the criteria that is listed in the policy. It isn't really an opt out. Um so most students in our district have access to the alternative test. Um parents choosing to opt out. So like an
IEP team doesn't allow us to opt out of a thing. An opt out would be a parent. So it would be a parent agreement if we want to give the actual MCA test and that would be for students that have access to the general education curriculum and standards versus an alternative functional curriculum that
is standardsbased but might not always be up to the grade level. So functional math, for example, isn't the um sixth grade math curriculum for our students with significant cognitive disabilities. And so we they do have access to the standards, but that should not make a
difference about opting out or anything because an opt out is a parent choice um for doing some of those. We don't make those decisions as an IEP team. >> Okay. I was just hoping >> Is that what you were asking? I guess I
was hoping that um hoping that um if the that less parents would choose to opt out if their child qualified for this alternate. There are students who are in special ed
who who just don't take any tests. The parents have opted them out completely. But still those students that might be opting out of the MCA may not also qualify for the M for the alternative assessment because you have to have a specific criteria for that. So if
parents opt out, we would not say, "Hey, take this MCA alternative because it absolutely would not be appropriate for that." Okay. >> Did I answer your question this time? >> Yeah, I mean I think you did. Yeah. Okay. consent.
>> Any other questions or can we get there? A >> lot of red on this page. >> Yes. >> I don't have any questions. >> Yes. So, I was just kind of curious with this. It's just kind of a general kind of question if this is kind of
cottifying what we're almost already doing or is it kind of identifying a clearer guideline over what um we're going to be doing in the future? just kind of curious as far as where this fits in the, you know, hey, MSBA is kind
of catching up to what's really realistically already happening in >> to school districts and including ours or is this kind of providing um, you know, guidance to be done in the future? >> You know, I think probably what it does
the most is because, you know, we've been doing this as an IEP team for years and so like this is the process we've always been following. However, the language and the information that we can do to address when we're making those decisions, I think it did a really nice job clearing that up specifically even
for like our students that are e um may not, you know, English is not their first language, but they also have a significant cognitive and so they are also still required to take the access test, but they can take an alternative access test and I think that this helps really align that language with some of
those decisions. Um, I also think it does a really nice job laying it out about how the decisions are made, you know. So, like when you determine if a student is going to be taking an um alternative assessment, you're making a determination that you the student will
not have access or gain um good quality information um even with their accommodations and modifications. So, that language was laid out really well in here, which I really like. So, it will help IEP teams kind of more guide that um because you know, we've all got
flowcharts. We all love flowcharts, but this does a nice job really guiding them through that process in my opinion. >> Wonderful. Thank you. >> Yep. You're welcome. Anything? Okay. Uh well, this one will definitely
be first read with a lot of substantive changes. So, thank you. Appreciate it. All right. And our next policy will be uh number 503 uh student attendance and again uh Dr. Chris Belmont uh assistant
superintendent and also Amy Powaskki, director of student support services. >> Thank you. >> So we are in we are wrapping up year two of a three-year pilot state funded and uh and codified for 12 school districts
in the state. So Amy has um helped co-lead that. We have a project champion um Morgan McDow. She couldn't be here today, but she's been intensively involved in looking at policy. Attendance is a big topic as the board may be aware. So, um and encouraging. I
mean, even with what we've got going this year, Morgan just presented to our leadership last week, was it? Um seeing a 2.4% um decrease in students that are chronically absent even with all that we
had this year. So that's like it's giving us most um encouragement and we're staying curious and committed because of that information. Um and so I just share all that context for we're looking at our systems, right? We have a
lot of feedback loops, we have site teams, we have a district-wide attendance team, and we have a a team that has like looked at policy as what drives that procedure and then and then behaviors. So, um, some of what you'll
see is, um, put forth from schoolboard association and model policy changes at the legislature because attendance is a big has been a big topic there. Um, I'll just direct you to 4 C and D. That's just added language around the pupil
fair dismissal act and that um we need to make sure that we're clearly supporting students if we suspend or have students leaving our system even for a day or two. Um
we're suggesting to remove a note from a physician or a licensed mental health professional um around our some of our excusal data. We have other means and processes that can include that, but we don't we don't recommend codifying it in
policy based on the schoolboard model policy and what we're seeing at the sites. Um, so that's BB. Um, anything to add? Oh, please chime in as the excused absences as well. The school board of the district just added
the term school per the model policy. if we get into the next section. So now I'm drawing us to legitimate exceptions. Um the team is advising that we remove official school field trip because
they're already exempt. We have a different code for that and it's just redundant and confusing. Um also changing language. Uh if you know Director Hume was here for conversations around the vacations up to five days. We
added that as local policy last year. The feedback is it's gotten well. Um and it's and I always want to remind the board and the community that um per statute and policy administrators can override excusals. And so they can if
something is given as a non-excusal or an unexcused per our our handbook, an administrator has the authority to review that and make a case by case um override of that. Um they changed it to approved they're
recommending a change to approved family activity rather than just kind of >> sticking it with the definition of vacation. So now this is also where I just love to hear some dialogue and from everybody the um
a lot of member districts of this pilot and again I just say the pilot because you know next year is year three of this funded pilot. So like to use the analogy like we should be landing the plane by this time next year. We should know what we want to sustain in our system that's
high impact and can be resourced because we're not going to have new resources for it. How to handle like we have tardiness and then we have early departure both K12 we have these instances of people students leaving
within a class period or within a school day at the elementary within that reporting period. So, so our committee is recommending adding language around early dismissal and then
that's then the hard work this summer is how to make sure that like flows well in our systems and is aligned both horizontally and vertically. do um do you so like there's some examples that were shared um when we did our summer work this last summer that it
was new to me and I don't know if we actually brought some of that information to the board um but one of the examples that some of the clerical provided was um you know it it impacts um like Harriet Bishop Sky Oaks and Eagle Ridge so a lot of families drop
off but if they kind of get a late start well then they'll just drop off the elementary student and then take the student to to the middle school a little bit late or if they're dropping off and picking up for whatever reason, they sometimes go to the elementary and pick up the elementary student first and then
go get the middle school student and so they leave about an hour early. And so a lot of times we're seeing some of that just because of proximity and if it's really cold out, they maybe don't want to come out again, you know. So like we are seeing that and it's it is really
impacting some of those neighboring elementaryaries. That's one of the examples that I would share. Um, for those that leave early, um, that is sometimes the reason. There's all kinds of reasons, but those are the consistent ones are usually the ones that they're also dropping off at one of the middle
schools or the elementary and they're coming late or leaving early. >> Interesting. >> Yeah, it is, isn't it? It was interesting for me. And at the high school, we do have some students who have developed a pattern of arriving to
class even on time and then finding their way out of that class for significant time periods. So then there's a so the intervention teams are trying to wrestle with what kind of data is most so they have been using something called miss significant
instruction so that they can have that conversation with the student as opposed to sharing that they were tardy which that doesn't accurately describe the behavior and it doesn't um and then just calling them absent perhaps or doesn't
also um so that's like a high school example Amy shared elementary. That is one where we're just kind of really curious about how to set up the structures to for next year to not just be a 2.5% increase but to more than
double that is our goal in in reducing chronic absenteeism. If you walk through the other like Roman numeral three religious and on 503-6 religious and cultural observances adding that cultural piece as well as some language around our that's from
statute American Indian cultural practices more MSBA and statute pieces around habitual truency they parsed out um students that were that are 12 and older as and students that are under 12
how to manage that. So, so Director Mickelson, this is where like um usually we present policies pretty clearly. This is our clear recommendation talking with Director Petroski,
Dr. Daniels. We we are just hoping to have a conversation so that around specifically how to how to manage all of it, but also managing that local terminology around early departure.
Currently, most districts are either not addressing it or trying to do something like this. Some are just naming if you leave early, you're marked absent. So, >> true. Any
comments or questions? >> Sorry, I was just thinking of an example. I'm going to keep to myself. Um, sorry. I, you know, this is a dumb question. Maybe. But is there a difference between the things highlighted in red and things
highlighted in blue? Or is that just a choice? >> That's just how th That's just like it kind of Well, Sarah can speak to it more definitively. Um that has to throw you under the bus. Sarah >> when changes are >> Sarah Sarah me versus the red that when
>> is just entering it. It's showing who's >> okay >> making it. And it doesn't it can't even say the blue is carrying the red is me. It's just whoever went in first. If another person goes in to make additional changes, that's when it comes out.
>> Sounds good. I just wanted to make sure I didn't need to think harder. >> Anything else? >> I mean, I think it's pretty clear, I guess. And so are we saying that uh throughout the summer you're going to
work on more language for the early departure? >> Yeah, that's that's one where I would say we're piloting how best to manage that and we also don't want to go too far out of the bounds of policy which says you're either absent or you're tardy. So, we're trying to introduce
that conversation from a policy lens, but also we're we are, I believe, able to responsibly move forward with our current practices either way. Mhm. >> Yeah. Uh definitely difficult with
there's so many different individual so many different situations and fact patterns that you're trying to you know and thank goodness I mean the policy is kind of supposed to address things at a high level and here's our general you know kind of guidelines but it's you
know something like this in terms of attendance tardiness and reasons and what's going on I mean everything is it can be so individual that that I I definitely understand that the challenges they go into. I can sympathize with the challenges that that
go into uh drafting something and deciding what to bring forth as part of your policy um uh changes. Uh without a doubt. Um I don't have any other you know comments or questions uh above what's uh been um mentioned already. Uh
so I I think it's uh you know thank you very much for the uh for the amount of information that you provided um about uh the attendance and the wording and what you've done here. So I think that'll be very helpful. Uh we'll do this as a first read um at the school board meetings so that you can kind of
give some of this context uh to the changes um as well uh there I think because you know attendance has been brought up at at meetings um at our schoolboard meetings in the past and just how we're getting at the numbers and things. So that'll be very helpful. >> Okay.
>> Oh for you. I appreciate it. Thanks. >> All right. And so our last item for uh policies with changes is uh 418, a uh drug-free workplace, drug-free school. Uh and our speaker is Stacy Soine,
executive director of administrative services. >> Good evening, committee chair Mickelson, members of the board. Um I was prepared to present about 20 minutes of a presentation. Seeing though we have only a couple minutes left, I'll keep this
brief. >> Well, good thing we got a consent agenda. Now, >> we are uh looking just for 418 to address uh some Minnesota statutory language that MSBA is recommending that we change. um eliminating uh certain
language there that provided exceptions and then putting it back to the statute and pushing it back to board approval for any exceptions versus listing them independently is pretty much the gist of what is being applied.
Um um any questions or >> no? >> No. >> Okay. Um yep. I don't uh have any uh comments either. Um I think with the uh resources added and um everything we will do that as first read as well. The
next one just to be sure >> just that's the note to the to the policy or to the district. It isn't actual policy. the note piece. >> Yep. Sure. >> So, that would be struck when we're >> Yep. Thank you. >> to move forward. >> Thank you. Um uh then as far as with uh
that's Thank you for that uh clarification um and everything with the resources versus something that would be a legal reference or something. So, I think we could go and consent with that one then. Yeah. Thank you. All right. So, uh our last order of business are our uh policies with no
changes. Uh that would be policy 710 extracurricular transportation, 711, video recording on school buses, and 714 fund balances. And uh although committee actions required, it's generally unnecessary to hold discussion uh on
these items since no changes were recommended. Uh in the event a committee member wishes to discuss a policy, that policy will be removed uh and we can have a separate consideration. Uh, does any committee member wish to discuss any of the policies with no changes listed
on the consent? Okay. Uh, hearing no request for separate consideration, I recommend that all policies with no changes be brought forth on the consent agenda at our next regular meeting of the board of education. All right. So, uh, then we we had
several, uh, policies here. Uh, Sarah, if you would like to kind of read through >> the order. on consent policy 604, 616, 620, 520, and 710, 711, 714, and 418. The um
policies coming forward for first reading will be 427, 530, 6:15, and 503. >> Yep, that's what I have too. Uh thank you very much. Really appreciate it. And uh the time is now 5:31 and I would like to adjourn this meeting with the policy
review committee. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much, guys. >> That