>> know. I did not. you need
>> In order to comply with Section 2, DOT 2, Dash, 3, 7, 1, 2, d of the code of Virginia is necessary for the board to certify that since the first County board convene a closed meeting on May 20 7th 2025. In the best. Of each
member's knowledge only for County Board. Only public matters. Business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements and only such public business matters
as were identified, the motion convening Arklow, the closed meeting were heard discussed or considered by the board during the closed meeting. motion as mayor of second Dr Anderson. All those in
agreement. 02:00AM. As for those in the room, thank you. All right. The next item agenda is one point '03, which
is approval of minutes. Dr. Anderson, I'm Thank you. A second to approve the minutes. Thank Dr, Anderson. Second for Miss mayor and all those in favor. Approving the minutes
that is in the room. All right. Next up, one for policy. 24 75 commencement activities like on Dr Reid for Item one out of 3 policy, 2,
4, 7, 5 commencement activities. >> Thank you. Miss in the packet that you received on this. The changes include adding a philosophy statement.
About the commencement activities. What they're designed to do to celebrate student it the chief months. There is no matching the SBA policy and loss of a statement
as well as graduation speakers, which would be section 4 are the only edits 2
policy. 24 75. Dr. Anderson. >> Yes, thank you. Even it's actually right there in the minutes. We had a big discussion last time regarding a number of topics that we
were supposed to get back to, including decorations of mortar boards. Can you just give that update? Dre plays.
We did have a discussion and a trip on has been talking with principles about that. And to my knowledge, they haven't reached a decision. >> On what that will or won't
entail at this point. And I think the discussion also is, does that fit in the policy or regulation? >> I think off the top of my
head, I would say fits in the regulations, but I still think the board can have. That's the how the board can have an opinion on. The why in just broader framework of what that
could potentially mean. So that's one comment that I have. And also the other comment that I have the title of this is under special services. This is promotion
retention, grading and graduation requirements, commencement activities. >> Unless I missed it, I don't think I saw anything in here that spoke to necessarily
retention and gratings. I wonder or even really promotion. It's really about the commencement activities themselves. Do we need to have those 3 terms still be embedded in the title? My
understanding is that's how they're categorized. So this particular policy, which is called activities, falls under the bigger heading of promotion retention. So you see that heading and then
there's other policies related to those other items. But that's how these are organized currently in terms of our school board also said that has yes and retention, okay.
That those amounted to comment and I did go and read some of those others and they related to, for example, one of them, I don't remember the name of that was quoted last week was
related to how you get. >> At seal or how you get a civics seal like it's under diplomas. It's within the same category but has nothing to do with the actual commencement exercise. So I did go and read
some of those. This is the only one that speaks the ceremony. >> Then maybe just need something else. I don't know because under special services just comes across as if there was not enough space to add
commencement activities of the line. If it's a subsection at the commencement activities is a subsection of the promotion. Hadn't. Maybe we can indicate
that. I don't know. Underlining something just so it can reflect what you said. I do. I would like to hear. From others regarding my first comment. Thank you. And to the
you know, because I do believe I'm going to be blessed with discharge again next year. >> Those are things that if we can get all of our policies and compliance the can
drill down on because we want to be more intuitive to let you said forward. outwardly facing to the public to understand what are headings
mean or how they organized. So I appreciate that. So the other comment I recollect was related to mortar boards and things like that and why intuition was regulation. You want to talk about it. So I
think Miss Sizemore Heizer is next. You thank you. I understand that my thing. Is that the motorboat it? Well, night. I don't know where the conversation is going, but I'm
just as one would never say that. I do think it's important that this consistency. I know schools have had their traditions is on the loud it and some have not. But I.
>> Jessica says Juan Perez, you think that's an unfair inequitable system around that? So I think you'd be allowed for everybody. We don't let them at all. That's my $0.2 on I personally think
they're very cool. But I also understand that the difficulty of policing them right and there's a free speech component to them as well. That made then cause other
issues. I would probably it's easier to not do them. But I either way I think we consistency. Whatever you all
decide. and find to weigh in on the mortar board peace. But >> I'd like to go for the win on this one and get it sent to the board today. You know, my
motion because it's not going to be in effect before this year's graduations. So I think we should just get this done. And like you said, this lady will come back to it. And I do agree probably be. Consistent.
That's the thing trying to be consistently consistent. So I'd like to move to sends this policy here, which is policy.
24 75 on to the board for Action. Second. Second, Miss Sizemore Heizer be there's like speech or motion as know.
like to deer management Sizemore Heizer. Just briefly to say that. I think the motorboat issued and regulations which complicit in this board. But I do think it to be addressed. Thank you. I
like to speak. Ms Dixon. I'm just curious about the last to line added to the policy.
>> And I think it's addition rate than you that the Yeah. And that's going elect and members will not be the speaker is that is a state regulation.
>> That was kid came from the members of our board that did not come from staff. That came from our meeting and they wanted to make in the year of
the election, right? So if someone who's currently in office is invited to speak at graduation, but there isn't a November election that they're permitted to do so. But if there are currently running for a November election that
that would be in the same year that they're not permitted to. Or in a primary. Okay. All right. I just did not understand Thank you for that
answer. I'm okay with that. And candidates and other candidates running. Yes, this is just commencement. Yeah. Just for point of
clarification for the public, this is just for a commencement exercise. Know, actually what kind of came to mind Mystics and made a comment as it's written is that current school board
members and whoever else is running for office cannot speak during the year elections or current school board members cannot speak at
all under graduation speakers as the heading. Right. So this year, could I be a graduation speaker? Yes, yes, because there is not election year that masking for yeah, it's
not election year so you could be Any other comments on this? All those in favor of passing. Policy is written June mask
for those in the room. >> When Okay. >> 1 dot, '05, policy. 26 1 rights and responsibilities of
students. Condi are read. To present. >> We'll Thank us lady in the memo dated April. 29.
>> The purpose of this is to establish policy to support student rights and responsibilities. This particular policy >> was reviewed and updated by the Office of Chief Equity Officer Division Council. It
reflects best practices, an understanding and respecting students, rights and responsibilities. Similar to 26 11. And 26 20 issues
regarding policy include requesting consideration to change regulation 11. 0, 4, additionally section 5 of the
student rights and responsibilities has been inserted for your review. There is a matching regulation which we're not here to address afternoon. this being
a matching policy is jay be equal opportunity non discrimination.
>> Thank Mayor. Really big policy that if we really do want to transition from spending 3 public meetings talking sarin are that we need
to do the work on. So I'm not ready to approve this today. I and this has been something of note over the years with the SR in our, you know, there's responsibilities and there's
rights and they're often intertwined. And I think it's confusing and like there's also rights of other students. And that relates to safety. And there's really not much in
here that talks about safety in our responsibility to keep the school division safe. So I think this is one of those policies like greeting like boundaries. That's going to need some more work and maybe
we plan for that in the coming year thoughtfully and like come to the meetings with what we want to even just needs to be updated. Talks about giving the booklet to students and
teachers. Well, we know we have to come to families. It's gonna be electronically of We have videos so And it also needs to speak about the approach to the discipline process. We've done a lot to,
you know, Corp or 8 different approaches and we also have 0 tolerance for certain activities. So again, these things should be related in here. So we don't have to. We
litigated each year so I'd like to see S schedule this for the New Year and have like
Sotful specific. Discussions. Alright, that's asked some questions if I may. Are you? It's like feel like a her. 2
things for One is that it states in here the way it's written that basically, yes, regulation is subject to review by. Which is why we
engage in so many work sections around Sr. And do I hear you possibly suggesting that language like that might be removed, but we might have
a bigger policy that may be specific speaks specifically to some of the things that are most debated in there. For example. >> A cell phone policy or, for
example, other aspects of yes, our R and I heard you mention discipline. Are you talking about the continuation you know, just give me some clarification about understand. Well, appreciate I
think like this exact conversation is actually what we should have like a dedicated conversation to cause your rate. >> What do we want to embody in here? But is it just self and is it weapons is a guns?
Is that drugs like we could say in the policy that the prof the process must include, you know, must touch upon these topics and we could list those things. I think 2, it
could talk about, you know, suspension discipline or even clarifying the board's role in the work. But I think that that would come from the
holistic view of the other policies. And, you know, there's always and maybe as we go through more. Policies, we can see nowhere. Does it say that we delegate to the
superintendent to to it? Because I think it's not at all over the place and are not that city. You know, particular way. So. I appreciate that. I'm also
looking at the >> sample policy from the SBA, which I think could probably inform our conversation. I'm wondering if because of the freedom to have a healthier
dialogue. But this possibly be something we could bring as a form topic. I think the forms
of got the way things are brought to form and what topic has gotten very. >> They looted. So I'd rather, you know, asked if you want on a work session, just go
directly for it. I think that the Ukraine. Anyone else. Any
comments. One comment this. >> So and in this policy. There's also a reference to other version of other policies which are related to,
I guess no one is write a response to be that of the other ones which can baby fall into this same big policy. So I'm gonna wondering if this is
again of a off. Comprehensive discussing and combining few policies together, which similar in nature because if they kind of, you know,
strained escort and lot of other things kind of. Can can be included that. So if you have session, I would like to you discuss some of that may
be just document. Some of them is a regulation. Sorry. Definitely. 26. 0, 1, 26 11. 26 13. 27. A one is a little
different. I don't think it falls in. Look at the back page of this policy. It lists the other like-minded
policies. Any other comments. I'm just curious, Dr. Anderson Sizemore Heizer even agreement with this idea. >> Would you rather discuss
this further now? >> I am personally find with just moving this one along as it just so we can have it be revised and be said if we're
going to have a larger conversation, perhaps combining some of the others, the dress code is one. I think that Fitz because we do have dress code as part of this
regulation. I'm fine with that. But that's all I've got. Kind of the same place. Action find moving this long. I think there's a space for governance. I know we're
trying and I appreciate it. think the good thing that would in turn to clear roster, the backlog, right. But I almost think is a space next year, Dubai for okay to process with government. I've often said we almost like a
task force Grant a separate committee, right? So as kind of catch up with the backlog, having somebody to really look at a deep dive of the policies. This ad should be
combined this almost as a parallel process, right? So we get added it to their up to date. It's almost a 2 to review and then we do the next piece of it. But for right now, I'm I'm were Dr. Anderson
is. But the longer term conversation, I think that what we're talking about here. Thank Mayor. Yeah, I'm usually for that. But I don't think what's been added
responsibilities is really capturing what we as a board have practiced as approached Sardar. The talks about. >> You know, freedom long responsibilities. We interact
a lot with the U.S. are regarding discipline and cell phones and so I would be more comfortable not accepting the changes at this time. It's already 9 years out of
compliance. You know, over so for years. So I would I I make a motion to ask that get some of the emotion, I guess. But I would like to it put it forth
to the chair and vice chair. And I guess all of us as we create the next works calendar or maybe there's even a memo that the governance committee sends to the board and says these are the things that we
suggest we really focus on this year this way. Everybody knows. And then that would make it. I think more compelling. So I don't support
approving this today. I would love if we could send a communication to the whole board that states are in tension. I think that would
help everyone. Mystics. And what are your thoughts on? Heard from Dr? Anderson, Miss Sizemore Heizer the fire it's written. And this mayor and
like to pause where you with it. >> The responsibilities of again, I I just felt like we
don't spend the time and that area >> so I would just say if we have an goal that they the
session and discussing more than other colleagues on the board because this is just right now. And if feed one of being not dated for a long
time. So I just do it without the changes and then we do it again next year. But the
changes okay with that. Look tonight they see something, you know, you're mine reminding the 6 that that we
have had the process where we just do a no change. But again, since this is so far from when it was supposed to be reviewed, I think we could just wait a little bit longer, but that could be an option is
that we review it without a change. But at the same time, again, it seems like saying, well, this is fine. So just that came to mind as an option we haven't used lately.
♪ >> We're looking for the
original policy correctly.
It's like.
So it seems that the only change in the red line. The only change, but the responsibility is. Mr. Change
from requirements. The paragraph that says the difference can recognizes that is from the standing version.
And then. But it's not displayed currently is the current version, right? And so that paragraph under requirements that is shown in
red line in the market. But the only thing different the market is the change of the responsibilities. Not actually. The language is the
same. That's highlighted now
is just the philosophy.
If you wanted to do it as change, it would be a very similar process to what you're doing now except under summary of changes. We would just indicate that there is no changes.
>> From the current version, we would take it to the board for a vote at the next. Well, it would be put on your business and then it would go to for consent for the meeting
after that. >> Dr, Anderson, appears as if there's not that many changes, I guess instead of doing no change, what's to stop us to supporting what's already
here. So you're making a motion to adopt. What's there? Sure, because it essentially no change will. That was was big climates to philosophy. And we could always come back and really have a robust
conversation about it. But just to get this off the dock it into at least get it with an updated timetable. I'd be fine with that. If we're going to commit to coming back,
which I know we are. Yeah, I'm definitely committed to reaching out chairs about the work session to have health care conversation about this. Regardless of whether we pass
it, has it written today or not? This mayor? guess the difference is is that I for
one feel like it's not worth approving a stale policy just because we get to renew the date. It's already overdue. I
don't want to signal to the community that this is our representation when we actually have a lot more to say about it. And so. I think to take it up a level when we
come across these policies that are 7, 8, 9, 10 years overdue. Are we generally going to act in that way? Like I think we should be consistent. There's been other policies where we've said no, we're going to take it in
review. We've talked so much sarin arts. Seems like it's counter intuitive to now say, well, that's just to prove what was. When like the whole
point of this review is to find exactly these kinds of policies that we have very strong thoughts about rather than just be like, alright, no chance. Let's send it through.
So I'm just confused. I just wish we could have some consistent. This gets back to you at the start of this committee's work of like what are the consistent criteria we're going to use like? Is
that something the board's going have a bigger discussion about this is something just needs to be updated. Maybe this is something for the next committee to really hammer out this way. We have metrics that we can keep going back to
instead of saying, yeah, this one seems okay. Let's just to prove it because I feel really passionately about this one. But I don't feel like I'm your some. Well, I didn't get a
second to the motion. You know. Mystic's are. I so. I
believe the deal this matter lets it know you're not bust you know, policies to do the real work and if requests a work session, that's too that DART board members actually, I
want more of our policy discussions in our book sessions and have more because that's like really lot of hard work lies in our policies. So have more may come conversation around our
policies and session would be my preference for next year. And this could be the one starting point. can schedule it earlier this if possible,
so that we can still approved in 2025. So that car India, that's thank you. >> item has been. So here's.
One of the first I actually kind of like this language. I think it's important for students to and our policies to mention that there are both legal and civil rights that
our students have that impose both responsibilities. It went away and give rights to as well. I do think that there's
been some conversations amongst board members. I think individually about the SRA are in general. So bigger picture conversation as to whether the SRA are should be the big document you sign the board is
voting on as opposed to the policy. And so I am wondering. Whether we pass this on to the board. I actually like the slaying of personally. Wright
has a kicking off point, hears the updated policy bringing to you as a kicking off pointed to have that for that more fulsome conversation about the SRA are regulation versus the
S on our policy. I think you'd be difficult. That'll be my preference is to pass this on and how that is where and ask instead going to a vote board.
Have this draft go with the S on our drive to work session. And I think that we may need to have a conversation about what and that work session about what Avs on our
regulation movement policy. But I this is a good chance to kind of bifurcated those 2. So hearing from you pass it and discuss it. Have a question. And again, this is just maybe
near on the board. If we were to pass it. And then asked for the chairs to do work session on it. Could the chairs come back and say? You passed it
was there discuss. I mean, they could, of course, if you know, it's a chairs discussion, but we did that with the bounty policy. If you call, we pass of the governor's budget, want to work session. So and he's been
other policy special sort of bigger, more. would just say there's another policies in the past that the governance committee has recommended, right? It's not unusual for the committee to say we pass
this policy. We think it's ready to go straight to a vote or would pass this policy with the Kings. What a work session because this is the kind of pass it needs a more fulsome, more discussion. I will say if
I may, when I sat in that chair will there we have that conversation. Policies came to us about, hey, do you know if government had given a recommendation? We think this needs grow work session purses
with. So there is a tradition of doing that with policies. They could. I would find it difficult for chair and vice chair of committee recommended something to say we don't agree with at least about not going back to committee chair
having a conversation about it. >> Mr. Well, that's that's a
good question. And again, this goes back to what's the role, the committee and appreciate the way Mystics it raised it. And so I'm just drafting out like. >> And I pulled up what I had from earlier this year about the proms for policy review.
What can we use to guide our review? So one of the things could be what is the governance committee's role for this review? Right. So we have some policies where there's really no change, right? It's like we're going to have a fire code. policy.
We're going to have emergency management policy. All right. Fine. We just know that we looked at it. It's up to s**** fine. Then there's ones were governors make substantive changes, which is actually
like, you know, the boundary policy that work Scott on largely here or it could be like commencement activities, right? Like we largely took care of it in our committee and feel like it's pretty much
ready to go. But then there are these ones are. It's a policy that requires significant discussion and maybe the committee takes its first cut every single person
here is on a device on talking. I just hope that you're listening to me that perhaps it's that we do the work in the committee and then
ask the board to them to further the work, right. Like if we can perhaps think about things in that way. And that's don't have a problem with this language. I just think it's
missing a lot. And we talk a lot about of the spring or communication to the public and it says nothing about. A lot of what we spent time talking about. So. I would
rather stand. I send this around again. But again, I'm just looking for consistency in how we do this stuff. So on. And I do miss lady think
that I chair could look at and the approve it. confess that probably would fail a Robert's rules, but >> we have a motion. We didn't
have a second. I can't make a motion. So. >> We have move on. She wants
>> Well, I'm personally comfortable with not. Passing this. >> Putting on an agenda for an
early work session with chairs. correct. I can't. The
point is. I guess take a vote This is get confused because I get scolded. Okay. How many people are comfortable just moving this to govern moving this? Not passing it, pushing
it doing a work session with. Misses Miser. Are you recommending we moved draft as the knot approved drop that this is the latest redline version that we one as the
starting point for that work said, yes, okay. That's 1 o'clock I would share this with chairs. I would try to give a summary of our conversation and our consternation around it and then ask for work session. I'm
happy to make that motion like. I'll make a motion to to do it. MS Lady just recommended. Is there a second? This mayor, all those
in favor. Do you like speech or motion? Like speech motion? Anyone was because emotion. Okay. All those in favor. 2
for those in the room. All right. Moving right along. Policy 106, students with physically aggressive or
violent behavior, its policy. 26 20 the conduct E. Thank you, Miss >> In the memo dated April
29th. The purpose was established reviewed and updated by the Office of the chief Equity officer and the Fcps Division Council and represents best practice.
Additionally, the SBA policy Cla is included for your review. essentially. Titles
and sections were changed. And a philosophy statement was added. So that's it.
>> Dr Anderson. I guess my overall question because it looks like this policy didn't come into play until 1986, obviously way after there was
a discipline policy in Fcps. >> That was a graduation year. Okay. Well, because of MS Lady you, you put together this
policy well you all but someone will does this have to live as a stand-alone? Because it's very specific. 2 violent students and I know the the
SBA model policy also speaks of substance abuse. All of these things tend to be folded into the Sinai. I just like to
better understand why do we need the stand alone policy? >> I don't know that I can
identify why we need. We just identified Megan Travis and the template that you and requested with loss of a statement and so forth. So they let me ask another question. Do we need this as a
stand-alone policy? >> Dr. I means. the pass the >> All of the of
>> So the short answer does not need to be a stand-alone policy. But under the Virginia Code, school boards are required to adopt if they
decide to do it any discipline rules are required to be adopted by the school board. So. >> Which we do, are in our
which you So if this were to be embedded in the S are not. And I find it hard to believe that it's not. We're just not necessary explicit with the
fizz. I mean, I think we I if I would do a certain to sign are is this not language already embedded in that larger document? I would have to verify that. But to answer
the original question, it's not required to be a separate policy. It could be part of another policy. >> Because I'm trying to get a sense of what is it that we're communicating here? What we've communicated here is that
students who >> display physically aggressive or violent behavior will have consequences. We say that and charts. We say that in paragraphs in the Sinai,
I'm just wondering about its utility not wanting to be shortsighted and making sure that it's already in the U.S. are in our which again, I believe it is. I just wonder
about the utility of this stand-alone, very specific of this very narrow band of behavior as a at its own
policy. That's Sizemore Heizer. I have actually that's a lot of concerns about having this is a stand-alone policy.
gets sort of missing the lot here. It doesn't reference special education students, for example, this idea protections around that. That's not reference in here. >> You like MD ours and things
like that. So I think. Yeah, I think this is a problematic policy because my worry is that someone could look at this policy as a stand-alone policy, even though does
reference the SRO regulations. And say, wait a second, this person was physically whatever it is. And they're supposed to expel. I think it doesn't make a lot of sense if you're not
going to bet all that else in here. So I would make a motion to remove to Make a motion to us, Mr. Foster Dr Reid to see if. The concept of this are
embedded in another policy regulation. If so then to remove this is a policy because it doesn't seem to make sense here as a substantial policy. I second
You know, with the court I would second not. I think I just spoke to the reason why. But it it doesn't. I don't like this is a stand-alone
policy. I think an easy bet it somewhere else. Perhaps the concepts. But as a stand-alone is problematic, doctors like to speak your second. Anyone
else have questions related to. Well, yes, was actually listed as one of the changes in the U.S. are in our policy, which again, a good reason why
we waited because there's a lot more to figure out here. So I think it's one of these ones where, again, we put aside until we can do the larger policy review.
>> To versus sun setting it. You're speaking against the motion. am taking action. So.
Ultimately, I don't want this policy to go forward for more work right now. So I can agree with what my colleagues are saying, but ultimately I don't needs to be discussed in the
context of the larger us on our policy. If I can clarify that, I think that's kind something I was saying is I wanted this to be taken back and for staff to look at where
else it's either already embedded or needs to be embedded. And then bring back those suggestions. So then we can sunset it. So nothing is at this moment. But I I do
worry about this deal even being on our books the way it is. But that would be my suggestion and it can fly have that brought back is embedded that U.S. on our poll conversation we can but I
think this perhaps needs to be. And speaking to this. >> I actually wanted to see
what does the policy for discipline and out of. I think we do have a stand-alone policy for disciplinary actions and things like that, right? So this is actually the
good kind of violent behavior addresses during behavior can kind of roll into that. >> I don't know. >> If you can make a huge mega policy or at a facade not
acting, it still has to be like picking a broken down a bit to discipline could be one of the things under that their this could live. And I agree
that Stern special and it's not mentioned. You're so we should definitely incorporate all of that.
>> I and then agreement with I think the motion that's at hand, which is to move this back to staff, to see where else that's embedded. I think the point I'm hearing is that
if it does need to be standard policy because it's articulated well elsewhere that we don't need to have the stamina policy. So we also in sending it back to staff, Dr Reid would be welcome they
come back and say we're in agreement. It does need to be a stand-alone policy. Or whether we're in disagreement. We think it should be a stand-alone policy and perhaps
these the reasons why. >> What does the board want on this? Do they avoid wanted? Is a stand-alone policy not? It sounds like not what what I'm hearing is that we don't see
the need for it as a stand-alone policy is. We also think it's void of some things that are better articulated where this is stated in other documents that already exist. >> Said a fair summary. So I
just look at the close what I'm asking for is either to see if it is embedded somewhere else. >> Or if not, where it could be, you should be embedded as opposed to a stand-alone policy. So I'm saying I don't want this to be a stand-alone
policy. Help us understand. Does do we need to take pieces of this and embedded somewhere like in the U.S. on our or is it already covered? That this is sort of duplicative. Okay,
right. So my quickly, no stand-alone policy. Is it somewhere else? If it's not the Morales to pieces of this need to be somewhere else and where that's what I'm looking for. Okay.
>> Is that the motion or the okay? >> So all those in favor of the motion on the table, which is to send this back to staff.
in a way which miss Sizemore Heizer just articulated. Besides riser Dr. Anderson Mystic's it. I myself opposed.
Abstentions. This mayor of state motion passes. Next. Step. Conduct or read for item
one 7 policy. 26 60 volunteer uniforms in public schools. >> This think we've looked before, but this is again, the
memo from April 29th, the changes made to this policy include adding a philosophy statement and a responsibility section. There's no matching
the SBA policy. So very little was adjusted here.
>> This man. So part of the reason they've from the last one was again, I personally don't act things that. Are
part of another picture. So this one is the same volunteer uniform. So this policy was included in the U.S. are in our review. That staff did at the bottom. It says consider all these other policies. And again, this is why we were
trying to review policies by series. So that we could have a more holistic view if you member grading policy, right? We put in homework instead of
it being a stand alone. So would I suggest is very start taking notes. But if we want to continue, as we said, we did with the review of the sooner. It's a responsibility
policy we could put in there, for instance, that what this motion that just passed was which was, you are there things that are already embedded in the on our
regulation that we want to pull out or what policies to staff recommends like again, we don't need to update this. There's no rush about school uniforms. I do have some questions. If we tee up those
things, then we could help bring a more robust. Add it to the board when the time comes, we could do it now. Our brains are in it and then whenever
that happens, so I'd love to get your thoughts on that. And my so I'm not in any place to approve this this time around. I think the summary of changes
is going find the first 2 sentences. It shouldn't be a volunteer uniform policy. It's a practice. All right. We don't it's not a policy that this thing is a policy. The
practice section 5 seems repetitive. Some of the red lines seem like they from the language that needs clarity. Why does the school board member need to approve should say something about cost? The
school division is not going to cover costs. So again, things that, you know and wire uniforms a good thing. If we want to allow it or not like there is data and it's not
here. So again, I would just put it in that discussion. Dr Anderson. Thank you. I just had a couple of questions. I
don't miss it. Disagreed with some of the kind of organizational feedback that miss Marion had. But I did wonder this is a policy that's under the school board. Can
you speak us to why that is? Because many of the other is on the equity office, ISD, et cetera. Why this is live
better under the school board. Or not better have put that what just I can say from the legal perspective, the
Virginia code expressly requires uniform requirements be approved by the local school board. >> Perhaps that's I. >> But the code just also
requires is just about the most anything be provide being done under the delegation of the school board. I mean, we could read that line as well.
I don't have any dog in the fight on this one. I'm fine with I understand what's been said about having this maybe be reviewed as part of a sign are. But I I don't know if I
see it as part of the Sinai because the rights and responsibilities and expectations of behavior. This is for me, a very different activity. This is along the
same lines as when parents are coalescing to change the language at their school from language acts to language C it's a community kind of grassroots kind of work that
comes to us. So I don't know if I see it as in betting as closely related to the SR and
IR South. Mystic's. It. >> I'm just in interest in line. The Fairfax County School It's a Jen off a
volunteer e new foreign policy finding division School with the guidelines for implementing school followed. But >> ivy like fcps like all the
schools are supposed to be double and inclusive and light haugen below once going to do that or the other school. I
mean, if we want to implement, probably fallen, they can be for months to be all schools are not like. I mean, that's personally. I don't know about that. Can I follow that up
with a quick question with that with Mister Foster, it again, I think of Mystics of might like answer a question. First. >> Yes, ma'm. Well, I the
policy is written to expressly allow a local school to do this. So that's currently the policy the board has on the books. >> And if the board wants to change that direction, you certainly can. But ently
it's written to allow individual schools. Currently permit an individual school to create a voluntary uniform
rule if they so chose. We didn't take that in 10 out because that's currently are You're statement. We just tried to craft a philosophy
that would match that. >> From there, I came from the war can be from us. All lies, right? It kind of give us that perspective. The everybody has
the same look the same. I mean, not of the same, but, you know, to be in and says, I like all students, you know, it doesn't happen matter they come from background the day
they're the same votes. I'm not saying favor of dog but not but that it's it's discussion. What having on my board members, I feel so I I
feel like this policy can again be embedded into some other policy and we know son as our on our Lux session. We
can discuss this as well. Dr Anderson. >> So what does the state
articulate? That the school board will have latitude for part or all boys. It. >> Pretty much not specific.
>> A code section. 22.1 dash 79.2 paragraph B. says in relevant part. Local school boards may establish
requirements consistent with the state guidelines for the students enrolled in any of their schools to wear uniforms while in attendance at such school. During the regular school day.
>> That seems to give latitude to single school rather than system. Thank you. I was just
curious about So I'm just confused because actually, I brain got deep into the red
lining. But I'm a little confused when you get to page 2. Let's just go to to see. People the and we look at the
screen I mean, see says it looks like what's redlined out. I mean, these aren't sentences. Any group of parents and guardians are students opposing such a policy may also distributed
with the initial proposal. It's not a sentence. The school show schedule open information for parents and guardians and meetings of the
can. It's weird redlining. So I I don't I only have this. It'll have a clean copy on board. Docks. So. I mean, I'm
because we don't have to have school uniform policy. You know, I'm comfortable sun setting it all together. But I'm not not know that. I'm
hearing that from other folks so it certainly needs to be
cleaned up. We said about year. Set in motion. I this
well, again, I disagree. We're sending these little pieces of things back to staff and this isn't even a priority. And we have so many other priorities. So. >> Again, you know, there's things like the student
walkout policy. There's things like, you know, that the students have you know, passion about lately about principles reviewing their newspapers. Those are student
rights. And how we grant them or not Ehrlich. That stuff should be in the policy and the reason that they were problems and confusion is because the policy doesn't say any of this stuff. So if it's
a student, right, like wearing the clothes they want is the school community decides or walking out of the building or printing what they want. That
should be addressed in one policy and done as one set. I really, really discourage us from sending little tidbits of work over to the superintendent at this time.
Whether it's related to us on our not right now, I think we should just. Keep this with the others. I mean, again, I think it should just rest for
now. Again, it was when was the last review of it. A long time ago. And we have talked about it and I guess it just keeps kicking of information is a good point. Dr integrates
like well as it to 30 to the school district. So I would just to come in, just wait. I understand when you say wait, just just so the side for now,
Senate and the yeah. I because I do. That your money during the motion to set aside? >> Sure. I make a motion to set aside a second. second to set it aside Dixon. Thanks,
Peter Motion. Mystics it like speak your motion. All those in favor of setting inside for now your chance. All right.
I'm gonna forward. Okay. Miss Mayor Mystics it myself. All those opposed. Our work Dre.
When we set it aside. So it set aside or it's coming back. >> I'm sorry sent. >> It means we're not taking
action on we did it for this one and we didn't do it for the other one. So. Stands so did. Otherwise. Do we not have
a process, lady to clarify the opposition was Dr. Anderson Sizemore Heizer correct to the
vote. >> Of trying to find that
offline. Okay. work on that. The call Dr Reid for item 1 dot, 0, 8, policy. 26 70 programs for students with disabilities.
>> Thank you. Miss This policy has been updated its entirety. The philosophy section was added the title requirements has been changed responsibilities and the section has been modified.
Additionally, new legal references were added. And the matching the SBA policy has been attached. >> Sizemore Heizer. Yeah. A
couple of things. Several things for I'm assuming this CST came back because this was came when I was governance chair and I asked to go to UCSD because state code,
they're supposed to comment on any of our could go to them after we're done with that as well but needs good at some point. I know I'd sent it in September of. those April
cited of 2023. And I believe the first went to a CST where they were made aware it was September of 2023. 24, I might be good. No sorry. 24 April.
24 September of 24, excuse me. First, they heard of it and I believe they commented on it. But I wanted to confirm that this has been commented by them on it. I don't know the
answer to Mr. Foster Dino second short of 67 emails I sent to staff asking them when it was can be sent a csd when they're going to comment on it, including to they see as chair to Mike Bloom. Okay,
several times. So I think before now we can pass it out of here and then a system need to come on tab for those the board. The reason it's better to do it before now is because
if we pass it and Csd has some significant substantive changes that's got to be discussed entire board. At some point, it's easier for ACS to give their comments. And then discussed here in governance and then go on to
the full board. But it can be done the other way. But I know this has been almost a year. She spent over a year that we've been asking Dcsd comments on this all Yeah. I
have more comments, but that was my first before we moved on. I don't think we should talk about this until we have
that answer that. That is a state could requirement.
talk with the other things for that. Yeah, because I don't. And I'm sitting here wondering was, I suppose is to them. And I said when I was governance
chairs, can't go on for a while. So this so they did get it. I don't know. I asked why I ask for staff to take it? They see us because they have to discuss is that staff?
>> No, it was Arce Dr. Reid's staff. Okay and leave. They did by just double check. Yeah. I think they did that. I had somewhat emails reminding once you move on really move on to the question, I was a
little confused. Why. >> In section of the responsibilities, the modified standard diplomas to list because I don't believe the modified standard diploma still exists. I think everyone
who was grandfather into that diplomas already graduated. >> I don't know if everybody had already graduated may be in pretty they because that
was not even available for my son. And he gradually 2 years ago. Okay. So I'm pretty sure. But I prefer your staff to confirm that, but pretty sure they all graduated. >> The other thing I would
recommend saying in here instead of modified standard or applied studies is or similar IEP diploma. So that way, if something else has changed Vo in the future, this doesn't have to then be
updated. similar IEP Diplo because the what these rip diplomas, actually the clerk's taking notes, right? Even as we come. So I'm just that way.
Doesn't have to come back to us or get out of date if they change the applied studies to something else that's the other piece. I do think not a wordsmith. But when we have in
the 3rd paragraph, parents should be parent guardian caregiver and a decanter brings that up. And I agree. With her as well. I surprises
are referencing the fcps manual round procedures. While we're not referencing, for example, the transition manual that exceptional handbook and the Special Education Handbook. Because I know I
want to reference more than just procedural on the references. in terms of the substance of it since it's a policy, mean, is lot like that
of the substance for that. You know, time I'm not going to accept think it has a big pictures in here. But there are pieces that I think are either out of date. I don't
like to understand better why these are the references, not others. read where the
references were here. So second pair across references on Page 2 and legal references, his cross references at the bottom days,
read about say. I think those were the legally required references. Is that correct? John? If I may, the cross
references are separate from the legal references. So I don't know why it would be league required to reference our own manual. For example. It's top list of the top underneath the league references the cross
references. So and I don't know why the law would require us to reference our own Maggie Lake Jen, for example, or on manual. Looks like. Perhaps we
didn't update those since 2010 and the Tuohy hymn books probably. >> More recent than 2010. >> Make a motion send this back because that section as
well at T. Because also didn't have the Fcps Special Education Handbook or the transition handbook. I'll second. I speak, your motion
actress who was like speech or mission? >> Just very quickly. Just a point that I wanted to make is the responsibilities peace since this is going back. If you all could just take a look because I've always viewed
that as this is what you will do. This is what this you don't expect parents to do this. We expect staff to do this. We expect the schools to be responsible for that. Some of this kind of falls and do
that under the general believes in philosophy. So I think part of that can be moved there in terms of what I'm thinking is regarding the parent relationship, let's say
the last paragraph. This is additionally Fcps recognizes a parent and student relationship said the parent and student as important partners. That's great. But that's more of a Belief is not. is part of the
responsibility. If you could just take a look at that while you're cleaning up. >> Anywhere else like to speak to the motion on the table.
Seeing no other park rtd's. Let's take a vote. All those in favor of the motion on the table saying this. But the staff. Sizemore Heizer Dr. Anderson, this mayor and the sticks and myself, thank you.
Motion passes, which gives you time to find out. may be recognized. It also asked when you bring it back with
confirmed. CST Review. Thank you.
I call him Dr. Reid. For item 1 dot. '09, policy. 27, 20 student >> Thank you. Miss changes again to this are fairly
minimal. Changing the series title and we've added a philosophy section. Also, wording has been added in Section 3 around clarifying allowance to distribute
directory information and some other title ING has occurred. There are no matching the SBA
policies. >> Dr Anderson. Thank you. The only thing that came to mind
we viewing this is there was significant. I guess, direction and the trust policy that spoke to a directory information and how that's to
be secured. I'm not seeing that. Being included here.
very clearly in terms of securing various documents and I'm not necessarily saying that we have to be duplicative, but it does lend itself to what's under the
responsibility section here, at least just some general statement I think would be important. And I would not want for these 2 documents to
be divergent in terms of Purpose and focus. So I'd like
to give them the time to do that. Crosswalk. So Sizemore
Heizer. Seeing no other park rtd's all speak. I'm fine with it is written and I would love to get a motion to pass it.
This lady just bringing up when it comes to the series title under regulation 11. 0, 4. If we're moving into information technology, it should be moved to the 6,000 series because that's what
that series is. >> If we're going to keep it and 20 and that 2000 series and the series title for the 2000 series is. Special
Services. This goes back to the larger discussion we had earlier we've had with other policies about how the regular this regulation needs to be updated. It is something where
we could read number the policy. If the board wants to move it information technology. Ayers. yes, I just
really want submit my opposition to moving this forward. We spent an inordinate amount of time ensuring that student information. >> Can be.
>> Secured and having that information in the trust policy. I have very, very concerned that I don't see much of this being mirrored here. Minimally I would not
want for us to have 2 divergent documents. It will not cost us anything for staff to take a little bit more time to ensure that these 2 and alignment with each other.
What to include some of the provisions out of that document into this policy. I really don't want this somewhat to be moving forward without that. Look, it's
really important that we have that information because we spent what, half a on the bottom of motion that we move. It. walk yes. And to ensure
that it is nearing some of the responsibilities of that document. Do I have a second this mayor, it's like to speak to your first. It's like speak. Your second. Is germane
to that mission on the table? >> Mystic's it. mean, it's up to the discussion, the policy, this I just wanted to add my
$0.2 because its funding and did it now. >> It is definitely be very important secure our and keep information private. And
there's a lot elements who are trying to get into the servers and all days. So I do want to make sure that V a that the storm has to be have the highest level off
cybersecurity and fireball. And in in place. that's I think we should reflect in some phase in our in our policy be take this very
seriously. Seeing no other vote for the motion table that we push this back to staff we definitely need one at it, which is what series it's going to go into. >> And some of the other suggestions with across
walking all those in favor. Everyone at the table, the motion passes. It is 5
o'clock. And we are adjourned.