>> Can you were all here who are going to be here? I believe. Welcome. So this meeting of the governance committee is now beginning in session at. Sounds a little
Echo e through the could do OK, thank you. Okay. So this governance committee meeting of April 14th 2026 is now in
session. So come to order to 32. Okay. Welcome hyperlink. So we have 2 hours here to 4.30. All of us here in the room are the ones that will be
here. No virtual participation today. I still hear Echo. so 2 big discussions today, a continued discussion at the
iod policy and the calendar policy. Then we're going to discuss to sort of AI Jason policies in the Six-thousand series about technology get through some 5,000 series
policies which is financial administration and then get some good old policy formatting in style guide. discussion going so and we want make sure that we're
really clear on what we're deciding at the end of each phase, you know, to make sure are due out in our next steps for whoever that is our crystal clear. So the first
item is the minutes from the March 17th meeting. And so can I have a motion to approve the minutes from March, 17th with leave for the clerk to make a
medical technical and formatting at its.
While we're waiting. miss deputy clerk. I did have some edits. So can you remind me how? We go about doing that? I did send them to the clerks. Does everyone
reviewed them? Please just remind me of the process. Yeah, everyone here would have review them and to put them in and then we would vote on at. That's why the has revised is
there so that it can be didn't advise Ms of certainly will so that it can approved by everyone to agree to the audit.
>> Okay. So I did send my suggested at its out yesterday. I don't want to use precious time going over them. Here are people. Familiar? I'd
like to move pretty swiftly. So. If someone wants to make a motion or Dr and some want to speak. But I don't want to spend more than like. Les. I
was a lesson 5 minutes on a so go ahead. Doctor Anderson. >> I'm happy follow. Okay. I'm happy to make a motion. But I
wanted to make sure that we had some consensus. >> I know that Ms. Lady had sent another e-mail. So are we good with what's posted here? Because, personally, I don't
have any pressing questions. I just want to make sure I'm not over looking and outstanding
point. I will make a motion I'm so sorry. Well, so as it stands, if we want to spend
like one minute reviewing, that's fine. And then if somebody wants to make a motion, then we can proceed. So we'll just give another minute. >> I motion that maybe we
table. It's it's it's not the crux of the work that we want to do today. >> So that we can have time to read and may help. But how about we finished one minute
that I just laid out and then that's where people stand.
So again, if I had at its I sent it to everyone right. And that's how it's raised. They're not posted to board docks there just distributed
here. I could read through them. >> mean, it comes down to we have the minutes as they are. If there any revisions that everyone agrees to, then
they're put in. So it's no one is agreeing to the provisions that we vote. And then it's the majority. >> Does everyone have the revisions? I mean, I know you do. I sent them. But I can
read them. That's also option. It is an option. Okay. Again, let me see if I can do this expeditiously. Well, the
process is if someone in any meeting has comments on the minutes, they raise them and then the board votes to adopt them or not. And then the minutes are adopted. So I had comments that I sent to the
committee and the clerk yesterday. So this will be the opportunity to provide your thoughts on that and decide if you accept or deny them. And
let me pull them not because if we're gonna have a discussion on it than I do want to have my. Comments and I do think it actually is
germane. And I do think it is germane because it deals with what we were expecting to do
here today. So like I said earlier ago for 2 days to make sure really clear on the expected outcomes. It was not as clear in the last meeting and that's why I love to the
minutes for guidance. And it wasn't as clear. So. There are 2 spaces where I'm asking for the minutes. Plus you to be amended. One is under item one point 0, 3 about artifice
artificial intelligence policy discussion in the last sentence. It it said the committee chair requested feedback on an updated draft of the policy and I inserted it to say the committee chair,
oppressive feedback from the superintendent on an updated draft or the policy. And that's per me going back and listening and reading a transcript and then I added
more details. So what I added and is now here on the screen. Later because happened here call. We talked about AI policy that we talked about counter pause and then we talked about both of them and what the next steps were. So I
want to put in here what those next steps were. So later near the end of the meeting, the committee discussed desired next steps by the committee and the superintendent for work on the AI policy as well
as the calendar policy. The chair summarize that the priority for the committee is the AI policy the committee requested that the clerk's office look for additional meeting dates to continue this
work. The expectation was that the superintendent would bring information to the next scheduled governance committee meeting April 14th incorrectly stated is April 19. >> The chairman.
>> To continue the AI policy development work. So that is my best, an honest attempt to capture what happened based on my memory. The transcript in the video. So I turn to
discussion about my proposed at its Ms. Lady and the Dr. Anderson. >> Thank Yeah, think I'm agreement with the majority of the edits. However, when we
get to the very bottom of page one and it says. This is regarding calendar discussion. Tickets start at the top first. Can we just do with the
>> Doctors and you have anything about the AI portion. just gonna make a motion for us, at least to just settle with the top. If there are no questions. You can make a motion. I like mentioned for
us to have the minutes be revised as indicated 4 item one point '03. Made by Dr. Anderson. Second by Miss Levy.
Any further comments, Dr. Anderson, known as Lady. >> No, okay. All in favor of amending the minutes with this language as your hand Dr. Anderson, not sure Miss Levy
missing coming. Are you voting misleading? Yes, missing a gun. So that's 3 in Anderson
Levy and Marion and one abstaining sunshine coming. So thank you. So let me go to the calendar. Peace again, trying to put down what. I saw a
record and collected. So midway through, if you could school down Ms deputy clerk, thank you. The committee chair notice that noted that the draft says the counter that
the draft was based on feedback received from school board members and the public. And then further down some new content next steps discussed
were committee members gathering further feedback from other school board members. The superintendent returning to the committee with responses to the draft policy about whether it is a
feasible policy. Not just the term, not a date determined requesting of the chair and vice chair of the board that the calendar policy be placed on an upcoming school board
work session agenda. And discussing the calendar at the next scheduled governance committee meeting as well as the to be scheduled additional committee meetings mentioned earlier. And I had it in this
special suckered about past data, including from 2023. And I thought this was important because this was new piece of information. The superintendent that revisions were drafted for November.
Whatever date, that was 2023 Governance Committee for Policy 13. 44, but those edits were not adopted by the board. A question about the status of action about those edits were raised. One board member
stated that there is no record of a school board vote. The superintendent stated the council confirmed that such a but was done. And I did ce a typo in there. Miss quickly
for the record, it's member 29th number. 29 think you get and it was a typo in there, too. But Lady. >> Yeah, my main issue was that I don't I didn't I listen
to it a second time as well. And maybe we can ask Dre, but I don't recall in the next steps discussed was and to protect returning the committee with the responses,
the draft policy about whether it's feasible policy. I don't have any recollection of that piece of this I heard you just 8 when you're reading that at a further date. I know we
discussed not overburdening staff over spring break and they worked on the AI questions that we had. But I just I don't recollect any directive. Earning could discussion of when the superintendent or if the superintendent was asked to
bring back a red line policy. Do you or do you recollect Dr Reid if we're asked to do that? We in fact said that
this that I would return to this meeting with the risk as to the question it's raised governance committee members related AI that I was not
going to. Work with the draft of the AI policy because I think Dr. Anderson said that she was going to do that and we didn't want to create multiple drafts of an AI policy. So we were going to
simply have staff respond to the questions. However, many and the the questions Brown sent to us and that's what we responded to and then returned to calendar policy. That was
not for this meeting for us to bring anything back so it could come back. I just didn't hear any discussion of a directive to do to red line. The draft, the mrna chaired. So that'll be all that that I
don't recall that so we can have that conversation day could be in the next minutes for today. But I just don't recollect that happening. Side want to scratch. Where is that language where it stated that
the superintendent asked to bring back redline comments. >> Wood says Super 10 returning to committee with responses to the draft policy. But whether is a feasible policy so doesn't say red line, but we didn't have that
conversation. I just I'm happy to trap it. But it's returning. And we conclude at the end of today's meeting. That I would just like to strike that one sentence or
that one phrase. I don't think that's accurate. But for the sake of time and I think it's c***. I very much did say it's in there saying is this even a feasible policy doesn't mean
it means that the superintendent could return like she did with the AI with the format of >> questions. Not a red line. I do that. We did not ask for line. If recognize. He
finishes it. Dr. Anderson, just very quickly, 2 things. >> Brown, you had a chance review the video. What was shared because I didn't go back to rewatch it. I tried. But I didn't have enough time.
Well, there was comments about whether or not the policy would be feasible. >> I would have to agree with lady's comment as well that that was brought up. But there was a focus on the AI policy
and there was a request to hold off on the calendar policy questions because you and I were working on the document and then the it just was we didn't overburden everybody over spring break.
So the committee together did not say yes, we want this calendar. One worked on was my recollection. And what I watched. Thank you. And secondarily, my draft that I
have for myself, that if we organize it is for myself to reorganize. I just want to make sure those clarity on that, which is why. >> And it out, especially given the new directives that
we received just. >> That's fine to remove it. Might my interpretation of that was that we should expect something that from the Super 10 to speed back. But that's
fine. So madam Clerk, can you straight from my? And it's been about and from the that language, the superintendent return to the committee with responses to the draft policy.
But whether it's the to feasible policy. >> Can you please strict that? This is a PDF? I'm not know
it's about, you know, got it. >> And and in that next Pete Yes, please. And then in the section, that word should be
bein by. The counter policy by the place to be placed. >> All righty. So we will be super specific today. Make
sure we have absolutely accurate. So is there a motion to end to these minutes, Dr. Anderson, second, Ms. Lady further discussion, no motion
motion minutes as revised. Now do we have just AI? >> No, I has revised ads in all of that entire station. And that's why I do that specifically. don't have to
have each a little section. So it'll just be that's why revote on this. >> Okay. So again, some is there's a move for motion to approve the minutes as revised, including all of the
totality as lady do want to speak. don't want to say is I do believe and Madam Chair can correct me if I'm wrong. I do think that this is going to be on the march to May. 5th work
session is account is time for counters question just for those listening. >> Well, that's what I heard as well. It wasn't directly communicated to me, but so I'm glad to know that. And we were
going to talk about later. okay. Did miss coming? >> Yes, this question is for Where can I access the
transcripts? >> You alluded to that. You look that you re saw the pundits but that there transcripts available. >> For for meetings. a lot of
times people use trends continue to themselves. >> There there is a transcript, but it's not. it's not readily available to everyone. Now. those are you
to provide it, not clerk office provided. I can't speak to that because I don't know what miss their unused. It could be. Could you clarify for that? Because I I did not
realize that we had access to transfer. I just we watch the YouTube video and it automatically closed captions. So that is what I really relied on. >> So watching it. The
underlying referring to a transcript. Thank you. So move the correct terminology would get the close caption on the video. That would be a better terminology. Okay. So all in
favor of amending the minutes has provided doctors. looks like that. We are unanimous in that. Okay. The minutes are approved showing again just how important it is to know
what we're next. All right. Thank you. So I policy just to recruit would be just one over where we thought we were going to be posted on today's board
docs recent board clarification are. The. The continued proposal by the superintendent with Yooper saw
in February. That is on board docks and then also was placed. The version that I shared at our last meeting. That was my work product. That was shared now on board docks because we all have been
discussing about it. So we want to make that public also shared our the is the responses at the superintendent provided to our questions at the Governance
Committee meeting. So what I'd like to do in an effort to move us closer. 2 structuring
the policy is. We can walk through each section of the policy purpose, philosophy, definitions. And then
responsibilities and get clear and perhaps we can know what questions we still have. And wherever we can get to alignment. That's what I'm
suggesting. Madam Clerk, to have a feedback. >> I don't have feedback. I just have Are we working off of the versions? 7 of top of
Dr Reid at because I don't have anything other than a PDF or use. It can't work off of yours. So if we want to work on this is like a red line working through it. I only have a pdf of years. I'm happy
to send you word version. I think, you know, for me and I'd love to hear others think that, you know, saying, okay, purpose. You know, we have 2 versions. >> Is there something we want to commit to from? Each
version? Is there one we like Moore's of something we want to add. So I think it will be you please use the version. My version since it does include
the superintendent's. It is that at a ting of the superintendent's. But that's still in there. OK, then I'm gonna need to OK? All right. I will get to you. This isn't
new that we did with posting members. Documents. Online. So Dr. Anderson, do you want to
go ahead? Miss engine coming due have your Dr. Anderson, do you want to begin? And I'll get you the Clinic in color? >> Yes, I'd like to begin with
purpose. I Supportive of the edits that was in the Marin version only because it and much of that is from. >> The
>> I think the version 7. So as it Can we put it up? okay. >> I am literally have to 5. I
just think we need to take the notes so that the can be done it. We have to just get to the just >> of the things we can't hear word Smith. We won't be super
productive. >> So my thoughts are regarding purpose. Is that I am I am supportive of the
>> language that this man has written. But I would like for there to be something that speaks to our divisions, educational outcomes because
we are using. >> All about tools to support our outcomes. So that's the only thing. But it's a very small at it. But I'm fine with
the purpose as written in this man's version. He was on coming. >> So first of all, I apologize because actually I was working completely on the
other document and got this only this morning. So I do appreciate that. This has been shifted to a overall technology policy, which is I think is what we have to work
on. I do think that considering that even though we had a paper copy of it, I wasn't prepared to work with what you had. I was prepared to work with what we had on
board docks. But when we look at purpose, I would like to see children struck and put students instead of children in there. And again, this is just last minute attempts because this was I did have a
lot of meetings this morning. This came to me this morning. So I did not have as much time. My staff and I did not have as much time as we would like to. And I I do think that some I would like to. Make
this as high level as possible. I don't think we need to. I think the perception of safe ethical, equitable and transparent could be struck and stay
aligned with divisions, educational mission. And then when we go further, we could talk about the different policies and rags that would have to be at it right in here
that we have to do it. I would have to at least deeper dive into which ones we would be referring to. Okay,
misleading. >> So I do agree with the let's just write children and say students but also aid the wary the pot. The purpose is
it's it seems I specific and I did get some feedback. Some of that from other board members that based on. And I guess would be a question.
>> Dr Presidio would be. >> Should be. We should we just have an innovation technology? >> Or should it be? And Ed Tech separated out from AI.
What are your all's thoughts? >> I don't know that I have a strong I definitely think that
the emerging. Questions around artificial intelligence thing that's going to evolve. So if we draft in an ice specific policy now, I think that's
something that's going to have to be up for ongoing review, which is fine. Possible. He went broader with tech policy.
And had as part of that, we could address more things and regulation that maybe would be easier to update more frequently. But I don't know him and I would defer certainly to the governance committee and the
superintendent. But just right off the cuff, I do worry a little bit. When you have a policy about that. With something that so rapidly emerging and developing the
frequency with which you might need to revise the policy versus revised the regulation. I suppose if you wanted it to be specific day, I. It could
be more broad in terms of its scope with things written specifically into the regulation that could be. Revised and updated more ongoing basis. I think one of
the when the governance committee started this discussion, the focus was on artificial intelligence. I think there were more questions about that. But I think over the last few months
there's been more community discussion about at tech in general as well. So I can understand trying to do something more broadly. >> Thank you. And again, I
sort of see both perspectives on this. I think my preference honestly would be one policy. But perhaps a little more
narrow in scope. To leave more room for specificity in regulation because of how this is such an evolving thing. I and I felt like I did. I did
read in here later at some point, something related to. Or we had a conversation in the past about the parents
agreement too. The technologies that are utilized. But I thought it was their summer in the policy and I'm missing it. Now that one of the breakdown every one of
those are numbing that incorrectly. I'm not sure. But do we want to stick with that higher level topic, purpose, you know that he will rest we want to do that. Then we're going to stick with. This is
an innovative technology policy. This purpose seems only they I about AI. So I'm not sure how needs to be expanded. I mean, it does say
use of technology for instruction and it ys, including with the use of an artificial intelligence. So maybe. We don't reference AI and the purpose because AI is
a technology. And not break it off and that make it more inclusive? asking my colleagues. Yeah, I'm happy to have more of a discussion. And so so basically what you're
saying is you are in favor of a more broader policy about instruction and technology, right? I guess I'm just concerned. This purpose make me made me think, oh, I'm really only looking for AI in
the rest of it because it's named at the top. When we're talking about all instructional technologies, an AI is is one of them. So perhaps we just say to establish a framework to ensure that the use of
technology first for instructing students in from public schools and been strike, the including with the use of artificial intelligence because then it goes on to
say. I mean, I would just say to establish a framework to ensure that the use of technology for instructing students in first public schools. Is aligned with the division's educational
mission. So so my just as the mother policy work we've done like ratings leading. If we can clear on what we want the concept to be. And we could certainly ask the superintendent and we can also
come back with specific language that we might want to change. >> So so again, so what I hear you saying is it's OK to you're in favor of both are not not I focused only
correct. Okay. Just want to make sure the purpose support that. Yes, okay. That's super helpful, Dr. Anderson, I'll be honest. I had the same struggle, especially when I was writing my own because there are some places where I
felt like we have to be a little bit more specific with AI and >> kind of join back to the lodge. A lens just been got a little bit overwhelming. So even my version, which I'm glad I didn't post is a
hodgepodge of these 2 worlds. Just trying to straddle. But I'm looking at some of the responses that the superintendent provided to us on Page 2 of the response of
number 3, which is that we behind and putting a Ayana policy and it says here that our position is consistent with peer districts and their review of Northern Virginia
and 30 largest roughly half have dedicated AI policies or guidance documents in the other half. Have general technology documents. So >> not awfully informative,
but it certainly gives some context. I think we're at the moment where we have a lot of other policies that if we were going to make this an overarching technology policy
would have to bring those in. I think to be a little expedient just because time is not on our side is to have justice, perhaps be limited to AI with some general over
tones and references to the overall technology. I do also want to say that the come the sentence that speaks to safe at the Echo double. That has to be there because that's
core. And that was also part of all of the superintendent's drafts. And I think you brought that over to version, which is why I was able to be supportive of it because people want to know whatever
tools that we're using, whether it's a I or computer, whatever it is that there's equity in it that it's safe and ethical uses our part and
our forefront for us. That's not helpful in terms where the fall. But I think I want to be clear, that is I think it's simpler to have just the AI policy. It's not impossible to
do both. I just think it may be more expedient. Otherwise. Okay did you speak? Really seem to be did on the on this.
Great. I just had some I agree with Ms Lady. I do think having it. >> More overarching is really what the community is asking for. And it sets us up to have that framework. We can dig in
and focus on AI and whatnot as one of leadership team member said over there, you know, it just naturally goes from AI to attack. So I think be hard to
bifurcated. I wanted to say that. So you mentioned acceptable use. And so we're thinking that what kind of policy we need. So I'm really some school divisions will have acceptable use policy for
students. >> One for employees. I don't know that we have a distinct acceptable use policy. And I'm not sure if what's in the
sooner responsibility. Regulation is that so whatever you can you clarify where it's written down, what the expectations are for digital.
device used for students and staff. Please say humus Marin. Mr. Sethi to share where they acceptable use policy language would be located. So the
acceptable use policy is coated in one of regulations and is also shared with students and families on an annual basis. >> That is it a try live a little I believe in a public website which I can check and
send back killing 2. >> Thank you, Mr. Set these so we don't have an acceptable use policy given by the board. You policy farm correct. I don't believe it was a
statement. I wasn't asking the question. We don't. So that is something to weave in to what I liked about the divisions that have the employee you
spent seems like a great thing to have to. You know, we talked about in this comes up to talk about cyber bullying. Bullying is bullying. So the SRA are, you know, kind of
applies to that behavior. So again, when thinking about this. policy being about innovation and instructional technology. I do think either
we embed a section about acceptable use or we as a sidebar ask for the superintendent to. To advise us on an acceptable use policy
for children and adults. So that's my feedback. statement. >> I'm just going away and that I do think that. >> This is. >> We should have just with
all the work that my staff and I did during spring break with 11 0 for 11 0, 2, and everything in things were all over the place. I think that when you think I think of
technology and I think that when it's all in one place makes it easily accessible for everyone as opposed to having with something here. Something there's something there if you
have 2 big all over the place for stuff and I think part of the reason that we're doing all of this work is to make it more accessible You know, technology is this bucket with
in the bucket of technology is I is are, you know, screens for certain things and then you acceptable. Use. But that's all within one bucket. That makes more sense to me in
terms of how people can look at it instead of having it bifurcated all over the place. >> Okay. So that's that's good. That's an agreement with MS Lady and myself mislead.
have another comment on the purpose section here. Yes. Speaking of acceptable, use by
faculty and staff. This only references technology for instructing students. It doesn't reference. Acceptable use policy. So I don't want
to. What the acceptable use policy is. I think the blogger regulation, but I'm comfortable saying that the purpose is that somewhere in
here that there will be. You know, and I don't know if that acceptable use policy. I we can reference it because we definitely need to have them right. But I think somewhere
in purpose, we can't just narrowly say technology for starting students. When we're talking about teachers usually using it. Also for. Partnering
for, you developing lesson plans being innovative, whatever I just feel like because we're talking about and actually right now. Teachers are using it way, way
more than kids are. mean, it's impacting learning. Because of what teachers are gaining from that in terms of the intersectionality inclusion
and UT el instruction. So I don't know how we do that, but it's a framework ensure the use of technology for. Structural delivery for instruction and instructional
delivery. Like I just think we need to put something else in there. So, yeah, I'd love to just comment on that. You know, I you sing in. We think of like the calendar is then playing counter student
calendar. >> different age. I think it could be an HR. So I wonder if we could just put a pin in it and say like where we eventually going to put the part about acceptable use for him. I don't know that we're
there yet, but I I agree with you. It's important purpose. I do think we needed at something related to and you know, and what I just say. Yeah, but the use of
technology by faculty for instructing chilled students. destruction Development, instructional delivery, maybe like it's I don't know. Got a
bit something. We have one my other son of mission specialist here for wordsmith. Thing help. So maybe we could put like a bracket in there to remind ourselves. As clerk.
Madam Clerk, thank you know, insert something in here that speaks to. The role of faculty responsibility. Would that be
accurate as lady like to speak to the role of faculty responsibility or the Rolling Thunder saying that the for which ensure the use of technology for instruction, but also for lesson
development out of the terminology going to look to the experts. this is where I would have Stafford Smith this right. And that's what want to give direct. However, they want to deemed that. But yes, the use that's not. >> You know, it's like what
they're doing back here sort of behind to yes, informed delivery. Yes. So our clerk is capturing down that prom. So the superintendent and her team can do that. Then and we will change children to
students. >> It seemed like that was a consensus that's when little words can get out of the way and keeping safe of ethical equitable, if you would like to put a commenter on that to
please Madam Clerk, yeah. As a safe, ethical, equitable, like that language and of equitable, miss Brown. Okay. So yeah. doctor Anderson.
>> I have a question you mentioned Miss St. John-Cunning that your staff looked through this. When you look at how men and you said this isn't the one thousands. >> With their like 3, 4, give
me a sense of how many other policies are out technology that, you know, I wasn't talking about this. I was talking about the other work that I did with the. >> With the formatting and the the the style guide and all
that, which is which is not like huge. It wasn't a huge thing. But there were different places that we found things that had it all been together, which is what we're trying to do. It made sense it
wasn't about this. I was just saying based on that experience, I think it would be easier that it's all here cause then this is going to happen more. And I think that's what we've done with some other things. So that
leads me to then my question Mississippi. Do you have any sense of the number of technology policies that exist? Because if we're going to make this broadly, it would
make sense for us to review those to incorporate the pieces. So we have a more of a one-stop shop approach and that that was my statement. That's going to take a little bit more time and we're going
to make it together. Technology policies that we mentioned had about. They're some of them. Well, we have some of that. There's a couple emus, but we have some that we are staff, didn't we research
and we help them? >> I mean, I'll have to look up on my notes. Just like I have this very thick. Think and this was, you know, part of when we first started, you know, I made a list and I said
here is a list of >> possible adjacent policies I did not receive any feedback from the committee about what else we should do. But I decided that we should do 2 of
the 6 thousands that are on our agenda for later today. 62 20, that's 11 years old and 68, 60. That is 12 years old. I think. So. We will get to
those. So they're unlike other areas. There are not a lot of technology policies. So I'd love to know the additional ones that you found. A St. John-Cunning. But I think we're getting ahead of ourselves.
>> So I just want to add like when we're talking about purpose and we were talking about. Adding, like acceptable use. I think. I mean, started
to think about policy a lot different in terms of it being very high level. And then the specifics coming in at regulation, which was why I was saying the safe at the ethical transparent would not
be there that we could have put like evidence-based data. we're talking about acceptable use the acceptable use is safe at the cull equitable and transparent. I mean, that is the acceptable use for
students. And then that then that goes into the specifics. We're going to wreg's is the way I see it. Does that make sense? >> It does. I still agree that
we need to have language because that connotes something very different, which is what I'm saying is like hearing that covers the concept of acceptable use without us having to all I using without us having to
what Smith, because basically acceptable use should be safe, I did because says that the goal for acceptable use. madam clerk, just want to be sure. I
know it's hard to copy the >> That frees safe, ethical, equitable. All 3 of those words should be in that comment that says language all to be included. We want to protect that language and then
sure. Thank you. And so what are your receipt that is, you know, that language can signal that it must be acceptable. Use of my input to that is that term acceptable use is
like now just a terminology that is used in this work. And so I would even say under at the role of faculty, responsibility, articulate there. You know that it's
acceptable. Use use that language because people are looking for that parents are looking for. What's up with 6 Ed Lee's policy. And I think another again coming back to it is, well, where do detail
that more in policy for employees and even in general at our level? >> I could also add one last just >> Put a finer point on what
Ms. Lady shared. >> For the instructional peace, I think what I'm hearing is we need to ensure that we have language regarding the planning, the
teaching and the learning components of the experience of out in all schools. Did you
comment? I just think that with Reds not in policy. Can you repeat what you would want in there? I was just kind of co-signing when she went. shouldn't have the language
she just wanted to make sure we're being brought in terms of all the components were educational technology comes in. It comes in at the planning because this is well, teachers are right now with the AI it comes in at the
instructor at the teaching and it comes in at the learning for students. All these 3, a part of the overall experience that I think we're trying to. Insurance capture. So you said
planning and instruction manning teaching learning. But teaching is instruction, isn't I want to be really clear. So it's 2 places. It's real. And that's how we do. I think of
our services, right? There's instructional and there's operational night. So planning is that the operation? >> And this but anyway, just trying to say that in the purpose, we would like. It
also Park, if you could please write down, you know, be clear that we're talking about planning and construction, those aspects of teaching.
Manning is not teaching. That's different activity. Also, yeah. So. we just got
pretty for the purpose. We cool. Can we back track, though, up to the top to the actual where this policy lives we started talking about, you know, the series. So it was
introduced to us as a 3,000 policy, which is instruction, but the office of record that would own it is the it office. So what I had recommended is
we actually make it in our instructional officer, instructional services Department office of Instructional Services. Can we have a discussion about that? And if there's agreement on
that or not? Dr. Anderson. I don't know if I have any strong feelings about it one way or the other. >> But if our hope is that
technology is a tool for instruction, then it makes sense for us to live in the instructional ral. But I really don't have strong feelings one way or the other. government. Yeah, my only
thought is that we referenced policy 60 to 20. So that's clearly stacked. Is it, you know, like combining technology instructions. So I don't know that we can say
lives in one particular place and or do we not want to sunset 62 20 instead except the redlining and keep some of that that that those techie details. >> Out of the policy to make
it just an instructional policy. The Centre County did you want add to the center? So I agree with you I mean, you know how our policy sometimes
will dip across. I see 60 to 20, which is about. >> Information, security disaster, recovery and contingency planning as enterprise wide. So I would
not recommend folding in 60 to 20, but something like cyber bullying, right? We roll that into crosswalk at to someplace else. It's so under that
guise, I do think that we should keep very much favor having it live instruction. >> And I what I would do and maybe we'd get eventually to this phase where we've got
some pretty like editing notes for staff to then work with. I would ask Dr per and Mr. Setting. Evaluate. Is there
anything in here that truly is technology solid that shouldn't be in an in an instructional policy just as one staff's exercises when they get to a point where
asking them to review it. So let's be sure that we capture that. So madam clerk, so this would be up in talking about just in general right? >> Can you phrase and Ms.
Lady? >> Yeah. Once we get to a place where we want staff to. Review. incorporate our
conversations I would Mr. Sethi in Dr, Presidio to also. Read it with the lens of ensuring what's in here. Lives in instruction. And if there's
anything has bled in that really belongs outside of this. But in a very tech specific policy that we make, that they that they help us make that adjustment at that
time. And I copy that down as as well. So I've said that. But does that is that of >> fair? Ask of staff for now.
>> I think that whoever gets named on the policy, just the responsibilities to make sure it stays updated. That doesn't mean that's a department that's going to manage the work that's determined that
the senior leadership table so this work can't live in one department only or will become a siloed enterprise. this has to be enterprise wide is almost all our policies. Do the work. Wright, the chief of
school zones piece of this. Our equity department owns. There's Okay, our it department, it's going to own a piece of this instructional on a piece of it. The title of the department that reviews it
doesn't connote were actually quote, unquote, where the work lives. If that makes sense, because if only instruction and no equity department know it nicely for schools, it's going to help her.
>> So that's helpful. So I don't really need that notation then because of the end of the day, I think what we're endeavoring to do is talk about. How technologies
are used across the gamut instruction. Ali. And that's their forte. Buy bonds instruction. So I mean, until we can discern is that common to spectrum and all of those
pieces, they have to work in concert. They can't work in silos. Well, I. >> I was going to mention it. But now I feel compelled to if this is the signal of where the board intends the work to
where the heart is. And for me, the hardest instruction. But know you agree, but the answer that everybody works on it, that's true. But just like, you know, I was looking
later on like our how we're going to review policies. This is a perennial discussion, special education is listed is special services. Well, shouldn't be an instructional
services. It changes the frame of mind and how we view these things. You know, right now, promotion retention, grading graduation or and special services. But that's related
to instruction. So how we choose to define it, I think does really matter. So I'm in agreement. And I don't think it's just a label and then yeah, it is going to take it
over. No, this is a label that conveys that. The board expects this to be grounded in instruction. Agree. Yeah. Just why don't think we need my comment. I think your comment
reminds us okay. I like your comment. Well, thank all right. So OK, and how about The title? Do we want to stick with that for now? want to
word Smith, but it sounds like we're in that room. Okay. Nicely done. We are 5, 0 minutes in. We have the definition section next, which
seems like it could be less complicated. And then, you know, we get to the philosophy and the responsibilities. And I think where the responsibilities section, that's the part that we hear a lot of clamoring about. So do
we want to for the definitions we go through and say are their definitions we need in here or there some that we don't want and maybe just hold
changing the definitions of the actual things in there, OK, so do we agree? What's in there? Is there anything else you'd want at it? Dr.
Anderson. definition section. >> Yes, I think I said this last time and it's in the notes here for us to have a definition of. And examples of non generative AI because I
think it gives a little bit of context to parents that perhaps this is already and educational space. However, it is kind of pulling back if
this is going to be an overall educational technology. I think most of these definitions are ai-related and I'm not saying that they shouldn't be because we know that's where the questions
are. But should we be a little bit more inclusive? But I'm fine with the definitions that are here. But we need to have an identity generative AI be
part of the So >> asking for non generative AI but considering widening in age and cutting. >> minus more of a formatting
thing in terms of definitions like give these have to be in the policy like if they could be moved to Rex or that or we could have an annex with the with the. You move it annex
page because the policy should be short, concise and boom. And then this can be in another section like. As an annex. And regs. appendix,
perhaps even. I mean, whatever the for Bridges. We had com.
>> It's so the idea that we've done this but some other parties when there's a lot of content details to look at the I could get behind that. I
have to say because this is such a an intense thing is fairly new to our community. Just like grating. We have to get to a space where we had to explain what some of these things met. >> You know, parents that know
what formative was a what summit is because not only is this direction to the superintendent, this is also information to the community and we have many, many of our policies have the definitions
and vetted NAFTA list is getting to be very, very long. I don't think moving it to the back would be a would be. A
problem, but I wouldn't want it to be kind of the stand alone document or in the regs because it needs to be part of what is explaining the expectations. Well, thank you
so different opinions about where to put this. >> But you want it, commissioner conversation and then let's go to like the content itself.
>> The reason I say this is we were first initially looking at this as AI policy. We have now moved to technology. And I I think I need more time to speak with, you know, our it
department. It's tough to look at all. I don't it's I don't think it's all-inclusive of what we're trying to do here and and so that's why that we are going to have definitions. This was geared more towards a
I I think there's a lot of other definitions that would fall under the overarching technology policy. >> to mention that there might be things we don't even know that they're going. But yet, like we already know like
those glasses, you >> That kind of stuff. So. That that's why I'm saying that agree with Doctor Anderson, that I don't think
this is all inclusive. And I think I really need time speak with it, too. And and instructional services to see what all kinds of technology is being used. And I do agree
that happy definition. So people can understand what they are a helpful. I mean, me being one of those that means that the most. It's like we're going to do definitions and we
have to be inclusive has as many as are possible that can be informative to our families and to our students and to our staff. >> Thank you. And I agree with
Misty John-Cunning. I just want to Madam Clerk, could you please put the definition section a comment that says to add non generative AI and they wonder given missing Jones
coming comment is I wonder that too. So how about we put in here and ask for staff to come back with a list of what else would they reccomend be
defined in the realm of technology? You know, terms to define instructional technology writ large, so misleading. So once in the
responses from staff, they asked if we're going to include definitions, the policies broader. >> As a broader education without questions that I'm on Page 5 of the answers to the questions from Dr Reid's team.
And they added instructional learning management system productivity tools, digital assessment, tools and standards. Align digital instructional programs. Well, that's the quickest answer
ever. So so that could be ask, I do. If I can ask about. The because I'm looking at the
definitions. I don't see. I don't see Jenner to AI. There is. That you want non
generative AI. Is that also on the? Comments from Doctor Reed? What? Well, OK, so
great. So as lady there to sorry, yes, it is eyes the typevoters So we there's the definition for that 2. Wonderful that. So just to summarize. So madam clerk, if you could, please insert
there. >> Right. So ad from the superintendents response document, it's from question 7. That has the definitions.
And then it's question 9. So and what I want to confirm as we're building here to be able to now after this meeting, hands it off to the superintendent for her to red
line and update this policy and come back to us with revised policy. Is that accurate board members odd? Is that your understanding? >> I think if we get there, you Benson having to get
through, was building we're building. >> But this is usually how we do. The thing is that we asked them to come back with, you know, we keep it or even the document. This I mean, the
consensus we can say red line for. >> This was not an official. Yeah, I just this is why we're reading the comments yet to give guidance to the superintendent and others are
taking notes. But like I just want to make sure we take the time when we do to the census part to actually write down exactly what we want. A Kate. >> That but again, I mean, this is great progress. The
only other comment I would make is that when we did grading if are looking for sun, can some consistency. We did put the definitions basically right after. The
summary of changes, which we this policy would have be right after purpose. If we're looking to do anything in alignment. But well, let's not get into that. Just appreciate And you know how we're trying
to form okay. So let's what about this for the definition section? How about for next meeting? If people want to come, if the board wants to come with any specific
feedback about specific work changes. Okay, if you really feel strongly, but otherwise we can live with the is misleading. Not going to come back with anything strong
link. I'm going to defer to staff and put far more expert on this than me to come up or at a definitions. >> That's just me personally. But if other people want to bring back, the 21st, that's
fine. >> Well, fabulous. Okay. So and superintendent we're following along. You're with us with how we're trying to
get clear on the asks. Okay? Yes, ma'am. I am in issue. The deputy clerks. Work to get it. The clarity at the end just so
that we're on the same page and come back with what you expect. Yes, yes, okay. Great. So we're going to look at philosophy now which is at the bottom of page 2. So this was
a new car. This is new content that I drafted. I didn't use AI. I actually wrote it. But I
added in things that I heard from the community. So to folks want to take. Read of it and rather than words with great, let's think their big ideas that you want in here or
are there some things in there that you don't think are necessary? So when we take a minute or 2? And then happy to
off. Hold on, actually. And then correct the blues with the superintendent proposed. So scratch that this was the
existing that is in the original. Policy. It's just double check with post, right?
So different. So the philosophy section in the superintendent's. So I apologies. Version. So it has version 7. And that's what's been posted Boarddocs the last 2 meetings as well. This philosophy is with the
superintendent provided us with. So again, thoughts on are their core themes. We want to include are there things and here we don't think are
necessary. just give people a minute to. Glance that over.
The clerk said that Mr. Fisher thought this was a worry. This
all refers to a I. >> And it should This is a technology policy. We need to change the It says the Fairfax County wrecked. My microphone
is on. We're going to have to change. I some many technologies are something we're going to have this because this was all relating I want this. We're now working
on the technology policy. So we're going to have to change.
>> Messenger continue niche. You yes, Yeah. I'm just looking at reading at okay. is what has to change. So let's
us well received point doctors in. Let's go rent to my notes here. One is exactly that to broaden, to include technology. If we're going to go beyond AI.
>> 2, I think we need to have some language in addition to the recognition of the usefulness of technology and but also an acknowledgement of
the challenges which will also I think, mayor, what was in the purpose in terms of the need to organize guardrails. And thirdly, I think we really
need in our philosophy which really serves as our belief. I think some language regarding. Ensuring that students are critically evaluating the use
of our technology for various purposes would also be very helpful. Again, this goes to the core of the values of the board and those are the things
that I believe reflect at least the values that I bring in from my constituent work, OK? So let's make sure we capture that. So first, we have the overall comment from 2 colleagues that it's going to need to be a little more
broad then Dr. Anderson. said recognizing the usefulness and also the challenges. >> Okay, we've got that. And then critical evaluation by students for all for them to
develop that discerning mindset. Is that what you're getting Okay. >> The I can use a calculator or keys a computer or I can
use whatever the exact to Liz an hour. Huge drive is digital literacy. We have to ensure that we have that be as a comment that we want the kids
to be discerning and utilizing the tools that are available to them. And that's also all over the standards for technology, integration and supports. It's just making
sure kids are critically thinking about those what outline and the 5 C's just kind of bring some of that language into our philosophy. I really like the word discerning Ms. Lady. Did you
want add? >> Yeah, I mean, I think that some of the comments are excellent. But I also think that I don't want to speak on behalf of Mr. Fresh but think
when you get in here, obviously we need to reference many technologies. I'm not sure I like the word powerful mcpherson's. >> I think it's just I just think we should say it is a
tool and instead it to be, I think it should be, which may. >> The use the division. I mean, they don't have to use it. Okay.
>> The pristine o let's I as a tool which may be used. Wright will recognizing G is a tool. Okay. To draw her which maybe
use the division. Yes. And then when used when you get to. It, obviously it's going to augment enhance the work of
educators. So I guess what I would expect in a philosophy. But I understand why Dr Reid's team included it because it's speaking to the fears of our community. But if you are not
going to do that in policy, which I don't think we do in all policies, we don't actually address the fear that we that some folks have. When you talk about pressure, develop the creativity,
structural expertise, the New Department here. This is the essential empathetic relationship between the teacher all the way through. Up until this framework. That's just a wing fear. I
appreciate the language. I understand. It's the focus. It certainly. You know, but I but I'm just saying if we were. It's not needed in a
philosophy. >> But I understand why it's there. I'm not asking to scratch it. I'm just making a comment. >> That that that's that's
believe system regarding how it got included and even the next sentence. When we talk
about establishing the Russians commitment to a proactive, a defensive posture to mitigate liability protection rights under federal law. So mean, that's what we have to do all the time. We do put that every policy either. So you know,
perhaps, you know, highlighting all the way through that piece and I don't know Anderson, was there. I don't debate whether it shouldn't be there and just making an observation. And I think it's there. I guess I
could ask. I mean, it, you know, in terms of that particular section that starts with. The essential of relationship all the way
through. Federal laws. It seems like that was there. To help inform. A reader of policy that these are. These
are our values. >> I think as we as the team who put this together reviewed a lot of different literature, the state policies most
recently, the framework I shared with all of you, really a desire to reiterate and the extraordinary Ali Reid and unintentionally about staying
human-centered in this work. So my understanding is that that that's really something that the team also felt the board would want to hold up as
a very public value. I do think that there was a philosophy statement where talked about. Human-centered to read the beginning. I think we can also just say
student-centered education, right? Because that's what our strategic plan is all about. So just think there. Many of the policies and philosophies around the nation right now
are working very hard to say this is not a replacement. This is to augment. This can be a tool to increase effectiveness, support efficiency to spend more time
human to human, not less. So I think that was the point. Yeah, excellent. And like that. again, if we're going to scratch make it technology, appears again in the next paragraph I implement
implementation. >> It can stay there because it's more specific. So I do understand and I do think you're right. I do think our public is going to be scrutinizing. This would like
to see that continue to reference to it. So I would also just add, it's not just our public. I think anytime the board as a policy, it's a
signal to both the internal. Audience which is division staff as well as external, which is our community and families and its families and community who don't. Have families and the school,
right. Our business community, our. But our internal staff want to know that we value they're human contribution to this work. And I know our educators works a very, very
hard and there's a feeling, I think sometimes that I some people may intended to replace aspects of what we would consider a really important human connection in education.
So I think it's also it. It's a signal to our internal community to say we value our people and what are people bring to this work? So I would
leave that there. station coming. Well, thank you, Dr Reid, because it's I had all that scratched act here. I thought that I mean, a lot of
those words are very much feeling works. And again, I'm trying to think very high level like even. >> Enhanced professional judgment, creativity instruction. I was going just put just work, you know,
because but based on what you said and I know. Again, now I'm torn with the idea of what should go in the policy. Like
how dry should it be as opposed to how? I don't know the opposite. He used to that. But I understand why those why
that language was used there. Now based on what the superintendent said in probably as he said. Alluded to, like to allay the fears of
our community. But it's I had that all scratched out. But that means some Dr. Anderson. made comment.
>> Dylan, I think as we have philosophy should be breaking out. Duval use are just leaving last. that as philosophy because we so hard to get a format Dr. Anderson. And then share Yes, just kind
of going back. Looking at the long history of this work, the philosophy really encompasses what some. Policies have as
beliefs some policies have as values. All of it is we're trying to boilerplate boil it down to using one term, but it's supposed to represent all of those things that we have
consistency in the formatting. And in that section, that is a section that is not necessarily super high level because it gives information about what we believe in one of the things I remember
asking that question in this very room when that philosophy with the policy regarding providing opportunities or space for staff to breastfeed.
We made a value statement. I remember asking Mister Foster about it where we said this is best because of the research. So this is that space where were going to be more flour. We and the language. This is
the space where that would live. And I appreciate Dr Reid's She's not here. I appreciate Dr read statements because it exactly reflects what the community is looking
for, which was speak to my point. >> Does a lot of fervor around. I there's a lot of fervor and the community
around screen time. How do we not in this section be purposeful and B? >> Really targeted. And the AI peace. While we're trying to
attempt to make this an overall technology policy. I mean, I'm just looking to hear people's thoughts. I think we have to be pointed, even if
it's just as an example, for example, in terms of ensuring that it's included here. We cannot not have that. It's especially after the comments that she shared. But it brings
us back down to narrower scope. Thank So I really like. >> I like all the comments that and said I found alignment stating what's best
for kids. We know what's best for students when it's human-centered. I just find human-centered to be very lingo. Ish. I what someone else said Student-centered you
know, was that the human in the loop students like that's very want cash. So Dr Read said she said not a replacement, but a tool to augment. So as to spend more
time human to human. I think if we can add that kind of language in there, so don't know if on madam clerk, you can help us capture that. But it seems like to summarize the
this philosophy. We know that it's got to be less about AI and I agree with ladylike. The fear part. We don't want ignore it, but we could write it in a way that's like we
support our students and we're going to protect our students and we are going to stand by our humans. And then we have all those other tech policies to really help with the no data security. I I do think
that this is the place to put a statement in there about device use and screen time. And so it could be to paragraph philosophy is if to go on forever. But I do agree
that this is the whole thing. We've got to say it intentionally. So let me just make sure fire for clear could
It will not. A replacement have took policies. Well, we wouldn't add that we have to policies for data security. And then we're getting to the tech usage. So I guess what I
would want is for us for the superintendent to talk about really elevating that. It's not a replacement, but it's a tool to augment and instruct. You know, the work of our
bite, vital educators. Right? And we will always value the human work. So that's really what this wants to convey, We know what's best for kids is
to have it be human-centered in value educational research. And then the next piece is okay. Now let's get gritty about screen time in devices
in Actually have 4 bullets. let's hear from Ms. Lady and then missing John King. So I think the notes are great for back to.
>> Dre. She wants make that. More concise or use some different language. But I think we need to keep it in terms of the one to one. There's under responsibilities. We start to
talk about one to one devices. So I was planning to discuss case to at that time. But you kind of brought it up here. I don't know that I want to put it in philosophy, but I do. I've had some good
conversations with folks about the okay to use and basically my understanding is it's incredibly most places. It's very limited. But I have heard from folks where that's not
the case, perhaps in their building. And so. What I would propose that we put anything he related to K 12. Is that we limit it to no more than 30
minutes a day K 12 Ms. Lady K to get K 2 that we limited to no more than 30 minutes a day. Because here's the deal. Their assessments are on the device.
So if they're giving and if there are you doing an assessment, it's going to be more than 30 minutes. But outside of the assessment use, otherwise we have to go back to paper pencil and we're not preparing them for later. Primary grades because so many
versus months or so those are all on device. But in terms for instructional use 2, you That I would limited to no
more than 30 minutes a day and some day 0. I don't necessarily. And it could be just that they have a cart of devices that stay in the room versus them being issued one
to one. I just don't want to say no access to any device because there are things that are happening that are important. >> But from, you know, for station rotation or for other
reasons. I want a limited to no more than 30 a day. K 2 unless they're on it taking an assessment because sometimes assessment takes a long time. A thing about the responsibility section, not
that philosophy. Well, it's time could be both goes. My point is you raised it here, but it's in responsibilities. I rather keep it in responsibilities and separated out but since it came up in
philosophy, I wanted to share my thoughts. K 2 later than that. I don't I haven't done enough work in Korea around finding out how often devices
are used. 3, 6, or even in middle. So I'm not in a position to make a recommendation on time. as I am K 2. I think you missed
Coming up. >> So I think as we look at the full also again, I I think in philosophy and exactly what you're talking think. I think that goes more in rags. But I think one of the things that trying to capture all of this,
I think what does have to be in our philosophy is that our guiding decisions are going to be with evidence-based data. And I think that will answer a lot of fears that maybe
parents may have because if our division can point exactly to your point. Or certain grades, you know, the littles, it might be limited. But if
we're teen assessments like our evidence piece situation, is that they have to do assessments we're gonna have to do it. And it's going require this much time and everything else that follows
is like where? In the spectrum of development, Lee appropriate. It should all be on evidence-based data, which I think the school division does a great job of doing is
we look at the data. We say this is appropriate and we move forward we don't have to define what that is yet because in some situations we're not going know. But we know that whatever decision we're gonna make is going to
be based on. Evidence-based either. That's something we should incorporate here in our philosophy that whatever we do with technology. Takes into
consideration. Okay. And then can I go? Yes. Sorry. Because the human in loop concept mean that we have that has to stay. I mean, and the idea of what you said, you I can't do it
alone. Human will always need to be the one of the live to judge. >> What's best for students? Okay. So can I see the thing?
>> I do think that the philosophy should include a statement about. device use and the intentionality and
screen time rate. We've Yeah. And the evidence-based actually makes me think of questions. When I looked at the comments, you know, the information, the superintendent, what are the criteria by which our apps are
being evaluated? There was, you know, things in here will be assessed. You know, the
like question 6, how would students safety, you know, AI features are reviewed the tool approval process. The technology review teams that tool evaluation criteria. I
don't see that being in ISD language. What's the instructional purpose here? Because we know a lot of what we're hearing is kids are doing wrote things. They're offloading cognitively. So
yeah, it might not expose bad actors online, but if it's going to take our kids and to just click so I do want something in the philosophy
that says. You know, either the board sets the their directive about the availability of devices. You know, we could straight-up say no one to one devices for K 2.
And I mean, we're saying these things because we've heard that that's really what we're hearing is the best thing. But I would like it to actually backed by research that says, yeah, kids don't need devices. One to one that age. I'd like
to be bolder in there and as well as keep the responsibility section like keep that stuff in there. So. And I wonder even saying things like, you know, 30
minutes a day. You know, I'd say, well, you know, kids, probably a lot of kids probably go home and have devices at home. They know how to click and do things right. Like I don't know that I want to say every kid can have up to 30 minutes. That seems like
a regulation thing. But what we want to say is look, we expect our kids not to be on devices unless it's absolutely a structurally necessary. So I'd rather say something like that. And taking a super as a figure out what that looks
like. Maybe it's a classroom cart of devices. I mean, he's also budgetary savings to doing it this way. So so I don't know where that gets us in creating that content. I
mean, I feel like maybe I could write some things as kind of how I think think through things and share it in. I think it might be hard for the super intended to capture what we as the border trying to capture as our
values Dr. Anderson. Yes, thank you. I just wanted to confirm what I believe. I heard check to check some stuff off of my list.
>> This section. This section is going to continue be broad and articulate what the board's philosophy and beliefs are. I would and it will
include language regarding screen time in device use. It would be my advocacy to get mayor work that we've already done. When I looked at the grading policy, the philosophy
was very broad in terms of consistency. The philosophy was very broad regarding consistency. However, in another section, we were clear that it had to be one type of
gradebook. And that they had to be one set of waiting. Because the philosophy was still bride. We had the exact
thing and I love love. Love. Love the idea of saying the K to limit to 30 minutes, but I don't think that lives in the philosophy. The philosophy should be that we're mindful that screen time should be
limited. That use of devices should be appropriately developmentally appropriate and age appropriate. I think it's the big overarching the philosophies, just the thoughts in another section.
We get into the nitty gritty, okay to limit in tooth by 30 minutes. device use be discerning and all of the things that I just heard. So that would be my thinking.
Thank you. I just want time check. So we have 40 minutes left. We still have on the agenda to get through some policies that we've just kind of been waiting to do. And then what one? Also the
counter policy. >> So we've covered a ton of ground today. I wonder if we should kind of summarize where we're at now with policy and then be clear what our next
steps are, because I think it's going to get. You know, maybe the next meeting is I I don't know. But there's a lot of stuff in the next section
and maybe now with this discussion today, we're going to be much fresher for next meeting. So what do you all think about China? Summarize where we're at now? Get clear on next steps and move on to
calendar and some of the other policies we'd scheduled. >> be okay with it because I think the next steps of this policy, really the meat in terms of who does, why does it
live in regulation doesn't live here. I think we have the overall water. Things already outlined the other question that I had that I don't know why hadn't under philosophy,
but site under the spots ability, but I wonder should we signal to it and philosophy? The role of our
parents like how do we expect want them to engage with us on this work? Well, with their students on this work because we have every year. At the beginning of the year. Yes, my kid can be a new to why they
cannot be on YouTube. So clearly we already have practices that in Parents and 2, I will teens. I wonder should we should signal. That kind relationship and the
philosophy. But for it to be better spelled out elsewhere at the same way, I just described the number of minutes for screen time. But find with what you devise. Otherwise we won't get to any
of these other things. Ms. Lady. >> I mean, I'm comfortable mean we've basically got through one page of 4. I
agree. I don't want to put anything detailed in the philosophy. And I mean, I'm comfortable. Creating expectation of what goes regulation related the
different screen times. But if we feel like it needs to be put in policy to ensure that is 0 to 30 minutes during the school day, obviously we can't
control what happens once kids go home in terms screen time. That works for me. I don't know whether or not any reference to parents should be on the responsibilities or not. Because we've we've kind of toyed with that integrating
policy. Like what's the responsibility of parents? I don't remember where we landed on it, but I'm not sure if we can put something it in about parents as we can't. It's not
something we can control for 2 responsibility or part philosophy either. I mean, it's not something we can control for. Okay. As St.
John-Cunning. I was going to go mean, there's a lot of stuff here. And again, I have to dig deeper into this just because I was prepared for
something else. I think with parents, former parent liaison. Now family liaison. I think for us to put anything
in policy about parents. We we have no. Enforce ability. We have known anything over all we can control our. The students that are in our in
our. Okay. Okay. I just I just want to make sure that. I just want to be cautious about that. And also just cautious
about that because of the diversity of our population. One of the expectation of what parents can and can't do depending on where they're at. That's that's just that's just those with a quick red flags
that came up in my head. >> May I have feel like I have to clarify that. I was not wanting to to communicate that
we wanted parents to do X, Y and Z necessarily. >> I wanted to communicate that there was a role for parents in this work because we already have that that
exists every year. I have to go check off to see what technologies I want my child to engage an I just wanted to signal that parents and not outside of our expectations
regarding technology and AI and all of those things. Does that help? That's for? Yeah. I think that's the parent academy. They've talked about.
And I'm looking at growing policy, grading policy responsibilities. There is a section for parents and caregivers, caregivers that says to engage with teachers to understand student
progress. So we've had that is more of an expectation. Okay. So I mean, it some are some things to say about consensus. Okay. So madam Clerk, I'm
gonna document as well as if you could, too. >> So can we and America can go to the top page, please. The front page. So can we have consensus to adjust the name
on this policy of the office to office of Instructional Services from it. We all agreed on that. Are we? In agreement? Okay. So that will
adjusted. The name of the policy to innovation and instructional technology. Just for now. Let's just get rid of some of these track changes. Make it cleaner. Is there.
That's what captures the broader. Are you good? But that, okay. Great. Under purpose. We want update the
language a little bit, but I wonder that some of the board needs to do rather than the superintendent and her team. We provided some input. It
seems like that's our zone. thoughts I when I retired with attendant just taking what we've already articulated and just putting it into words. Okay. Ms. Lady?
>> Well, I would say this. I don't know that we want to send this to superintendent until we get through Page 6. >> Of our comments. I mean, but let me ask, do you want to
do this? As we've done this, like we've got into a sort of a space here. We think we're done with the page and a half of this. Would you want to then take that part with the feedback or wait until we've
got feedback on the entire document? You know, I think staff are all here listening. I don't to me. It seems like once you're done. With where you're headed, that's where
the meat of the work is yet to come. It's not. You know, so to comment the purpose, I mean, honestly, I think you've completed the definitions. We've added the philosophy
you're there. I don't know that. I mean, I don't know that we would have anything to add to that, to be honest. But I think it's the rest of the policy that likely when you're done with that to have us take
a look. I think would probably don't know that I agree. It's the most efficient because then that means that we are to do this very quickly like today to turn around to. I
would prefer if we could, except our changes. Get rid of as much track changes as possible and keep going. It shouldn't be that hard in the definitions, even if it's just
a place holder, it's copy pasting. You know, there's more staff and hear the school board members. So surely somebody can. >> Find the time to do that. We did this with grading policy to group we had about
1000 different versions at some point. Yes, so I don't know. >> So again, what I'm trying to do is and madam clerk, I guess I don't know if changing it. Can you adopt those
changes that we just said the name of the office. Get adopt all that stuff you could take. It will change the name. I
would have to go through and do it because you to track changes instead of the red line. So it's a little bit different of a process for me to just hit except except accept because it's only going through my head. It's right now.
>> But I can certainly do that on the back end. >> May I suggest set seems that the superintendent wants kind of all feedback and the entire document before but I
want I would like to do it the way have posed. Okay. We do have to pick away and do it so can not counting doing it? But I don't think you could be done right now. And we had
signed him at the time. I know we do. So I just don't see any notation of there that we're accepting that. And that's we're trying to be real
particular here. There is no notation anywhere that says we are adopting that. So can you please make a notation S-era brother. But this is the motions document under my
consensus. I think I could have both played sure. I want there to be zeroed out of what is happening. Please. Under
the purpose. And the definitions. I'm suggesting that the superintendent just make those changes that we've articulated here. Is there
agreement on that? We articulated all this stuff. King and I just need to clarify just the technical except the changes in this document. I don't understand
what else we would do with it because it feels like you're in agreement with what's there. And I. I think it's just a matter of accepting the changes. If I'm looking at
that correctly. Well, in definitions, we said that we agreed with the content. You provide it in a different document. Can you literally?
>> Cut and pasted in >> this man, this is a set that I propose what we did with the boundary policy in some of a team as well. My
staff went through and did. What you're requesting, which is include things that have been put in. Excuse me through
the changes and then we post. To this meeting, we say what you know, this is the draft as of this state from the governance committee meeting on board docks and we notify
everybody when that is. >> that is what I thought we were trying to our But we also have a meeting and one week. So I'm just trying to avoid
personally myself saying I will go in copying and pasting make these at it. I mean, this should not take a super long time. I just I'm trying to be really clear. >> So my staff and I can get that done and get it turned around as soon as possible and
then we can follow what we did with boundaries because we had this similar issue. Can because we're controlling it and we are already have it was easier than trying to send it
back to the superintendent and having her team have to look through the note. That's fine. So can can the clerk team committed to having this back to the board? >> Buy Co be close of business
Wednesday. end of the ay tomorrow, the updated version with what we've all been getting consensus on can come back to us. >> I would just ask for Thursday at noon because we have chairs and post chairs tomorrow.
>> We also have admin committee. >> we have admin committee so that Thursday at noon. >> I'm okay with that. I think it takes time. And you know. But having to help too,
because I'll be here tomorrow. >> Yeah, I think. The got to be worse by time. OK, yeah, I'm just trying to Putin process is because every time we do something, it just seems
like there's something slightly different and then it becomes a problem. So let me just please articulate. Then what the commitments are. Okay. So title change the name
change for the policy agree to update the purpose language. As we indicated. and update
the definition section, please to include from questions 7, 9. The definitions offered in the superintendent's document. So all of those things. We had
consensus and can we have confirmation of the clerks can return to the school board and superintendent by Thursday noon. Okay. And has a special
board members. Yes. Go ahead, please. talk to read what I know that I asked for extra definitions of we're going to talk about technology. I don't think that the clerks can come up with those definitions. I think it.
>> Some of it, but but I was looking at it. I don't know it's this. I know that we're just looking at the beginning. We're not finished. So we can still have time to keep adding to this. I just I want to be
mindful of. The time that it takes for for leadership to do this for clerks to do this for our staff to do this. So is that going to be something that's feasible in terms of
including all the definitions or is it OK to include what you can up to that point and then keep adding because we still have 4 more pages. It's not as if it were finished with the Stockton. So I think
a litter. >> Currently, I think that adds that we have from the feedback are appropriate to integrate today. Staff are going to continue to work alongside the committee. So if
we have more to add later, once we get the policy back again, I think we can always add later, but I think to get new current draft by Thursday, I think the definitions that
we reviewed our likely sufficient for that for this Thursday. Thank you. Right. So again, we agreed on that. So the clerks will handle all of
that above when it comes to philosophy. What I would like to suggest is >> any I know I would write a version do each one to right a little bit or say what you
absolutely want included and come back to discuss that. That is kind of the only thinking of because, again, that's not something we super tended to devise because it's
our philosophy. Yes, leading. Yeah, I guess I would say that if the clerk's want to take a stab it based on what our conversation was, that's fine. But also like you saying that each of us, if we want to do that,
>> I just would need the copy of boxes that were on the right to because I didn't take copious notes on what we just talked about. I'm happy to draft my own. And I also think Mr. First would probably want
to take a stab at that as well. Okay. wonderful. So do we have consensus that we will each bring our own version? Could we have that to each
other by Monday morning. >> We commit to that. Yes. And do you want to send him to the clerk? I would like to compile
them. And I work with the clerk to get them distributed. We're probably just. I don't it's hard to come. How that
everyone to send to the full committee and the clerks who didn't. So you just what her mental anguish by. I'm sorry, what? >> For the philosophy? I'm
hearing that the committee members will send their versions to ask them to each other my team or to compile of them and get that posted by Monday. >> Wonderful, right. So by
Monday morning, each sense. The committee, remembers the language. The Clark team will compile into one document, which I gather will be posted
as that correct. Lomas Brown. >> Yeah, that as long as the committee members are fine with that, that's what we'll do for the philosophy. Well, that's again, one of those instances where we're talking about something. So I thought
we had to post it. So yes, that's what I'm saying. If everybody send them to SB Clerks into the committee, members that respond and I will work to compile them and
get that Okay. Great and Janet. Yes, just to be clear, these compiling of the philosophy is going to be a separate document or is this going to be within the document will be a separate document, Thank you.
>> separate document, 2, one separate document. Okay. And then as far as then onward from there. >> Do we want to dedicate the next meeting solely I going
through these responsibilities or
>> anyone may AI technology. I will say the technology, the instructional technology policy. Let's can we adjust that name. Then. >> It timely. one on the
calendar. Because I would want to say the entirety of the next meeting will be devoted to this. If we need to get the calendar out a little bit faster. Okay. So we will
devote a considerable amount of time to this. And I will confirm the agenda of with you all. >> We can do that today at the end of the meeting, which is
now in 20 But this is great. Okay. So all clear. So as far as a superintendent, there's no due out. Is that correct?
We own agreement. Yes, read. You're going okay. All right. So let's shift to calendar because, you know, let's do some more easy work. We do
want to consensus. So all those things that. So the clerk has put all of the things up on the agenda that we've talked about. >> And we want to make a
consensus vote. So we're green. Okay. Do I have a motion. They don't need a motion. Just if they without objection, does everyone
agree? Yes, Darkening. Yes, okay. Wonderful. Excellent, everyone. It would have been nice to take a little break,
but let's get through the counter a little bit. Okay. So let's see where we want to achieve in the next 20 minutes. And unfortunately we can get to those other
policies. I would just say if it's possible to come to whatever the next meeting is that we talk about the agenda policies that we're not going to get to again. So it's those 2 in the 6, thousands and the
ones in the 5,000, if you could come, are you good with it or do you have really specific questions? And if there are specific questions, maybe we can even try to get them answered before time because otherwise we're just
not going to get these approved. Okay. So, I mean, I do have specific questions. I would ask one I would humbly requests that when the governor's chair is making
these agendas, that we look at a realistic timeline. >> Just because this is one of my one of my many committees and terms of staff time and what we have to dedicate time to. We're not going to cover
things on a certain They could be using their time someplace else.
>> So for calendar policy. So we know that we have a deadline to get calendars. To approve. So the policy will
then guide the development of those calendars. Do we want to? Take a minute to walk through how the current draft stand. So this is the one that
was first introduced on March 17th that combines. 6 counter policies. >> Are there?
>> I don't have much new to add from when we talked about it last time where where 2 other people stand. Does this policy with that encapsulates most of the other policies work? Is there anything in
here that people are opposed to?
>> Dr. Anderson, give your clock up. The coming. Yes, I know that we are very limited for time and we don't have the
opportunity to go through this one at a time. Again, I'm fine with the definitions. You know, the purpose is what it is. But I think I want to hone in on where is it that we are
being a little bit clearer in terms of what our expectations are. It says prioritizing full day five-day weeks, which is
great. And I wonder, do we need to be a little bit more detail about some other things? For example, when school begins should be one week, 2 weeks after Labor Day.
Should we have any direction there? Should we have clarity in terms of when the end of the year should be. Also
regarding calendar development. There's then I think some level of advocacy regarding the calendar
committee. I know FC. I guess if Cft they talked about that last week. So I don't see any of that here. Not just the committee but the development
process and the thing that is very much near and dear to my heart and that is my strong. This advocacy is the opportunity to provide. For community input. At some
cadence, which I think it should not be every year. Perhaps every 2 years. To the calendar work. And I know I'm
being super high level and not picking into this. But I know short on time. I want to make sure that people have time to speak. The scene on coming. We
drafted policy that reflects a lot of board member input. We have not yet asked the superintendent to provide feedback on that. Is it feasible? Is there a budgetary cost? We have some questions,
perhaps. So do we want to ask the superintendent formally to return with her analysis of this and answer any questions
>> that remain. That is one option.
>> I guess I'm as prepared as I should have been for this conversation. But I am a little within the policy. The very last page observances, a
student holidays. If I read this correctly, it looks like we're putting all of this decisions on Doctor Reed. In
terms of cultural religious observances I know the last board meeting. There was if I'm correct a vote too. Newsom
surveying. Was that correct? That are boarding on Thursday. So I guess I want to speak to that. I don't want to get ahead of that by giving. This study are read so I guess I
would say. When it comes to that serving, I think there has to be rank order options like ultimately. Because
otherwise they're all going to be competing. I mean, I think we need to say to folks like 2 weeks at winter break. 3 days
for Thanksgiving, all federal holidays Spring break is a week-long spring break is.
Because I can see here's a thought, right? Like I don't personally philosophically, I'm not going to support any cherry picking up culture, religious holidays. It's either all or nothing. So what
I mean by that is we either pull them all back. And move spring, break up off an tether it to Easter week. It. I think
that's further in the weeds somewhere that okay. What I think is that we have a draft policy that the board put together and we need the superintendent's input. Is it
feasible? 2? You know, have 5 days a week. What percentage of 5 days a week? What could we get? What happens if we? >> You know, we just early
release days. What is that feasible? you know, the date the length of summer, I think we're at the point where we need the superintendent's input to know if like whats
actually operational. guests to that point. There is a draft here. Unless I'm having amnesia. I don't remember
sitting here. >> Giving the input I acknowledge the work of the chair of the committee. This is fantastic work, but we haven't discussed it so I guess I'm unsure whether to
move it and then have discussion based on Dr Reid, which I'm fine versus having discussion before we move into Dre to guess that's my question of the other
committee members just summarize this, the genesis of this was a few months of work of collecting input as much as possible from board members who made themselves available
and stitching together 6 policies to create something okay. So as chair I put the policies together and then just, you know, out and at
work. Yes, yeah. And we had it on the agenda last time. And now it's on the agenda this time. And this is our opportunity to talk about it. >> I'm fine with this policy which might not be a surprise.
But, you know, I want to know if colleagues are and our other partner, the superintendent, I don't want to put something in here. That is not doable. But at the very least this policy puts it all
in one place. But we need to have the discussion. Is the board going to vote on the policy is is the board a vote on the calendar? We can that we could put in here 3 years. Calendars are needed like
taking some of the debate that we had on Thursday night here. But that's all up to you. cued it up as much as I can. I we have about 12 minutes left in that time. We could have some
discussion and I don't think that would preclude Doctor Reed from being responsive to what's here. What I do like is that we've made this more of a one-stop shop, the way that we
just talked about the other policies instead of having all the single policy that really don't say a whole lot. >> I like that. This is consolidated. I think there are some things that are missing. And I also want to
say to MS Ladies point, we've already made and I've said this already. We've already kind of cherry picked because we have some holidays that days off. We have some holidays at observance observe
observance days. We have some that don't show up at all because I know I have students right now from Justice High School who want me to add another holiday because there's is nowhere on the
list. So that ship has sailed. We just have to deal with it. I just remember that Mister Foster did share when we were going through this and these
were public statements. I double checked from one of our meetings back in. 21. 22. Perhaps I don't think was 23 is that there has to be a
secular reason. There has to be an operational impact. 4 of religious holiday to be included. So that's just information for the group who,
you know, some of you are not here at that time. I just said, I mean, I personally want to counter to be driven by instruction. I think we keep getting stuck on this
cultural observances and that. >> If we can focus on instructional time, it's going to work itself out. And that's why also I don't think that,
you know, I did purpose. If you look at the original policy, whatever number was, it did list will actually didn't. It was in the approved guidelines. That listed all
those holidays. They've never been in a policy. The only Apollo, then we have these mentioned policy are indigenous people say better and and that Thanksgiving
Friday. But so. So observances, a student holidays. If we say to the superintendent, you have to have 70% of your week's be 5 day school weeks. She's not
going to be able to do all of the observances that we have now on top of all the other criteria. So if we have to prioritize our criteria, lady.
>> Yeah, I guess it's hard to put a percentage in there. Because I'm also not comfortable putting it up on Dr Reid to determine whose religious or cultural day is
of paramount importance to get to the 75%. And I'm also. Because I do believe the that. This should be instructional
driven. I felt strongly win The first calendar came out where there was an expansion of religious and cultural holidays and then additional observance days that we couldn't get provide any new instruction and we can do
assessments and we were every week was not a full instructional week because of the stipulation. So I also want to make a point that absolves observe the >> religious observance days
or culture observance days. We can do no instruction and we can do assessment. We've got to keep teaching and learning if we're going to have days. But I'm also a believer that,
you know, perhaps I've got more feedback from people who want all the federal holidays based on Thursday's conversation that I got asking district by district back any cultural day. So I guess to be
on a section 5 that's as Indigenous Peoples Day inventors. They will both be school days. I voted for Veterans Day on Thursday because that's what the policy currently states. I wanted to align what we're doing with
policy. Yes, a comfortable saying moving forward that we make it to just people's day. Veterans Day school daze. without the broader
conversation and input that that was asked for by the board on Thursday. The Saint Johns County. >> I also want to say that
most of the correspondence I received was advocating for all federal holidays to be acknowledged more than anything. Dr Reid. Explain to
me what happens when we don't use snow days. >> We are. >> Have more instructional
time. So last year. Wiese, fewer days because whether a year ago is less difficult. We didn't have the special elections and >> have.
>> As many holidays land during the week. Do you remember? didn't bring that with me this afternoon. But yeah, we still have a day and a half actually even this
year. So left of think it was like a net of about 10 extra days that kids more or less last year that they got of instructional time because we didn't need snow days. We used
about 3 or 4 I think last year ago. Now, but not as many as this right? And some years we've used not to be honest and some years we use just this year was a convergence of
holidays, elections and weather. Okay. I just want the general public to understand that. We do a lot for certain
days. To be used for inclement weather. But when we don't use them, it's we don't give them back to the community. The kids are getting instructional time. I think this was a
unique year. Because not all religious holidays fallen a specific day. They follow lunar calendar. So depending on how that plays out, we can't plan for that. And I
think that we had planned for that. >> For one of the holidays and then. And then it moved. Due
to the movement of the So I do believe that this should be instructional driven. However, as I stated from the Dias, I
think we're going to have to be creative with how we. Acknowledge and celebrate the diversity of. The community that we live in. And how we
recognize the importance of some of those religious holidays to to just who those individuals. Right off the bat looking at this policy. When we look at the to review the
attendance data. And I I had asked this at our last committee meeting that we had and that's going to be hard for us to do right now with some of the holidays. We
already have in our calendar because they thought, well, we could base it on attendance. I know that one of my staff members worked in the school lot and was responsible for attendance and would say what
we had a lot of people missing certain days and not just students. Remember that we have a lot of staff members that's celebrate certain holidays that are high holy days. And so then that becomes
a sub issue that becomes not only in our schools, but that not only like who's teaching in the classroom, who serving the food, who's driving the bus. Those are high holy holidays and people are going
to take those off. I think that. Right now we don't have that data because some of those holidays were. It off. So with this policy, the
reviewing the attendance is going to be difficult. So let me offer this. How about as a next step.
>> We asked the superintendent for 2 things. One is of the. Drafted policy. The combined is it legally accurate? Did we correctly incorporate all
these other policies and capture it? is it still? Accurate given the current legal guidelines. Okay. So that would be one ask the
second one is there. Is this November? 23 draft that was redlined from the prior board. That has not been revisited.
So we've done this with other policies, OK? We asked the superintendent to review that November 2023 version and say does that still have standing or not? Should we be
considering the November 2023 version? Or should we move on to this new compilation? And is there anything in there? We
should be. Working on or we should carry forward? And then I guess the 3rd thing is in this compound policy, there are one or 2 places where we
say like snow days, it says in the last page explains what happens if all snow days are used in a year. That's a question we get all the time. Can we just put in the policy?
The cow snow days work. You know, really, I'm just trying to understand there are decisions that this board will have to make that are more value driven. But there's also factual stuff in here. And
it's a matter of is a correct. And do we want to include it? So do we want this like this? Policy says a weather-related emergency closures? I think previously it was. And
remember it was from policy, 13, 50, whatever that was. You know, I'm just trying to get us to inch forward a little bit. And we're not asking for
a lot of new information. We're asking for confirmation of the work that's already been done. So what do folks think about that? Is it our Anderson scurried around the room after that. Thank you. I
think we do need to find space to move on. I do think we need to have. >> Staff review of this document and whatever that draft was to see. What are the pieces are to carry forward. Otherwise, we'll just be stuck
in this space. But I do have a question and wondering because this has come up many, many years since I've been on the board. And because also folks
have said that this occurs and other places and I don't know what those places are. If snow days are not utilize, could they be released so too become
an earlier and of the school year. Mr. Smith has answered this more times. Then I have broken out my frosted flakes without permission. So.
>> Mr. Smith to answer this again. I think you is. You've got it. comes up a lot those. So we are unable to give any snow days back because in the past we built in 3 additional
days. So was. >> Students scheduled to go 180 days and we would build a calendar with 183 days. So if we went to the end of the school year and those 3 snow
days hadn't been use, we could give those days back because students would have gone their requisite 180 days. We still create a 180 day calendar for
students. But we've built in that extra time because our days, 30 minutes longer than the state requires. So because our school days, 30 minutes longer for students than the
state requires. We've built up additional instructional hours that we can count, which is the equivalent of approximately 10 days. There's
a very convoluted formula that we have to follow. As we look at see time as we look at instructional hours at the elementary middle and high school level. Yes, Elementary
is much more. We really run up against it with middle school because there are some issues with middle school and then we look at the high school level based on the number of days
that bump up against state requirements. Sure. So we are unable to give any days back up because our days long. >> attend that settles But I would love to have that formula. Just 2 more quick
points. One Veterans Day has only been a holiday for the last couple of years. It has not been practice in Fairfax County. So it was a new thing that could potentially be
taking well has been taken away from the vote last week, but it's a new it's a new thing. And I also think the conversation, again, what I'm here for my constituents, it's not just the number of days is
the consistency of the days that we have. That seems to be the crux. I've not having a lot of people say we don't have enough school days. We just don't have enough school days that are consistently
together because whether or not we like it. The child care issue is a huge burden to some about for some of our families. I have families who cannot take off and cannot.
Attend to their kids. And when they're expecting 5 days. So it's 4.30, and know you had to go. So can we get a consensus?
Can we asked the superintendent to please come back with information about the legality of the draft? >> That reflects the boarding public input. And her consent.
Her thoughts on the November of 2023. That document is there. We want to use from there. And then I would add, can you become the superintendent provide? And
there's placeholders in this policy that says information or recommendation to answer questions. We get about the use of snow days and should be actually just call them emergency closure because that's what they're called in the policy. The nickel snow
days. >> And also the use of virtual instruction. Can you advise us on weather? We should put because that's what we were close. Can we have virtual instruction that day? And so
right. But I would like the superintendent 2 at this in to help us get forward. So is there a consensus on those 3
things? Dr Years? And yes, MS lady. >> I think I'm okay with that. I I haven't read that the 11/29/2023. policy. I'm
pulling up. going to read that. But I am amenable to that. If that works with Dr Reid is that would that work with you? Work for you?
>> You know, whatever he want will work. I I don't know. I do work. >> Okay. So is that can sense.
Miss St. John-Cunning. >> Yeah, I mean, I. >> I I'm very conscientious of. Like what flows down from here because I know what workload looks like. Because
I've worked in schools when things slow down to school level. And I know right now we've asked the superintendent to prepare. Within a 2 month
period a survey. And I know that we're looking at this policy and I'm wondering if some of that survey will help inform this policy. I don't
know. that something that we're looking at this policy? But we've also charges super intended to do the survey. And that survey might be something that would not just inform her
but in 4 months. And that's what I'm wondering. If that's something that can help. And may I I don't know that would be hopeful to you. Having some
of that. That information as you're looking at this? I mean, I think it'll be helpful to >> I'm certain that this is a decision that we have to make. Is there consensus or not? If
we want to have a calendar for July 9th, we need to make decisions about this policy. We're asking ever asked him to
take a look and I would like it to be for April. 21st. For April 21st. And this is what it takes to get this done. We
set a deadline. This is the work. Yes, mostly. I'm okay with aspirin come back information about the legality of the draft. >> Policy. I don't need that
reflects board of community input because we don't have any input. I think that is not needed. It's the current draft to Okay. what does the draft policy red line for the number
29 meeting still stand again? I think based on the guy and she was given any answers, this is yes. And revise this. I'm okay with that the way it's right. And I think that that's the fair asked because
it's not it's it's pretty narrow scope. OK? Thank you. And it's not my policy. It's the one that was from March 17th, please. And I did send an email to the clerks have better titles of these files
so we crack a and then advise on school closures emerge in virtual learning. >> Dr. Anderson, was a survey also supposed to lewd virtual
learning questions and that is outside the scope of this. What I want to know is right now right now in this draft, it says. Can we have? Can you
please? Just hold if that were rushing it? Right now, policy 13, 50 says emergency closures. But people always talk about it.
>> About snow days. So what we're trying to figure out is can the policy be clearer and instead of seeing snow days, Section 5 on the back says school closures, emergency
closures for emergency closures. OK? So we've taken what's in the current policy. We've tried to spruce up the language to make it more understandable by the public. But as Marty knows, he keeps
getting asked that question, would it be nice to party? Never had that question again. If we can put it in here, in the words you say are accurate, then it will be known seem as virtual
learning. were trying to codify these things in clarify them. So that's all. I I think
Do we have consensus? Mr. John-Cunning. Okay. So we have consensus for the superintendent to please bring this back. It was without
objection. No, there's not. And can we received these by Monday morning? Is that >> possible?
>> Yes. don't know. I'm gonna have to get to staff because we've got a look our closure regulations. Virtual learning
plans. al. >> it's in the U.S. in your motion have to come bite. So I have So I'm gonna have to go back. And I mean, there's some
work here and sit down with legal and go through all of scratch virtual learning. I didn't even hear that put out there. I just heard school closures, emergency closures. >> I don't know. Look, I was
just trying to throw the superintendent bone and say what do you want our response to be when people say why can't we learn virtually on a snow day. >> Do you have advice for us on what we should put in our
policy about virtual learning. If you can't get to that in a week, okay. Then don't. But also we don't have any next steps for the superintendent on AI. So we thought that was
going to be the beast. So I think we're totally fair and asking for this work. I just want to make sure it's clear that the virtual learning is related to the closures. Yes,
is all under the emergency closures. It's Section 4 and in the draft synchronous or asynchronous. What I would or whatever it is just something tell us. Is there any is there
ever any a situation where she would say, yes, we're going to use virtual learning completely off the table. My nursing is a completely off the table. >> It would require engaging with the staff committee community. I mean, there's a
lot of discussion if we want to add this back to us and let us a timeline immune. Again, we're trying to this policy so you can develop the calendars
that we said we wanted by July 9th. >> so I'm just going to say that as someone who worked in the system. That I understand Dr Reid's concern.
>> Because if they do round, that's when we describe the virtual and it's find the biggest things or can she look at what we've done crash, the virtual part because does
require lot of work. Okay. >> that why we don't to? >> can we just grabbed the emergency closures together to please? It is literally
disagree with that because I think what I'm >> what I think we need to highlight is why we don't do virtual. We don't have to research that we don't do
virtual touch this is the rationale. The same rationale that? >> I have asked you about before that. I've communicated to people who have asked this to me is not new work. It's
just codifying what the current practice is. That is my understanding of what this is asking. Exactly. Just
everybody knows the same thing about the snow days. Why we don't give the days back. Why we don't do virtual. Just putting that in writing so that there's clarity. So everybody's expectations can
can be clear. So for me, I don't see that as >> At this point, it's only a week. Let's just stick with please. The feedback on the
Kearns draft and the November 23 draft. Is there consensus on that? Then? Yes, Ms. Lady. Yes. Okay. Madam clerk, you
have that. Thank Superintendent read. You're going that. That's because we really want to be thoughtful about the legal review. That's the most I just want to
concerned that it seems like unless it is super explicit, the work doesn't happen until we say so. And we are working on the counter policy. Please be ready to talk about it. You
know, like we have quest, there are questions in our graphic. If you haven't read our draft, that's a problem. Okay. But then you know that we have questions in there and maybe you have opinions on it.
Same with AI. I just this having to say, OK, work now not work. Now we are working doing this. The goal is to finish this next month. So
please don't wait for this. Super Micro prescription. Yes, mostly. I'm just saying that like I look, I send your seat last year. It was very
frustrating when policies didn't get through. >> And there were lots of reasons why so I think that's aspirational to have added calendar to AI this year. And I think that we just need to give grace because if we're
not comfortable, we don't get there. We don't get there. I think it's aspirational, but I'm not sure e okay. Well, we made a very clear commitment to the community on Thursday
week. >> Not not to pass a calendar proceeds support and it cannot create a calendar without policy that has him to be a disaster. There's a current policy in place. There is 6
policies place and look at where that's landed. Us. There are a lot of people they're happy with the calendar. So I'm just saying that, you know, it's aspirational, but if we don't get there because we're not ready, then we're
not. You know, it's just on us to do the work between the meetings and I know it's really disappointing when you do a lot of work and you don't get to it. I've done that for many years. It's disappointing. So the more
that we can man died my work. No, I'm just saying that. Want to comments like I only got it this morning already get it. I don't know what to tell you. Hey, we're only ones were posted till last night after
07:00PM as so. It's the same policy that has been there February. That is not correct as mayor and you brought in a policy last week that was for internal use. And then if
that's what was stamped on my document and then I saw it was sent out is the same one. It has been the same since February 17. Good for the public to see until last night after. we know that we're
talking and that's what I'm saying is I was reading it. I didn't say I didn't have it. wasn't prepared. I'm saying it wasn't posted. And the email I sent you on March 31st. Said right. We will continue talking about these documents.
So if I could interrupt like to say that, I think the direction forward is clear and I think it being that think that staff have to go to another meeting. It would be helpful if we could adjourn.
This meeting is adjourned at 4.44.