All Well, this was a later posting. Hopefully people had a chance to look at it. >> We will now vote to approve the minutes of the 3/18/2025, meeting of the government's
committee. We want push that the next one. There was a short turnaround. So let's just push that to the next the
which I believe is. The next meeting isn't is the end
April. Okay. I include sort of. Unsure of I want to do
this and but we did throw policy. 1, 104. In for discussion. Just because we're working on revisions of
policies. I don't want to spend a time talking about this. I think that some of the questions that have been shared. good for creation of the cover sheets that staff are giving us and also
thoughtful when reviewing policies. But having said I guess like. Could pose the question to Doctor Reed for
policy 11. Oh, forgot 1, 3, which is the format and guidelines. Do you? I know you didn't take it to staff to do any with because that's obviously our thing right? But do you have any comments or
thoughts terms of how it's currently written? Are you fine with Because what one of the things is it doesn't have a philosophy section. I will
tell you, I'm and others. I think I've heard say, do we need a philosophy and a purpose? Are they sort of one of the same? I think they're
different. >> The purpose often describes what it is intended to do and the philosophy perhaps is why do we think that's important
to do? Maybe I do think. Which we're talking about policy. >> 1, for not. You all didn't prepare 1, 1, 0, 4, which is
>> For that format. It's actually a regulation so that I'm sorry. That's one of those issues is regulation. Thank miss lady. There's a policy and regulation. We have both.
We Yes, there's a policy. The regulations, bells, things on detail, the regulations where the purpose lives. The policy just says to establish a standardized format, a method of distributing distribution
for school system directives. >> Right. It so. I guess. We would be discussing or regulation.
>> I'm trying find the policy a policy 11. 0, 4, right?
It looks like the policy was reviewed last in 2021.
Correct. So regulation. Is much more detail than that wouldn't be something normally that would bring here right? Yeah. But I guess the reason I
put it on its because the regulation is what we've been in the weeds around when it comes to formatting. So I guess we'll have a brief conversation >> hopefully brief may be
productive, hopefully productive and then move on to some of the policy. So I'll start with Doctor Anderson. Actually had some clarifying questions. We're asking for
feedback. >> And I thought maybe this was a red line somewhere. What was the feedback you asking Dr, Read about there was no red line but wasn't just to
the policy as it currently exists Actually, I was mistaken, but it was to the regulation has actually exist. >> Okay. Because I didn't review the regulation. I just look at the policy.
>> I also do agree that purpose and 2 different things. And I think we need to be able to separate the 2. The purpose just gives a reason why we're having the policy like what is it that we're
trying accomplish? I think the philos gives a little greater insight as to the beliefs and values of the board. And again, I will restate that the policy is all
communication to the public. It's also our communication to the superintendent. It's pretty much like what the boundaries are or as doctor be like to say this when lanes.
And so I think that needs to be there. One of the things I wonder because I also took a look at that. She thought you said yesterday which kind of lives outside of this. And I
think there's some work to be done here to merge the 2. One of the things that this policy states is that there should be a standardized format and method. Distributing
directives. We have not yet accomplished that because going through Policies kind of all over the place. I think we'll be heading in this
direction. Just to summarize. Do I believe that we need to perhaps articulate a little bit more specifically what that formatting could look like? I would say yes, because
that's been the conversation that we have here. And we need to cement that somewhere in order to not have every iteration of the board. Just have a different procedure accidentally. But I don't
think we should do it right now because that might prevent us from getting to some of these other policies. That we might be able to get the real.
So I would say defer this one just so we could flesh it out a little bit with some of the other floating conversations and the multiple notes that we've had over the course of
this year. Thank you, Mr. Hello, good afternoon. So I agree that this particular policy 11, 0, 4 pretty basic.
But the larger question is >> about how we form at the policies and not just, you know what funds and whatnot. But I actually think the regulation is super important
and we did raise it last time and it has some things that like tactical, which is fine. But other things like special services. Should that the and
counseling services academic or is it health? Should the promotion retention grading and graduation requirement being special services or an instruction which we raised
during grading or, you know, special education. We've had a discussion and this really gets the organizational chart about special education being a special services or transportation in facilities.
In the 8,000 series, the superintendent has now separated those 2 offices. So there are things in here that, you know, sure, the superintendent could look at,
but I think some of them is, you know, listing the categories I do think that there's merit in looking at the regulation and I think it could help us answer some
questions about how we review the policy is. I do think, though, whether there's a section that's purpose or philosophy. To me, it's semantics. The goal is that we
have a section that states why this is important to the board and what it's intending to do and whether we call it philosophy or purpose. I think it doesn't really matter to
me. But when I look at some of policies, just it seems silly to have a thing that says, you know, the purpose of this policy is to have a dress code policy, right? Like so can we
just commit to having some intro section rate that states value to the board? Because then to I think that will help the superintendent and staff be able to craft stuff and not just give a suggested edits
that say things like. The purpose of this policies have dress code policy. So leave it at that for now. >> All right. So again,
because we only sorry, Sizemore Heizer. >> They very great. I I think what might most helpful. So this is egulation. Perhaps
shouldn't can take it back the craft. What she thinks would out on the conversation. She's hurting governance and then they can give feedback on that to kind of give up back to something right. That's her
suggestions of how she would outline of that. A good policies going forward. I also agree I think we need to have. But this one section 2, the purpose and the philosophy, right? That shows value system
as well as the specific purpose. That particular policy slows. Just the 2 things I want to show maybe we can bring this back after that. is updated. does update said she wants to do to get
feedback. >> Okay. Thank you for because I I guess what I was going to say is >> and then we'll move on what
we're doing today. If we want a purpose and a philosophy that we're gonna have to put the policy that way. As my thinking, that would be a policy change and then, you
know. And it's a regulation change that we can live with. But it's not. Does it mean that under different leadership? It could revert back to not having a philosophy and purpose. That's
why I bring that up. I do think that we've talked also about definitions and I think there's some policies that weren't definitions and some of the don'ts. I think that's more operational. That, you know, if it helps Lehman
person read the policy, that there will be definition that section. But we don't need them in every one of them because people. You know, I think and understand what most of them are saying. So those
are my thoughts on the back for go back to Dr. Anderson. >> Yes, thank you. I just want to piggyback on what this man had said because I had that rain all over my notes with the policies that we're going to cover today. The ones that
say we're going to establish a policy to establish a policy. It's fruitless. But there have been a lot of other good examples that I did pull that actually have some sort of robust explanation regarding
the purpose of the policy. I also I lost my train of thought here one of the things that I think in the outlining
of the components. There are some components. They're going to be across all policies. Purpose is across all
policies. Summary of changes as required responsibilities, maybe as required. I think the philosophy or the beliefs as
it shows up in a number of policies must also be across all policies because, again, it identifies the board's position. Of that for that body of work. But any of the
others, whether it be responsibilities definition. cetera, cetera. There are number of other topics, headings that I have seen across many policies, not all
of applicable for everything. It doesn't mean that we should have a bank to draw from. So we could be consistent fall when it is applicable to that
policy. So that's personally what I would like to see. We have the basic ones that will show up everywhere and a bank of. Headings that we will
select and and fuse or include when it is necessary. >> And has a point of clarification. Are you suggesting that bank would be on the been the policy versus
in the regulation? And this is where I. >> I will go back to what I said before the policies. The board's work. The regulation is the superintendent's work. If we don't articulated in the
policy gets to be subject to superintendents desires and preferences. So it would have to be in the policy of this is what the board wants to see
policies. Yes, I guess I'm just. >> I would have to see how a policy written that indicates a bank of options and not a mandate that these beheadings that are included. That's
where I'm stuck. You okay. As Did you want to back? Okay. Sizemore Heizer. Did you want to go back? >> Go. Thank you. Dre. Do you
want to add anything? All right. We're going to. >> I will call on Doctor Reed for discussion of policy. 24
0, 1, ACA placement of students in Grades K 8. And I will say that. And the flip to that one. Cover sheet
indicated. That there was not a sample vs be a policy, but I
think that there is one. think it's this I ketv.
>> When you did you come The first one. We're we're were
talking about, I believe the policy the placement students grades K through 8. Pass it on to Doctor 8. >> Thank you, miss lady there. Really minimal changes. We
didn't have a philosophy statement and because I know it's reflected in interest in philosophy statements, very policy. We crafted one. then there was a responsibility
section >> are we titled it responsibilities? Because that's who was responsible but that's really all it were that
was out. It's a pretty straight forward policy. >> I put I have some questions about it. I think that this is one of those where the purpose
and philosophy can be one and the same. I think it's really vague. It doesn't state a consistent process like. Sometimes I'll get a parent that will say, well, my my child, I want to try to skip a
grade. This policy could indicate that what the board thinks about that or say the superintendent will set a regulation about skipping
grades. Is the policy trying to clarify or academic transfer policy? And I also think that this should not be
special services, but rather chief of schools. And then for students and 7, 8, that may take secondary courses with the implication giving that the policy separates up to 9
through 12 and should the speak to AP placement. So I think. Right now it's written to be really obscure or and
pretty slim. This is one of those ones where now that we've seen it and we can discuss it. Are there other policies that speak to some of the things like that? I just
mentioned like skipping a grade or like this could speak to how students are placed in a P and at the very least shouldn't refer to that policy because that is about
placement or what about even special ed, like so. Again, I think this will be one where if we look at the whole series, maybe it makes more sense. But I don't I'm not
ready to approve it. And I think it's got some questions
for our discussion. Thanks. Dr. Anderson. Thank you.
>> My general comments around this one. The purpose and to establish policy does not sit well with me. I think we're trying to definitely determine the procedures academic
placement. That's my first comment. My second comment in the the philosophy, which is
academic placement for students. To provide opportunities for learning. I'm not sure if it's providing opportunities as much as
determining those opportunities because you receive different things to different grade levels. That's
a a small semantic change. Responsibilities. I think I'm looking for it to be a bit a little bit less. because it
seems to speak the way that it is written. It seems to be at a win of whomever is making that decision. I'd like to see some reference to whatever
criteria, not outlining the criteria, but just some reference to that. This is not going to be an arbitrary decision. And I would also
like to see if we can hone in on a decision regarding the caregiver. Guardians parents nomenclature because that
continues to show up here. For Section 5 placement progression and exceptions. The last sentence that says see the current version of
regulation. 24 10, I believe that needs to be removed its throw away because again, communicating something it doesn't need to say see something else. And
secondarily should live at the bottom as a reference, which is already there. So we do need to we iterated in the body of the language that is our communication to the
community and to the superintendent. I think those are my points. think those of
my points. All right. Not see. Miss Sizemore Heizer is handle. Take a turn. I don't know if you own. I read read.
I read the regulations that go with every single one of the policies. And I I feel like often are asking to put but blogs, regulation or policy. And I don't want to do that.
And so I personally don't have any problem with this policy. I do see your point, Dr, Anderson, about the notation in Section 5. >> Because it already is doing
on the back. That perhaps that was overkill in case somebody said, well, I need more information on this and didn't turn the page. I don't know. But I certainly could go with
or without believing that but the policy is clear. It is not related. AP. It's a different policy. I don't don't I don't think I'd want to put them on the same one, especially when
I personally. Hope that we're we sunset AP centers ultimately because we can take care of it one space. Cool.
So, you know, I don't have a proper policy. I think the regulation explains the policy. I did have a question about the regulation that Dre down if you know the answer to
this. But the enough for B of the regulation. We're talking student with disabilities participating in in the VAT program may be voted to grade 12 that meet requirements
outlined in section by PT Decisions. And students are pretty great. Well, without them either part. I guess my question came every year. We
do senior survey. And I love estate reporting thing and not right. placed asked this question. But we do senior survey. We had all the students that were in 12th grade that IP special education students or staff
cuts that they showed up. Our senior survey data every single year and we could move on without them. But but but there's no way to not have them in there. I think because they coating we try to get
them coded as p something like post. I don't know. We don't need to get the weeds on. That's right But but it came to my brain because I didn't
know if this was something we did or the state did if it might be in this policy. But I can. But I can ask question, but that that's not going to trip me up. I I'm fine with the policy the way it's
written Mr. I appreciate the reference to the regulation and I'm glad you are able to read that. I haven't read here. Check regulation and either I didn't I don't remember, didn't get to it.
>> But >> I don't think it's in the weeds to say something like the board has a position about skipping grades. >> Or the board, you know,
just a good guy with the grading policy. And we said, you know, about grade waiting and retakes and you know, that will all be done in regulation
because I where that has helped in that grading situation is now there will be a response to it where there hasn't been because the board didn't set it. So I don't
think eveen about great skipping is that generally of CPS does not do that. I can't recall puts a regulation or policy. Should there be? I don't know. seems like a good conversation to have because
when parents ask us would like to be able to say, you know, that's not our practice or here is the process that you have to go through to determine if your child should skip a grade or redo a grade.
And so I do think there can be a lot more in this policy that doesn't state all the how it's done, but does say even with AP, whether we have it in centers or not the process by
which students are identified. Yeah, it's a regulation, but a lot can. Impact how that's done. And we know that right. We know that things could be
done a certain way to be more biased or not. So I think this is a really big opportunity. Otherwise, I'm not sure why it's here like what is this actually really saying right
now we're going to put kids in grades K through 8. Well, yeah, that's what legally required to do. What is this policy say? That makes it the way that we you want it to be
implemented in Fairfax County, Public schools rate again, not just illegal stuff, but I just think there's a lot more to be
considered on this one. Dr. Anderson. >> Yes, I'd like to have a comment regarding the Nacua Where are we heading with
that? We're going to commit to it or leave it here because where becoming highly inconsistent because all the newer policies have parents,
guardians, caregivers. Is that going to be in on that? I could stop raising. I would love a decision or not. So I could also stop raising it in here. We leaning into one way
or the other because I think we. Leaned into a being in Norman and I think they're just to me, reminder to staff got it. So then I don't have to speak about that. we're
just we're we're in the policy. Are you pointing to it? >> Section 5. Yeah. exceptions shall be made after notification explanation to
parents. >> And so we've gone with. We definitely have added caregivers. We want to speak to that. Yeah, I have a
documented in this running list of vernacular that we've yet to discuss. So I would propose that. We will come to it. But I could pull up what
we did in the great whatever we did in the grading policy. That's what we said that we would do. So if we want to adopt that for now, just not it rise again. Yeah, I think we did the same in the
boundary policy. So if we could just bring that in and just let that be a thing that does not come up anymore. So that's first one. I'm sorry.
Second. That's first. And then K B. I'd like make a motion to remove the last sentence and Section C which is see the
current version of regulation. 24 10 promotion and retention of students in Grades K 8.
Section Section 5. Because I also see this as this is a petite is get this right. Let's get some sample. Things go a second and a way that we like and I don't need to speak
to it. don't either does anybody want to speak to that? call that question everyone. Okay. If we believe the last sentence of Section 5. That
objection yet. Miss Mayor and Dr Anderson, myself. Miss Sizemore Heizer. Okay. There you go. We believe that last sentence. Thank And we're not
just touch point of clarification. So it's not a motion on the table. Do we need to form a commotion that able to change parents to what
we're pulling out 8? Yes, founded parents and guardians. This was used in the boundary policy vision and the grading policy revision, parents and
guardians. Now it has to be a little bit different because I remembered I brought in a motion at the table. >> That had caregivers be part of the conversation. And I think that was one of the things that was voted on the
night that we approve the boundary policy. We'll tell which should be posted. Madam
Clerk, can you confirm? The only reason why remember it? Because I I thought caregivers was in there as well. You
know, so maybe we could stick a pin. Yeah. now find it I would also like to see 4 section 4 responsibilities,
professional staff members. >> Shop place, students at the level best suited to the students academically socially and emotionally based on set criteria, which gives a
reference to the criteria outlined in the regulations. But it doesn't leave itself open that it appears to be.
Arbitrary. Offering to extend that sentence. Yes. He's speaking to establish criteria
so it doesn't come across as at the whim of whatever administrator happens to be at the school, even though we know it. It's going to be subject to, you know, students
needs. But there's still a criteria to be followeBut you're not going to find that. That's big. >> I think am satisfied with
that because it's going to say there is criteria. And I don't want to get into listing all the criteria here for this one. I think we We've done our
job as >> communicating too. public and to the superintendent. What we are requiring. But I don't know if it's going feel like you're kind of if I can
have a back and forth just like you're kind of. We just took that out of out of 5. But it's exactly what you want to put in for without saying it's written. The regulation is
regulation spells out the criteria, very detailed. >> Maybe I'm not articulating it. Well, I just wanted to come across as if it's only subjected to whatever the prefer the staff members want
to do. I think part of this is also in Dre. Please chime in. Is this idea of? Kids are not
meeting, maybe benchmarks for advancement, but socially and emotionally they needed to Sydney to stay with their kids with their class. Where then you have some kids who are academically, you like I had young man when I was a chance
he was in 5th grade. He was taken AP Bio N a P count BCA, Gentile so so I guess be specific of what what you're
wanting to add that sense. What I want to establish and the sentence is that staff members who are making those decisions to place students at the levels best suited for them.
>> Is not doing this just out of the blue like they need understand can use right to I'd like to think what I said
was articulating that. clearly it didn't land. So let me just kind of come back to that. And
I'd like to also and philosophy to change the term, provide to determine. Because we provide all kinds of opportunities no matter where you are. But we're determined some specific things that are
available at specific grade levels. And this isn't the objection to that. I'm not
sure understand how you determine opportunities. What we're not just providing opportunities because will provide maybe both the wrong term. Because it seems to me like academic place
meant to provide opportunity. It's not necessarily quite there, but we're determining do want to to do. I put the word determining in front
academic. next. Yeah, think that gets there, though. And then I don't have language ready for that purpose, but I
think we need to have a purpose beyond establishing
policy. But that's that is the
purpose of it. Sometimes the purpose just states that its. It might be a black and white photo and you want color. But
at the end of the day, it's that the purpose of this policy to establish. Replacement for students grades K through 8. That's the purpose of it. maybe that's
what we just add may be to establish academic placement and just take everything and in the middle out. Being
takeout. To read it as the purpose is to establish second-place Mont of students in Grades K 8. Yes. And take a
policy regarding. Can you please repeat that one more time? I'm sorry. Under
purpose. Take out the word policy regarding.
I feel like we're doing the thing that our chair had asked us not to do, which was to Wurtsmith every word. You know, I had asked at the outset if we could just have the purpose of the
philosophy be the thing that is the boards statement and I I heard won't one person say they didn't think it was necessary. >> And now it sounds like
we're reworking the purpose. So I just it's something if we could get some agreement because we are words that thing in this isn't the way we need to go about doing this. We really need to have a more holistic, bigger view of
things. Does this policy do we want this policy to express more than it currently does? Can people raise their hands?
So Dr, Anderson. Miss Levy is fine with it. I'm not fine with it. I would like to see continue to review some of the other policies and the 2 thousands. See how they
connect to this. And then, you know, maybe even that's a good way to go in all of these discussions since we're looking at the series as a whole each meeting, let's go through them and then maybe at the end, we can make some
decisions. But >> doing this word by word is we're going just don't agree with that approach. I also had shared and this lady shared again. Suggested prompts for
our policy review. you know, I get the importance of saying is that parent or guardian? I got to tell you, I've just researched and we weren't consistent. Not surprisingly so that's still TBD. But I
feel like that is so down on the list because whether or not lake like so one of the proms was does the policy currently have a philosophy section if yes, should it be
substantially updated if no should have won? Would you say the policy leans more towards having the type and amount of information that should be in a superintendent regulation. What are viewing the regulation be helpful when
considering updates to this policy? So we got, I say, elevated here and what I would propose is to move on to the next the next one, which is
about commencement activities. And let's continue through these 2 thousands to see how they integrate together. And we could come back at the end and do like a wrap-up of what is actionable today and what's
not. And also I have the mic. I do want to say I would like the committee to confirmed the and our next meeting. We will review policy. 82 40 about
facility is because that is really important so that the superintendent facilities manager can continue on with some of that work. But we need to review that. I just want to put that out there, please. We
need to talk about the policy today. I just wanted to confirm that we're gonna put on the agenda for the next time. Thanks. Yes, it's on the agenda for the next time. And I'm just going to say, and we can move on next policy that
when I >> put together my prep. And I you know, do we did we not share regulations? Unfold? Yeah. We shared regulations.
I'm I print. My folder. Just see, you know how I prepare because you might want to do it is I have the memo I have.
Is there separate policy from SBA that I have the policy breadline and then I have the regulation. Read them all together. And then I thought then I asked myself, do I have
any unanswered questions? When it comes to the policy and regulation so we can we can move beyond this one and move to commencement activities. I'm fine with Turn this back
over to doctor. Even have her talk about commencement activities. >> Thank you, Miss lady. So going to commencement
activities. >> purpose was clarified. We added a philosophy statement and that was really it. again,
a very straightforward policy. Most recently was updated in
2021. >> This Okay. So I actually
just got this question about if a student began their high school career at one of our high schools, but perhaps finish at Fcps Adult High School or center. Can they still get there? Diploma
issued from their base school. And while that might not be totally in sync with commencement, it is a connected thing. Maybe it's not only connected but the other thing is I don't high
school Special Education Center don't even think we ever talk about. some of our buildings like that is that the Davis Center or is it a
center like Brian, don't know also what is a certificate of completion? Do we want also add information about how graduation speakers are
selected or that the superintendent will issue guidelines, especially during an election year. There is some maybe it's just a custom, but that. Candidates running
for office are not permitted or it's frowned upon, but it's not a rule that they not speak at a graduation and I think it would be wise to put something
in there about that. is there anything about the program about the commencement that should be mentioned like allowable clothing. I've had some people talk. I'm just
giving you feedback from my constituents and people say, well, you know, some kids have, you know, got this the the ribbon because they did this club. But now lots of
people can buy ribbons for things. So does that value of the other things with the permission? What about? Political statements? I mean, these have become things that
I know have an issue. What about costs are tickets Just saying that that this whole policy to include all of that. But it could say the superintendent shall set regulations regarding ticket
to get distribution. You know, allowable tire or what have you because these are things I
am I observed in my 5 years It's going to graduations. I'd like know what people think about these ideas. And if
these kind of things should be in there. Dr. Anderson. Thank you. I can't say this enough. These policies are all
communication to the public and to the superintendent regarding our expectations. So we have to set it up in that way. >> And the same with and other policies we've said you shout
create consistency. We didn't outline what that necessarily look like. I think there's some space for us to do this here to the point of. The decoration of mortar boards
because right now that's a piece that I've had many students they've been writing for quite a while because their school doesn't allow it. But yet school acts allows it.
That shouldn't be how we are working as a school system. So I do think that there's some space for us articulate that looking for the superintendent
to set consistency. around areas ABC, or D side. That's in response to what you've articulated. I also think it is very important because we do have this unspoken rule
folks who are running for public office to not be able to graduations, even though the student body may have voted them for it. We need to say that because again, the superintendent can't say that that can't be and regulations
that has to be in the Boyd's communication to the public. So everybody knows. Thirdly and lastly, I'm struggling with, OK, let's keep it high.
And yet, where is the space to share the things that may be smaller that are still things that I'd like to introduce to better the product that we're
putting forward. And so. Again, looking at purpose, I would love for to see that the purpose this pot of, you know, P whatever is to establish
commencement activity, procedures. Just something. So I'm not trying to waste the time, but this is the only time that we have. Otherwise we're going to be introduced into Kentucky amendments when
we're voting for these, which should really just be an can set. So I would love to hear when is that space? Because if I just introduced this to you on the side, what if other
people don't agree with it? I don't know where to go. There. I would like to see some speaks regarding the consistency of a tire mortar
board expected expectations and a couple of other things that you've articulated that I did not grab and there should be some language here about the elected officials being
graduation. Speakers. And I don't even know if we want to go as far as determining because we seem to have gotten consistently more consistent regarding location of from
graduation ceremonies. Is that something we want to consider not married to it. Just a
thought. don't have a regulation. The same number. At least I can't find one.
>> Misleading Sizemore Heizer has her hand size miser. All right. And say it. >> But about thank you. I'm just wondering if we can some
of these comments that for many of same things around consistency in various ways from graduation ceremonies. can't cermonies. I'm just
wondering if we can add a sentence or This policy may be under requirement says the superintendent chelation regulations letting consistency commencement cermonies too. You know,
include. What does little to no one of decorations. All of can within there just consistency requirements options and regulation and get the issue that has some of
that with those details because I think the point to benefit details pide long want a regulation does accept requirement could be a higher level, were acquired
consistency. isn't even everything's the same, right. Like in some ways, you know, we do have different places. Your graduation, different reasons. But base is consistency of expectations.
So I would. you are most like make a motion to a last sentence is just a potential issue immigration is putting consistency of commencement
ceremonies. >> I'm gonna take a turn. I'm going that. If we want to add
something about political speakers in an election year that we have an election year every year in the state of Virginia. So then I think you're just putting out there that you can't have a portable
speaker. You know, a politician at your graduation. But also going to say, I don't think that we're going to put in policy anything about dress
code. I think when it comes to cords that's why I'm looking for a desperate for the regulation because we have having done this for so many
years. We have directives around these things that are already in some type of regulation and maybe it's in multiple. I don't know if I can because I can't nothing
Mary's up to this exact number. So I'm happy to to push this and come back to it. But, you know, there's a
certain amount of I know that when I get 10 graduations, I observed different things because schools have different traditions. Okay, Gentile, we never invited outside speaker
because they that feeling of Chantilly is you're not you're outside. You know You don't or you don't know where the Gentile pride. We want internal speakers. You know, there are certain schools, words like getting that, you
know, name rate me now. watched Hillary Clinton. I've watched Tim Kaine. I've watched, you know, lots of famous people graduations for some schools. That's their
tradition. But I honestly. >> it when working. >> In Fairfax County is seldom I can't think of a times may complain to me. About how we did things the chance to leave
someone it open to the differently. I mean, like I said, we have, you know. You can't tell you this with 700
graduates, can't pleas courts. We have regulations around court. Students are told you may not do the following. You may not work or that's not from a and So what I'm looking
for, verified honor society of sorts. So we have to be in TSA. You have to be n, you know, you know, music, honor society. But when when people
show up with a cultural Hawaiian lei, I'm not taking it off their neck and I'm not going to ask back. do that on a graduation day. I think we have to think about what talking about here. And I mean, this, it's an exciting
day. You set the groundwork. You set the rules. >> And you do. You do. You're in for the most part. People comply. The you know, if people comply.
>> But I just think we need to be careful. I mean, I'm certainly be fined put something about public speakers you know, decorum on And we don't we didn't allow any wherever work. So if they
allowed somewhere. >> Well, again, but I also think I hate to see somebody not start commencement on time. Because you've got 30
kids with decorated caps on the you're not gonna let walk. So. Anyhow, I'm fine with the way this policy is written.
But I also hear lots of consternation around it. So. Go to go back as Yeah, appreciate if the things that
I bring to the table that are experiences aren't like dismissed just because it wasn't one particular high school that you saw. Everything I spoke of were complaints and things that I saw with my own 2 eyes and
people told me with my years. So there are issues, OK, and maybe in 10 years that school will only have outside visitors. This is the problem with Fairfax. We do
everything. A lot of things by tradition and then it becomes a problem. So we're trying to get consistency here. What I suggest Why do we continue
going through the is and then each of us get assigned doing the edits. So for this one sounds like perhaps a red line could be that one of us as I will do this update and right
in the sentence that says promote the consistency of requirements, graduations or whatever it is. Because some people do find certain cultural things offensive and
then they were to graduation and it ruins their graduation. So, you know, we're trying to be mindful about it. But the point is, is just like with academic placement. Maybe that's one one of us could
say, Hey, I'm gonna redlining. So now the superintendent has done the review. I think perhaps there could have been more to that one, right. But now the board take that it makes it hours. Right. And so at the end of this meeting, we
could give out who is going at it. What? And then we come back. Otherwise we're going to be wordsmith thing here till the end of time. So that's my
suggestion. Dr Anderson. Thank Commissioner. Fresh scent of the have something in. I'm not
against that idea. I'm not against the idea of us. You know, after the conversation
for somebody to take, you know that policy and do redlining making sure that we're incorporating what everybody the room has said. I'm not against it. >> At all. But I just want to
make sure that we have some sort of space for that work. I'm actually pretty drawn to the idea of the superintendent gave feedback. It went as far as it could. If we feel it's
going as far as it could, then we take it over, making it out on because if you did not hear me say this again before say it again, this is our work. This is our communication. We
have got to put our stamp on it. So if you're open to that, I'd be happy to support it. If not, then we have to make the sausage in the room. That's what committees of 4 and then
some ways I know we have a list with trying to run through. So maybe that's not the way of yeah, absolutely. And I would be open to it into by twos. Or at least in
tandem. Not Nestle simultaneously. But because we're allowed to do that, right, Melanie, I could perhaps work on commencement together. >> Right. And then share it
with. Dr Reid and staff and then bring it back to the April meeting as opposed to me doing isolation. And Melanie do want to cause. I think it's we were little better encapsulate the thinking of all the board to all the
members of the board that on a committee. >> But I would also avoid not running it through the members of the committee because it will get right back here where people who are not the to the
pair the single a way. What about this? What about that? And we get into this exact space again, that would take us, you know, my phone calls. absolutely.
>> So are moving on from any more comments about commencement? >> If you could identify what we're going to do at some point, I don't what sounds like the policies we don't get
through. With about, you know. 5 to 10 minutes left. We'll go back and will decide going to be delegated to. There's only
4 of us in the room. So okay. Next policy. Dre colony to share thoughts on policy. 26 6 year-old and a volunteer
uniforms in public schools. Thank you, Miss Lady. >> So this policy is to authorize individual schools to adopt voluntary school
uniforms. We created a philosophies because there wasn't a philosophy >> changed >> school orms to
responsibilities to follow the consistent >> formatting and took up the guidelines because those
really belong in regulation. Thank you. Any comments questions this mayor? Well, I can I just think the purpose
could be like why this might be a good thing like. Uniforms can be supportive student learning. Maybe something about being consistent within
the school. Financial help. Where's the money going to come for? These things are how they're selected. Given that I have had no one ever raise this to me. I'm not inclined
to hold it out right now. But I do think again, having something about. And I would like the word that one is one thing, a wordsmith because of the uniform policy at any
school. It's not to practice. Its implementation. We just need to not use that word haphazardly. So I'll be fine to approve it. But I do think could have more in it about
why it's even a consideration for children's learning. Dr. Anderson. Just very quickly, I just want to highlight that
this purpose as written. I would love to see all of other. >> Purpose sections B written in this way. It hasn't action verb regarding exactly what is going to happen. Rather
establishing a policy. So I like this purpose I didn't have any comments because I find to go with that. And I'm glad that we took out all of
the language speaks to the how because this is not the how this is the what the why and that must happen. I could see
space for Section 4. To have the other piece of this man just talked about, being that, you know, that be financial support, Dick's, you know because, again, this is the
board's expectation. If we don't put it here, we're leaving it up. when I say put it here, if we do not take lead, that we have an expectation around that area.
It may on may not show up in a regulation. So it's just broadly stating that these other things we would expect to see in the regulation regarding financial support.
But otherwise, I don't have any other questions on this
Sizemore Heizer. >> Just very I appreciate And I'd like think that makes sense put your nation recommend that they're going to do that then and the
philosophy section, but says the Fairfax, the second sentence that can decision about a uniform policy. I agree that were partially uniform practices and guidelines for any individual
school and the guidelines point school uniform just followed. I think that will guide lines in regulations and we need to refer to this specific regulation. So if you take Section infection, guy,
that was guidance putting the regulation that I think under Section 3 media, they were for specific regulation or say the regulations because I this is what happens here yet see. But
you guidelines confused a lot. So we say to be clear, guidelines under section 3 need to be followed to establish a uniform. Practice
or policy. this because Section reference that I kill policy should be consistent with the school with a UK shuns guidelines. And so I we're in that section that
said. >> Mr. De Armas and you want to go back. >> Yeah, just one quick I came to me but I forgot to share
it. I think we have to be mindful of the sequence of how these things are developed. And that's the frame of mind that I bring into this work because if we have a brand-new
policy, for example, that we are outlining, we have no reference to specific regulation because that is not yet written. So I'm always taking a look at it in that way because the policy comes
first and the regulations come after. So how we refer to it is important because it may not be in existence. And this is again, looking to be consistent across all of our
policies and an evergreen manner. Besides Miser. My
hand. >> Okay. So just to summarize what I think I heared under Section 3, we want to work wordsmith. The word policy. To
make it more accurate because it's referencing something outside of a policy. I something around perhaps a section 5 on financial support. I guess if a school
was to adopt uniforms with the fans will be support for those who are in need. And then we
need to make sure they would be a reference to the regulation because it's not. It's not a duly noted already. Did I miss anything? >> Please note there currently
no regulation. Okay. So there is no regulation on this. This I don't think we need to constantly make the reference
to a specific regulation. Again, this is saying to the superintendent, whoever they may be that they must adhere or create something to satisfy
what the expectations are here. I think that we're looking for consistency about on to develop We don't always have to say a reference to a
regulation because Sizemore Heizer said all OK, so I'm summarizing I didn't take a turn. I'm fine with the policy the way it's written. I believe Miss Sizemore Heizer said something about a
reference to regulation. But if there isn't one, will take that on the size? Miser? >> Just to clarify mention reference to regulation. All I was trying to say is that
right now it's confusing what they're supposed to because it says a school can her uniform
guidelines for implementing school uniforms. This Last I was What guidelines were referring to that? A regulation. That means you could it? Isn't that where are they? What are they? And this?
And this comes from 7 history where and I've a great in part to Big Apple. This we have a policy violations in Random guideline that, well, have really create a updated. So I just think we want to be
clear. And last of the unnamed us update after regulations but we what they're supposed to follow. >> Well, and I have a question jury because I guess the reason this policy was so
lengthy is because there was no regulation. So a lot of what has been removed is it assume there will be a regulation written or should the policy just be so? I
believe it's because would intend to. Move us to a regulation, but we would need the policy first before we
could. All right. Any further discussion on this particular one? I had okay. I was looking
at it. See if it came down. Yes, you do. Go ahead. Thank you. Appreciate it. I want to try to save part that was removed is the guidelines, the title, the sections
guidelines. That's this policy now is confusing when that's removed. >> And I don't think we should takes part of the guidelines in the section in your view,
that section. I was going pass, but we them shuns. But the policy is written right now makes no sense those types something that doesn't exist.
Because the guidelines actually moved in. I agree to regulation, but you can't help get a policy that pollen guard lines that have been removed and don't exist in park. That's the point I'm making,
but the time do that. But it kind of this policy and Michael were the guidelines and there aren't any because it may change regulations. That I don't think we should have a cutting consistently
confusion in our policies. I understand you're saying. >> Then if we're going to be. The signing these different people to wordsmith outside
the room, then that will be wordsmith. Is that agree meant it. >> The nation that was clear that it's hard sometimes impress on makes it clear that I was trying to get out. That
may be in the with the way it's written right now. To speak hearing sorry. No, I'm
just making a note. >> More comments on policy. 26, 6, 0.8. We will go to
policy. 26 7, 1, 1, com, Dr Reid. >> This one is multi-agency placements. And the purpose
again is to establish procedures for multi-agency placements. And so we added a philosophy statement because
one didn't exist >> and then we updated language based on the review by the department and legal.
And that's it. Questions comments on this.
Dr Anderson. >> Yeah, just small. Just for us to tighten up the purpose. If we had landing on a kind of
tempered language. Rather than to establish the policy.
Anyone else. Any other comments? Seeing no hands? Can I motion that we? Take out the
words, the purpose of this policy is. And under purpose and start with the word too. And perhaps vote on the
policy. Miss Sizemore Heizer. I wasn't going to be with that. But second motion. With the second. Thank you. I don't
need to speak to it. Do you? No, I'm Alright, bring that to vote. Can we all vote? So the new languages and or purpose it says to establish procedures for multi-agency
placements firm's first is disabilities. Otherwise we accept the rest. The redlining, all those in favor. But miss mayor for a call that question. Thank you. I am in favor of what's written, but
just thinking about the policy and mean, do you want to put in there that it's to strive for the least restrictive environment and didn't even want to say what's some do you
want to say that? You know, again, like that's our purpose? It's not just so that the procedures are clear. It's. The point of this again, is. We're like, why are you in
use some of the public might look at this and be like, why are we? I guess. I guess it's under philosophy. But again, that's why purpose philosophy can we just have one? just
think it's to play. Could have so. Are you looking for specific response? Well, I'm
looking to see if we can get some agreement. I mean, I think having a purpose section and a philosophy section is redundant. This policy is
titled Multi-agency Placements for Children with Disabilities purposes to establish procedures for multi-agency placements, for children, for students with disabilities. And we want to we just changed
the title. Then to procedures for multi-agency placements. I mean. It's just. I guess I hear you, but we've. Wax and
wane philosophical since I took this chair around these types of things and we've come to the conclusion. It seems that we want to purpose and a philosophy and I've heard people reiterate that and
there's times when it's not either or and at the end of the day, even though Woods Dooley stated an obvious it's consistent. I just we'll never
get through anything if you know. So any other questions or comments on this? I would like to call the question with
the way already passed that correct? vote. we need to vote on the elimination of the purpose of this policy is to just start with the word to all those in favor of that at
it. That's unanimous for everyone in the room. Including a Sizemore heizer.
And now. I would like to call the question. All those in of
adopting. The policy is written on the screen. This mayor on Dr. Anderson Sizemore Heizer myself. This lady, I'm
so sorry. Here's something like Super Super Tiny. >> That philosophy statement. It says when Fcps is unable to provide appropriate public
education to a child with disabilities directly with its own facilities. Should that be with in? Rather than with.
That doesn't seem to float. I know we just voted on it, but it just caught my eye. I'm not
going claim to be an English. It sounds better. >> But I don't know without having grammar check on word
document because you can't do with its facilities. It has to be So. >> Okay, done. We'll move on
weak. But if it's not change that is we didn't have a mover in a second or or you could do it without objection. I'm
okay. Friendly. We did have a mover second or so we've had that were asked to change with 2 within. A second. I'll
second that. like to call the question who's okay with the
word within and unanimous. Summitt's lady back to the original. We know that sits
under philosophy. Statement is not under some real changes. within. And then adopting. We
backed adopting the policy as a whole. Yes. Okay. All moved to call. The questions are second. Dr. Anderson called
the question all those in favor of the policy is written on the screen, Dr Anderson Sizemore Heizer myself. With Ms Mayor away from the table
passes. Okay. We are now in the 3 thousands. So called Dr Reid to speak to operational guidelines. School libraries,
policy, 3, 0, 1, 2, 4, Thank you. Miss >> The purpose of leads to establish libraries as an integral part of the total school curriculum.
Additionally, there are added cross references added, but essentially
>> we added the definition. We had a philosophy. >> And then just updated the current versions of
regulations. Pretty straightforward again.
questions comments about this particular policy? Purpose, if you can just do that without objection. Friendly amendment
that we're going to start the purpose with the word too. So I seconded. Dr. Anderson's.
The amendment. You want to speak to year. I do not need to. Can we call the question?
Seconded by Doctor Anderson. All those in favor of the friendly Amendment. Sizemore Heizer doctors myself. Any
other questions or comments about the policy. Not seeing any. I will make a motion call
the question. Second second, Dr. Anderson, all those in favor of adopting policy. 3,
0, 1, 2 dot for. Miss Sizemore Heizer. Jeff question. I was just reading. Okay. That's what thought. Okay. So vote for the policy as it's written on the screen, all those in
favor. Dr. Anderson Sizemore Heizer myself. That policy
passes. Alright, conduct or reads to talk about. The
policy. 3 to 8, 0 controversial issues. >> Thank you. Miss lady this policy summary of changes.
There is a philosophy. >> Section and the definition. >> And philosophy as well as
responsibilities >> procedures were. Taken out because they would be in the
regulation and there's updated policy cross reference with non-discrimination and
regulation. >> motion that we start the purpose with the word to eliminate the purpose is to have a second Dr. Anderson.
Judge to speak to it. I don't need to. All those in favor. Miss Sizemore Heizer you there. Yes, Miss Sizemore Heizer actors myself. So that
friendly amendments made to the policy. Any other comments or questions on the policy? Miss Sizemore Heizer.
>> the commitment section. couldn't section, but we have hate this commission races and other forms of bigotry. And often I will just find it like spirit and wasn't doesn't get
included in that list of people. Talk about it on Monday. You can add the word evolution and the Out of
hundreds of bodies, maybe. >> I certainly hear you. And that my experience able isn't
being forms of bigotry. >> I was stunned at rate. >> like perhaps between. Or after the word racism, like where? Where would you put it?
>> literally I hate this to the neighbors the front of bigotry or bias. difficult because people had to buy season consultations. But
>> so your offering to you want to add the raible and or biases. He went after both
that. I was offered blizzard. I think can be especially if compare ing with by scenes, baby. >> will change your part of I I don't know. But I would offer a wasn't enough some of
them. >> I'm going to get council to weigh in on that. Yes, I think
we're under commitment and it would if I made a slight miser, I believe it would reduce Tapsell affirm the dignity along of all students and oppose hate discrimination, racism. >> Abel and other forms of bigotry when engaging with
controversial issues. >> Yes, attempts Comey. Thank doctor Anderson. Is miss the
fall. So sorry as the FOX or you're right there. This is one of these policies that has shown up with every governance committee iteration that I've
been on and we've never been able bring it over the finish line. But I remember if you could maybe recollect with may miss the fossil. We had a lot of conversation regarding what
this means for protected classes. Can you see? That's the thing that's sticking out to me a little bit. Can you kind of and I don't need to test. You want to on the spot. Can you just maybe share
understanding of You recollection of this as it applies to this policy. That you have so to collate before.
I just can't recall all of it. Yeah, I am.
>> I appreciate noting it's been a and I do recall having discussions, but I and and not remembering the the detail on
Unfortunately. >> I just keep listening I have something else. So there's still no second for
able isn't right now. Okay. Miss mayor and his second in the addition of able and so I guess. The question is, do we
have to? Because this is so wrapped up in legal. I would think. Does that need to be does that at wooden at it like that? If passed need to be
checked? That's my question. Because it's because it is is able isn't a protected class.
disability. >> I think that it is. >> And I'm not comfortable with the change. I don't think
I need to do for coverage on. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Foster.
>> So we have a second on that on the table. Any more discussion on this before call the question as Mayor? I'm sorry. Yes, you speak your motion. Thank This has a has a
one to Speaker. Ms Asmar. You want further your motion. >> spoke to earlier, but so questions that come up. Thank you. Miss Mayor.
>> Yeah. Just to be clear, is it the legal words rates and no one will Discriminated based on their ability. But in this freeze, we're talking
about not incurring able so that would be I think what we're trying figure out to make sure it's accurate. So I just want to make sure that that language is accurate. If the council could confirm.
They're using the right word and then place. >> I think Abel is a term that
could be used in the in the policy. It's and understood term. And so I don't I don't have any legal concerns with it. Great. I have other comments, we talked to his mission. Any more comments on
the motion? I would just come in fully support the motion. Seeing no other hands will call the question you're comfortable with the amendment to this section with adding
the word able after racism, common. >> Common before the word and other forms. Please raise your hand. This mayor and ER nurse and the size riser myself that unanimous. Miss Mary, things
you want to speak to in the policy. Yeah, thanks. Thanks for bringing as much as or actually just finished that autobiography of Judith Human, which I highly recommend and there's a version. And if you
know what it is, that's the first assignment. I think that this is fine and wondering the regulation is also 2015. So what are the superintendents
plans to on to review that? And that's just wondering how often to the regulations get reviewed. Is there a set timeline or only when things seem to come up? >> Generally we review them when things come up or legal
changes or the policies change. I wondered if we should put the word facilitation in there somewhere. You know, the role
of the school is to facilitate. The thoughtful the thoughtful discussion. But well, I don't know that we need to do it, but I just actually was talking with a
staffer today about are we need to do more facilitate discussions that are difficult because when there's a boy gets filled with other things and so on. You know, I guess
they also wanted a commitment that we will educate our students about the is and it's in there. But I think teachers might have fear that, you know, they're going to say the wrong thing or they'll be
liable for something. It's a saying that their facilitators, perhaps further, you know, ensures that we're not saying, you know, they're indoctrinating, but they aren't. anyway, just happy to
hear any thoughts anyone has on that. I'll take a turn. Would you become for the purpose ready to establish guidelines for facilitating thoughtful teaching and learning about controversial
issues? >> I like that very much. Offer that as a. Motion. Seconded by Dr Anderson. I
don't need to speak to I think I did. You to speak to Doctor Anderson. Okay? So under purpose, it will re to establish guidelines for facilitating, facilitating,
thoughtful teaching and learning. Insert the words, facilitating, thoughtful after
the work for. Anyone else. Want to comment on that? A call that question. But a
second. This mayor, all those in favor of this particular rewarding of the way. The purpose is writtenright now. Sizemore Heizer Dr, Anderson, mayor and myself. All right.
Back to further the question. Discussions around the policy. I think it's Dr. Anderson Stern. >> Yes, thank you. One of the wanderings that I had was regarding the segment, the
section that his commitment and again, I see that as part of that believes in the values, hence, therefore, the philosophy. Again, not married to it just seems to be one of
the. Title headings. That is not a regularly occurring. One. And so I would like to hear if that's a possibility for us and bad that commitment
under the philosophy because that speaks to what is it that the board believes that speaks to what we want to communicate to the public and the
superintendent. And one of the issues that I think has waylaid this policy quite a bit. It. And again, where does that live? I don't know. But I
want to raise it is a safety around. These conversations as articulated under the responsibility that they will be a safe atmosphere. And just
wanting to make sure that desperate actions for both teacher and student. When views are non conclusive has articulated here has always
been the case. So. How that 10 the regulations. But is e always a big fear that a student will express a thought that is not the popular
thought. And that may yield. Some disciplinary actions or if the teacher. Engages in the same thing. I just have lots of wondering here because it
makes it difficult to have that safe and thoughtful space and also the preparation about staff to do that work. And
just to be able to have the conversations in the places here where it is planned discussion because it's part of the cure I could see that
they'll be probably more preparation. Mayor, but there's also the UN structured that I believe is referred to here, which gives me a lot of
heartburn because of where various staff tends to be.
>> So there's a lot to >> I are you making all take my turn. I kind of like commitment as a stand alone.
just because I because it's not in every policy and I think it's a suffer from reiteration. I don't okay with in philosophy. But I also like it is a stand-alone because
the statement that is being made by the policy and again, this is school board making a statement about controversial issues so that the the
comments that I have wise, I'm comfortable adopting the policy as amended by House.
Questions, comments I was like some feedback to some of the things that I've shared regarding the information to be included in the regulation.
that's already in the regulation. >> I don't have enough to go back and look at the regulation >> and if the board wanted to put something in the policy to
that in. You know, fine with that as well. I think we're trying to work within the current policy structure. If
you want to take time to read the regulation, it's pretty detailed. >> so did at Page's. And my last one during that I am so sorry, forgot is under
definition. We were for Tobias. I almost feel like biased needs its own
definition. A lot of time for
people to read the regulation.
Anderson, thank you, Just a quick question regarding regulation, Section 5 speaks to the role of the teacher, but embedded within our some of the things for which
principals will be responsible. I wonder if it's worthwhile to separate those 2 things to really be clear in terms of who has responsibilities to which
sections. But, you know, we could certainly look at it, structuring it Think at the end of the day, principles are making choices. They approve
>> instructions, school level. No, absolutely. Is just all under the section of role of teacher. And there's some specific references to what principles will be doing. And
that's actually point those out. But comes to to to think he'll die because I don't see principle. And was maybe Anderson minors. Hold on one
0nd. That was on with the approval that I get the 2 mixed up. Yeah, I see it on
your speakers. I see 100 distribution of literature. Okay. Maybe I did get those intertwine. My apologies. But it did answer some of the
questions that I had been guarding teacher preparation and being ready to have some of these very sensitive
conversations. Yes, one second to remind myself what I was coming to. Yet, the regulation
is very interesting and has very I don't know. Against dated language. You know how we handle controversial issues. Again, that's a really nice place to use the word
facility. And kind of it definitely needs an update. So on. I eager to get this policy
approved. It is time. again, I know Dr. Anderson, you made a comment related to moving commitment to philosophy, but
I don't have a formal motion on that. Second U to mention. >> Can we call the question a vote on the policy? I did want to ask for a definition for
bias, though. A prejudice You want. You want the definition section in this particular policy, there is a definition
section. But the definition section. But first to bias. And I think that requires a little bit of explanation. I
guess I'm how and why. What is the definition of bias that Fairfax County is utilizing to help guide this work? Because
if we're expecting that again, we're trying to communicate to the public what this is. And if we're expanding controversial issues that are based on perspective and bias,
what is bias? I only know like Webster's definition. advocacy is just to add a definition for bias. Thanks. Single. That
particular word out but not single out. Is that a motion?
There a second to that. Not seeing a second for that. Okay. Any other comments or
questions on this policy? I make a motion that we vote on the policy as it's written on the screen by the second. MS Maren. All those in favor of
the policy is written on the screen. Please raise your hand mayor and Sizemore Heizer myself. Anyone opposed Dr,
Anderson, 3 to the policy. Passes that governance. Next
up, we have advanced academics. K 12 policy, 3, 3, 3, 5, dot to conduct a raid to present this particular
provision. >> Thank you, miss lady. At this time there were no changes other than a philosophy statement was added. responsibility was
responsibilities was changed out from requirements. >> Thank Committee members and
miss Mayor. again. I mean, I wish it would be great if we could get to the point where we have that global agreement because when I think about the
grading policy and then earlier, K 8 placement policy. What do, we want this to be similar in that we expect certain things that will be determined by the
superintendent's such as statement about Playspace instruction versus Senator based instruction. This is where that could misleading. And that could be a robust discussion at the full board
table or about testing and placement. are there others again in this kind of category like to me? So I look at this. I'm okay. We have one policy
for advance academic programs for K 12. Then we have the other policy above about placement for K 8. Are we going to have other policies about ID or policies about
like? >> Makes a P so distinct. Is it? You know, I mean, these are kind of like the questions like this is the boards vision. And so I think like
this policy in particular, but AP could be have a really robust conversation and review. What about, you know, dual enrollment or ensuring the participation of students
with special needs who were 2 E who we know are often not able to access this. So again, can we pass it? And it stands as it is shore. But this is
our chance to really dig into it. But I know, you know, we've already dug into very too juicy policies this year. But I think this connection between the earlier K 8 and
this one should be. Something that we really do think further about. Thank Dr.
Anderson. >> Here's a question. This is a policy that we require. Dre or Mr. Foster, I believe it is
connected to the code of Virginia. Is illegal reference. We have to identify what we do for advanced academics or in some cases it's referred to as gifted and talented.
>> Some states actually require an IEP. For students that be placed in programs such as advanced economics.
It's a civil rights thank you. question. I think it's fasting
that sample policies from the SBA do not have sections they're just paragraphs or or
multiple paragraphs. >> But I, you know, to miss merits point there, and there is naming of some of the things in here. More specifically then is in the
fcps policy. I don't think that it changes the policy. I think that not naming means you don't risk excluding something. Sometimes we started getting naming of
things and then the new our pick, academic opportunity comes along then. Baidu enrollment. You know, I mean, we were doing that at one point and then it evolved. So
we didn't have to revise the policy. Daddy. Right now. We don't do Cambridge, but who knows? I don't know some point. Something like that could come along. So in terms
of my own personal comments, I'm comfortable with this and again, I think that you make a good point. Also, miss mayor. sometimes I think some of these regulations, the
regulations that are attached the policies we are. Adopting. I think should be evaluated for terminology that. Perhaps
change like like the last one facilitation but I don't when I read the regulation, I don't. It doesn't delineate AP
centers in it. Anywhere. So I don't know where. That's delineated. If it's not in this regulation. You mean the
policy? Is there a separate policy for AP centers versus advanced of not delineated in the policy because you said regulation twice. Just what makes was followed. >> No, I was talking a regulation. The regulation has
the details. the system, I guess at some point decided to have it centers. I don't know the center's Reverend Policy. I don't want them in policy. So I'm not suggesting they go on housing. I'm actually just
making observation that they're not in regulation either. So it shouldn't be hard sunset them. Mr. curious
with the superintendent things. I mean, by way of policies is A robust policy? I you know, I don't think it's a
robust policy, but it's an accurate policy. And if the board wants to expand >> Their philosophy, your philosophy, I think you
certainly could. But this still guides the work that says we have to have one >> which we do. So I mean, I think then the regulation
defines. The how we do it. policy indicates the what right we have to do it it's in statute so you can certainly
add more to it. Well, this is, you know, and do time check. we want have a little time to close out. But I mean, it. >> feel like this is really important and we should spend
more time on this. I think, you know, we have to plan as a board, to review this. This really gets into again. What are we assuring that students
happen mean to not mention? 2? We or it does say ability intellectual ability. I sure, if we talk about intellectual ability, that's a phrase that
we use. But if we don't need this policy, the law tells the superintendent what to This isn't a thing. The policy to Maine. You know, I'm the
liaison to the advance Academic advisory committee. They would have a lot said love to see in this and I just I would rather not do anything on it right now. And again,
like look at the totality of our policies are at and see, you know, we really need to update things with the better stamp if there's no rush to update this policies, it's been 11 years. I'd rather wait
and maybe we can also think about what the next year of work for the governance committee. Looks like. And start to piece that together. But as this is, I don't think it says anything about what the philosophy of this board
is when it comes to advance academics. So and accessibility. You know, we could put in here things like are we going to pay for an a P? Are we going to pay for it?
I'm gonna pay for transportation. There's so many things that we could reference that could go into regulation. But again, I keep thinking about our grading policy work and how much we
had in there to answer questions and 2 formalized things that we hear about all the time. I just. I'm not comfortable with this policy.
Some. Dr. Anderson. Thank you. Just looking at this more and this conversation and I and I agree with Mister Paddick spaces for us. A preview.
>> Some things that may show up and the regulation. But there also seems to be a little bit of inconsistency. I that I just noticed between the purpose and the philosophy
has been 10, the last line of the philosophy speaks to providing academic advanced programs eligible students, which is probably this piece
that speaks to the code that you referred to. Doctor Reed. That should be in the purpose because the purpose seems expanded tl students. And
the first part of the philosophy says all students should have access to challenging and enriching rigorous experiences which I agree with. But this one is
only speaking to eligible students. So is a subset. Of students and it just feels a little bit muddled in hidden because we're not talking about everybody with this
policy. Is that an accurate statement? >> Well, this policy. Is for eligible students.
>> And Ella Jabal. The eligibility is all outlined in other documents about the types of testing, which I'm sure been reviewed at the committee. >> The Advanced Academics Committee at some point. But
it's for the policies specific for eligible students. >> So says that's the case. Obviously I have my comment regarding the first part of purpose. But we need to
highlight in this purpose that we're speaking about eligible students and perhaps it should be an overall bull. It area where we're talking about
again, not specifically what that eligibility looks like. just broadly home, it may impact because this will not
be impacting all students. >> Some take a One of the beautiful things about Riverside, public schools as they were the fun of the frontrunners in the nation around open enrollment in high
school and then open enrollment that middle in terms of honors and now open enrollment. Much more down. 2 per one. When you're looking
at a philosophy that's K 12. The eligible term is differentiated first through 6th grade for a non 6, 7, 8, middle school student and perhaps for well, actually,
I'm sorry, kindergarten one now. Through 8th grade because of the academic centers, right? Because there are kids that AP center place too. I
could choose to take honors, but not be eligible for a P. So my point is the philosophy is kind of hard to write because in 9th through 12th
grade, it's all students. And K through 8, there's an eligibility peace. I just think we have to understand that it's all spelled out in the regulation. Now. Like once
you're in 9th grade, it doesn't matter if you're ever in a peer or not. You can take advanced coursework of the prerequisite. If I'm in 8th
grader and I didn't test in AP at any juncture, I can take honors science in 8th grade, but I'm not in the AP. National on of that. I guess.
So. Unless we want to break it down into 2 policies, one which is K 8, 1, which is 9.12. I understand the terminology is my point. And I
think that staff probably struggle with that because its eligible students, but once you hit 9th grade, all are eligible. And I appreciate
that. Thank you. But again, going back to this is communication to the public. They need to understand it and kind of the way you described it. And if we need a couple of more sentences.
>> If we need another bullet to articulate that, that has to be what occurs although I would be remiss if I did share
with you. Honors classes and AP classes while you might be able to sign up for it. Even at middle school, they're not the same for a lot of different reasons. They don't
have the same feel. They don't have the same red there for a number of reasons. So I always shy away from making that at least that's what I find in my I shy away from making that
blanket statement I think given that it is 4.50. This may be one of these policies that we engage with with a little bit of background work.
I would love to hear the feedback of the AP committee because this is the reason why they exist to help us moved to work forward and what moves work forward more than the
boys expectations and policy. So I would like for that to be a component for us to maybe have a little bit more discussion to bring in the things that are important to
articulate to the public. What is it that we're doing and to the superintendent? What is it that we are 6 acting? Again? I'm not asking to bring all of
the house for and the procedural things from. the rest of the regulation yes from the regulations. But I could see some additional work
here. >> I just want to agree with the statement that you made. I'm not saying that all honors courses same I was just saying
that that the Sizemore Heizer. Thank you. I think I'm in agreement that you're passing a lot more work on this. I would just sort of put out in addition to. >> But others they shared. It
is confusing. The all have access and the spread of the design provide for eligible students. I think. But it is akin to the philosophies. All students have access to
engaging, read, listening experiences that to me, a look at this policy is a differentiation policy that's got to mentioned. There's a civil rights. Component to
providing advanced academics and differentiate advanced academics remedy has regress and challenging learning experiences that they perhaps are differentiated. First students. So perhaps we can I would recommend this policy. That first sentence is left
alone. Then we have something in here. So we provide a range differentiated opportunities for students to engage you know, challenging experiences. We do have level one to 4 AP
in a mission to 8th grade or east to 6th grade. 5th grade for those schools were middle school starts in 6th grade. So I think the new differentiated say they have advanced
academic programs for eligible students grades K through 8 in addition would provide advanced academic classes for all students grades 9 to 12. That's the point you're going to miss lady about honors and
advanced courses at open enrollment. differentiation is important for all students at every, you know, Gary, of ability and experience. And so
I think it's important to differentiate how we provide that within a philosophy that we do provide advanced programming for all students to how challenging enriching learning experiences. So I'm
happy if you want to send this like a 2 person task force to work on this, I offer that up. But I do think that flossing is we could that be a little
more differentiated from what we offer. Okay. So out of time we did. >> Pretty decently. We get
there's 3. We do not get to. So. Are we in agreement push those to the next meeting?
Without objection. Okay. So P 3, 3, 5, 5, high school for science. Technology P 3, 4, 1, 5, think the school day and P 3, 5, 1, oh education. We'll
move to April. That 20. 29 okay. And then I will work with superintendent on some of the policies from our last meeting. That staff first.
We're still working on it. We're not ready for this meeting. Well, I think we're gonna go back in the signs. Some of the ones from here
this Does that finish the review of all of the outstanding? >> 2000 Siri policies. And it does to be want to go back and
then review, the whole thing is a set. As we had intended. >> Well, we need to do 80 to
40. Okay. >> And then. mean, if the plan is give me where got into the 3, thousands, we didn't get to
the for thousands, right? So if we push the 3 thousands to the next one. >> I guess the question is, are we trying to get in compliance? Are we trying to review them as a series? As
Well, actually, I did ask that we review next that all of the cip policies that were from that are that this is the policies that are waiting redlined from the cip motion. So I would ask that that actually be next.
>> I thought we were going to do them My suggestion would be we've now gone through all the. When thousands that that were due and potentially, no,
no, we've gone through all the 2 thousands, right? And today we just are down some threes. But I also would prefer that we not do multiple series in a meeting. So. I would suggest
for next time look at the cip motion policies. And Do the 2.40 plus go back through all
the one. Thousands and maybe just tie that up since we've. And then we will have one complete set. >> I will work with the
superintendent on that to figure out what that looks like. A mix Okay. Thank you to great do in the ring. 40 am here in Cip and the one thousands or maybe cip and the
2 thousands. But the cip ones are also like another huge bucket of work, right? And so I will say we do have the MI 6 work session, which will be all about facilities. So
>> if we want to get our heads really in it, we can. But 82 40 might be enough of getting our heads. Didn't. >> Okay. Because I can, you
know, foreshadow when it comes to of the trust, the people who redlined it. not Meyer expertise. If its goal to
other people. I'm going to let my brain wraparound what will be delegated not reach out to people as opposed to doing that here. For That's I'm
saying I want to think about and then I'll sign. Let's depose doing right here. Yes, okay. Well, you know, okay.
All right. We are adjourned at. 4.57, thank you. Betty. Thank you, Robin. Thank you. Russia