>> We're going to start in
just a minute. So we start on
time. Thanks.
>> All righty. >> Ms. Meren: This June 16th 2026 meeting of the Fairfax County School Board Governance Committee will now come to order at 04:00PM. We will first turn to the minutes. So
will vote to approve the minutes of 5/19/2026 of the Governance The Motion Mr. Fish moves to approve the minutes. Their second for the motion Dr. Anderson. Any discussion?
You know, all those in favor the motion minutes. I Dr. Anderson. You yes, okay. That is unanimous adoption of the minutes from a 19. Thank you.
OK? So we have one topic on the agenda and that is the intentional use of technology policy discussion. We posted
the current working version of the policy which was from March 17th. We also posted to bread lines that 2 committee members provided. So that was
mine. And Robin ladies. We had. A thorough discussion of Thursday night's school board meeting about aspects of
instructional technology. So you know, I I asked prior to this meeting, you know, what were folks is expectations desires for this discussion
because, you know, we do have the premise of approving a part trying to get a policy approved. There's areas where agreement isn't yet met. So
thought is. You know, one. What do we have to clarify that might have been lost in translation over. Conversations over emails. And
even in the updated guidelines. Secondly, we have to acknowledge the large amount of community input we've received most recently
about artificial intelligence. And the request for a sizable number of parents to be cautious of that. So we have
in the past on the committee talked about separating the 2 main topics at hand. You know, the AI and the educational tack and a few meetings back. The consensus was to keep it as one policy. So we are here
today. But things change and evolve. So perhaps one area to talk about today is do we want to split those policies? So that's one thing to just put
out there. And remember, we do have the work session just a week from today. So if we're thinking about what can we shore up to bring to our colleagues on Tuesday in
pinpoint for discussion that will help us move toward a final product. So happy to hear thoughts. Other ideas. We'll go factor, Anderson. And
them are fresh. think it would be ♪ >> I'm just going to turn. That's where the bulk of the
people I saw at time this way anymore. I've got a situation here. I could only move in one direction. >> Dr. Anderson: I think it will be to the surprise of no one that I would love to bring in a motion to buy for Kate.
These 2 policies because as I shared earlier, it many meetings ago, they're 2 huge components and we would be better served if we were to
disengaging from each other. In addition, I would love and this is, I guess, to chair mayor and I would love for us to have the opportunity if it were to be that we can buy for
Kate these because that has not been the conversation to date. That we can just go through and really hone in on what components belong in each of the segments of each and
really come out of this meeting with some content for each and then turned that into a document or rather 2 documents, which could then be
brought to the work session, not wordsmith thing, but just getting the continent just kind of organizing that in a way that makes sense that is agreeable to everybody here. But I'm very much in favor of
bifurcated. The 2. Thanks a Anderson. Mr. Fresh. >> My thinking is kind of evolved towards having to. But may be a different way.
>> I think the. >> Your colleague about what would it look like if we had a policy that governed instructional technology for
students and that would be inclusive of AI when used by students. Or if used by students. And then the second
policy would be. Technology used by staff. Because I think, you know, a lot of the conversation that we've had at least in recent weeks has been around the types of technology
that staff use. And I think I think that there's less. There's heightened concern around what students have access to and what students are being asked to use. But
there's all kinds of different areas that staff used technology, including AI that I think would benefit from a policy clarity. I as it
relates to students is ace is a piece of the technology puzzle that has to be addressed. So I can see that is living in a policy that is student-centered on instructional technology and
perhaps having a separate one for for staff. I'd also be open if that's not where the board ends up being. I'd be open to having what some of us
have talked about, as you know, an attack and then separate AI policy. But I think it makes more sense to have.
>> Thank you, Ms. Lady. And interesting in terms of separate between teachers, staff, they say faculty, staff and student use because I do
think there's there the rest, different. Has there. The PD plan versus a digital literacy plan like those are very different. I don't want it to
be. At tech I plan because that to me. As a tool. I don't
want to I plant. If we were a probably do it more like. Dr. Anderson is recommended, which
I think is similar MS Anderson's recommendations. Which one is intentional use of technology. One is an attack. I think, you know,
this is where we people get stuck in in the weeds, but they're tools just like AI is a tool. Correct me if I'm wrong. Got him. But but then
intentional use is very different, right? That's we're talking about what's age appropriate. That's when you're talking about. You know, and again, you know, I'm
a huge believer that we have to lead with instruction and then we implement the technology. And I tried to to codify that in my drafts that, you know, any purpose.
>> Technology in any capacity. It has to be enhancing instruction in some capacity. And so if you read my draft, that's, you know.
>> The main goal and that's what we need to be doing. That's what and how we need to be teaching the use of it. So. I'm not sure I stand terms of separating them as Ed Tech
versus intentional use or staffer says kids, you know, I'm open to hear more from my colleagues. Thank you. And >> Ms. Meren: just to clarify,
Dr Houston, I understood what you were saying was separation would be at But I heard something different. Is Ms. Lady summarized it? Can you clarify today? Is that
correct? >> I think I was a little bit loose and my language, tech peace. I think we all are working with the same understanding. The AI
component is the intentional use and all of that. So you can still put in that bucket. I didn't necessarily want to just tone and it's going to be AI policy. But he will have all of the things that we do
in terms of utilizing what is available. I'm just gonna take this opportunity to also say, I think each of these buckets, we have the opportunity to specify a staff component and
a student component because I'm thinking back on some other policies. What we've done exactly that. Like the grading policy. I think we had some pieces there as well as
the trust policy. Go ahead and take a turn. Before we go to a second round. So really open
to doing whatever work for the most people and is reasonable. The challenge I have is that we put a stake in the ground months ago to do one policy. And now we're. We visiting
that and that's fine. Except that if we keep revisiting will never get to the product. That's that's my fear. And my anxiety that I bring to it. >> Ms. Meren: So I'm
wondering, do we identify ways that we would want to split it and bring that to Tuesday's work session? That's one thought that I have the other
thought that I have is. It's kind of unfortunate that we're having this meeting on the second to last day of school because the input I've heard about what our children are doing in school. In these last
days, especially our secondary students. He's been so disheartening. Watching a movie. Being on their phone.
One school today reported that they had a backup in responding to parent really pick up requests because so many kids were trying to get picked because there's nothing
to do in school. This gets to the heart of why parents are clamoring for this and why we need to be responsible. And so when I look at this policy, my
my biggest hopes for this policy and Kohl's is that we specify what the expectation is. And what will be enforced
at least now we know that laptop the devices are not required to go home because we enforce that on Thursday. I have email saying one thing and the other until now. But now everyone knows that
laptops to not have to go home in elementary school. That's the only thing that's clear. And so. I just keep that like.
The AI is a whole other. I would like to know. Our teachers allowed to show a full-length Disney movie in class. Has apparently
happened. In school this week. How how? Are apps to say how how do we evaluate Alexia actually works. And as a first
grader need it. There's a 3rd grader need it. How are teachers using data to inform their instruction and how can I help them? Because I do have
concerns, especially about unintended bias. I mean, I visited classrooms. I talked with teachers. I see great things. But because I'm not
seeing some real fence is about quality control it so hard for me to continue to talk about. The vastness of what's possible. So I want
this policy to be really specific about what's allowed and what's not. Very specific. So we're just clear. For
starters. As amateur. So I said Dr. Anderson. And then we'll go back to Mr. Fresh and the misleading. Thank you. You
mention about a path moving forward. >> Dr. Anderson: This is kind of what I'm envisioning. Not sure where people are line for us to make a decision. We're going to split. So that drives everything else. And my mind's
eye and again, I would love for us to split and we could just kind of come up in from up with the language and a little bit. We've made that determination. And I think I'm
hearing that I heard that from missing cutting last time. And I'm hearing split. the how is kind of still a little bit of a debate. What I'm hearing that we can split. Once we do
that and we kind of have our marching orders. I think that we might be very productive if we talked about the the technology use and go through
each of the components that exist and we have plenty of. Resources that we've spoken about that have just come up that people continue to share with us where we could go
through each of the components like and the purpose. What are the non-negotiable is that the purpose should have and do we have agreements on that? Anything that is going to be that that has an objection. We
just put we put in the parking lot for next time and we go through the definitions. We go through the philosophy. I'd like to think. We can go
through each of these 2 documents. Both the intentional use and then that the technology piece in order to be productive out of this
meeting and to have something tangible for the work session. So that's what I'm envisioning. Does that did that come out the way that I had I have to admit I'm still
not clear what was saying. When you say intentional use versus attack. I just don't understand that. Let me just bring it to Miss Anderson had
shared with us. She shared with us 2 puppies. 2 versions once that use of technology. Once it innovation. An instant
instructional technology. Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were using documents that were posted that but these were posted last time. But I'm just wanting to answer the question. Doesn't have to BBC.
I just if you could just explain to one tonight. One is the educational technology in terms of how is it that we view the use of? Educational
technology in our classrooms? What is artificial intelligence? What are we expecting? And then the other ones that is around the innovation, which is probably the more AI heavy one and my
mind's eye in terms of what are those guardrails guardrails that will be available and it doesn't have to be just a it could be some of the other things that you just talked about. We just
have to determine if we want to separate them. First. If I may. And I'm realizing now
that is where Ms Anderson's I didn't make that connection. So I'm happy to continue to listen. I'm still not clear. It seems there's plan then
we're going to John coming. This is the only time I speak up here, but I just wanted to make clear as to the reason why I was suggesting and Dr. Anderson, I wasn't here the
day. >> Ms. Anderson: That you guys voted on this. I had left already because I needed to to speaking The reason that I'm advocating for their being too is I do think we need guardrails around educational technology in the things in
our classrooms that are appropriate and are not. And I also want us to make sure that we are Ed child. When we have new technologies that are coming forward. We already know that there are new things
on the horizon that are potential no opportunities for our kids. But unless we have guardrails, I don't want us to have to go through another year long process because we will be behind the power curve
in our kids will already be using the technology before we have a plan. And so the reason that I split it into 2 and I'm not suggesting that either of my drops was fully correct.
I'm just suggesting that it was a place to start thinking about how we can create a framework. That is similar to some of things that we've been doing with AI. How can we
create a framework for implementation or decisions that we're not going to implement and then also understanding that it's actually works in concert with
the educational technology so that we wouldn't violate anything that we have stuck in the ground as these are the guardrails that will be required. So those are that those are the 2 things that I was hoping that we could
accomplish. So I agree with Dr. Anderson, that having 2 policies in my sense works well here. I also agree with Mr. Fresh that you can have aspects of staff use and you
can have aspects of student use in the policies themselves. I didn't break it up that way. But it also created it way I created. These was also by using
utilizing the different drafts that both missed Marin had brought forward and Dr Reid had brought forward throughout the course of this. So is trying to incorporate all of those things because in my
opinion version, 5 of the draft that the superintendent brought forward included a lot of the types of things that we were talking about. So that was the framework for how I created those 2 policies. And like I said, that they were
just a starting point. It doesn't necessarily mean that they were the right answer. scene, John, cutting them are
fresh. I do think in this whole process. We have evolved. Probably me the most the least tech savvy. I think
that there was a lot of confusion because first were talking about AI policy. And I think as we were talking about a policy started going into these other areas and talking
about tax. And I think there was a lot of confusion because >> Ms. St. John-Cunning: some of the things that the public was hearing about. What's being done was just being done with educators vs. And so then
I think that there was that kind of become fusion. So I think we have to delineate that. I think it's it's moving
rapidly. I like the idea of 2 separate. Policies. What I mean, because I've heard from a lot of teachers. I was at a school this morning or this teacher is said to me like, please tell me, you guys are
going to do this because this is how I use technology and it was not I it was other things. And so. And we do. As we
should on dance. But we also have to remember that the teachers are having to use these tools and know how to use them. And there's so much involved and we're talking about technology with our
teachers, how they learned how they use and what's appropriate. What's not just in terms of teachers, not even like how it's going to be pushed out. So I think that that's where there was a lot
of confusion. I we evolved from AI to tech. And to make a broader. So I do like that idea. And, you know, I mean, I
was at a school today. They were not watching movies. They were actually giving me a petition. I do remember when I was in school, those last days and we did not have computers,
but we did have. >> Projectors. Oh, my God. I'm so well. So, you know, that
was a fun time at the end of the year. I'm not gonna knock our kids having fun on the last day of Cool. Watching a movie or anything. This is not like something that happens
all the time and it was not tech-heavy maybe projectors technology forward back then, you know, so. >> Again, I think that. We
can't put everything in the bucket our kids aren't learning because of tack and they're watching a movie. While I used to watch movies. It was fun for me. The last schools. So that's what I'm saying. Mr. Fish and Ms. Lady.
We have the TV cart. The giant television. It was short on Disney movies. However. >> In terms of the separation,
Dr. Anderson's mention of how we've done. Some of the policies is interesting because you know, like, for example, the trust policy
delineates out. What specific responsibilities people have. I could see a world in which because it initially when we were talking about like 2 policies were talking about AI
and tech. I could be seen as shorthand for like. Emerging technologies right if it was
divided along the lines of like emerging technologies, like how do we do that? And that's obviously going to I have e at the same time tack, which is more the practical application. And what we're
looking for is like the rules around. If it's going to be allowed or not allowed what the instructional benefits are, et cetera. That would obviously also have AI and But it wouldn't be exclusive to a
I within each of those you could have policy prescriptions around student use and staff use. What I
didn't get to. My first coming miss mayor and asked for was like, how do we move forward from here? I think if the committee wants to have a bifurcated policy, that's the
first question. I think that Dr. Anderson identified as needing an answer. The second thing I think we could do is what are the questions we want our colleagues to answer. The
work session about each of those assuming that we move in this direction, each of those policies right I don't know that I'd want to eliminate something just because we
don't agree on it. It could be put in there as a consideration that would like the board colleagues to weigh in on. Maybe we put those is
like a separate category for discussion. Yeah, parking or sandbox as they say in the tech world. So I'd be open to including the things you hear, the things that we would be
sending on to. You. If this was a draft policy. But then here are the things that we also talked about. If you all want to weigh in on that so I think that be one way of
approaching how to set up the work session for success and we can go from there.
>> Yeah, a couple things. One. Or we had one to one. The end of the year. It should movies has nothing do with
technology. The other thing I must say is that we have really sort of ange one end of the year. Looks like because of our reassessment policies because we don't allow allow
cumulative finals anymore. Like it's been a game-changer based on things that came down from instructional services. So it's kind of crippling in a way to a high school who's got a set exam schedule. Many
people are doing cumulative projects on that day or last few presentations of something that the entire class has been working on. I am not a fan of
movies. I am not a fan of having a Something that set aside and it's your 7 period class and you're doing nothing when you get there. But that's a separate problem. And I don't think it anything to technology because it's been
systemic. mean, it's just especially AP classes. Lot of teachers are likely took So I you know, I'm trying to get them ready for next year's
course. The other things I want to share is you know, I don't know people realize, but like we're talking about an
tech if. The system. If if individual school has an idea that they want to or has a grant like a code up grant and wants to use that grant to buy
something that is interactive technology made by Lego, for example. They have to put a petition and I don't know what the term analogy is to ask it to be reviewed because even
though there's a there's a rigid review process for any new technology. And often that review process. And correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. can take a
year. Plus amount of time to get all the vendors answers and to get that reviewed. Is that correct? >> While we aim to do it quickly, but given the backlog, it can take time and
it starts with it. Instructional interviews which look for the efficacy of the tools and security, then privacy kill him and and maybe accessibility moving forward. Thank you. I just went up
uplift that in the room because I don't think that our community understands the rigidity and the process to help anything gets approved before our kids can interact
with it. And that is true. It has been structurally sound. The sea of that. how does help student agency and then going through the security just as he said on summarize that
again. So I just want to put that out there >> Ms. Lady: and then the other thing is, I think that there's and this is where, you know, I might not 100% agree with my colleagues, but I I'm
comfortable with some really clear things. And in the policy. But I because this is such you know, innovative situation you know, there are
people in our school system who have been in unbelievable instructional focus and strength and her help teaching teachers how to put
instruction for first and then utilize technology. 2 help kids learn. I would never want to limit them because they're
farther ahead. Then someone in that same job or the teachers that same class at a different school. So that's where this policy is a it is again of a struggle for me because I know
there's places where people are using this for passive reasons, which I disagree with, but also know there's places where there's amazing, amazing work going on and some of what but the the folks have
asked us to put policy. I would never agree to because it would limit them. go ahead, take my term. But that difference is what kills me. I'm so tired of that
difference. It's not acceptable to variety of experiences in terms of quality. It's it's just not OK. I was at Dogwood
Elementary today. They did their I D P Y P exhibition. 6th graders. Were there telling me all sorts of wonderful things being engaged. Excellent second day
of the school last day of school, the principal said this was such a great thing. The kids had more time to prepare greet. >> So that principle and her staff chose to do it that way. Windy weather. Schools choose
to do things that aren't I get it? We're all tired. I don't. You know. It's just this lack of consistency and clarity of that is a problem. My 7
greater came home on Monday. And I said, what did you do in school? He said, nothing. There's nothing left to do because we turned our laptops
That's fundamentally changing how a child thinks the learn they can't learn without a device. So for me, colleagues, I don't think there's
agreement here. Or articulation on what is the appropriate use of technology in learning and how do we know? I'm getting back to my
roots in us Schoology. I saw with 6 great parents today who is at the PDI-P exhibition. And as ago you're going to have a 6th grader going to 7th. Just let me give you a heads up. It could be a tough transition because all of a
sudden you're in school, a G there's no consistency required within a school across the grade level of what is posted, how it's used. The
kids are not intentionally taught how to use schoology. We did just update that contract. With 0 discussion.
We're feedback from the superintendent on how it's going and how it's going to improve. So again, you know, said earlier we started this conversation with AI, but
repeatedly the conversation comes down to this very basic thing. How is technology being used in schools? Because it's not just a I. It is all these things. In terms of separating
the policy. Look, we just rattled off that going from a TV car to an overhead projector was technology. That's innovation. So how do we even start to know what innovation is? It's like watching a kid walk. You don't
know. They did it until after they did it. So what policy applies? I would be satisfied if we could create a real
policy that says very specific things like. Well, what I propose in the motions, that devices will be stored away. That devices won't be used for indoor recess. That full
length feature movies going to be showed. Just saying. You know, there's it's very specific things, not lofty goals, but specific things because we're not even getting
that right. Dr. Anderson. And then Mr. Fresh. Okay. I'd like to make a motion. But before I do that, I just want to briefly be responsive some of the conversation. >> Dr. Anderson: Multiple things can be at the same
time. >> It all of I'm hearing things that I with a cross France, but we also have to come to the conclusion that and this is your phrase, Dr.
Read, you know. >> Where where school system not a system of schools, a lot of efforts being placed in an We turn a lot of efforts are
being placed and in various areas in order to provide a consistent experience, kind of leveling the floor, we're never going to be able to fully define the ceiling on all of those things. But the
floor is different and a lot of places. That's why there's investment and math textbooks because of the huge differential of experiences that you've observed. And I
was in one of the schools where you observe did. So that already exists. I don't want to add to it. We want to
continue that move of tightening. The vast experience is that all students have because this one teacher is brilliant. And I also said this in my in my area and because this is what
has happened Mr. Doctors Alagha was the or as it was always the concern that because all of the work had to be initiated by the co tease
and schools where you had really not just talented but experienced teachers. They were miles ahead with grew of groups where everybody was brand new or there was a
long-term sub. So we need to find a way to deal with the fact that we're going to have the difference is an experience or even interest. As a system. And I see us being able to do that. So to
that end, I wolike to propose these 2 terms. That we buy for Kate and to intentional use of technology that speaks about some of the
things you've just discussed. how do we review it? the second piece is the innovation of technology. And that was going to be the more AI heavy
as well as perhaps other future things. Because we don't yet know what those things I but again, putting whatever those guidewell guardrails are around each of
these. That is my motion. >> Okay. Miss Dr. Anderson. moved do we want to? Articulated more clearly? O K
and 10 K deputy clerk will be putting it up on the screen. And then I will ask Dr. Anderson, if you want to speak
to her motion and we'll go
from there.
Dr. Houston is that reflective of what you would? stop moving intentional
use of technology. Very similar sounding words are going to That's the first one.
And then innovation. And technology. And I'm fine with
intentional human being educational. If that sounds like it's better. Educational use. When we go with that for
the time being because it helps it's easier than innovation intentional. So let's leave. The timing up to a case and then innovation and technology. Thank you. do you want to speak your motion?
>> Dr. Anderson: Just very quickly because I'd like to get to the work. There will be overlaps because that's how this is. It's just like the very reason why we had 900 different calendar policies.
We were able to bring some in and some remained separate. There will be overlap. They're not going to be clean, you know, because they're related
topics. Thank you, Mr. Fresh. Yeah, I think this gets to the point we've been talking about. want to word Smith with the names of the policies are
because I think that's something that can be settled down the road. But use of educational technology sounds
good. I think >> broadly speaking as described. I think it probably check the box that most of us have talked about in terms of.
What policies would look like. Thank you, Miss Levy. >> So since we're in this space. And we keep. In my
opinion. >> Instruction instruction instruction instruction has to be the priority of all. We do. So to that end, I would do use educational technology and
instruction. And innovation in instructional technology. I think there were instructions to be in there because otherwise we're not leaving with instruction, which is the biggest complaint that we get. Can you repeat that again? It
would just been all full disclosure. It's what Miss Anderson put together. Does it make sense to me, use of educational technology and instruction? Can I just
>> Ms. Meren: Just for the purposes, the conversation being easier having to of almost the same words starting with I was just. Can we make the point? But just for the season, Jen? They don't start
with both. Start with bully. I was trying tonight innovation and won an instruction. Another cause is confusing. I thought I saw agreement that that was a good idea. But I don't I just I think
instructions being both. >> Because that's the focus. That's what everyone is upset about is that this is not all enhancing instruction. So on. We don't agrees, may be used.
So tech in. >> Innovation, instructional technology, or or emerging technologies and instruct I don't know. But with that,
okay, you know, have to merge it's if there's innovation and there's Proposition B can modify the language if you want or do we have to do it formally? I just like to keep the conversation going and not get by Karlsson. We can talk
about to our college. I'm just making the point that this is about instruction and I've been critiqued on some of the things that I put in my draft and my belief system is this
is incredibly about instruction. And I've seen this used use as a Maserati instruction. And yes, there are places where people need
to do a better job. But I I'll stop there. Campbell, take a turn on this motion. So this
is the thing. We have an instructional materials policy haven't updated it in the 5 year period. We also now have this educational review Tech committee. And I will say Ms.
Lady in the draft that you put putting the committee front and center. I really disagree with because it's not the committee's job to do this. It's, you know, the school board overseeing the
superintendent and that committee was established in a conversation that was, I think about 45 minutes on a day. The board was not expecting to vote on something. So I just
and it was community engagement and it's being positioned in your version as like the Beyond All driver. And I just don't I don't see that. That's not how we've
done things. I think that as a board we've been remiss in not reviewing the instructional policy, which has a process for how materials are selected. We just did it for
the math materials. We did it for literacy. I mean, there's other things here. And are we creating a whole new way of approving instructional materials when we have a thing
under policy and we committees there that we rely on. So. The bottom line is. If we have enough of these buckets right
now, would it be helpful to kind of assess at what goes into buckets? As a way to move forward? Otherwise I am happy to hear other's ideas for how
to proceed with the conversation. first have to vote on the motion. We do right? Okay. Dr. Anderson.
Icier Packard. And yes, please Yes again, I'm not. Against using the words instructional. But as the first one stands, it doesn't really resonate
with me. And I don't want a wordsmith here. Use of educational technology and instruction. >> Dr. Anderson: That doesn't make sense. The word educational is supposed to be instructional. So I don't
think it's necessary to have the instruction at the end. And we're evolving into making this clearer. So that we philosophies purpose ensure
that the instructional piece stands up. This is just the title. It's not going to be the only time to talk about that. So if I had my druthers here, I would take out.
Instruction at the end of the first piece. But I don't want this to stop us from moving forward because use of educational technology, I think an inherently speak to
instruction in the second piece. I I'm fine with that addition. Mr. Fresh. I think we could probably wait on
solidifying the names until we filled in the buckets. >> I think we are largely agreement about what the big the bigger umbrellas are. Right. One is about innovation. Mission. One is
about the use of the technology, right? So let's just kind of think of that. I also do want to defend the creation of the Educational Technology Review Committee.
As folks know forms often have votes attach to them. This one is publicly noticed in the way that they're always publicly noticed. And the ask in the written version of the forum
was extremely explicit and detailed one of the things that the board approved believe it was unanimous vote over. If it wasn't, it was 11 board members and support was
including the TRC in the policy. So we'll have to determine which policy goes into. additionally. The forum
asked that the governance committee not only included but included along the dimensions that the forum topic prescribed. So that it's an alignment with what the
superintendent is move forward with, which we've all pointed people to. >> just thinking about, you know, we've been challenged.
What are we making what basing our work on, what research, what input, happy. Talk to teachers. Have we red research to? We had input from medical doctors. What is the
superintendent say? We also already have a committee that's been providing us input for years. And that's our student health Advisory Committee. And so. I can say
that I've reviewed the recommendations thoroughly from all the past years to know what to bring to the table here. You know, look,
again, what I is that. It's the Wild West in our schools. You walk in one classroom. They're doing devices. You walk into another their way. One 4th grader. I know his homework on a device. The next
one I know was school where there's no homework. If it's good for kids, it's good for kids. Put it in a policy. It's really challenging for me to to do this work without
hearing from our superintendent of any opinion on this. Should elementary school kids have homework? Should Elin mention school kids bring home laptops? Is
Lexi effective. What's it going to cost to put devices away? I just kind of feel like for me, I'm in a little bit of a vacuum and trying to make good stuff based on all the
input I can. What do you think do you think educators need us to create a policy for how they use intentional attack or is that more of an HR for
thousands policy thing? You don't know that we have an employee code of conduct like in a sarin are. Does it go in there? I mean, there's so many questions. I just what can we get to? That's really
concrete. And ideally could be in place for the new school year. I think can we make some kind of a statement about what is the intended use of one on
one devices in elementary school? Should we say? We have and use of educational technology policy and it says a time limit. At least it's a
start. Do we want to codify the motions that were proposed? On Thursday and we're not going to solve this here again. We're trying to
gin up stuff for Tuesday, but what information do we think we want to know? What do we feel qualified to make policy on? And where's the superintendent going to help
fill us fill in the gaps? Because I don't know. I separating into 2 I said was in the beginning, I'll go with whatever work. works if it's appropriate. But I still don't
think that we're clear as a body on what the appropriate use of tech is. We're going to put in there. We're just going to put in there that it should be appropriate. Or are we
going to decide that appropriate means? Kids on a 60 minutes a day. I know it's not funny, but what is I think this is the crux of the
discussion. I'm not saying it is either as lady but there is an agreement or articulation on what the appropriate use of technology is in learning. And
how we know. Dr. Anderson. >> Thank you. If I may offer, we could certainly start to dig down and some of those questions that you just posed.
Once we make a decision on. Are these 2 separated separate policies so I would offer for us to vote on this motion so that we could such a tease out
what belongs in the use instruction of educational technology. What belongs and innovation of instructional technology. Are you calling the question? Yes, okay.
>> The question has been called. Let's go ahead and vote on the motion. motion is I moved We have to vote on that. It's called should because have to vote on the
call. The question, does everyone agree that we are going do need to? Can we vote
on this motion? I'm gonna call the I move that we buy for Kate. Wait, I'm gonna read the motion. And we're gonna vote
on it. It's been moved by doctors and seconded Mister Fresh. All those in favor of the motion. I move that we buy for key policy into the use of an educational technology policy and innovation
instructional tech policy. I see Mister Frisch Lady St. John-Cunning Anderson. And I'm gonna say no. But I'll go
along with. What you voted. Okay. 2 policies. May I make a suggestion? Dr. Anderson would like to make a stand in Ms.
Lady. Did you have another comment or is that now? Just a thought like I felt like he may have been asking Dre questions, but then there wasn't really a pause. So
>> If you're asking her questions, can we make sure that we all understand they expect answer? is thanks for evasion. Okay. And then I was going expire. I'm what intentional use. looks like.
But you can read it in the policy draft. I created. So we have 2 policies. case and you would want to make a comment.
Yes, just kind of again, just moving forward because I think we've been working under the umbrella of one policy. I would like very much not that we have settled on too, for us to take the first piece which
is use of and struck of educational technology. And such a tease out. What's the content that needs to be in the purpose. What's the content that needs to be in
the day. What are the what's the content, definitions? What's the content for philosophy? Just so we could start to build because now we have to separate what I think
a lot of work has been placed into putting together. If we can start to build that, then we could start to separate the 2. Just starting with the use. What do we want to see in the purpose of use to get not
wordsmith thing it to the death, but just that the content that is going to be key. That would be my suggestion. And hopefully if we do it for the first policy,
we could just turn around and do it for the second policy. Well, one thought could be is that we? Start with the Standing Committee Policy and
Section by section say is that in one or 2 and put things in that way. That would be way to do with doctors as proposed other ideas. There. We could
just go through the document and say, okay, like this definition of AI that's going to go use renovation and go from there and perhaps also say maybe the clerk needs to
organize herself so that she could toggle back and forth as to what's going to be in which. Maybe my give her
minutes. >> That was my question. The Senate which draft will looking at as we go through and look at each tax year let's go with the Standing
Committee draft. Which is the one from March 17th.
So the purpose. It's maybe people just jump in here. If we're
looking at the May 19th purpose, that purpose aligns very clearly to the educational technology, peace. Others. I that should move
into policy. One. Their agreement there. Yes, Carl.
Okay. Sure. I think that's 5. But since they're delineated out, I don't know whether it should include something
regarding. >> That was passed. >> Because its use of educational tech. I don't know if it should include something
related to. Selection of, but that I think is where the committee needs to be. Codified in both. Perhaps and
again. There is a very, very specific, deliberate process for selection. Now. so. If I
may. So one thing is can we trying figure out where we could play sees things that we won't be perfect right now? >> Ms. Meren: And we can come back later in the conversation. But second, it probably sounds would be helpful to know what. The
instructional decision purposes. Do you Let's go I'm fine with the purpose that was in. The draft policies that were posted, OK, Mr. Fresh.
think I was simpatico with where you are going just now which is if we just chuck them into the buckets that they seem to most likely aligned with. We can once we have the
2 kind of buckets we can say, OK? Now is anything missing from the purpose? Is there anything that we don't agree on that we need to have the best of the rest of the board dive the definitions. Are there any things that we need to,
>> cetera? I was just going to my comment. >> Ms. Meren: Though. And I know our our clerk is taking Bill next. I have the policy its on board docks. It's the May 19th one so going to down
that policy. So definition section we had 4 definitions. Our full artificial intelligence AI literacy, digital devices and generative AI. And I am aware there was a
change to digital literacy that was proposed We checked that in the first bucket. The first policy bucket, you know, maybe we can simply check things into one of the other.
Well, anyway, I and I literacy will clearly going to be second policy rate. Innovation and technology. I definition.
And the generative AI definition could probably will likely end up being in both Magic. >> I read the generative needs to be in both. Because as
we've already been told existing tools have some component of gentle touch on them for different reasons. But most of both still to be defined.
>> For what it's worth, I probably would put generative AI only in the innovation. One. And not in the attack. I agree with that of go along to get along. We can always take
it. after. >> So definitely AI in the use attack. And then as well in innovation. But then
additionally. Generative AI. And then and literacy enough or just sort of. Chiming in the cap year. Let's 9 I know
one point we were talking about human in the loop. I mean, I think that from an perspective, that's the number one thing that people want to make sure is that if there is
any realization by staff of AI that there is a human in the loop. They're so that would go
in the. Fans of the attack. I think. If think about when it comes to definitions probably
out something else that we can revisit when we're done with what's going that one because it only makes sense to include definitions for things that we are using. Indirect and the
language of the policy finding things that don't exist in the document. Okay. The philosophy is just going to be a whole other animal. I don't think each one will have a loss. Yeah. And and we didn't do
that in the one that the commitment to speak separate. >> Well, the one that we have that we drafted by time to both, you know it. Now we can just I shared with Dr. Anderson, yet we didn't we
didn't share it here only because we were kind of move in a different direction. But we were ready. But last meeting we only got through most of the That's also true. It also it was an attempt at least at the time when I initially came up with the
first draft, it was Green. Both of these together. That's why it seems so lengthy. And now it's an opportunity to separate the 2. Which we couldn't have done until we
just voted just now. if we move down to responsibilities, evidence-based practices is one of the responsibilities in there.
>> I'm so sorry. May I ask the question digit digital devices? Did we decide is this policy one a policy too? not there I was looking at the May
19th those definitions. got that we're just going down that list and just kind of charges or I'm sorry, miss that one. the first one and 2.
I mean, digital devices is hard to miss item. It could be vote. I don't know. As teams
go in the first one. Okay. So what it is. Okay and philosophy. We'll come back with that. Separated one responsibilities.
Evidence-based that should definitely going to one.
Actually both. May not be the same thing.
Digital literacy instruction. It looks like B and C would go into the first one. Is that accurate? People agree. Weve got digital
literacy instruction and intentional devices usage. Where did they go? They went
into the first one. The would go into the second. The is
access to AI and Jenner of AI. This is where comes down to like is innovation about Right. And so I can see a world in which
>> there is a section in the innovation policy. This speaks to this issue. Like what is access to emerging technology. But I can also see that since we already know this is
specific I could be in the instructional technology policy. >> Other thoughts. Where does
accessed and gender of AG Au? I think too, for sure. But again, I think they'll be some
overlap. It might be raised in one, particularly the generative AI because we do have that as I mentioned earlier and some of our existing platforms and I'm talking on the one's I've been here for years because I
believe that's what Dr Presidio had shared because they're like in a closed system. But the access I think
that should go into the innovation. So. Sexist and gender of AI is going. I don't
know that I heard. Agreement are more excitement for one of the other. Both. And they lean
on those who wanted to buy for K 2 make the recommendations. Okay. So you're saying it goes into. I did commendable to
okay. But number 2. The policy, sure. All right. A
family community engagement. We have someone saying both. I agree. >> And I also think will be able to bring in the committee. They'll be some
language. as well as the opt-out. All of those things do look different. So question one. >> couple One. We've got to
put the committee and somewhere work goes to. feel like we need to codify policy. How instructional technology
products are selected. And how and the approval process because there is a rigid one, but it's not. Outwardly facing. But I don't I feel like that's maybe something.
What our community wants is a better understanding of that process. So just a thought on whether we want to put under responsibility, selection instructional tech products.
Because this is the ad tech policy. I'll pull up things, structural materials, policy, policy, 3, 0, 0, 3, was last reviewed in 2014. >> There's I guess, I see them
is very different. I mean, the process for selecting education materials, I think includes commuting committees like I had someone who is on the social studies, you know,
review someone was on the basil math. Basil, for me. I don't think that that if we want to go rewrite, that include the selection of at tech. I just think you do. We
want to keep them separated. I guess is my question. This has been a discussion from the John. You know, there are policies that I put out there and said these are all adjacent to this discussion
and we put that aside. But I it is the very heart of what we're doing. The instruction that your policy says it's for the identification of a structure. It shows for
curriculum, planning, design and implementation. And it's a joint function of the board departments and local schools. This is the very heart of what we're doing. I would say.
Yeah, we will. We want some of that in this new policy. But it This was 2014. Okay. So so much has changed since then.
But it's still our instructional materials. Textbooks are online. That is instructional material. And parents are worried about. Why can I get a hard copy textbook? Why is my kid
reading hard bound book in the library? One of my ticket. So this is one of those I think foundational things where the board should talk about. Do we want to address, you know, how
do we want to address electronic materials on the part of the instructional was a number through 33, it's very minimal. It talks about these materials and program materials. But again, that's
from 12 years ago before we could even conceive of having the stuff that we have, I guess based on. But I feel like I've learned from you and I think you've done this well,
is that there certain. If we're using the these term analogies of technology, that is a parent. I'd rather probably see anything related
to tech in the 10 posse and not in a I'm just saying like I'm trying to think how parents think if they're looking for something I hear you're, you know, I'm but
thinking maybe. I agree with you. I just want to mention I scroll down to the second page and it says instruction materials that are used to include all audiovisual video, visual materials,
instructional technology. And tax. So this is what brings all the season I think prior to us having a tech policy that's priority. I know that
this is a this is one of those things hasn't been done. And here we are again. Well, I'm just going to jump in here. I think it's a great opportunity to let me backtrack one. I've
said this a lot in this room that these communications 2 out to the public and its directions to the superintendent. So we don't
get paid by the word to we don't get charged by the word to print them. So lets just take advantage and bring things and that makes sense. And to offer clarity. So I want to support bringing the language that Robin just
talked about into this policy and if there's another policy, this is also something that you've been very good at doing where we have policies that don't say much and we collapsed them into one that
actually becomes more robust. If this is an opportunity to do that with 33 that I have not looked that then I'd like to investigate that. To answer the question that was asked.
Is there space for us to talk about the selection process of technology? Yes, I think it's more. And number 2, which is
the innovation peace. Then the policy to rather than policy. One where we can have that conversation. But that's just my suggestion. But I do want
to bring it The scene on cutting so. I can I can see both points. And I do think that. It's hard sometimes for.
even sometimes for insiders to find the policies, figure out what's going on. And I I understand exactly what Lady is asking for. And I understand what this man saying about this already
exists and is there a way and you did have Jason policies that maybe we don't have to put it in here but say as outlined in policy, blank blank blank. So then people know that. I don't know if
that would. That is why because this is particularly been something that there's been a lot of interest in. More interest the after the
social studies are for a lot of reasons. But if we already have set a policy that takes care of it. As and refer it, just a suggestion, I don't know how that would work if
that would work or not. So. I hear both of these guys. That's what I'm saying. >> So I mean, you kind of
didn't get to Rob, where? If you reference a policy. And the policy changes, then you have skating number of policies that have to change as well. At the same time, if
you. Reiterate. What a policy says, not policy changes, you have to do that as well. So I
can conceive of. And the difficulty comes that. If we were to just update the other policy to include something
about technology. That's probably something that kicks that piece of the can down the road a little bit. While we finish these. I don't know that there's an appetite for
that. And as Dr. Anderson was suggesting that it would live in the innovation policy in my head. I was like, well, what about just run of the mill selections of? Things that or reevaluating things that are
up for renewal or that kind of stuff. that is I felt more like with all those things could be handled in the innovation policy having it laid out differently in 2 different policies. You're
just asking for problem right? And so I can conceive of area in the innovation policy that talks about the selection and renewal in review of.
Instructional technology right and how does that fit? Innovation versus just instructional technology? Well, at times will be looking for. How do we evaluate things
that are new to the system? At times we will be evaluating things that are replacing things that are in the system and at times will be talking about how do we assess whether something we've had in the system? He's still doing what
it was intended to do or if it did in the first place. Right? So I can see it living in in the innovation policy more strongly than figure out a
path to have done both and the at tech policy separate from the innovation policy. Can reference the selection process. You know, from. And
you can list related policy at the end. So that would be at least right now. Where I think it might make sense to it to live. I also asked the clerk
to send around a link to what she's using so that we can see it instead of having to wait for her to talk back and forth. Thank you all. Go ahead and add to this discussions.
So >> Ms. Meren: you know, we know that this is a web of all these things. And when we get to a policy that's old and out of compliance, it really put
the stop and what we're trying to do. You know, we had to with the grading policy. Calendar boundaries. It's really hard work. So I looked
at the 3.33, for the instructional materials policy in it. And the struggle I have is what we have a policy. It's out of date. So is the superintendent and the board supposed to be compliant of
that policy? I mean, I guess 1, 1, to the regulation for 33. That's 30, 0, 5, It was updated in July of 23 and it
talks about instructional materials being approved by the board print and digital resources that are approved by the board 3 formal process for use in all schools. Have all
of the things in our schools done this. I mean, I I know we had contracts like Schoology, but we didn't like have a presentation on it or talk about it or talk about what's happening with it. We just
agreed to extend the contract. Is that sufficient enough? If we're in charge of instructional materials, shouldn't we be spending more time on that or whether it's Lex CRI ready? I know we
approved the contract for TIME magazine one that my kid uses what about to be approved that
this just opens up so many questions and at the heart of it is who is deciding? What materials and what resources are used in our classrooms.
And I think we should have a say in Not saying we have to. Propose it, but we're not having a dialogue about it. But the superintendent, like I don't know if the superintendent thinks that
devices should be allowed. Or you know, I see things like there's trainings, but I don't know. I do know that every teacher has not been trained in Schoology. Yet every middle
school high school was given a laptop with Schoology. So I'm just struggling to put things in policy here without the board, having a commitment to
getting really clear on like, where do we fit instructional policy decisions, whether it's paper or digital. Because the night. this gets to, you know,
the digital literacy instruction peas. Anyway, it's a bigger discussion. And that's why also trying follow. Have people want to buy for
Kate? This? Ali, with that I think Anderson. And just 2 quick things. One, I don't disagree with what you shared
just now regarding >> Dr. Anderson: what are we approving? Why would not approving? But it doesn't. It doesn't come across to me as an issue of language because it already list speaks to me
as an issue of process and that needs clarification because it the language is already there in existing policy that the board is to review. I think that's a separate discussion in terms
of is it everything is at some of the things and what is that process? So I just wanted to be responsive to that. Secondly, I think.
>> And please me from Ron. We are on Page 2 of the May 19th. Contracts. We haven't decided on. I'm sorry, public reporting and contracts. We
have not decided on. I think once we decided on these 2 components, it will be now for us to Finnish fleshing out at a high level of the things
that may not exists here yet. Just going through policy. One policy, too, and determining from the feedback we've been receiving from conversations with had with colleagues and
from the decisions that were just made at the board table last week. We need to start too, put these things into these 2 policy buckets. 4.
Future writing so that we can have a successful session next week. Am I accurate that we did not finish with F and G? Your accurate? Could we finish
with F and G I know somebody That's why I have a house turning a bit. So want to go back, I think and Mr. Fish, you next. I'm sorry. I called him. Accidents misleading. And
then yes, we can finish with F and Am I going or Ms. I said you okay. On the question of
process. I agree that the policy can speak to the process. I also think that policy can speak to the process as if it's different from the first time adoption
renewal, too. >> Considering alternatives, etc. we can get into that nitty-gritty of want to. And
then I'll just speak to these other. Items as they were so adamant to speak to them in
future. These 2 are ones that I don't necessarily want to have a discussion with all colleagues but also governance colleagues. But these would seem that if we were going to
include them in the policy that they would be in
Innovation policy. Ms. Lady. >> So couple of things. Clerk, can you go show a little bit
more of what's above that page? So the question for Mr. Sethi, there is we have a digital ecosystem library
that. I do know that staff can see. Is there a digital ecosystem library that parents can see? >> Yeah, it does have a public wars in which people can view
on the tools going to be available in out. >> So we already have annual parent parental digital consent forms. We have a digital ecosystem library and we have reports on uses. So
we're accomplishing all of those bullets that at present. >> Yes, I mean, I think that victims are used from the system. We already have.
>> The other thing, I wanted to make a comment on is because we can't respond to community participation. I dug quite a bit after having people hold up Lightspeed
reports to me Lightspeed reports. I did quite a bit of digging and, you know, as everyone knows there a plus or a of things that are running on a Chromebook to prevent kids from going to the wrong
places. To make sure the blacklisted sites are stopped. So that's that's a that's a big thing. And it's not uncommon for kids to not properly shut down, even if
they've moved to do something different and it's it's my understanding sometimes like if I just shot my computer, but I don't like lot off it. But it's closed. There's still
stuff running on it. So even if I put in a cart, I think it's my understanding is that is that true? Dr, something that's something that's in a carpet not shut down, right? Could still. Show it. It's
running. >> Well, it's a depending on the settings, but it can and yes, devices can stay on and it made a Google would have a couple of checks joining all the time on the device. Just part of a policy pushing technology and tools and updates and security.
>> All right. Thank you. I just want bring that up because I have. >> I paid attention to the schools where folks shared their reports and then reached out to some people who had
kids at those schools and got a very different story in terms of amount of time. Their kids were actually on a device and how the report that they see looks like they're on it
for longer. But they know that their that student is not because their student tells them that. But they're not. The school training comment. I AI we did require a specific
amount of schoology training at the beer beginning of this year. it and this mayor and a lot of that was your advocacy because of the frustration that you felt like they that people should needed have a certain threshold of
understanding. Having said that. Like any technology tool, it's got all kinds of bells and whistles. And some teachers are credibly tech savvy and really able to use
all the bells and whistles and some are using what the minimum expectation was. If we want to raise them exit Haitian, I think that's a different conversation. But I do know that that that
training was pushed out in the fall before school started because it. I know some teachers felt targeted as they were. The outreach is only to
them that he expects an had None of this is everybody because this came down from the you know, I we did make a formal last. We'll be talking
a foot of the dias. So other thing is the public reporting. I don't first G in the policy and I'll give you my reasons why we do not have another
policies. Anything related to budget. We don't have anything around budget and those are eels, in my opinion, we don't have even in the policy that's at, you know, outdated around
materials. It doesn't say anything about that. Reporting out what but the mouth books cost. So I don't want to hear. And then in terms of contracts, I don't want to
make a special arrangement. Related to software. I want I want to stick with the procurement process that there is in the threshold with which things have to come to the
board. So that's just my personal opinion on those. Thank Madam Clerk. I think we were tracking time if you could disrupt that on my my turn go. So I was just
thinking I was listening about. Early education, which is my first love where I started in public policy and I got to travel over and see these amazing, really preschool programs. And then I
had a preschooler. >> Ms. Meren: Who had a reading that, you know, literacy difficulty and I would go to preschool. And watch how you teach a kid to hold a pencil. It's not. You
know, it's not an 8 right? Days, weeks for some kids it to go to occupational therapy. Schoology is that pencil?
Schoology takes time to use. And while I'm glad my advocacy has made some change, I know for a fact that at schools, teachers are make all different folders in all
different colors and different approaches and there can only, you know, I feel like often in this discussion about technology. The way I see it,
I feel like we're not. Thinking I feel like. I think what I do is I think about how would a 7 year-old to be with this? How would an 8 year-old be with this? I think so
often. We're coming at it from our adult brains and you're in 7th grade. You're 12 years old. You're going through puberty. You're given a device and told to figure everything out now on your laptop. Did
anyone explicitly tell you how to do that? What's the Google calendar? How do I e-mail? My teacher? I just think there's.
I don't find that we're talking enough about what it's really like to teach children to use technology, typing. I don't understand how we give kids devices in. Don't teach them how to type. Even just
are mix stuff. Right? Lake City how to use it correctly on a laptop These are all things that are realities for our children. You know, like I
said, my son thought he couldn't learn because his laptop was gone. If that's the world we want to create like, okay. But if we don't and we want to because it's not the
same as a 20 year-old. In that position. Something in their brain gets lost. So. Regarding public reporting in contracts.
I feel very strongly that the state isn't because just like. I find it hard, it's not apples to apples. Comparing this to instructional policy looking at a static textbook is not the same as an
ever-evolving tool. And I will say it is because the superintendent signed a contract with OpenAI without putting in front of the board that I feel very strongly that the seas to go in there. And
it does have a value, even if it's not a dollar value. It's unfortunate. The superintendent didn't seek out partnership and say, hey, I'm thinking of doing this. Here's why. Here's what's going to
happen and tells on the front end, I feel differently. But we have a job to make sure. Right now Chatgpt is being used by teachers and there's no guarantee that it's going
to last. I think after the school year isn't it isn't a June 2026. 27. 28 up. Like those year. But what happens
after that is our investment just. I feel very strongly needs to be in here. This is not an old policy. We're talking about new evolving stuff. We got to evolve our
expectations on it, too. Dr. Anderson, and Ms. Lady, it's 5.20, just want to check on how we're doing. We're talking
about F and G. Okay. So Dr. Anderson. And then I guess, Mr. Dyes and not to want to burden walk. But I am gonna bird walk a little bit because I think maybe something has changed without my knowledge.
>> Because light a very heavy use or of light speed to my kids to grant. And I do believe I have checked this with us. Is that because I've asked you a few questions, I believe lot like light speed.
What's its clicked? That's when it's captured. >> Because it will show you that at 12. 0, 4, I was on. I don't know. Nike dot com 12.
0, 6, I was on. Adidas dot com. I because I've had this question for you before. I thought it's when you click on the side, that's when it's captured. Has that changed?
>> The technology would essentially capture of a number sites are being so most of them would be by clicks. But there will be some parts and pieces of which could be done the back down. That would not be the majority of the
traffic. It could be some traffic which is going to be available on the computers. >> But then it wouldn't capture at that time. And this is a clich happening. Because
a click is time stamped. >> It's not so much that plague. But then the computer that Chrome browser, he's basically asking for a certain bedside to be sent bowler. So the use of physical click is
not the action. But transport between the computer gets a little technical, but I can certainly get more details on it. >> Okay. Certainly got a technical for me, but I will digress. Cause I was working under the fact that the click
is what captures it in to the report. In terms of what we add into this document. Again, going back to what I've said before. This is a
communication to the public and this is a direction to the superintendent. I would find it more than appropriate for anything that lives in to be in here. It speaks to
budgetary implications, which we do have an other components other I'm sorry. Other policies. So for me, it's not a an unusual thing to do. If
it's the board's expectation. And if it also offers clarity to the public that they will continue, there continue to be oversight and monitoring of it. So I don't know if I love
this language that is here, but some language I think makes perfect sense. So I'd like to do that. And also I would like for us to add the
Tech committee, we talked about family engagement and both. But I think the tech committee should also be in both because it's a slightly different role. So I'd like for that to be a
consideration. As well as I lost my last piece. So I will come back to that. Mr. Fresh.
And then Ms. Lady Mr. >> So thinking of these 2 items, plus what we do after we get through these 2 items, I think makes sense to look at things that are not yet on
these lists that need to be included or parking lot. It. Sure. We'll go with that. My advocacy would be the F and G
be discussed by the board as part of the parking lot. I don't know if there's consensus on including them or not. If there's not put him in the parking lot for the work
session. In terms of well, maybe all and there and think if we pick up these other draft policies that were shared with the committee, we can talk about elements of
those that should be included in one or the other 4. What? I don't know what you envision for, like the steps after we get through standing committee
policy draft. >> Dr Ian sinking. Remember questions and I'll I just remember the last piece to opt out. This was the board vote from last Thuy for us to
include that in policy. One. Is the use. I think that's kind of my last piece right now.
>> OK, yeah, I agree with putting the opt-out obviously in I also. >> Ms. Meren: think that the committee should go under family community Gauge Mont, which is where it is for.
>> Ms. Meren: Boundary policy. And I think some others, again, I don't think it's the responsibility. It's an advisory committee and sits. Does it set the process for
selecting instructional products again, isn't that the boards policy? So I think if anything, it goes in in. Engagements, I also think a
definition for digital literacy could be that we I literacy, but I think also adding digital literacy are changing that. Adjusting it in the first policy. I would like
to put something very clear in the air about well, to get through intentional devices used where Army. It given
device used. those into. week. I talked about It didn't land OK? So under responsibilities
we talked in the anyone to see intentional devices. one. Okay. Well, I also want to adjust to do to make it to second grade. And I will I
want to to a bunch of things. So maybe we don't go there, right? Which is gonna go with what's in the original policy? That was it right. But it's okay. We don't have to get in
the weeds now. But yeah, so there are things that I want to change in the language that's currently in there. But having gone through all the buckets, all the on of the standing form. Okay. So that
the opt out because it speaks to right and the opt out reflects the board's vote so we can put that in. So let's think about. How are going to
present this to colleagues? What we're going to ask about. You know, what are some questions that we would want to discuss at the work session? And this leads you
want to pick up from there. Start with something different. Well, again, I mean, I one of the areas, the policy I worked incredibly h*** o* was the intention device usage. And I put a
pretty lengthy. >> Ms. Lady: Sort of definition prior to the bullets and then I added additional bullets, which monitoring screen time and balance, smiling and frameworks designing for learn of variability in professional
development. And I believe they're all essential. I believe that misleading. Can refer to which section definitions on? If it's have the one that she sent. I just want to know what about. I
believe it was under responsibilities see. Page 4. >> So would we want to say for Tuesday that this is? A big
topic to talk about? think that that's most what's most important to our public. So
and and I and I know that. I wanted to make sure we included. I believe what sort
of. Represents the approach that we're taking 2 training teachers on making sure they're using intentional. You
so full disclosure, mean, we have we have our school-based technology specialists. All with the expectation they will
get. Is he certified? And is is. Basically at I I that definition. I believe sort of
stuff. Outlines the IS T standards, which is you have to be delivered right? And then the monitoring screen time the modeling and
frameworks designing learn of variability. I think those are the reasons why you use technology. So. Obviously, I.
Like what I created in section. I don't think there's much should I don't I would be shocked if there's any opposition to because I think it's, you know, monitoring screen time ensuring schools maintain a healthy bounce. But digital non-digital learning
experiences across different grade levels, particularly now an early Early-childhood education, like I think this is a lot of to me is responsive to a lot of the
things that the parents for intentional tech of shared. Thank doctor. Let's St. John-Cunning and then ducked
Anderson. So >> Ms. St. John-Cunning: I agree with Lady and I'm usually the one person says is like less word. but as Dr. Anderson says, we don't have to pay per words. I think this
is a little bit. More concrete about what is it that we're going to do? And I think you're seeing that right there. I mean, I like to see it included to bring it to the
board. And then, you know, if people. They're for people to read line, they want to read line a change them to try to add it. I think it will give people something to think
about at least that's the way my brain works. Okay. Dr. Anderson. If you back on.
Because the topic of argument, tension a base used. >> Dr. Anderson: I mean, we have to do that. That's the whole conversation and what I'm resting with with my in my
mind, I is. Is it. Is a clear enough in terms of parameters. Let me just try to illustrate with an example. The superintendent will develop
indefinite guidelines. And this is where with the first board where it was kind of helpful to have the regulations be developed. As the policies were developed
and we don't do that. And I understand there's a, you know, lots of good reasons. Why, but just kind of see what that's going to look like. Because one of the things that
I want to be sure that policy, if the policy illustrates what I'm sorry, states, what is here and this is just for an example sake. What if the
guidelines that are developing the regulations by the superintendent say that should be 15 hours a day. That's considered to be ballots usage. It's a very extreme
example. Just to kind of illustrate my point. I'm not saying this is what you would say. It just made me wonder, do we need to be a little bit clearer? But there's no way
that we don't have some language here about the device use because it speaks to the fact that we've talked about its passive use. Or that it's
not intentional. It's just something kids have constantly. And if it's not in front of and it could be put away in the cart when it's not being used. We need to have
that kind of language. I just. I think I'd like to see a little bit more, but I don't have the right now. But I do think we absolutely need to have something that speaks to
this. Mr. >> So I agree that we need to have a conversation about including this because I think this is at the heart of. Not
only what I think people are looking for, but also >> concerns about where things currently stand, right. What was the process that which we arrived here and how are we measuring whether or not it's
being used appropriately? So if we're ever going to envision a future where there are less concerns about those things because people understand that there's a process by which we got there.
That's how we started it right. it's going to take a while. But I think we can get there and so we should discuss that in terms of the TRC. Here's what the board approved. I believe
unanimously to direct governance committee to incorporating formalize these expectations and the board policies part of its ongoing work, ensuring that each year sees purpose, charge, scope, structure, membership or
codified as detailed below. And then it goes into the details. So whether that's it's in under the engagement section, whether it is called out in the engagement section and then iterate it out in may
be some bullets with an engagement that wherever it belongs. Well, ultimately have to be included in the policy.
>> So to summarize here, 2 things that we could bans to for Tuesday. One is the intentional devices use language we can share what Miss Levy drafted as the
proposal in addition to what was included in the standing policy. So that's what's listed there now. with the one change being about what the board voted on to allow for opting out for that 3rd
bullet. Okay. So that's one thing, right? So we can ask our colleagues. This is the tension device use, which people think the other thing I just heard is discussion where
the committee lives in the policy and even if it could be in. >> Both policies. I wasn't quite finished up to some because when Dr. Anderson you
know, in training opt out in the policy, I started thinking about the other items that we voted on and I think for the purposes of the work session that would be helpful for the
board to discuss how that was in policy when it in policy because right now those requests for for the the TRC to work on certain things and come back with recommendations which I would imagine he
would. Consider and then adopt or not as a board. if we put outcome in the policy before
we have the recommendation. I'm not sure what that would look like I think that's something for the parking lot area for discussion. And did
we get clarity on what F and G we're going to be in terms of the conversation? >> There wasn't agreement to include it. Apart, but I would argue that it is in the
current draft so we should put it in one or the other. Because there's also things that >> Why do we just go through this exercise of choosing whether things are being one of the other or parking lot of
it. If we're just this is the only thing like a parking lot. And it happens to be near that we didn't agree with, but I thought when we set out on the conversation that was if we
agree and we put it in one or the other, if we don't agree that it goes in the parking lot, not to keep the board from discussing it, but just to indicate to the board that.
I don't know. I guess if I'm I don't recall honestly, but if that's what people want to do, I guess. But it's the only one of putting in a parking lot and I think funny about it
because it's one where there is strong I think there's also disagreement in the other sections. It's just that we agree that they. They and very belong in the policy and what
those what that language that being I think is like you want to change one of the years, for example, right? Looking colleagues don't want that. But at least we'll have that conversation right? We'll see
what this. I don't think it should be a parking lot. I think it should be very active driving on the highway discussion like. >> As part of that tech discussion on how we acquire. >> When I mentioned the
parking earlier, it wasn't to completely remove that component for comes from consideration because as I shared earlier, I do think some version of this, I'm not in love with this language,
but some version of this needs to be part of the of the policy I do. I refute the notion that if it's in in the can't be here, actually, I think brings greater clarity
because the public by what's in what you guys do with that. If we're able to bridge those to document, I think there's a space. I don't love this language, but I think it would
be fine to work on the language. And then we introduce that when when we meet on Tuesday because the parking lot was not a discarding a discard pile. It
was just to keep the conversation moving. But I do have a question and I think this is the piece that I was trying to illustrate early and
needs clarity. The attention of device uses says the Division Superintendent child develop and implement guidelines for the purposeful integrate integration of education, took technique that
uses. Educational technology. The concern that we've had from our community has been essentially the unfettered use of AI. This does not give the
tightening of the lanes because if the superintendent has the side, that AI is good to use. Then the very arguments that has resulted in all these letters today is not
addressed. I just wanted to put that in the room. So my first question is so much this whole thing is in the parking lot. Looks like it's not up
and the underneath. Something that's agreed upon. I thought of her consensus for everybody that we needed. We wanted this. She is intentional.
Debase usage is in the first of it. Not mind that some lives arts, correct? No, no. And it's built from what was from the main drag. Okay.
Well, then so if you go back above. Madam Clerk. This there's Pre K to first grade elementary school, a parishioner bring devices home can scroll back down. Please.
Those don't need to be prepaid it here. >> Because they're agreed upon above. I'd rather have my other bullets in there. If people are amenable to them those are in there, okay. So I
would just take out the top 3 because they're agreed upon. Correct. There you go. Because
it's codified above. I don't think we need to repeat it. That's all drives. Not codifying your suggestions. It's just using the base language. Well, I'm still
going up advocate from what I believe in the boat above that we all agree that they'll be debated. Seen tonight. Okay. >> But the to to the board that like what we're sending you right now is the language that we have Fort Smith and
agreed write were saying that these are the buckets that we want included in the policies. >> So and then the other thing going to say, because my
draft. D is access to generative AI. So it's they're docked Dr. Anderson. It just is not under the intentional vice usage. It's a stand alone as a D, but it's, you know,
it's there. As well. So just want to point that out. >> Why don't we take a few minutes to go through the whole? Let's go through a number one. Let's go to number
2 and again except for the sent W Searcy intentional devices, use everything else was from the previous version of the policy. Ms. Lady was the only new thing and then
there's of the things people have proposed but haven't been adopted. So if called the top of this one right. So this is the use of educational technology. McCain that a
definition. we inserted the new human in the loop definition from the previous versions of that is in addition from previous. But we agreed on it. The philosophy
is TBD responsibilities. What was the B was? Digital literacy instruction. I
believe we did say we want to up there. Is that correct? That be would go into. Educational. Yeah. Intentional
devices use. So here, though. I again, I thought we did agree. 2 in certain us ladies. Taxed. Into that. preamble
basically is that didn't we agree to that? Is there agreement for that? I mean, I said that there should certainly be some tax under
the intense intentional devices. And I think some of speaks about starting point. Just don't think it is specific enough. So I'm fine for to be a starting point or >> Dr. Anderson: so what we
use mislead E's proposed tax. And put that As a sort of preamble to the first.
>> And then should mention the put
>> Those are going to remain the same. I think it is in
place now. Although the one let's just keep going from this one because I think the one below it is not quite accurate. And then the 3rd bullet here that would
reflects the board's vote about bringing devices home. With us. So on. I don't have the exact language in front of the rate, but it's on the Web. Thank you, Madam Clerk, for
putting that in. >> Okay. And then the we agreed with the family in communication with going. So we're not putting access to a
Well, no, because there one member suggestions. And so while we did do it is the preamble as way to remind ourselves that we need more language. >> have a question about buddy. When you get to that
point. Coffee. So so d-one into the second one. >> Dr. Anderson: I think Here's my question. Does it stand says generative AI shabby acessible on digital
devices per the digital literacy planned authorized by the school board may not be accessible to students. Is this speaking to what you had talked about? Doctor Presidio,
which is it's embedded in some of our software already. >> These are not the generative AI that the concerns are being raised about.
>> Well, I think we do need to distinguish between the generative chat Ai features that we're hearing the majority of concerns about the safety issues cognitive
offloading with those tools and then other AI functionalities that are built into a variety of software products, operational some instances, instructional like we talked about what she could
do be in >> Dr. Anderson: Okay. Thank you. And this is also a space where I think we could start to delineate in terms of whats app. A couple to staff and what's applicable to students because the concern is not
whether the adults use AI the concerns is not whether or not whatever AI that kind of lives and Alexia continues to stay there. The concern is the chat
that doctor Percy just talked about. So if we can. Place a disclaimer caviar just to distinguish between the 2. Once we do that, I won't have
any and in questions on this component. OK? So we've The
DEA access to engender I do is in the second. Policy. Okay. Got that. >> We are on Larry family and
community engagement. >> We didn't quantify what kind of generative AI isn't there? That's right. until just just putting it in now, it's a place holder for much
longer conversation. The family could be engage monies there. Then. The next one on the policy is public reporting
in contracts. And that's gone. Down to the parking lot. I see the parking lot, though, all that intentional devices uses language that I believe should
not be there because we moved Preamble language up and then the other 3 are the board member suggestions. And then we're going to bring those
separately. So we did make the exception from us ladies, preamble language, right? So then those. Unless we want included, it's up to any rate
we haven't really gotten through the individual people's suggestions on this around. So if we want to include it, that's fine. Whatever's gonna make the
conversation go more smoothly? I mean, the numbers are gonna have to understand that there are other comments. To be viewed in addition to this
breakdown. Yet, Mr. Fresh one thing that maybe we ask. >> In the setting up of the discussion at the work session is that. And I think we did this for the I think we did
this for one of the policies in the past because this this is like informing us. It's not a. I need a data from this to make a decision on the future
vote right? >> Maybe the. >> Next steps document is instructive of other things that people bring to the table during the conversation that we want to get people to weigh in on in advance of any thing
coming to the board. So like, let's say that. Ms. Lady has her item, one of the bullets that she'd like to a little bit more wants to know if if
colleagues want to see that included in the policy she would put in the the next steps for that portion of the work session and then colleagues could do their typical way of weighing in on
things that way. It might keep us from doing and never innings like. But taking.
>> So 2 things, one to opt out. That's not going to be f that's going to be C 3rd bullet updated. So just one of
those things. Each year, see that question is of where it goes. So this work session is a week away. So what's going
to happen between now and then to help everyone get up to speed and what exactly are we going to be talk about that day, right? We talked about
it's the to the intentional devices used. And where does the committee live? First? We're going to bring everyone up to speed and say this. out. And then it seems like if
people have those red lines, suggestions that we offer them to like Ms. Lady myself, I know you had some attention want spring them. Can we talk
a little bit about as a possible to see like what we want to achieve by the end of the work session on Tuesday. Knowing that, you know, that's the last work session for recess. And then we start in the fall like how you might
want to be thinking about going into summer and the fall ahead. So if we could kind of talk about Tuesday, that would be helpful. Centers and doctors and then Mr. Fresh.
>> Dr. Anderson: I think by the end of Tuesday because of where we are, I'd like for us to and we have. >> 2 and a half hours. >> Okay. I'm assuming because they've all been such mites.
I'd like for us to walk out with these 2 documents. Pretty much having the content built out again, not the wordsmith thing. Not where do we put this period? We like the word
like versus prefer. Not that that could always happen after the fact that we can make that, you know, part of the editorial changes that we typically give leave to. But
in terms content and that everybody's going to have it be reflected in their voice because it just never is. We all are stylistically different. But I do believe I think there's great hope and I
would like for to see us walk out. Both of these policies fully fleshed out in terms of content like these of the
components, how we organize a different sentences may come later. And I do think that given the time it might be a little challenge to have the
next steps and to have it be approved by folks. As you suggested, it has work when we've had a little bit more runway. So I do see that anybody who has things that they want to raise needs to be
prepared to bring them up a consensus, you know, where they're going to go and what is it you want to say? Bring it up for consensus? I think we did that with. The
legislative agenda. Mr. Fresh. Similarly minded that I think the due out needs to be kind of where we've >> been going here like these
are the things that are going in each of these buckets, etc. I think also get a sense of the flavor of how people envision those things living in the policies. I do think that. Next steps can be used.
We just have to decide how long we want to give people to include things on next steps. And expect people to provide their consensus and then, you
know, in the weeks between the work session and the next government's meeting, I presume in August or September, a draft could be pulled together for that. is. And then hopefully the board
could vote on it in the in the first part of the new school year. I did find the draft philosophies that Dr. Anderson had worked up and that played
around with and we actually did make 2, 1, was innovation. One was for instructional tact. So if people want to look at that and see if they like that. You know, we could also put that in in the food
for thought category for work session as well. >> This is helpful. So what I'm so
>> Dr. Anderson: so I think think what could happen is we could have the 2 documents or if it's right. So listen up. So if we could have the 2 documents and say colleagues, would you add anything to? Is
there a topic missing from either that you'd want in there then? What do you think of the redlined input that some members have provided? Can you come with? Yes, no. Tell me more. And then what do
you think of the philosophy statements, right? So those are 3 the pieces of homework. I do think, you know, we need to be ready to talk about. Do we want to say what grades, I
should be available if at all. We were dancing around it. We could either say we're going to keep dancing or I think this. I think that we're going
to be in disagreement. So in addition to some of the other questions about, well, I guess if we frame it as would you add anything to either policy
bucket, do you agree? Do you agree about what's in the policy buckets right about what's in each policy? Would you add anything else? Do like any other red line
suggestions? What do you think of the philosophy language? can we talk about AI? And how that's going on be addressed.
And I wrote this all out and I can share. But there any other
thoughts? I will send the write-up. I just did to our clerk here and then we can combine this content and
shared everyone. If we can be talk to our colleagues and say, hey, this is we need some pre work done and it's not a Monday night thing. It's. You know, like can we do this a
little bit in advance? Is it a three-day weekend? Okay. a just a quick question. Can you repeat the last thing that you said in terms of reaching out to our you?
>> Dr. Anderson: I just missed. I'm saying it would help if we each. Reinforced to one another that, you know, this is the prep work for this meeting. You know, we need to
do this. If we want this meeting to be a substance on Tuesday, people need to come with these thoughts in mind. agree about what we've put together add anything. Do they
like any of the additional red line language suggested? What about the policies, philosophy, statements and what's your take on Jan AI? >> All right. Thank you for
that. And my second question, is it what I thought I heard from official's comments and I'm not saying he was making the decision, but from his comments about we will come next week. We'll have
conversations and have a draft after recess essentially. Is that what I heard? Know that. Okay. So let's let's go with
that because that's what I thought that I heard that we would have a draft after recess for us to vote upon most likely when we come back in August. What does that mean in the meanwhile? Well, we
want to have schools. So that's that. But how would it end? How would potentially impact professional development >> just like plans like Dr
Reid. I guess it's the question to you. >> Dr. Anderson: If this is not done before the end of the school year, what how does this impact the business?
Well, I mean, I think we start the year again like we started last year, right? Because we had a draft. >> Policy last year for a I.
>> we've. Essentially. In a holding pattern which we would continue. So the staff would continue doing professional development for staff uses
through the >> chatgpt for teachers. Sand box, if you will. And there would be no further movement.
Okay classroom where the where we are now is where it would remain until this is completed. We've put a hold on everything pending the policy approval. I will say we do
Spitz that are continuing. Our school based technology specialists are continuing there. Professional development with the U.S. tease standards because we
want to make sure that art school-based technology specialists have most current training and technology. Is there going to be our staff
that, you know, support or other educators at each school and But in terms of classroom technology use, everything's
on hold if you well I until we have approval of the policy, OK? So here's my second question. >> From your perspective and I'm just asking for your
perspective, not say what the board is directing you to You anticipating and out years that students will be using chatgpt. Is that kind of way you wanted to go? I have no
expectation for that has point. So we will decide whether or not we go there. I believe that's what you're okay. Planning to decide as
part of this policy. Okay. Now it is just helpful because I just want to know how to navigate some of the questions that MIS man had just asked in terms of when how much and in what stance. So if it's going
to be the board's directive, then I want to be thinking about that. believe that's right. In a clear statement, the board wishes it to be their directive. So we're wanting to be really
thoughtful about that and make sure we're providing any information in support of that. >> As we have with our research, another documents we want to make sure we're
providing any support you need in those deliberations and we're here provide them. >> Thank you. And because I have 53 seconds left his the
support that I would like when we talk about balance because that's shown up on multiple drafts. I have that in some of mine statement ballots in terms of screen time. What thoughts do you have on this
as our, you know, educational instructional top teacher? >> Sure. So I think screen times an important conversation topic and I'll defer to doctor Presidio, Mr. Set know you've been spending
a lot of time in those conversations with If you want to. mentioned that probably at this point. >> Dr. Presidio: I mean, I think just briefly for
tonight, I mean, that's one of the major topics. The Technology Review Committee is going to be discussing we have been doing a lot of research and central office but obviously we want the perspectives of teachers, parents, students, everybody
who works in the system. But definitely we are prepared to work with the technology committee to bring forward recommendations around screen time guidelines for the start of school year. 26 27. That's
what we're intending to do. Assuming the committee can get all done this summer. So, you know, we're looking at the balance use of technology again, really, we want to make
sure that any screen time is active student-centered based on the use of technology applications that have a research base behind them. And we really want to move away from some of the things that,
you know, parents and board members and other community members have expressed concern about in terms of passive use of over use of technology. So we're going to be working on that with the committee the summer.
>> What I think I'm hearing is because that work is going to be happening in committee. The board should pre determine what the screen time what the balance looks like.
>> I think that it's we're in this sort of. >> And you we are. And I think that it's, you know, the committee a review committee recommending to the
superintendent for me to bring to you as a board, right? And if you're on recess, I'm not going to be bringing it to you until we are off recess. You're off recess right about the times. That's right.
Timing is not our friend at this moment. However, I think with that city is saying absolutely we want to have those conversations. And I think next Tuesday's work session will be helpful in
informing we're the board may sit on screen time, for example, or grade level expectations around that topic in. So I'm really looking forward that conversation. I
think it'll be we can take. The committee. >> you know, we also we await eagerly the deliberations among the committee because I
think it's going to be an incredible group of people really focused on what's best for our students and look forward to with the board's thoughts are as well. We're going to figure out how to
marry those. Thank you. A pass here. Yeah. Just that. >> Remind folks who might be watching at home and not
aware, you know, at the last board meeting, we asked that the TRC look into this subject. And I think that part of that conversation was about okay. We want it by this date
not to go a longer than this timeline and staff indicated during that discussion that the intent was as Dr Presidio just identified was to get as much of that work done in
advance of the school year is possible. So that any changes that could be rolled out more quickly than even the board was asking for could happen.
So it's good to hear that nothing's changed since last I'm eagerly awaiting the conversation. And that was specific to devices that
particular bullet. >> Ms. Meren: All right. Well, it's 602. So let's go ahead and adjourn and we'll see each
other on Tuesday, June, 23rd. No.