WEBVTT METADATA Video-Count: 1 Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=4IMUNqvipZY NOTE MEETING SECTIONS: Part 1 (Video ID: 4IMUNqvipZY): - 00:07:08: Meeting Begins: Roll Call and Agenda Introduction - 00:07:42: Review and Comment Public Hearings Discussion Begins - 00:10:25: Policy Updates: Introduction of Terry Morrow from MSBA - 00:11:48: MSBA's Policy Audit Process and Mandatory Policies - 00:18:37: Legal Requirement Policies: Differences from Mandatory Policies - 00:26:10: MSBA's Collaboration with MDE on Mandatory Policies - 00:31:37: Clarifying MSBA's Role and the Schoolboard's Discretion - 00:36:11: Recommended Policies: Best Practices and Community Decisions - 00:41:55: Purpose of Following MSBA: Expertise and District Support - 00:47:55: Challenges: Changes Affecting Policy Meaning - 00:49:30: Sample Policy Review Process and School Board Engagement - 00:55:00: MSBA's Availability: Legal Advice and Membership Fee - 01:01:21: Need For Effeciency in Policy Review - 01:05:42: Prioritizing Policy Updates: Identifying and Filling Gaps - 01:15:11: Authority: Delegation and Process - 01:20:56: Clarifying: Public Awareness - 01:22:51: Stakeholders: Weighing Administrative Input - 01:27:42: Remaining Policies - 01:28:48: Capitalization Levels Discussion: Policy Updates And Auditor Recommendations - 01:31:31: Policy 701.1 Review: Technical Edits And Board Notification - 01:35:55: Policy Triage: Prioritizing Policies For Compliance And Urgency - 01:44:45: Prioritizing Updated Policies: Compliance, Protection, and Efficient Work - 01:52:56: Quarterly Data Review: Key Math Trends and Performance Insights - 01:59:57: Disaggregated Data: Math Performance by Special Education Status - 02:07:34: System-Level Trends: Trust in Staff and Resource Allocation - 02:13:39: Special Education Data and Access To Core Curriculum - 02:17:59: Action Steps: Grade Point Averages, Graduation, Credit Recovery - 02:21:03: Failing Courses: Intervention Strategies and Data Analysis - 02:33:58: Staff Shortages, Graduation Rates, And Proficiency Assessment - 02:45:14: Attendance Data and Addressing Barriers To Improve Metrics Part: 1 1 00:07:08.560 --> 00:07:25.039 Evening everyone. Welcome to the April 14th uh Lakeville Area Schools Schoolboard meeting. Um tonight is a work session. Um if we could go around and um do roll call, that would be great. I'll start and then move to my left. Amber Cameron, Matt Swanson, 2 00:07:25.039 --> 00:07:42.160 >> Tony Reichenberger, >> Brenda Alrech, Emily McDonald, Kim Baker, Carly Anderson, >> Michelle Humphrey, Tracy Burville, >> Paul Carbone, >> Ryan Thompson, >> Michael Bowman. >> Great. Thanks everyone. Um, the first item uh for tonight is the review and 3 00:07:42.160 --> 00:07:57.840 comment public hearings. This is in the board packet. Um, if I'm understanding things uh correctly and Superintendent Bowman, please jump in if I'm misrepresenting here, but um Minnesota statute requires um the document that was presented in the board packet as a 4 00:07:57.840 --> 00:08:12.720 review and comment statement related to our proposed school construction projects. Um, and so the letter that uh that's in the packet is from the Minnesota Department of Education. Um and as you can see at the end of the letter, the department provided a positive review and comment and it's 5 00:08:12.720 --> 00:08:29.840 just um uh part of the process to bring it to the board. Um it does not require any vote. Um but um if there's any questions or um discussion on it, perhaps Michael can entertain that because you're the content expert. >> Sure, I will. Either that or I will get the question and get it answered for 6 00:08:29.840 --> 00:08:44.800 you. >> Any questions or concerns or comments about the document? >> Okay. Yeah, >> I mean this is just another one of these statutory obligations that you have to do. >> Correct. And and so that's why we brought uh two things. The architect 7 00:08:44.800 --> 00:09:01.279 came in uh went through all this as well as our uh financial advisor also went through everything with you. So just to make sure you were well informed, there's no no change to anything you've already heard. And we did receive a 8 00:09:01.279 --> 00:09:17.360 positive review from MDE. It has to go through MDE review uh just to validate, confirm or deny any particular issues that are uh could could cause a problem. And uh so we we uh were in full 9 00:09:17.360 --> 00:09:32.160 compliance. >> Go ahead. Yeah. >> And just so I'm clear, even if the if the bond votes successful, then it still has to go through another review before we move forward with MDE. Um, 10 00:09:32.160 --> 00:09:49.839 we have to validate the vote. Uh, we have to refine the plan and they get to look at the refined plan, but it must stay within the financial requirements that we uh put to our voters, which is 11 00:09:49.839 --> 00:10:09.120 139.6 million. >> Any other questions or comments? Okay. Um to maybe piggyback off of Michael and Matt here, just a reminder to the community that um our referendum bond is 12 00:10:09.120 --> 00:10:25.519 open for vote early voting here at district office. And um May 12th is um the election night. And so um get out and vote. And there's plenty of information on the district website um if you have questions or feel free to reach out to any board member or staff um if you have further questions than 13 00:10:25.519 --> 00:10:43.360 what's beyond the website. All right, moving to our next um item. I'd like to invite uh Terry Morrow up to the table. Um so, as as the board knows and staff members know, we've been working through um policy updates um as 14 00:10:43.360 --> 00:11:00.079 part of our work um here in the district. And I was having a conversation, I don't know, a month or so ago with Terry about a question on one of our policies. And Terry just mentioned because you're the person who went through the audit for our our um for 194 all of our policies that if it 15 00:11:00.079 --> 00:11:15.839 would be helpful for you to come and uh walk through kind of MSBA's process on on the model policies and how school boards might approach this process. I said sure that'd be great. So um we're lucky to have you here. Thank you for coming as the content expert. Um and so 16 00:11:15.839 --> 00:11:31.200 just for everyone's knowledge in case you don't know, Terry's general counsel for the Minnesota School Board Association. Um, and it looks like there's a document getting passed around here that I think Terry will go through. But then in addition, um, thank you, Kim Ellson, printed a couple of documents 17 00:11:31.200 --> 00:11:48.240 from the policy audit. Um, I'm not sure if that ever got distributed fully to the board. So, um, just some further information as we as we move forward here. So, Terry, I'll turn over to you and I know there's a couple of policies on the agenda that, um, we could work through as examples if that's helpful, 18 00:11:48.240 --> 00:12:04.160 but um, yeah. Is it okay to >> Absolutely. We thank you. Thank you all for having me here. Please feel free for your schedule. Please interrupt me any time. Ask any questions. If there's something I don't get to or I don't know, you certainly can call me or email me, text me and ask me as well. I don't 19 00:12:04.160 --> 00:12:20.720 want anyone to either feel rushed or feel that I didn't get to everything. Uh yeah, I did your policy audit that was reflected. Do you want me to have a mic? >> Is your mic on? Is it green? >> This is on green. Okay. Okay. Go ahead. Uh if you haven't already seen this, 20 00:12:20.720 --> 00:12:37.360 this is the chart I prepared and there was also a report that had our logo up in the top left corner. Your a your policies were in pretty good shape. There were some gaps. The gaps were identified in that policy audit. 21 00:12:37.360 --> 00:12:52.320 What we do is we take every one of your policies that has a an MSBA model policy equivalent and we just see what the differences are and depending what the nature of those differences are, we make 22 00:12:52.320 --> 00:13:06.639 recommendations on how uh a school board should proceed. We did about 35 policy audits for districts last year. So a lot of districts are doing the very good work that you all did as well. The way we come up with model policies, 23 00:13:06.639 --> 00:13:24.079 the model policy program began in 1996. And the theory was at that time from what I'm told is that the federal and the state government were starting to require districts to have mandatory policies, policies that every school district had to adopt. And rather than 24 00:13:24.079 --> 00:13:40.079 have Lakeville pay and then St. Peter Pay and then Mano Pay lawyers to create essentially the same policy. MSBA started creating model policies in areas that school districts had to have a policy, a mandatory policy. 25 00:13:40.079 --> 00:13:54.160 Uh we continue that process to this day. We have approximately 140 policies. I don't think there's any district that's adopted 140 policies. Our policies do break down into several 26 00:13:54.160 --> 00:14:14.000 types. And I'm going to uh give you this chart and I'll pass them both ways. This discussion is also at the bottom of your agenda. There are three types of policies. There are mandatory policies, 27 00:14:14.000 --> 00:14:30.800 legal requirement policies, and recommended policies. And then the chart that I just gave you identifies which ones are mandatory, which ones are legal requirements, and which ones are recommended. There are approximately 38 28 00:14:30.800 --> 00:14:48.160 or so mandatory policies. The one the blue ones on that first couple pages you see, as I mentioned about two minutes ago, every school district is required to have a mandatory policy. Uh so for example, equal education policy policy 29 00:14:48.160 --> 00:15:04.959 102. Every school district in the country has to have an equal education opportunity policy uh if they want to receive federal funding. Many of the federal laws on mandatory policies are tied to funding. If you don't want to adopt the 30 00:15:04.959 --> 00:15:20.959 if a district doesn't want to adopt the policy, the district doesn't have to adopt the policy, but it will not get the funding. So that's how the federal government can do mandatory policies. The state because the states have primary control over K12 education at 31 00:15:20.959 --> 00:15:36.560 least theoretically. We have a different discussion about that. Uh but the states can make direct laws impacting K12 education. They don't have to tie it to funding in order to do it. I was on the school board in St. Peter. We could talk a lot about unfunded mandates. Let's put 32 00:15:36.560 --> 00:15:53.120 that one aside. We'll put a lot of discussions right over here. So mandatory policies, those are the first things we looked for in your policy audit. Make sure you've got every mandatory policy. If there was a missing mandatory policy, then it was our very 33 00:15:53.120 --> 00:16:09.519 strong recommendation. That's the first thing to tackle as a school board. Adopt the mandatory policies. Why? Because in part uh the federal government can withdraw funding. the state can do audits and if the 34 00:16:09.519 --> 00:16:26.720 district doesn't have a mandatory policy, the state also can withhold funding uh from a school district if it doesn't have a mandatory policy. Mandatory policies are very difficult quite difficult to revise because 35 00:16:26.720 --> 00:16:43.680 mandatory policies almost in almost entirely quote the law. They quote Furpa, the Family Education Privacy Rights Act. They they quote um Minnesota's Pupil dismissal act. So, 36 00:16:43.680 --> 00:16:59.440 it's very difficult for a board to revise a change the language in the mandatory policy. I will also note though that with mandatory policy, sometimes the law simply says every school district must have a bullying policy, but it doesn't say what has to be in it. 37 00:16:59.440 --> 00:17:13.760 other policies like the library policy that we've had out. I do believe that you all need to adopt the library mount curious policy if not if you haven't already. I think that may have shown up. I can't recall in our audit. I should 38 00:17:13.760 --> 00:17:32.080 look right now. >> I think one two 512 Oh, yeah. School sponsored student publication and activities. Is that what you're >> That's a different But we This is a good way. This is a good opportunity to go this through this um going through the 400s. You had all the mandatory 39 00:17:32.080 --> 00:17:46.160 policies. I didn't see the tobacco policy at the time I did the audit. I believe you do have one. >> Um but we didn't see it. So I'm glad to see that you've got that one. Right. >> Other than that, I thought there was one 40 00:17:46.160 --> 00:18:04.000 more. Maybe you all are fine. Let's just check through here. Oh, yeah. School sponsored publications 512. It's on page 10 of this chart. About 2 years ago or so, 41 00:18:04.000 --> 00:18:20.559 the Minnesota legislature passed a law requiring schools to have a policy about student journalists. And we put that into our existing policy 512. Again, you may have a policy and we 42 00:18:20.559 --> 00:18:37.440 didn't have it reflected at the time we did our review, but from our advice, one thing the school board should do is adopt mandatory policies where mandatory policies are missing. The next category is legal requirements 43 00:18:37.440 --> 00:18:53.039 policies. They're in the green. Um, legal requirements policies are almost identical to mandatory policies because both largely quote federal or state law. They're difficult to revise or change 44 00:18:53.039 --> 00:19:09.440 because they're quoting the law. The only difference between mandatory and legal requirement is the law does not require you to adopt a legal requirements policy. So the policy sets out the legal requirements that fall 45 00:19:09.440 --> 00:19:26.240 upon the district, but there is no law that says you have to adopt any green policy. So you could choose to ignore, now I mean ignore in a nice way, you could choose to not adopt any of the green policies that are on this chart. 46 00:19:26.240 --> 00:19:42.080 If you don't adopt one of the green policies, your district still must follow the law that's in that policy. So not adopting the policy doesn't get you off the hook, if you will, for the law. For example, drug, alcohol, and 47 00:19:42.080 --> 00:19:58.240 cannabis testing. You still have to follow that law. Even if you don't adopt policy 416, you do have 416. I think it just had to be updated because of the cannabis language. I don't know what's in yours at the time. >> Can I interject for please? Yeah, please. >> So for the green, so so the blue ones 48 00:19:58.240 --> 00:20:14.480 make sense. Like it's a law. We don't have a choice. It is what it is. Um, and and as I look at some of the green ones, I I think and we'll we'll come back to this later. I think uh what I recognize is that the model policies is MSBA's 49 00:20:14.480 --> 00:20:31.120 um version of the legal require of the the mandated requirements. >> That's fair. But I would say for I it gets really difficult, member Thompson, because we get into using the words mandatory and legally required. I know that gets confusing. Mandatory policy, mandatory language. 50 00:20:31.120 --> 00:20:48.640 >> Yes. If I So if I step back one second, I think there are a couple functions here with policies and your board can determine its own philosophy when it comes to school district policies. The mandatory ones you have to have. Y >> we encourage districts to adopt the 51 00:20:48.640 --> 00:21:04.960 green ones, the legal requirements ones because your policy website, your policies are a very common way for your staff to find out what the rules and the laws are and for your parents and your students and your 52 00:21:04.960 --> 00:21:20.240 community. I can't tell you the number of times I'm speaking to the principles tomorrow and the principles tell me they go to our policies to see what is the law on X. they don't go to look up the law on the Minnesota state website. So, 53 00:21:20.240 --> 00:21:36.559 I would just encourage you to consider the green ones as an opportunity to share with your community and make it easy for your community to find out what are the laws and rules on everything from drug testing to overdose medication 54 00:21:36.559 --> 00:21:52.400 to violence prevention. >> So, so let me let me circle circle back because So, my first question I've got two. So the blue ones are mandatory language that the state has says you need to have this as a policy. That's those are the blue ones. 55 00:21:52.400 --> 00:22:07.840 >> Correct. >> If I could I'm going to be the lawyer here, member Thompson, and tweak it a little bit. >> You must have an equal opportunity education opportunity policy. >> You it is mandated by federal law. >> Got it. >> It doesn't tell you what words have to be in that policy. 56 00:22:07.840 --> 00:22:23.120 >> Okay. some. So, for example, the the state's bullying statute says every district must have a bullying policy, >> but the content within >> doesn't tell us the content necessarily. >> Got it. And and so if we are reviewing 57 00:22:23.120 --> 00:22:39.919 content, >> we have to make sure that the content that we are including meets the the the mandatory. Well, no, I'm sorry. There is no mandatory content. It's it's a mandatory mandatory policy. you need to have a policy. Whatever that policy is, 58 00:22:39.919 --> 00:22:56.240 we're not going to dictate if it's good, half good, or poor. The fact that you have one, that's all that we're asking for. And that's what the blue categories are for. >> And if I might, yes, absolutely. If you're if if you watch the Masters, what we do with the blue policies, we try to just hit a 3-wood down the middle of the 59 00:22:56.240 --> 00:23:12.320 fairway. We're not we're trying to stay with the law and not go to the sides and start adding best practices or the like. With the blue ones, we tried to say there was a court case that said this, there's a law that says this, there's a attorney general opinion, but there's 60 00:23:12.320 --> 00:23:29.520 some legal basis. So if when you see the blue ones, they are rather constricted because we don't because we know you have to adopt something a blue policy. We don't want to start going astray from the purpose of giving you a mandatory bullying policy. So our 61 00:23:29.520 --> 00:23:44.720 blue ones tend to be right down the middle. So, so your blue ones, uh, I'm viewing this from a product development lens. It's a minimum viable product MVP. It's just like this is the the bare basics of what we think it it what for 62 00:23:44.720 --> 00:24:02.240 for you to have as a policy. Now, you've got lawyers over at MSBA uh, reviewing the legal content, creating the content. is anyone at MSBA validating with the state this content uh meets in is satisfactory of the state 63 00:24:02.240 --> 00:24:18.960 but because there is no because the state doesn't care what you have as long as you just have a policy it is MSBA's interpretation of we think this is the minimum that we think you ought to have >> I'm I'm comfortable generally with what you with what what you said member Thompson yes I'm going to give you a 64 00:24:18.960 --> 00:24:35.039 policy example you all should look at policy 7 to1 won at some point. It's got a terri It had a terrible title, uniform grant guidance for federal. It It was the federal law that if you got a grant, here's all the receipts you 65 00:24:35.039 --> 00:24:50.080 had to do. Here's how you had to do bidding. Here's how you have conflict of interest. Here's how you could me spend money on travel under that grant. We've changed the title to procurement policy because what was happening is MDE, not so much the federal government, but 66 00:24:50.080 --> 00:25:05.279 MD, they send out auditors and superintendent Bowman, you can speak to the idea that you'll get your special education program, your food services programs get audited >> and MDE will look at your policies as part of an audit and then write to you 67 00:25:05.279 --> 00:25:22.159 or tell you your policy 721, for example, is deficient because you're missing this provision. >> So, so what I'm trying to get to for for you to get to answer are your blue mandatory policies, the content that you've created, are they vetted and 68 00:25:22.159 --> 00:25:37.120 approved by the state? >> That's that's so um so in 7 721 is going to be my example. In 721, I disagreed with MDE's general counsel. They didn't read the they may look at them. I don't we don't send them to get a stamp of 69 00:25:37.120 --> 00:25:53.200 approval because they don't the time to do it. They just maybe they should but they don't. But on 721 I was hearing from the superintendents, we just got dinged on your policy because we don't have a conflict of interest thing. We just got dinged on your policy because 70 00:25:53.200 --> 00:26:10.000 we don't have X. And I finally after a series of meetings with MDE, they agreed their auditors were wrong that it wasn't a legal requirement to put those provisions in policy. Uh, and so then I sent them the new 721, member Thompson, 71 00:26:10.000 --> 00:26:26.559 because I thought I better get a seal of approval >> before I rewrite this policy. So, moving forward, we might try to develop a relationship where if a policy seems if we're not certain that we're on that 72 00:26:26.559 --> 00:26:41.679 straight down the middle, it's just the law, no debate on anything that might be debatable, I think we are going to expand that practice. But at this time, blue pol blue policies, mandatory policies, we have to have one. Uh 73 00:26:41.679 --> 00:26:58.480 >> the content in it is variable and we get to pick and choose uh because because there is no there's no cop, there's no police that says your policy is wrong until maybe we get dinged. But you've got your own version. But your version at the moment is not stamped. It's not 74 00:26:58.480 --> 00:27:16.240 vetted. It's not approved by MDE or by the state. It is just MSBA's interpretation of how you read the the the state statutes and create a policy around that. Like >> I know I I it would be so much easier for me to say yes, but it's not yes. Um 75 00:27:16.240 --> 00:27:32.880 it depends on the policy. So policy 515 is your P protection and privacy of pupil records policy. We quote furpa word for word. Yep. >> We quote the law word for word. But no one is validating that it's approved by 76 00:27:32.880 --> 00:27:48.480 the state. I just >> I I agree there's no stamp of approval. Okay. Yes, I agree there's no stamp of approval, >> but it's not MSBA's language. >> Does that make sense? It's it's furpa that's in the policy. It's not our language that we created. >> Given what you just shared about, 77 00:27:48.480 --> 00:28:06.640 you know, the numbers like the back of your hand, but um the one you're referencing around the audit 7 whatever it was >> 21 >> 721. Thank you. Is there a benefit to having more districts be in alignment in policy so 78 00:28:06.640 --> 00:28:23.440 that we have a we have a we have a mass of districts who are interpreting the same things very similarly so that when these things arise we can say look everyone in the every every member of MSBA or you know 79 00:28:23.440 --> 00:28:40.000 however it is this is the policy that everyone's adhering hearing by and so MDE here you might not be interpreting this correctly. It's like the power of of participation. >> I agree with that. And so the legislature is again looking at doing another cell phone bill. >> Mhm. 80 00:28:40.000 --> 00:28:55.600 >> And for years we I've been saying first I was saying trust me every middle school has cell phone rules. You do not have to tell schools to create them. They've got rules. >> No. No. They were bound to determine to do to require something. First they 81 00:28:55.600 --> 00:29:10.480 first they were going to say phones are banned and then they realized they couldn't do phones were banned. So then you might recall a year or two ago they said every district has to have a policy. Um >> fine. Uh our ability to go in and say 82 00:29:10.480 --> 00:29:27.039 329 of 331 districts have already adopted this language right here is a powerful message of back off. It's already done. You're >> you're not achieving. So that is helpful from an advocacy point of view. It's also helpful as we talk to different 83 00:29:27.039 --> 00:29:43.760 state agencies to be able to say >> Minnesota school districts are looking to do this with Narcan. For example, we did a lot of work to help >> make it possible for schools to have Narcan in the schools. Uh the nurses had come to us and said there are legal problems. Can you help us get the law 84 00:29:43.760 --> 00:30:00.159 changed and then create a policy on Narcan? >> So there are benefits like that as well. >> Okay. That would that would make sense to have groups like hey this is >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So wouldn't that be the purpose of following MSBA is if you guys have the 85 00:30:00.159 --> 00:30:15.679 expertise that you have and you accumulate enough districts behind that then that's the that's the >> well for the mandatory ones. Yes. I think that that seems reasonable. But we you've got to have let me refresh. I would assume that the school districts 86 00:30:15.679 --> 00:30:31.600 uh the school boards need to have that flexibility and the autonomy to flex their policies uh whether it strengthen or not strengthen the legal policies or all the other policies thereafter. So that is that is applicable to their respective school district. There's some 87 00:30:31.600 --> 00:30:47.039 districts that may not need as as I don't know whatever >> we're talking about the mandatory ones >> but for the mandatory ones. Yeah. I mean, and I'm looking at the mandatory policies on MSP as well, but like the you've got the content and you've got like little references, but it doesn't 88 00:30:47.039 --> 00:31:03.760 really highlight in the content itself. This word is directly from this statute. If there is a way that you whether you guys color code it or you highlight it or something of that nature because when I read it or anybody reads it, I don't know that you're taking this word out of the legal context and I can't make these 89 00:31:03.760 --> 00:31:20.240 changes. And so there's a little bit of balance of of uh um you know MSBA may say must not do it or we may decide they shall not do it. So there's different interpretations but that but that kind of discretion is I think is should be 90 00:31:20.240 --> 00:31:37.360 left at the schoolboard level when we review policies. Uh and knowing that you've got you have a first pass that you can send to us. We can we can very clearly see the difference between statutes and not >> if I could could just very very quickly to be really clear on the mandatory 91 00:31:37.360 --> 00:31:53.440 policies. We're not making a judgment call on words like shall or must. They are quoting the law. I just can't say it to to member Anderson's point when I was on the school board my thought was just basically use the MSBA mandatory 92 00:31:53.440 --> 00:32:09.360 policies because they're just quoting the law. we have to have the policy. I'm oversimplifying. I'm going to expand on that later, but I agree with you on that. That really there the things in the mandatory policies are we could do that. We could highlight we probably would highlight member Thompson the 93 00:32:09.360 --> 00:32:25.360 things that aren't quoting the law because it'd be less highlighter because it's really like 515 it would virtually every word would be highlighted because it's quoting the law. I'm sorry, Member Swanson. Thank you. >> Oh, no. My guess is I mean you're quoting the law just because you know you're safe then, right? And if you're 94 00:32:25.360 --> 00:32:41.519 following exactly what the law says, then you're complying with what the law says in your policy. But that doesn't mean you can't change the language, right? The problem is the further you get away from the stated text of the statute, you know, then you might get an argument of well, you're interpreting it wrong or something like that. 95 00:32:41.519 --> 00:32:58.159 >> But the mandated policy is it's like I thought I I thought we heard we established that we have to have a policy of it, >> but the content is at our discretion. >> Well, I think it depends on the policy. I think there are some policies that there's probably a lot of discretion and there's probably like a baseline like we have to have these requirements. We can 96 00:32:58.159 --> 00:33:13.600 go more strict if we want or more detailed, >> but there's going to be certain baseline requirements for certain policies where other ones bullying policy, we have whatever we want, right? Unless there's a specific law on it, >> you would have a lot of discretion. For example, on your student discipline 97 00:33:13.600 --> 00:33:29.679 policy, policy 506, you're required by law to have a student discipline policy. It doesn't say what you have to list as infractions. >> Sure. So you could go in and say, "No, we don't agree with MSBA's list of 22 98 00:33:29.679 --> 00:33:46.000 categories." You could >> So to Brian's point, it would be interesting to know >> which policies are more subjective as far as where could you go in and >> mandatory >> and tailor them more specifically to the needs of your district as opposed to like, hey, don't mess with these ones 99 00:33:46.000 --> 00:34:01.200 because we >> It's not that we were going to mess with them. I think it's just for awareness. Where is the source data coming from that's telling us we have to do this? >> Well, I'm sure it's all in the footnotes at the bottom of each policy, right? >> If you want to go through every one of them 100 00:34:01.200 --> 00:34:17.599 >> references >> and from a certain standpoint, because this is because the language is coming from, you know, federal law, from state law, from, you know, case law, from presidential nature. Um, and that's the language your attorneys and everybody put into the model laws. the further you would deviate from those laws, 101 00:34:17.599 --> 00:34:34.879 >> uh, the more you're opening the door to potential liability and other problems that could result. >> I'll give you a quick example. Yes. Um, so policy 515, the student one, this is coming up a lot right now in districts around the state. There's a c there's a 102 00:34:34.879 --> 00:34:50.800 subject in your policy about student information called directory information. Every school board every year is supposed to say, "Here's the information about our students that we're going to give to the public if the public asks." Have any of you I'm not going to put you 103 00:34:50.800 --> 00:35:05.920 on the spot. >> Well, I I got in trouble. >> Well, >> well, I wasn't >> I made it on the news. >> Well, I I really didn't know about that. Uh, but what I will say is that legislators are still asking schools to 104 00:35:05.920 --> 00:35:23.040 provide lists of high school seniors and their addresses so that the legislators can send congratulation letters. >> And I've spoken to a number of superintendents again this week saying you can't do that. The law changed two years ago. The state said you cannot give out parent or student contact 105 00:35:23.040 --> 00:35:38.400 information. And so then some folks went back to the policy and found they didn't update their policy 515. So it still said that parent information was to be provided and so I won't say which company that sells things that people 106 00:35:38.400 --> 00:35:55.599 like to buy for seniors but they really started pushing and say well your policy says you'll give it to us. >> So that's remember is that's an example of if your policy doesn't align with the law you're kind of in a bad position because you both have to follow the actual law. Don't give out the parent 107 00:35:55.599 --> 00:36:11.200 information >> but your policy says you're going to give it out. So, the folks on the ground who have to answer the calls from the >> I won't say the company's name. Um, they're stuck because the policy says something different than the law. >> You can say it. >> I'm sorry. 108 00:36:11.200 --> 00:36:26.560 >> You can say the name. >> I'm curious. >> Um, the the last category, I won't say quickly anymore because I am clearly not that quick. But the are the recommended policies. They're in white on this form. 109 00:36:26.560 --> 00:36:42.320 They are very much kind of best practices. Now we're really in an area where you all can decide it looks great. We're going to change it at will. Uh there's we don't want it at all. >> Uh you really have a lot of latitude on 110 00:36:42.320 --> 00:37:04.720 those. I will note though uh for example there is uh a policy on um data to you don't have policy 206 I think that's kind of our public comment policy public participation at your 111 00:37:04.720 --> 00:37:20.640 meetings and like there's stuff in there about data privacy you don't want someone at public comment getting up and starting to talk about a student because it would violate data privacy law so there is some law in recommended policies but it's very minor we've really flipped the table from mandatory 112 00:37:20.640 --> 00:37:36.480 where mandatory is almost all law recommended there's almost no law. is recommended more operating procedures to an extent again because I see you know order of a regular school board meeting consent agendas and and again you've got some 113 00:37:36.480 --> 00:37:51.760 that kind of go beyond SOPs to what is a superintendent know policy implementation like so if we could start on the f we're not going to go through every page but if you look on the first page of this chart >> you'll see that policy 103 complaints is 114 00:37:51.760 --> 00:38:07.040 a recommended policy No, I got it. I got it. >> It's not grounded in law, but I promise you that your superintendent and everyone else down the line are glad you have a complaints policy so they can point to it and say, "You've got to put 115 00:38:07.040 --> 00:38:24.400 that in writing. We've got a chain of decision making." So they're nice that way in that they can provide recourse for your staff to turn to or when you get to the 200s member Thomas as you mentioned um there was a news story just 116 00:38:24.400 --> 00:38:40.720 the other day there's a board that's having discussions about what does a consent agenda mean >> and so to have a consent agenda policy then says okay for our board this is what we understand about consent agendas but if you didn't have But 117 00:38:40.720 --> 00:38:56.560 >> yeah, that makes sense. It was fascinating. There's a there's a school in California that has um on their website a school district's policy and then they also have the school district's procedures associated to that policy. And while our district doesn't 118 00:38:56.560 --> 00:39:13.040 have something like that, there is a little bit of gray and a little of, you know, gets a little murky where we're embedding some school district procedures into policies where a policy like we're going to have a consent agenda generally means this blah blah blah. Yeah, >> I absolutely agree. There are two things 119 00:39:13.040 --> 00:39:29.520 that are coming. one the larger districts Minneapolis 196 duth they do have policy and then procedures regulations they do have subsidiary documents all built in it seems to I 120 00:39:29.520 --> 00:39:45.760 don't know if it's a resource question but the larger districts do tend to do exactly what you're describing >> absolutely >> I got I got another question >> yeah go ahead keep jumping to your >> okay um so So the blue ones I get the 121 00:39:45.760 --> 00:40:00.560 green ones the legal requirements policy. >> Mhm. >> And so these are so the state is saying we don't need to have a policy in this kind of scenario. Uh but you're recommending that we have a policy because there are some things like drug 122 00:40:00.560 --> 00:40:17.520 and alcohol testing. That could be a HR standard best practice in how they do things but technically we don't need to have a policy on it. Correct. as long as we're doing it right. >> I if I could add to that it for the 123 00:40:17.520 --> 00:40:35.680 position that I am in as your HR person um if we didn't have that I have no reference on finding statute that relates to something like drug and alcohol. So then I would have to search statutes, try to find the the correct 124 00:40:35.680 --> 00:40:51.440 law. Uh there could be laws that I miss because I didn't use the right search terms or I'm gonna have to get on the phone to our legal counsel which is going to cost us a lot of money. >> Got it. >> So we have to follow these no matter if we pass them or not. >> Correct. And if I may build on that 125 00:40:51.440 --> 00:41:06.240 because that's Yeah, I'm sorry. I think the green ones they're they're meant for staff and for students. Uh that's right. And so if you look at page five for example on this list, the employment background check policy is a legal requirements policy. 126 00:41:06.240 --> 00:41:22.640 You don't have to adopt it, but it's very helpful to be able to turn to say, "Okay, I know here's the latest federal and state law on employment background checks." We're getting a lot of questions. Um, we did get a lot of questions on the next page, policy 414, mandatory reporting of child neglect. 127 00:41:22.640 --> 00:41:38.319 That's a complex process and it is again a place where staff or parents who or kids who are wondering how did these things get reported and dealt with, >> it's there. the cannabis testing. That's the one we've worked so hard because 128 00:41:38.319 --> 00:41:55.520 it's so complex between the federal and the state governments onto for bus drivers and others. What gets tested? What doesn't get tested? How do you test it? And so it's a nice resource. That's what I would call the green ones. >> Would most districts have these? 129 00:41:55.520 --> 00:42:12.800 >> I think most districts have the green ones. Yes. >> Yep. And if so then the green ones how do how do you how do you create them because you're re because the state says you don't need to have a policy >> uh but but then you see new uh laws 130 00:42:12.800 --> 00:42:29.920 getting passed as at the state level you like this is going to impact our schools >> and so like we need to create a policy around it. So then your uh legal nerds get back in the corner and they just kind of put together these policies and say, "Hey, here's what we recommend or here's how we think a policy would be 131 00:42:29.920 --> 00:42:46.079 adopted to ensure that the state law is being followed because we don't have a because either our guys at our office are looking at state laws constantly saying, "Oh, this one this this one impacts our school. >> We better create a policy on it. We we 132 00:42:46.079 --> 00:43:01.920 won't have the manpower to probably do that." So then we have to come to organizations like MSBA who are creating these policies >> model policies right >> with best practice recommended or baked into that. >> Yes. 133 00:43:01.920 --> 00:43:16.640 So if I might turn for as an example, if you turn to page nine and you look at policy 507, 507 was the prone restraint and you know the prone restraint debates that happened in the state and 134 00:43:16.640 --> 00:43:33.800 that SRO or school resource officers became part of that debate >> and MSBA participated in the process of trying to make those laws clear and it it was a slog but the laws were clear. For that reason, we created 507.5 135 00:43:33.839 --> 00:43:49.520 on school resource officers knowing that districts that didn't have school resource officers, they shouldn't bother adopting the policy. They don't need it. But it's a great policy because it explains what has to be in the the agreement with law enforce. Again, it's that resource for districts. So if we 136 00:43:49.520 --> 00:44:06.240 identify what we think is a significant need, you know, beyond one or two districts, we will sometimes create a green policy so that the staff and everyone else has that resource available to them to address what we seem to think is a an issue coming 137 00:44:06.240 --> 00:44:22.720 forward. Same thing on the next page on page 11, 516.5 overdose medication. That was the >> Narcan >> policy uh that the Minnesota Department of Health came to us and said, "Would you please do something with us on this 138 00:44:22.720 --> 00:44:39.839 because our school nurses are in a very bad liability position >> unless we get a policy and a law in place concerning Narcan." So that's how we come up with some of the green ones. >> So can I just clarify >> please? >> If you in this case when we're missing 139 00:44:39.839 --> 00:44:55.440 that policy >> Mhm. Um, there is statute around it. Does that protect the nurses in our district? I mean, obviously it would help if we had an added policy, but if some like our I guess I'm wondering if our nurses are currently not able to do that. 140 00:44:55.440 --> 00:45:11.520 >> I think your nurses would feel relatively comfortable with the laws on the books. I think you're raising a very good point. >> Okay. If I were a nurse, I probably wouldn't want the district to affirm >> that I'm not going to be liable >> if we bring if if your district doesn't 141 00:45:11.520 --> 00:45:27.920 bring Narcan in. If your district was saying, "No, we're going to keep it out." >> Then I'd say, "Okay, then I guess you really don't need it." But if I were a nurse, I maybe it's belt and suspenders. I'd want that local affirmation >> that as a board we're taking the position that Narcan will be 142 00:45:27.920 --> 00:45:45.520 administered in the school. >> Okay. I think something I appreciate especially about the blue and the green is that, you know, we are resource constraint. Most school districts are. We don't have general counsel in on our staff. And so we're able to kind of um 143 00:45:45.520 --> 00:46:01.440 utilize you and MSB as the experts to inform us and keep us informed um about changes that we should be >> considering, right? and and have to abide by no matter what. Um because we just don't have the capability to do that ourselves. 144 00:46:01.440 --> 00:46:17.599 >> And if I may give you an example on page 13, I had this great but page 13 policy 530 in your audit, I said MSBA will soon issue an update for the immunization policy. Mhm. >> What happened with the immunization policy is on the MDH, the Minnesota 145 00:46:17.599 --> 00:46:33.599 Department of Health website, they put a statement that even though Minnesota law said that you could share immunization records, the federal government's position was you could not share immunization records. Generally speaking, 146 00:46:33.599 --> 00:46:49.119 >> with who? >> What is I don't >> Okay. Generally speaking, there there >> the federal government's position was much more constricted as to who immunization records could be shared with. The state one was broader. There's something called and I would say it's 147 00:46:49.119 --> 00:47:05.280 Mick or there's a state database in which immunization records could be could be in so if there's a small parks or measles problem the state can start to identify where do we have to concentrate efforts. Um 148 00:47:05.280 --> 00:47:22.319 MDH put on its website that it believes that the state position is in conflict with the federal position and that the federal position should prevail. So we worked with MDH to really understand and with our lawyers what do we do? We changed policy 530. You really 149 00:47:22.319 --> 00:47:39.839 should take a good look at that one because we did issue we took out the provision >> that would have allowed that sharing on that broader basis because we've got a state agency saying we don't think you have a leg to stand on even though it's a state law and our lawyer said yeah for 150 00:47:39.839 --> 00:47:55.440 liability and privacy purposes. So you again I'm using this uh member Cameron as a just an example of when we create policies we're always monitoring to see if we have to update them so that everyone can remain compliant. 151 00:47:55.440 --> 00:48:10.880 >> So I think so here's the issue that I I think I'm running into is like I uh I want to agree I want to trust the MSBA uh model policies that come out when we receive them. I think some of the challenges that that when we look at the 152 00:48:10.880 --> 00:48:27.280 content itself, if we change a word, we remove a sentence, we add something, we don't know if it breaks the intent of the model policy, >> right? >> And and so all the things that we might have done over the past couple weeks around policies being adopted, uh we we 153 00:48:27.280 --> 00:48:42.079 don't know I and I won't even know because I'm going to say logically, you know, I want a phone call if you look in my child's backpack, right? But did that break an existing policy or a state statute that that we may not be aware of? So then it's almost where you know 154 00:48:42.079 --> 00:48:58.240 candidly do you just blanket approve mandatory policies and legal requirements because they're coming from state statutes. They're coming from uh the the the state regulatory piece and with the assumption that you guys are, 155 00:48:58.240 --> 00:49:15.440 you know, hitting the golf ball right down the middle. There is no deviation, there is no whatever. It's like it is the best that we can to be as true as we can. And what we really should be focused on maybe are the yellows where we have more flexibility that is not tied to any legal state statutory uh uh 156 00:49:15.440 --> 00:49:30.800 impacts. But I don't know. I I'm not I'm not an expert in like the license status or staff development, but it's >> I don't know. I'm going to give you I'm going to give you more room to be creative even on the mandatories, >> but I those are the three types that we 157 00:49:30.800 --> 00:49:49.520 have. Uh let me turn if I might to two documents and we can then talk about those three policies. I don't want to take too much of your time. >> Oh, you're you're fine. >> But I created a >> as long as >> sample policy review process for your 158 00:49:49.520 --> 00:50:05.680 board. This is a document that I just created um to try to help with when boards engage in policy review. Nobody wants to hear me. >> I I'll I'm going to be happy to send this to you as a document that you can 159 00:50:05.680 --> 00:50:21.599 adjust as you want if you want. But what I tried to do in this document was kind of lay out how would a sevenperson school board perhaps engage in the policy review, policy adoption process. 160 00:50:21.599 --> 00:50:38.160 On the first page, I just gave kind of a put if you're going to do it. I don't know if you have workshops or study sessions um >> like this. Yeah, >> like this >> that you could each one you could schedule X number of policies to review >> and then I give a checklist that of the 161 00:50:38.160 --> 00:50:54.240 questions at the bottom. Has the policy been reviewed? Is it legally mandatory policy? Does the policy reflect where your community is on on certain topics? to that and before we go on I also have 162 00:50:54.240 --> 00:51:11.200 and this is small print I'm sorry but I'm going to send you the electronic copy I have a spreadsheet that you all can adopt so you can track your policy review you can put down the date okay we reviewed this policy August 2027 >> so just a couple as you look through 163 00:51:11.200 --> 00:51:26.559 this document most districts will if you look on page says page three and I'm not sure what happened to page but page three If you look at this document, the second page, it says recommended monthly rotation 164 00:51:26.559 --> 00:51:43.359 three-year cycle. Most school districts in Minnesota do a three-year cycle for policy review. They do onethird of the policies a year. They do that in part because with elections, school boards change. It also is a good reminder of what the policies 165 00:51:43.359 --> 00:51:59.839 say. So we I gave you a sample year 1, year two, year three approach that you could start to do if you wanted to do so. Then you turn to page four and I'm not going to go through every page, but I took the series series one about the 166 00:51:59.839 --> 00:52:16.720 school district. You I I uh amended this so that the policies that are numbered there are the policies you have, >> not the model policies, the the policies that you have. And I just would suggest, okay, then you would just make sure are 167 00:52:16.720 --> 00:52:33.920 the name is the name correct? Is the legal status correct? Is the educational policy up to date? Just some questions you could ask as a board. I did that for each series. So for every series as you flip through, you'll see a checklist of things to think about, 168 00:52:33.920 --> 00:52:51.680 maybe a focus, and then the policies that would come under that series that you all have adopted. So, I'm going to leave that with you, Chair Cameron, if I might. I'm happy to talk about it more, but I think it's probably somewhat self-explanatory, but I think you were looking for maybe what would be a policy 169 00:52:51.680 --> 00:53:07.440 review and adoption process you would use. >> So, do you have recommendations? And I realize some of these categories have more like the one 100 series only has four and they're kind of less >> meaty, you could argue, whereas, you know, some of these others have quite a 170 00:53:07.440 --> 00:53:24.319 like series 5 has many, right? Okay, because it's about students. I think we're spending a lot of time on each policy, which is there's great discussion, but I think it's this balance of like this this is an a this 171 00:53:24.319 --> 00:53:41.280 would be a very aggressive time frame from how we've been operating. Like we would be here all day every day doing policy like eight hours a day in order to tackle this schedule. So >> you'll be here that long. Well, so I mean we're spending hours on every policy really talking about a sentence 172 00:53:41.280 --> 00:53:57.359 in in the technical edits only. We're not even really in the meat of the policy, you know, suggestions. So >> I do this. >> I will note that what I try to do on page two of the threeear cycle was I only covered six months. So I try to leave six months where you weren't 173 00:53:57.359 --> 00:54:12.880 talking about policy and I tried to divide the bigger ones into several months like the 600s >> I defi I divide into three months so that you didn't have to try to bite off all you're right though you could talk about one policy >> right >> for hours districts do that 174 00:54:12.880 --> 00:54:26.880 >> uh >> and to that point I want to make sure you all are aware of a service we do provide and I did it just today for a very big district they were looking at policy 620 the student survey pol 520 175 00:54:26.880 --> 00:54:43.440 the student survey policy and the the the administrative staff was so usually staff were asked to contact me say Terry the board wants to know X all right so uh the staff contacted me and said uh they want to know if they have to have 176 00:54:43.440 --> 00:55:00.480 this these sentences in >> and I said well yes and I we were on a Zoom call and I just pulled up the federal law fura and I said yes parents have a right to know about instructional materials It's right here in federal law and the sentence that your board's asking about is quoting from there. I'm 177 00:55:00.480 --> 00:55:16.720 always happy to do that. Now, maybe I wouldn't be happy after a while, but that is something we get asked by districts every week. We get asked by boards every week, do we have to have this language? >> Can we change this? >> That I do think there's a way in the future, member Thompson, there's a 178 00:55:16.720 --> 00:55:31.200 better way to do this. >> There's got to be a way where if I delete a sentence, something pops up and says you're gonna break a law. I think I think there's an AI to do this. But I So I hear you. >> I can. >> You know what? We can create an app. Let's do Let's do an app. >> Let's do an app. 179 00:55:31.200 --> 00:55:46.800 >> So the you I'm not dismissing what you said. You do have the old school way of calling me or email me to say, can we change this? And I can say, no, I wouldn't touch that one. It's according to law. Or it's not according to law. Go ahead. I mean, 180 00:55:46.800 --> 00:56:03.280 >> and that's part of our MSBA membership fee. that if we wanted to reduce our legal expenditures instead of sending our policy updates to them, we could kick it to you. You can do a quick review. So, you might actually be like a step four in our review process potentially. 181 00:56:03.280 --> 00:56:17.920 >> That's fine. >> Mhm. >> Can I put something out there as a possibility because I know I agree that this is a rather aggressive approach for how we've been moving. Um, but do boards ever kind of say in this series, let's 182 00:56:17.920 --> 00:56:33.280 say there's 15 policies this round of reviews, we're going to pick two that we're going to take a deep dive on. Everything else we're just updating according to technical language or legal statutes. Two we're going to dive on 183 00:56:33.280 --> 00:56:49.119 versus reviewing every Does that make sense? Like >> it does make sense and that's a maybe a good point to pivot and then we'll talk about your three policies. We send out and I don't know if you see it. We send we don't send it anywhere but it's available our policy services newsletter 184 00:56:49.119 --> 00:57:05.359 >> and we try to do it four times a year. The most recent came out in February. The next one will come out in June after the legislative session is over. At a minimum if the board if this board 185 00:57:05.359 --> 00:57:19.520 completed the policy audit, I know it's a big task. I'm not putting it down. If you completed this and were really diligent on keeping up with the revisions that come out in the newsletter, then I think your approach makes perfect sense. You don't need to 186 00:57:19.520 --> 00:57:37.119 review all 15 because 12 of them haven't changed since the last time. >> Mhm. And by review, I mean you can confirm, okay, yes, especially for new members who weren't here last time you looked at that policy, but you might say, okay, here's the policy on 187 00:57:37.119 --> 00:57:52.720 student fundraising. This is really an accounting thing to make sure the money goes to the right place. Next policy, as opposed to digging into the student activity account, I I'm agreeing it didn't change. It hasn't changed. The pledge of allegiance policy hasn't changed for 20 years, 188 00:57:52.720 --> 00:58:08.799 >> right? So I I just I think very likely if we were to kind of review a series, we might say these are ones that in our community have been brought up or we've had complaints or we've had issues and those might be ones that we say or maybe 189 00:58:08.799 --> 00:58:24.640 a certain series we do dig a little bit more. But I think if we have the goal of running every single policy through the school board versus saying let Brenda kind of update us on what the legal 190 00:58:24.640 --> 00:58:41.520 statutes are requiring in terms of changes, you know, that might help us move a little faster and be in compliance because I think for some of us or I guess all of us are probably concerned about are we out of compliance with certain policies and things like that. >> We probably are. Yeah. I mean, we're not 191 00:58:41.520 --> 00:58:55.760 out of compliance in my mind, I think, because because the law is is still going to trump our policies. We are not communicating to those who are reading our policies what the state laws are. >> Liability, right? >> Yeah, that that is a problem because I I 192 00:58:55.760 --> 00:59:12.880 reference policy almost every day. I I have to look at a policy almost every day and if it's not up to date and statute has changed and it's not a statute that I don't remember off the top of my head, Yeah. I'm going to I'm going to follow an incorrect process based on what we're looking at in 193 00:59:12.880 --> 00:59:30.319 policy. >> Hey, Carly, I I think you're right. Where is there a a group of policies and and is there a subset that we want to pull out? Um where I want to be mindful is that your interpretations on on your 194 00:59:30.319 --> 00:59:45.280 belief of the model policy is is satisfactory to you. It may not be for another school board member. And so you get the next school board member coming in because one of the core responsibilities of a schoolboard member is reviewing policies, editing policies, 195 00:59:45.280 --> 01:00:01.599 uh making new policies. And so if we are as a school board um or no offense arbitrarily you know agreeing agreeing to the model policies of the the blue ones and the green ones then uh in for a for a board member who says 196 01:00:01.599 --> 01:00:17.119 no like I don't like for example the the conflict of interest for the legal policy sub 210 uh someone may say I want it I want it stronger I want it xyz and so if we're not going to give schoolboard members that voice and it 197 01:00:17.119 --> 01:00:32.000 and and it may take a very long time for that particular policy to you know to to uh to be completed. But I don't know that's that's where I want to be mindful of where we're not just going to arbitrarily adopt a bunch of stuff and then not give school boards members a 198 01:00:32.000 --> 01:00:48.960 voice. What what if there was because I think I think we've taken since I've been on the board and you've been on the board, I think we've taken a an approach of a deep dive on every single policy mostly that comes before the board. And so it has resulted in not a lot of 199 01:00:48.960 --> 01:01:05.839 traction um I would say. And so what if there was if if you as a school board member were concerned about a certain policy, you could say, you know, hey, Amber, um, I want to bring this in the next few months, can we bring this 200 01:01:05.839 --> 01:01:21.920 policy up for review? It would be outside of this kind of plan series, but that would allow a schoolboard member to be able to voice, you know, and have the the entire board bring that forth. My concern is that we don't I'm not saying we blanket 201 01:01:21.920 --> 01:01:36.559 approve everything through MSBA. I entirely agree that um our community is is unique in its own ways since we have to think about what what is Lakeville, right, and the surrounding area. Um but 202 01:01:36.559 --> 01:01:54.000 we're just not moving in a way that is keeping Brenda safe. So I want to be super and the district safe, right? So, I think there's a there's a compromise to be made here of how do we be efficient and move things through that only need edits to be up to up to up to 203 01:01:54.000 --> 01:02:10.799 speed and make sure that Brenda has the appropriate references and cross references and also we can have a periodic of interest. I want to bring this one forward. >> Then I think it's a board decision. It's got to be a board um >> vote process. We've got to vote. We've 204 01:02:10.799 --> 01:02:26.720 got to decide, hey, I mean, do we want to do a blanket, do we not? Do we want to do individual? I mean, when part part of the parliamentary process of of what we have with Robert's rules is that a board member can interject and make changes and make XYZ. So, I I mean, you just I think we have to align as a team 205 01:02:26.720 --> 01:02:41.440 that we're going to just go down this path much faster I versus pulling things out. But, but again, not every board member may want to do that. They may like, I want to pull everything out. I want to talk about every single one because this that might be the only chance that they have to be able to 206 01:02:41.440 --> 01:02:58.079 participate and make a drastic make a change that they think is appropriate before their term is up. So >> Matt, >> yeah. >> Um I mean we have the benefit of having this I mean we didn't have the audit until last year. Um and so it can pri kind of prioritize and I think that was 207 01:02:58.079 --> 01:03:14.559 a discussion we had prioritized to make sure that we have the mandatory ones either up to date or in place. I know, you know, last year we were kind of hoping that we'd have an attorney coming on staff to assist in the process. Um, but we're not quite yet there. But I 208 01:03:14.559 --> 01:03:29.680 mean, that could be another thing where we just prioritize like, hey, if there are these mandatory ones, I mean, you know, first make sure that we're hitting those, updating them, making sure they're in alignment with law, and then address the legal requirement policies to make sure we're 209 01:03:29.680 --> 01:03:46.000 not, you know, contradicting any existing law. I'm guessing that the I'm G I'm guessing most of the time when laws change they probably become more restrictive. >> Would that be fair to say? >> Yes, I think that's probably true. >> Yeah. So, yeah, 210 01:03:46.000 --> 01:04:02.319 >> I'm thinking about the prone restraint, the reasonable use of force that was >> Yeah. I'm just thinking of where we where we would be open to liability if we're not. >> So, I think adjusting. >> Can I just quick look at the wellness one? All right. Uh first page 533. All right. The wellness policy is a 211 01:04:02.319 --> 01:04:18.640 mandatory policy and we just went through this like I think three weeks ago cuz I I think cuz I cuz I was like no we need to add this and and we need to take that out and everyone's like no just about >> we have the wellness policy though right >> we have a wellness policy but the words inside the wellness policy around do we 212 01:04:18.640 --> 01:04:35.839 want to have uh uh was it religious foods? do we want to do because there was something about birthday parties or and then we were going to exclude it and there was there was like miscellaneous things within it and so if we knew that everything inside the wellness policy was mandatory related then then I then I 213 01:04:35.839 --> 01:04:52.559 can't remove some of the things that are that were that was written in it you know what I mean and so but if I did remove it would we break a rule but if we wanted to strengthen it uh I mean that's just one example you you know what I mean it's just >> because we made minor changes and we and we So, and we don't even know if if we 214 01:04:52.559 --> 01:05:08.960 broke anything. >> I'm wondering if like we didn't make any changes to the wellness policy. >> Okay. I think I lost that one. Okay. >> Um, we went with just the >> You went with the right You we went with the model policy. >> I'm wondering like if there's a combination here of I I think through 215 01:05:08.960 --> 01:05:26.480 the audit you recommended kind of what Matt's referring to like mand focus first stage one on mandatory then legal then recommended. And so what if we did a process where we start with the mandatory 100s and mandatory 200s and then cycle back 216 01:05:26.480 --> 01:05:42.559 through for the legal ones next or maybe mandatory and legal could be put together. But you know where we're kind of triaging a little bit. >> Would you like to just I think in in a space of four minutes I can answer the question tell you here's the order to do the policies. >> Yes, that'd be great. 217 01:05:42.559 --> 01:05:57.280 >> All right. Thank you. >> Ready? >> I'm ready. >> Somebody taking notes. Oh, we got recorded. Everybody's getting their pens out. >> I'm going to start with the caveat. Blue first. >> Okay, >> with blue, 218 01:05:57.280 --> 01:06:15.200 first identify and adopt the gaps. Fill the gaps. Mine the gaps. Fill the gaps. So, in blue, uh, in terms of missing policies, I didn't see 419, but I think you have a tobacco policy. I will go I will go back. I I don't know why that 219 01:06:15.200 --> 01:06:31.119 was I >> um but I will go back and work on 419. >> We have credit for learning done. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> But if you keep going 512 uh that was again the student journalism 220 01:06:31.119 --> 01:06:46.319 policy. >> This is the one that in the last couple of years the legislature said you must have a policy on student journalism. This is where we put it. >> Okay. >> So if you don't have 512 I would adopt 512. 512 would be in the very first flight going out of the airport in the 221 01:06:46.319 --> 01:07:03.280 morning. 512. >> Okay. >> Get a 512. Go. If we keep going, uh I think your cell phone policy is in your 524. So, you don't have to worry about 524.5. 222 01:07:03.280 --> 01:07:19.760 >> You just have to have a cell phone policy. And to member Thompson's point, I did confirm in writing with MDE, if I put it in 524 cell phones, you're not going to knock them for not having a separate policy. And MD said, you're correct, Terry. So, we did get confirmation 223 01:07:19.760 --> 01:07:37.520 go. Yeah, we keep going into the 600s cuz you have all the 500 blues in the 600s. 606.5 you've got to get done. >> Okay, >> that's the library materials policy. This is getting is has been getting so 224 01:07:37.520 --> 01:07:51.359 much public attention, book banning and the like. The law says you have to have a library materials policy and you don't at least at the time and I apologize if I'm speaking out of turn that way but >> we're not you are correct. 225 01:07:51.359 --> 01:08:09.599 >> You that would be 512 606.5. I think you were okay on everything else. and and in the mandatory policies you are grabbing the state statutes content. You're pretty much putting it in there. this is what it says and then 226 01:08:09.599 --> 01:08:24.319 uh >> or federal law >> or federal law but but then we have to then decide do we want to strengthen it or not strengthen it but then have to ask if we strengthen it is it going to contradict whatever the flexibility >> if I'm if I might with all due respect I would adopt the model policy because you 227 01:08:24.319 --> 01:08:40.799 don't have anything and then if you all want to revise it later there's nothing in those policies that's going to be so controversial not so controversial up for debate that a sustained debate delaying implementation would be worth it. I would recommend adopt 6 512 and 228 01:08:40.799 --> 01:08:56.080 606.5. Certainly reserve the ability that if you want to make changes to it, you could, but I wouldn't let debate over the substance prevent me from adopting a mandatory policy. 229 01:08:56.080 --> 01:09:14.400 >> So question. So in that case when we're adopting a new policy that would so for other policies if we're just updating we can send them through the consent agenda but for new policies that we don't have we would have to do a first second through okay >> and even I would say for some not all 230 01:09:14.400 --> 01:09:28.640 would go to consent like if we make substantial changes to an existing policy would >> I said minor >> oh I didn't hear minor okay right >> yeah no I think those two should go through the if you have a threemeating process not everyone has a threemeating process That's that is a to member 231 01:09:28.640 --> 01:09:44.560 Thomas. Oh yeah, that's we don't technically have to have two, do we? >> The law does not state what the >> it's it's it's yellow. >> I mean >> I mean it's under recommend. >> I'm just saying the law doesn't state policy 208 is a recommended policy. The 232 01:09:44.560 --> 01:10:00.080 law doesn't say how many readings or meetings you have to have, >> right? I mean so if you want to rip through it, we can. >> I mean there's there's we'd have to change our policy >> policy first. that would be the first one that we do and then you rip through it and then you come back and update it. 233 01:10:00.080 --> 01:10:15.920 >> I think there's a better >> I'm not saying we have to do that but I'm just saying it's a yellow and so I'm not going to go through every page again but I would say 512 606.5. Okay, >> that's job one. 234 01:10:15.920 --> 01:10:31.760 Job two, mandatory policies where the review or update box is checked. So you have the policy. If you look for example on the first page equal educational opportunity, it says review 235 01:10:31.760 --> 01:10:50.400 or update. When it says review or update, that means the board has a role in deciding whether to make that change. So there were revisions. I think the revisions in the policy have to do with sexual orientation and the new definition of sexual orientation. I 236 01:10:50.400 --> 01:11:04.960 think I'd have to go back and look at your version, but generally speaking, the second stage is going to be you're going to go through the blues where the review update box is checked. Okay, 237 01:11:04.960 --> 01:11:22.640 >> this is where I want to be thoughtful in those situations where we have mand that many mandatory policies that require review for updating. Should we be thoughtful about how many we're trying to move along to make to get up to compliance the this goaround? 238 01:11:22.640 --> 01:11:38.960 I'm not saying like we can't come back to these things, but if we're out of compliance with >> I'm going to give you a couple that I think are really going to be slower for you in that category if I might. So like 102 the you're going to have to re board should review it. I think if I recall 239 01:11:38.960 --> 01:11:53.520 correctly what you're going to find is that your your policy's definition of sexual orientation discrimination is outdated and so you can have a discussion but in the end of the day you're going to need to follow Minnesota law. So the discussion may not be too 240 01:11:53.520 --> 01:12:09.840 long in that but if I may move through if you go to policy 406 and Miss Albert you may feel talking about uh is it for yeah public and private personnel data this is all law the the changes there 241 01:12:09.840 --> 01:12:26.159 but your policy was really out of shape 406 and I would have want to have a discussion as a board on 406 so that you all understand what information about our staff is available to the public. What information about from our staff is 242 01:12:26.159 --> 01:12:42.400 private or confidential. So again, the changes there's not going to be a lot of discussion because it's quoting again the law, but it's a good substantive discussion for a board to have about what are are what are the rules about employees and their information, 243 01:12:42.400 --> 01:12:59.280 especially as we get to AI, that's a really good conversation to have. So when you say have a discussion, a discussion so that we're educated on it, but I think at the end of the day, four or six is irrelevant because we have to pass it. >> I mean, >> you've already got it. You've got to update. >> Well, not pass it, but like it's it's a mandatory. We're following whatever the 244 01:12:59.280 --> 01:13:16.320 content is according to the state. So while we may or may not disagree with the content, the content is the state law. Is that how that's how Yes. >> you shared. Now I'm going to give Brenda the the key word. The key word the P it's like password. The key word is substantive. 245 01:13:16.320 --> 01:13:34.400 If you look at policy 406, it says substantive revisions. Anytime I use the word substantive, I'm saying for that policy, slow down. It's a big change from where you are right now. >> Maybe you're not going to be able to debate what the changes are going to be, 246 01:13:34.400 --> 01:13:48.640 >> but the changes are going to be big from where you're sitting today. >> Okay? So, anytime you saw the word substantive in that comment box, it's a it's it's a speed bump. >> Okay. >> If I might, then finally, staying on 247 01:13:48.640 --> 01:14:06.159 page that same page with 406, look up at 402, disability non-discrimination policy. It says technical edits, cross references added. Personally, and this is not boards do different things. Personally, I would direct staff to make all the technical 248 01:14:06.159 --> 01:14:22.159 edits. I wouldn't even discuss them if I were a board member. The the fact that we had to correct a number or the fact that a statute number changed from 602 to 429. Honestly, anything that's marked technical edit doesn't change the policy 249 01:14:22.159 --> 01:14:39.280 a wit. It's just cleaning up little things that have changed. >> Can we pause there for a minute? Um, I think that's an I appreciate that comment because what I am hearing from you is that we have some things that we 250 01:14:39.280 --> 01:14:55.520 should be triaging first that are missing or are substantial changes, but the technical edits would keep our policies the same as they are today. It's just making it clear for staff what the legal references are or cross references or changing board of 251 01:14:55.520 --> 01:15:11.440 education to school board is a lot of them. Mhm. >> So I think for our board it's a question of do we want to give delegation of authority, is that the right term to Superintendent Bowman and his staff to just implement technical edits knowing 252 01:15:11.440 --> 01:15:28.560 that we still need to go through the review process that you've outlined here. This is not replacing the review. It's just >> you would so I mean just as a just a a procedural matter >> would it just make sense just to basically say all these with just the 253 01:15:28.560 --> 01:15:43.120 technical edits we could just pass on a consent agenda and just say >> you know these are these are what needs to be fixed we trust you guys just to make the you know those specific changes >> and that's what I would do yes I would I would do that you would save yourself 254 01:15:43.120 --> 01:16:00.640 headaches you don't need to get into the substance when all we're doing is adding the most recent Supreme Court case to the cross references. I'm not belittling that as a lawyer. That's important to me, but I just wouldn't You've got so much to do to your point. I just 255 01:16:00.640 --> 01:16:15.840 wouldn't want to spend my time on the technical edits >> as as as just a a practical question. If there was a a Minnesota Supreme Court case and they changed how something is phrased, I mean, just as a matter of like, you know, just a small minor edit as far as how it's phrased in the 256 01:16:15.840 --> 01:16:31.600 document. Is that con still cons still considered a technical edit or is it um I mean that would be reflected in the policy or is it just a technical edit is just basically okay change in format change you know cit citation um you know 257 01:16:31.600 --> 01:16:47.280 at the end there's nothing substantively changing in the policy whatsoever. >> It's a great question. Uh the lawyer former board member former legislator in me says I have a very narrow sense of technical edit. >> Okay. If I'm going to air, I'm gonna say 258 01:16:47.280 --> 01:17:02.560 the board should take a look at this because I'm so much into the board's authority. So, >> the technical column is new. >> Yeah. >> Because I realized I was making so many revisions and thinking, "Oh my gosh, don't don't bring this before the board. 259 01:17:02.560 --> 01:17:18.320 It's just a comma that was missing kind of kind of thing." >> Yeah. >> Well, here's an example. Uh, page nine, policy 502. It's blue. Technical edits. Search a student locker, desk, personal possessions, and students persons. I mean that that's a technical like we 260 01:17:18.320 --> 01:17:35.840 were going to just if we would have followed the model >> it's one that we would never have had a conversation about. >> Well and I'm not saying that Brian. What I'm saying is like there are many that we need to address sooner than later is what I'm hearing you say. and that just 261 01:17:35.840 --> 01:17:51.440 because we would approve get the technical edits changed doesn't mean we wouldn't then review 502 whatever month you said of this >> in the cadence >> that that yeah it's not replacing a review or it's you know but it's just 262 01:17:51.440 --> 01:18:08.880 it's keeping our current policy current with >> these technical changes. Well, 526 was blue uh hazing pro, you know, the hazing policy and we were supposed to again a technical but we made changes to it and and we made good changes to it. >> We didn't change to them. 263 01:18:08.880 --> 01:18:25.280 >> I thought we did we didn't change it to like digital. I thought we did a digital thing. >> No. >> To leverage the value of the audit and to prioritize and execute is to get alignment. We have fallen so far behind. We need to do a little bit of let's 264 01:18:25.280 --> 01:18:41.679 let's get in compliance. Let's catch up and we can still do what you're talking about, Director Thompson, I think, with full fidelity and efficacy. We just need to prioritize and execute 265 01:18:41.679 --> 01:18:58.719 by and again the priority and the plan that I think um has been recommended here and this process here will accomplish everything that I've heard every board member say if we just 266 01:18:58.719 --> 01:19:15.520 what's Nike say just do it. Um, and if at any point in time there's any that really get your hackles up, just call me. We'll prioritize it. Um, but I think we really have to move. And 267 01:19:15.520 --> 01:19:33.360 I'm just I'm just asking politely, can we take that that step forward because there's a lot of good work here that we can leverage from the efforts that uh we went through to try to move this forward. But I do I am 268 01:19:33.360 --> 01:19:49.360 sensitive to what you're saying, Director Thompson, very much so. Um, and I would just ask you if at any time you feel there's one that, you know, we just got to stop or pause on. I'm sure the chair would feel the same way. Don't want to put words in your mouth, but you 269 01:19:49.360 --> 01:20:06.560 know, we want to be we we just need to move forward here is my plea. >> What if we >> with a good plan, a really good plan? What if we in the agenda in our consent agenda because I think part of it is making sure that the public is also aware of because people don't listen to 270 01:20:06.560 --> 01:20:22.239 our meetings so well some do but not many. Um but what if we in the agenda just clarifying consent um these policies technical edits and then any other policy that >> would the the ones that we obviously are 271 01:20:22.239 --> 01:20:38.159 reviewing are not going to go through consent. >> Right. Are you saying like have a um a parenthetical that identifies? >> Yeah. >> Oh, that's a good idea. >> That way the board knows that way because >> I would hope we all keep track of this lovely work that MSBA did for us. Uh 272 01:20:38.159 --> 01:20:56.320 thank you, Cherry. Um but it's I mean I think that's the work of our work to kind of make sure that all all of the board is up to speed on which ones we're trying to move through through consent for that reason. And >> yeah, >> how do other people feel about that? 273 01:20:56.320 --> 01:21:10.800 >> Sounds fun to me >> knowing that there's a lot to tackle in just these first. But then I need you to keep going. >> It's very easy from that point on because green I would do the same thing. I would look at green and say, are there any green policies that are missing 274 01:21:10.800 --> 01:21:28.320 that you think maybe the board should consider adopting? And that would be a substantive three two meaning in your case process. But that's the first thing I would do is say are there any green ones that maybe and add maybe administration 275 01:21:28.320 --> 01:21:44.800 recommends. You know what I really think we should add the criminal background check that would really help me. And I do think you should leverage staff on the green ones. Staff may have very good input on it would be very helpful in my position if we had adopted um the drug alcohol and cannabis. Oh, 276 01:21:44.800 --> 01:22:00.480 no. That was a review. That that one was elect. Yeah. And then I would do the same thing. Technical edits on green ones that you have. I would just approve them because they're not going to change the substance. They really are they really really are just clean up. Sometimes like 277 01:22:00.480 --> 01:22:17.760 when I change board of education for your board, >> that to me was a technical change. Um because you should be able to call yourselves what you want to call yourselves. >> So I try to make it uniform throughout. Can I ask another question that I think 278 01:22:17.760 --> 01:22:33.199 we've dealt with, I certainly have, is, you know, the 200 series is about our board, how we want to operate. >> Most of the others are about how the content experts in our district operate, right? Mhm. >> So, 279 01:22:33.199 --> 01:22:51.280 how do boards weigh administrative input, revision, recommendations, their legal counsel recommendations versus like the knowledge that we bring to our seat in in balancing what a how a policy might get revised? 280 01:22:51.280 --> 01:23:10.639 >> That's a great question. I think I won't say it's comment. I think this probably the most effective method is to get input from individuals on topics that the board is not sufficiently conversant on that it can make its own 281 01:23:10.639 --> 01:23:25.199 call on an issue. >> Okay. >> Uh so the the the the policy the code of ethics policy. >> Yeah. >> You all can do whatever you want with the code of ethics policy. I don't think you have to bring in lawyers or others to >> to I think you all as a board can set 282 01:23:25.199 --> 01:23:40.400 your expectations for yourselves. Um, but when it comes to drug, alcohol, and cannabis testing, if someone from staff says, "You know what? We we're really behind." >> Yeah. >> I would want their input because they're they'll know better than you because they're trying to implement the policy 283 01:23:40.400 --> 01:23:55.920 >> and they know it's either non-existent or it's not correct. >> Uh, and I that's just such professional I'm not you're just across from me. I'm not meaning you're doing anything wrong, but I as as an employee, I would be nervous if I felt I was working with 284 01:23:55.920 --> 01:24:11.920 tools that were not in the toolbox or that were out of date in the toolbox. Okay. >> So, I would listen to administration when they say >> it would be helpful if the board would consider adopting >> this version. >> Sure. 285 01:24:11.920 --> 01:24:26.080 >> If I could just one because this is going to be a huge question for your board. every board and AI >> you all are going to have districts are going to have to adopt an AI policy. We did come out with one. It's big. This 286 01:24:26.080 --> 01:24:43.040 topic is huge. It is uh changing all the time, but it's a place where your board can also really stamp in what do you want for education in the future for the kids of Lakeville? What do you want your staff to do with AI? To make to save 287 01:24:43.040 --> 01:25:00.080 taxpayer money, to make jobs more efficient, to do projects that even two years ago you could never even thought to ask staff to do. The guide I gave you, I did on AI. >> I would not have had time to be honest with you noni to really do this. your 288 01:25:00.080 --> 01:25:15.040 board should your discussions on an AI policy are going to be the kind of robust substantive pedagogical administrative community type debate and you should pick your moments I guess is what I'm saying in part sometimes staff 289 01:25:15.040 --> 01:25:32.639 will say you we need this policy sometimes your lawyers might say hey a new case came down you need to change if your lawyers ever give you advice about one of our model policies follow your lawyer's advice Follow your lawyer's advice. Absolutely. 290 01:25:32.639 --> 01:25:49.760 But I would not close off advice from people who have to implement it. In fact, I would bring like I bring in your IT staff when you start talking about AI policies. >> They'll know more than I do about >> Sure. >> and I'm looking at page 17. There's a 291 01:25:49.760 --> 01:26:05.600 policy that's in green 618 assessment of student achievement. Obviously, we wouldn't want to make arbitrary decisions off of that and bring in the appropriate folks, but there is a certain level of accountability that the board may want to include in 618. So 618 292 01:26:05.600 --> 01:26:22.800 is not a blue policy. It is a there is a uh state uh statutory uh you know law about assessments in general. the MSBA has put together some content around it and then it's it's it would be good guidance for our staff if they if we had 293 01:26:22.800 --> 01:26:38.400 that but it's one of those where we could >> right >> talk more of >> y >> please let me take two off your table on page 16 do not do anything on policy 614 I think we're going to get rid of policy 614 294 01:26:38.400 --> 01:26:54.480 >> school testing plan >> uh >> okay >> member Thompson I think you alluded to this it's a procedural ederal policy. It just says how do you do testing? You know, no phones, no candy, no, you know, the board doesn't need to weigh in on testing procedures. 295 01:26:54.480 --> 01:27:10.960 >> Um, so we're going to probably recommend that boards uh resend policy 614. We're taking a close look at 615. We're just trying to think of whether that's whether the board needs a policy on testing accommodations 296 01:27:10.960 --> 01:27:26.800 or whether there's a better way. We're working with MASC, the special ed folks, on do we want to keep 615 or is it again a procedural thing that we don't need the board to adopt policy to do. So, I'm just trying to take a couple off the >> and then we also took 617 out, but you 297 01:27:26.800 --> 01:27:42.320 already had gotten rid of it, I think. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> I've taken a lot of your time. Do you want me to talk about the three policies? >> Sure. And I think we can just um only do 701.1 298 01:27:42.320 --> 01:27:59.440 and 904 because we realize that the 704 recommendations from our auditors are not in alignment with the MSBA model. >> I'm going to hand you I'm going to hand you I developed a 704 for you. >> Okay. All right. >> And you're I'm sorry. I'm sorry to 299 01:27:59.440 --> 01:28:16.560 >> I love >> 704 this question on >> No, we have one. Did we not? You have one. >> You have one. You don't have the capitalization levels. >> And I'm guessing your auditors were asking about capitalization levels. >> The total threshold. I believe 300 01:28:16.560 --> 01:28:31.840 >> they were talking about threshold saying that I think they said 25. >> They said 100. >> Too low. Yes. >> 25 wasn't in the policy at all before. There was no number. I just looked at >> there was no number before. Well, we got so up in I I another district in this 301 01:28:31.840 --> 01:28:48.480 area asked, "Do we have a capital asset policy? Our auditors inform us we need to have one with a threshold of 10K and an aggregate of 25K." And they couldn't this school district said, "Well, where is it? Here is another one." And they actually did add 302 01:28:48.480 --> 01:29:04.239 a sentence on capitalization levels in the policy. So in 704 we went back and we added capitalization levels >> to the model policy >> to the model policy. Is it not in there? >> No, it is. It is. 303 01:29:04.239 --> 01:29:20.400 >> Yeah. So we added it to the model policy. >> The levels that we put are just recommendations that we were taking from the auditors telling the districts. They aren't set in stone. The law doesn't require it. >> When you say auditors, which which auditors are you referencing? These are 304 01:29:20.400 --> 01:29:37.440 I I take it to be the district's own independent >> the independent financial. So that's probably Gazsby. >> There's something in Gazsby. It is. >> It's probably driving that statement. So we could talk to our auditors and see 305 01:29:37.440 --> 01:29:55.040 >> uh where or what that statement needs to be >> or or can you make a policy that's generic enough? It says you there's a minimum, there's a maximum. Well, I think that's originally what was in there. It was no, there was no threshold. >> There was no threshold $7. 306 01:29:55.040 --> 01:30:10.639 >> Our auditors are >> I think it the auditors are saying that because of Gazsby. I was just >> And that's the Gatsby rule I just gave Ellers and um we went through a bunch of Gazsby. I shared this with you on Friday. I'm sure you didn't read it uh in detail like I was but I got a class 307 01:30:10.639 --> 01:30:28.800 on it so in fairness. Um, but Gazsby is probably driving that and telling you to have it in policy for liability exposure mitigation. >> Something I noticed today that what our auditors are recommending is different than this. And so Brenda and Michael are 308 01:30:28.800 --> 01:30:43.280 going to take it back to our auditors to before we don't even even need to discuss this right now probably just to see if what they think of these numbers or if they want to move forward with the numbers they >> and just for our our audience Gatsby is the government accounting standards 309 01:30:43.280 --> 01:31:00.000 board that governs accounting uh for government entities which we are one >> Chair Cameron I agree if your auditors or your staff you come up with something different. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah, it's not a law that says those sentences have to be in there. 310 01:31:00.000 --> 01:31:16.719 It's a more general requirement that we're trying to satisfy by putting those sentences. >> I think the plan would be to bring um to either confirm this or adjust the numbers for the next meeting to bring to the board. So, it would look very similar to this just or or be the same. >> I sent it to Bill and he's going to talk 311 01:31:16.719 --> 01:31:31.840 it over with our auditors. >> Okay. Thanks. >> There were two final policies if you'd like me to just touch on them. 701.1. >> Yeah. These are both under the audit like technical edits. We were originally starting with just technical but um >> these are I know we're on our consent 312 01:31:31.840 --> 01:31:48.560 agenda from our February meeting and they both pulled off. So and we haven't had time to discuss them again yet. >> You were correct that I would categorize these as what you have in front of you right now. I would if you have it in front of you I I apologize. 701.1 I 313 01:31:48.560 --> 01:32:03.040 didn't hand it out. >> You're on the board book if you're on that. Sure. >> Or I have one copy if people need. >> Yep. >> But I'll tell you at least in the version we sent your board the changes are 314 01:32:03.040 --> 01:32:18.480 changing board of education to school board which you can ignore. You can keep board of education throughout. Uh I think that was and then to the references that's the only things that we had changed >> which doesn't mean you can't have a 315 01:32:18.480 --> 01:32:35.600 question but that's all we changed. >> Right. So then so then this goes back to Carly, you know, your your question or suggestion of do you just approve it and we come back to it or is it one of those where is it a a policy that a board 316 01:32:35.600 --> 01:32:50.960 member has an interest in it? It's like we I want to talk about it. And so in this particular one, you know, while we approve the budget in July or end of June, that is a set number ideally throughout the course of the year. But if there is a change to the budget where 317 01:32:50.960 --> 01:33:06.400 cuts need to be made or we're going to spend more money than we need than than then then that was planned in June. Um how do we get notified? >> Getting notified every quarter or or almost every board meeting that that uh 318 01:33:06.400 --> 01:33:23.120 whenever we're touching the budget or doing any adjustments in any of the funds that we have. And I've been very meticulous about that and will continue to be. >> I think >> and I appreciate that, but like that's not in here. >> I think for me >> it actually delegates to me that 319 01:33:23.120 --> 01:33:39.600 responsibility and how I carry it out is what you guys are telling me as board members that you want to monitor that. And I've been very faithful to doing that. And I would expect anybody who would replace me would do the same thing. 320 01:33:39.600 --> 01:33:56.080 >> But they may not. So if we had it in here, then it ensures transparency. >> The board would decide that. >> I think for me, Brian, I think all of us, well, I'll speak for myself. I'm interested in in diving into every policy like you. But I think where I 321 01:33:56.080 --> 01:34:12.880 might differ from your approach at the moment is that I'm what I felt from the audit, what I'm hearing from you is that while all of these technical audit ones I'm interested in looking at, you know, we have however many hundred and whatever policies, 322 01:34:12.880 --> 01:34:29.600 my priority wants to go towards the ones that are most urgent in terms of we don't have them or we are significantly behind. Knowing that these are important, too. I'm not trying to say that these shouldn't deserve discussion. It's just in my head I'm trying to 323 01:34:29.600 --> 01:34:46.800 triage urgency. Um and and so we could put these in any I mean this is kind of random that these two came up, right? It's not like we could have picked two other technical. So I'm trying to think of like as a board, what order do we 324 01:34:46.800 --> 01:35:02.560 want to talk? Not are some worthy of talking about or not. That's kind of where I'm at. We're in a we are in triage situation. We have an approach that you are recommending Terry that we can decide upon as a board that we this is how we this is how we triage. Once 325 01:35:02.560 --> 01:35:19.360 we're done triaging then we back up and we say what is the cadence that we want to take going forward as this board. And we might for instance this is a six-month cycle per year right about >> Mhm. We might say let's do this 326 01:35:19.360 --> 01:35:34.800 six-month cycle and in the second six months of the year board members get to choose some different policies we review as you know people would have to vote on the ones that we decide to explore but that still gives some opportunity to make sure we're staying on a cadence and 327 01:35:34.800 --> 01:35:49.840 also offering opportunity for exploratory review like that satisfies I I would say I think everybody wants to make sure we're staying up to speed up to and that we're not bucking our 328 01:35:49.840 --> 01:36:05.840 responsibilities, which is policy review and implementation and all those kinds of things, but we can't we're we have to triage first. We're in a bad spot. 329 01:36:05.840 --> 01:36:21.360 >> And if I might chair Cameron, the the the fiery referral policy was 904 was on your list. uh there is sub substantively we didn't change the policy I just put the definitions in alphabetical order they weren't in alphabetical order that 330 01:36:21.360 --> 01:36:36.480 doesn't mean you can't at some time discuss what lielist means or what material and substantial disruption means uh you certainly could do that but our recommendation at the time was simply make 331 01:36:36.480 --> 01:36:53.320 clean it up no substantive change and then If you want to come back to it at some point, absolutely. But in triage, I would just make the alphabetic and put the put the definitions in alphabetical order. 332 01:36:53.760 --> 01:37:09.760 >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. But I know we're using the word triage, which is absolutely appropriate, but in the course of the conversation, I've heard Michael say politely, um, speed it up. >> Right. >> And I've heard Brenda say politely, 333 01:37:09.760 --> 01:37:25.360 >> yeah. um you're putting me in jeopardy, right? I'm looking at these and if it if it's not what it should be, I'm doing something that's totally incorrect. >> Um so if if we were going to not if when we do triage, 334 01:37:25.360 --> 01:37:41.920 Brenda, Michael, would you make a suggestion or give input in regards to where you think the hierarchy should go? because um honestly I think all of us would be throwing darts uh unless we understood where is your 335 01:37:41.920 --> 01:37:58.239 biggest jeopardy or where where's the list of your biggest jeopardy and Michael what is is is everything need to be on the fast track or what are the and I I know I know the answer to that but what are the things that need to be on the fast track? Well, and I think in our 336 01:37:58.239 --> 01:38:13.199 conversations, that's kind of what I've asked to say, you know, and and you have been doing that is and Brenda's prepared a a bunch of right >> of um redline copies that are ready for us to review. We just haven't been able to get to them because, you know, of of 337 01:38:13.199 --> 01:38:30.960 the good conversation on policies, but I I think that's the balance here. >> Yeah. And I think that's a I think that makes sense, Amber. But one of the things that um that I'm sorry, Terry, thank you. That Terry mentioned is he he 338 01:38:30.960 --> 01:38:49.760 really does have a list of already fabricated policies that if we don't want to get too crazy at the moment. I mean, here are X number of policies that would help you because most of them are mand uh mandated policies and you know, 339 01:38:49.760 --> 01:39:06.080 so I mean I think we we could just >> Well, I think that's what you were kind of thinking >> and that's part of what Matt was saying. Yeah. >> Yeah. Well, I mean there's there's 41 that are technical edits that you could approve. We could approve in one meeting, right, on consent agenda, but there are like 80ish 340 01:39:06.080 --> 01:39:20.960 >> that are supposed to be triaged. I mean, that'd be the longest triage session. Um, >> we won't do them all at once. >> Yeah. I mean, it would take a while. Uh, if I could just correct one thing on triage, I don't consider any of the white policies triage unless for some local reason you think I don't think 341 01:39:20.960 --> 01:39:36.000 there's any recommended policy that's >> needs to be fasttracked. >> Sure. you you all members you you could disagree with me and say no t you don't understand but generally speaking I'm limiting triage to blue and green >> and I feel like I've appreciated that 342 01:39:36.000 --> 01:39:52.080 you lined out laid out like let's focus on missing blue then the review update blue then missing green review update green >> and that's still a lot >> yeah and and not all the policies are like way off I mean even if they're blue or green and 343 01:39:52.080 --> 01:40:07.360 >> they're in the in the review update might just be a certain phrase here, a certain phrase there, and so they could go quickly. I guess the question is if board members want to take a closer look, you know, and revise existing language that's not part of the 344 01:40:07.360 --> 01:40:22.320 recommended update. So, >> but maybe that's where we track that once that people are interested and we cycle back around. So, if the goal is really >> like I feel like we are not doing our job as a board and keeping these 345 01:40:22.320 --> 01:40:39.760 policies up to date. So, let's get on our right track and then we cycle back. >> Yeah. Cuz I think the concern with Director Thompson is I might never see these policies again if I don't stop and talk about it now. >> But then we don't move anywhere. 346 01:40:39.760 --> 01:40:55.840 >> Yeah. I mean, that's that's the challenge is right now if we're in like I feel like we're in the emergency department and there's blood coming out from various uh arteries here like we've got to stop the bleeding and address this in a way that keeps our district 347 01:40:55.840 --> 01:41:12.159 safe and then we go in for interest. Then we say, "Okay, which ones are we?" Especially after we've done review of certain ones. >> Yeah, >> I might say, "Oh, I am interested in that." And Amber, I want that to go on the list of things that we go back to 348 01:41:12.159 --> 01:41:26.000 explore. >> Well, I think not just keeping our district safe, but also helping our staff and Brend Brenda in particular, but others do their jobs better. >> Yeah. And I think and it's also like what I might be interested in maybe I'm interested in you know what 605 whatever 349 01:41:26.000 --> 01:41:42.239 that is but also as representatives of our community if there are issues boiling up or concerns that have been brought forward I think that's when those regardless of if they're part of this we should probably interject those to >> think about like is this really how it 350 01:41:42.239 --> 01:41:59.520 should should function here. We we could add public comment to our work sessions and so then it would hit you could hit two in a in a month then >> oh then it becomes a regular working meeting or meeting >> it is a meeting but I mean but then it would meet the requirements of 208 351 01:41:59.520 --> 01:42:16.000 >> you have to offer public comment twice >> so you could approve yeah >> this is with the assumption that every board member wants to move forward in that direction and again the majority wins. So, if we have four people that want to approve them by default as a blanket statement, 352 01:42:16.000 --> 01:42:31.440 >> that's what the board decides. And there's there's like like you could literally have it done next week. It'd be done. >> Well, how do people feel about this conversation? >> But >> we're talking technical edits maybe is what you're talking about. >> You you can do technical even you can do 353 01:42:31.440 --> 01:42:47.040 the mandatory. >> I mean, if the mandatories are just not not nothing, >> well, those would require first and second reading no matter what. So we can update policy 208, get that done. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So for the mandatory and legal, 354 01:42:47.040 --> 01:43:04.000 >> even though we we aren't necessarily going to be able to throw them on the consent agenda if they're not just technical edits in from my perspective, and I know the board owns policy. I am not telling you what to do, but from my perspective, how I use these policies in my everyday 355 01:43:04.000 --> 01:43:18.719 work, we need to get through those quickly. Um, and the first time around just to discuss the updates to the legal language and requirements because I use 356 01:43:18.719 --> 01:43:36.800 these policies in documents that I need to defend in grievances and arbitration and litigation. And if I misstep, that is a risk for the school district that I don't want on me. Um, so I would 357 01:43:36.800 --> 01:43:54.080 say the the first time around if we could just do the the recommended language in the policies and just get that done so that I know that what I am referring to is accurate and correct. We can get them back on the cycle and get them back to you quicker. We don't have 358 01:43:54.080 --> 01:44:11.119 to wait six months or a year, but to at least get those updates out there on the website in the policy so that I know what I am using in my daily work is accurate and up todate. >> Then we can bring we can bring them back and we can dissect them as much as you 359 01:44:11.119 --> 01:44:26.960 want and take as much time as you need. Um that that would be my ask. Mhm. >> Well, and then that to some degree is a cyclical thing that has to happen, right? Like >> policies are getting updated in that 360 01:44:26.960 --> 01:44:45.119 way, I I imagine. I mean, some maybe not, but some of a frequent basis. >> Okay. So, >> let's do it. >> Are there any other questions for Terry? Thank you for giving me took a lot of your time. I am so sorry. I talked too much. I apologize. >> It was very helpful, Terry. >> Yeah, but you brought us to the masters 361 01:44:45.119 --> 01:45:01.199 for a little bit of That's great. >> Well, you know, you can contact me anytime. Uh, anything I can do to help. Uh, men, you know, specifically like if you want to say, Terry, this green one is how much of it statute? I can tell you. Oh, it's all stat. The criminal 362 01:45:01.199 --> 01:45:17.040 background check. >> It's all statute. >> So, I that may help speed things up as well. So, you certainly can contact me anytime. >> You know, it would be easy. Well, I don't want to say easy uh for me and maybe others disagree, but I I would just like to know what words are 363 01:45:17.040 --> 01:45:33.360 actually from from you know statutory. >> Yeah, I mean >> you're not the only one to ask. I mean that a nice way if you throw in chat GP and just kind of like highlight it in green color probably claw instead. But you know >> you're exactly right. That is some work. >> No, I think >> No, I can't do that. You should be doing 364 01:45:33.360 --> 01:45:49.199 >> we couldn't do it a year ago. I think our ability to do it is much easier now >> and we just have to learn how to do it. But I think it's a worthy project. I am agreeing with you on that. >> Every foot. >> Okay. So, what I'm hearing is that Thank you, Trey. What I'm hearing is that 365 01:45:49.199 --> 01:46:06.560 um from our administrators, board members are interested in trying to get updated so that we're in compliance. We're protecting our district. We're doing what's best for kids too with making sure things are updated so that Brendan, others in the 366 01:46:06.560 --> 01:46:24.159 district can do their position jobs efficiently and effectively. But then we will kind of we'll start with the technical edits perhaps at a consent agenda and then go through Terry's idea of this blue green process. Um but with 367 01:46:24.159 --> 01:46:39.040 the idea of trying to get these um into compliance or updated as quick as possible and then implementing a a review process um like this three-year cycle review process knowing that at any 368 01:46:39.040 --> 01:46:54.560 time if a board member has wants to tackle a certain one or if we're hearing community issues about a certain one that that can be interjected you know in addition to the cycle that we're working on. So, one thing I'm hearing though too is and and or maybe I'm just trying to 369 01:46:54.560 --> 01:47:10.719 clarify, we might run technical edits through the consent agenda, but we based on what you're saying, Brenda, there are probably a number of policies every meeting where we want to be doing first and second readings potentially and not messing with them or or just like letting them go through. 370 01:47:10.719 --> 01:47:27.040 >> Is it necessary to do first and second readings on those >> for new policies? Well, maybe for yes for the new, but for the ones that we have that are mandatory in nature that it's coming from the state because it doesn't really matter if it's two readings or one reading. It's like someone else is telling us we have to do 371 01:47:27.040 --> 01:47:42.639 it >> if we have if it's existing. You mean? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I don't think so. >> It depends on if it changes the substance of the policy. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> So, if we're changing the substance of the policy, then it it does >> but then what's but what is our what are we and the community going to do about it? Because the state pretty much says 372 01:47:42.639 --> 01:47:59.760 this is what you have to do. You don't have we don't have we don't have a choice. >> Yeah. I mean, we could technically do an emergency approval if we're saying it's required to be in compliance with the law, but then we have to come back within a year and review it. >> Or we could change our 208, right? 373 01:47:59.760 --> 01:48:15.440 >> Well, I mean 208 allows you to do emergency one. >> Yeah. >> You just have to state that it's an emergency and that's why you're approving it in one meeting. I don't know if I feel like that's a little for me emergency is like COVID and something or like some drastic thing has happened. >> That's more than an emergency. 374 01:48:15.440 --> 01:48:31.360 >> Well, yeah, but I mean I don't know if we're I don't know if we're quite an emergency. Brenda's like, "Yeah, we are." >> If you're if you're out of compliance with law, right? >> Yeah. I mean, I think you could argue >> that's true. >> I mean, we're looking at how long almost two months for a policy then to be reviewed because we do if we do one 375 01:48:31.360 --> 01:48:47.520 business meeting generally a month. Uh the next meeting we'd have a business meeting maybe we throw just making a number up like throw 40 policies out there and then that would be the first reading and then working session and then the 376 01:48:47.520 --> 01:49:02.800 following meeting for it to be adopted and so is it reasonable for to hang out hang you know hang tight for two more months I mean I guess it's already been so many months so >> it's been three years >> it's been three years right I mean >> well so the policy that exists around 377 01:49:02.800 --> 01:49:20.560 that was when when administration pretty much handled this and then by exception the board would intervene on a particular one and and then you got you were in a rhythm already. But we've we have to do something different to make up for where we're at now. And to me 378 01:49:20.560 --> 01:49:37.199 it's a change management. It's adapting to the change. And I think that you're exactly right that it may not be prudent to do that or retain that whether we classify it as an emergency or not. In my view, it kind of is an emergency in 379 01:49:37.199 --> 01:49:52.719 the sense that we need to we need to get on with the triage and we need to get on with liability mitigation. So, if we do allow, like you suggested, Matt, earlier, public comment at our next work session, then we could potentially those 380 01:49:52.719 --> 01:50:10.159 that would count for two meetings. >> But then you're using that work session to approve 40 meetings or 40 policies. >> We we'd approve it at the next meeting. >> So, so yeah, >> you still have a two meeting. I mean, I don't know if we're going to be ready 381 01:50:10.159 --> 01:50:25.040 >> in the next meeting to like have >> I mean, the technical ones. >> I think those will go on consent. Correct. >> Yeah. But then you could add >> I don't know 10. >> Brenda, what do you think? >> Or throw them all out there. >> What would you like to do? I have What did I do? 382 01:50:25.040 --> 01:50:42.560 >> You sign a lot. I think I did a number of series with technical edits that are ready. Amber has them. They're ready to go. >> Okay. Um and then I could select um according to the list that Terry gave us on the mandatory and like the on fire 383 01:50:42.560 --> 01:50:58.560 need to get these uh adopted right now. We can start with those. >> Um okay. >> So I can go through and and select those and send those to Amber uh to bring forward to to the school board along with the technical edits. I have a whole bunch of those ready to go. So do you think that 384 01:50:58.560 --> 01:51:14.800 >> if we still I'm sorry. Go ahead. I was just going to say would that be then next work session first reading and then next the following so the board meeting next month that we could kind of jam >> first the a first reading from my understanding it's got to be during a a business meeting a first a first meeting 385 01:51:14.800 --> 01:51:31.040 not during a working session >> no just at a meeting at a meeting where public comment is offered >> but what why don't we to speed this up instead of doing work sessions why don't we if we have a block of these as you're saying >> why don't we just do two das meetings 386 01:51:31.040 --> 01:51:47.760 and ones when it's done, we just cut the time in half >> rather than drag it out with with um you know, one of these plus one of those. >> Yeah. >> Or two of these. And >> they both accomplish the same thing though, >> right? >> You know, I we'd accomplish the same thing here. >> What if we try to get technical edits 387 01:51:47.760 --> 01:52:03.280 done at the next session, which would be you counted them two weeks something >> and then we could see how that goes. >> Okay. Well, then May could be like what you feel like are the priorities. Plus, 388 01:52:03.280 --> 01:52:23.920 >> I mean, the sooner you can get drafts out to the board members so we can review them. >> Yeah. >> You know, but if you send 20 to us on Friday, >> right, >> that's not going to work. >> Cuz then by can you send an email to all of us? We just got to make sure we don't respond. 389 01:52:23.920 --> 01:52:40.280 >> Yes. >> Okay. >> And you could even respond back to just Brenda. Yes. >> Got it. >> Okay. So, I'm going to try to get all of the technical edits >> ready for the next meeting. >> You make your wish list. >> Let's do that. And then we'll >> be careful what you wish. >> Wait, let me 390 01:52:40.400 --> 01:52:56.159 Okay. And then I think the one we do need to consider though is the audit one because that one you wanted done by June. So, we just want to make sure that's >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thanks everybody. I learned a lot. Mhm. >> Um next we're going to move to the um 391 01:52:56.159 --> 01:53:11.679 quarterly data review picking up where we left off on uh from our last work session. Um there's a packet in the board uh board book uh with the presentation and I think we'll pick up where we left off. With that being said, and Tracy, I'll turn it over to you in a 392 01:53:11.679 --> 01:53:27.440 minute here, but um math data has been added. So, when we're looking at this, um, don't miss that part cuz I think that's in between kind of where we left off, um, and where we started. So, >> that's exactly where we're going to start. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Good evening everyone. Hopefully, this 393 01:53:27.440 --> 01:53:43.760 will be more exciting than policy. >> Um, Michelle, Sandy, and I are happy to be here with you to share some of our uh, quarterly data uh, with you. Uh just um to say as we begin as we review these 394 01:53:43.760 --> 01:53:59.280 numbers, please note that these numbers are a snapshot in time of what our our kids were displaying. It's not a full movie or a full picture of how we um look at our students academically or 395 01:53:59.280 --> 01:54:16.159 their success in school. Um, as uh, Director Cameron said, you can follow the, uh, quarterly data review document that's in the the school board, um, uh, notes >> in the board packet. Thank you. Um we 396 01:54:16.159 --> 01:54:31.280 are going to start out with our key math trends and we are uh we're really thrilled to see the strong growth data that we are um are seeing from our elementary students especially. Uh we 397 01:54:31.280 --> 01:54:46.639 are seeing high proficiency rates and our students have actually already exceeded our our target goals that we set for ourselves for uh this school year. We see an average proficiency of our students between 73.8% 398 01:54:46.639 --> 01:55:03.199 and 80.8%. Um, kindergarten was very um, strong at 83% this winter. Um, grade two was actually 10 points higher, which is our largest gain for our elementary students. And, 399 01:55:03.199 --> 01:55:19.679 um, you'll see that at the elementary we are, um, uh, between that 73.8 eight and um a little bit above 80. Did you have a question, >> Tracy? One of the things I Yeah, hold on. Um Tracy, one of the things I've asked, you know, over the past year when 400 01:55:19.679 --> 01:55:34.960 we were talking about dashboards and and metrics, um was aberancies, good aberancies and and not so good aberancies and and understanding what created that abery and either 401 01:55:34.960 --> 01:55:50.960 duplicating good ones or finding ways to nullify the the not so good ones. So is it too early to ask the question on grade two? Um what why is that aberrancy a 10point spike? Um and then when you 402 01:55:50.960 --> 01:56:08.000 look at at grades six, seven and eight, >> well I'll say six and seven it's um it starts getting a little scarier and nine. So, so do did you recog anything been >> determined with >> Yeah, you you ask a great question and 403 01:56:08.000 --> 01:56:23.520 it's one that we're asking ourselves as well. Okay. We don't want to make any assumptions based on the data and it is early because we're just seeing winter results and we want to follow this through to spring to see any um uh changes that we might see um in those 404 01:56:23.520 --> 01:56:40.719 scores as we move forward. So, um, we don't want to assume, but I think, um, Sandy can share some of the, um, uh, pieces that she's looking at. >> Um, thank you for that question. First and foremost, um, I want to commend our teachers at the elementary level. They 405 01:56:40.719 --> 01:56:56.880 have been putting considerable amount of work over the last couple of years of not only um, working towards implementation of the new standards, but implementation of bridges. Um this is the first time we've ever really had the opportunity to set aside 60 hours of 406 01:56:56.880 --> 01:57:12.480 professional development. Um and so last year our teachers in grades four and five had 60 hours while we flip-fpped with Read Act. Um and this year our K3 teachers um have that opportunity. Um and it's really been skillfully led by 407 01:57:12.480 --> 01:57:29.520 our teaching and learning coordinators. They've been have been doing a phenomenal job. Um, the other piece that I would state is um, when you're comparing elementary maybe to secondary, elementary is just a little bit further along in the standardsbased review process. We started our standardsbased 408 01:57:29.520 --> 01:57:44.960 review process at the elementary level in about 2020 um, anticipating the new standards. So, we spent a considerable amount of time frontloading that professional development so that we could link it then moving forward to that new resource. Now, at the secondary 409 01:57:44.960 --> 01:58:00.080 level, as you noted, um we're in the early phases of the standardbased review process. We have a phenomenal coordinator as well um at the secondary level who is leading that. Um and next year, um our secondary teachers will be 410 01:58:00.080 --> 01:58:16.639 field testing um resources um to bring forward to the board for approval. So, we're just a little bit further behind in that process, but well within the trajectory to be um in line with the full implementation um for those um new standards. 411 01:58:16.639 --> 01:58:34.239 >> So, um Sandy, did did you just mention you had training for grades four and five? >> We had training for four and five for bridges last year because if you recall, grades K and three were doing redact and then we flip-fpped it. So now four and 412 01:58:34.239 --> 01:58:49.520 five um are in the thick of things with readact training and then K3. What really was a blessing in disguise was Read Act because we had to set aside 60 hours of professional development for ReadAct training at the elementary 413 01:58:49.520 --> 01:59:06.639 level. And it really offered us the opportunity to move a little bit ahead in the standardsbased review process for math because as you know we don't have courses at the elementary. If you're an elementary teacher you teach all of those. So, we took advantage of those extra PD days and put it in place for 414 01:59:06.639 --> 01:59:22.400 math and then flip-flopped it. So, that was done strategically to take advantage of that time. >> I think it it's also interesting to note with your grade nine numbers that you've removed 190 of kind of the highest mass students. So, 415 01:59:22.400 --> 01:59:37.440 >> I I just think that's important in that that number. This is not all of our nth graders. >> It's not the same cohort. So, um, and it really when you look at that particular one, it does reflect a different testing group. So, thank you for that. Um, and 416 01:59:37.440 --> 01:59:57.840 it's really, um, based on those students who were enrolled in a higher level math course because it didn't necessarily align then to the assessment. So, it didn't make sense. So, thank you for calling that out. >> Okay. Uh we um also disagregated um our math 417 01:59:57.840 --> 02:00:13.199 data by our uh special education students or students who are receiving special education services. Um please remember that these are not students who are just receiving services for math. This is our entire group of students who are receiving special education 418 02:00:13.199 --> 02:00:29.360 services. And we see uh gains made in grades one through five as well. grade two is replicating what we saw with our total population. And so we're seeing the same patterns here. Uh we also worked with our principles to 419 02:00:29.360 --> 02:00:46.080 disagregate this data by their um buildings. So they were able to look at how they are fairing as a site. And uh we looked at how we are um what themes we're seeing across the district to be able to shore up those systems that we 420 02:00:46.080 --> 02:01:02.639 might have in place that are are supporting us or taking away from uh what we need to do with our students. >> Could we potentially see the disagregated data for ELLL students as well? >> Oh, we could. That is not something that 421 02:01:02.639 --> 02:01:17.760 was on our metrics dashboard. That's why we didn't bring it to you. But that is something that we've been looking at as an administrative team. >> Yeah. I'm just thinking like depending on reading proficiency for both math and reading, I imagine some of the math is probably impacted by 422 02:01:17.760 --> 02:01:33.679 >> So So you're thinking our 80% score for elementary might actually be higher because you're baking in ELLL students and it's special education in that in that that metric as well. >> Correct. >> So this is our entire population. This is our entire population. But then if you had another view nonsp specialcial 423 02:01:33.679 --> 02:01:51.599 education elelll then then the metrics would be different >> and not only like I think it's important for us to disagregate these groups and see how they're doing right so >> where where do we push resources or I imagine that's part of what you're looking at is like if we see much lower 424 02:01:51.599 --> 02:02:07.920 scores in certain groups that would be targeted resources for those groups. it is and that's what our departments are working on together to identify where's the the data support the direction we want to go uh how do we budget for that 425 02:02:07.920 --> 02:02:24.880 where do we put our resources accordingly >> do you have certain buildings that are I'm sorry >> I know I know >> uh going back to Paul's question um I mean are you guys able to look at and see because if we're at 80% for instance 426 02:02:24.880 --> 02:02:40.080 I mean that's going to be the average so Some schools are probably above 80% and some are below. I mean is your staff looking at okay what are those schools that are higher? What are they doing that we can pick up and you know bring that across the district? 427 02:02:40.080 --> 02:02:55.760 >> Yeah, we are looking into those themes. What we want to remember too is that it's different cohorts of students in our different buildings. There's different demographics. Um when we're looking at EL um there's different um levels of EL that we have to be mindful 428 02:02:55.760 --> 02:03:11.840 of. Um, some students are newcomers. They are brand new to the district versus students who might have been in the program for five or six years. Our special ed as well. Um, there's different levels of programming. So, we can't just compare one school to another school because there's so many variables 429 02:03:11.840 --> 02:03:27.280 that make up that cohort of students that we want to be mindful of that. But when we're looking at themes, we want to take what are those teaching practices that are happening in particular buildings or um maybe even how is the the principal guiding that differently 430 02:03:27.280 --> 02:03:43.119 in a building. We're looking at all of those aspects >> and and do we have the data where you can track those cohorts like on a longitudinalitudinal standpoint so you can see how kids are progressing yeartoear um even depending on the various teachers that they're having. Uh, we do. 431 02:03:43.119 --> 02:03:58.880 Yes. Mhm. >> Yeah. >> But I do think springboarding off of Matt's comment, which springboarded off of my comment, um, I know there are different populations in each 432 02:03:58.880 --> 02:04:15.760 of the schools, okay? Cohorts, populations. But one of the things, you know, if we're making decisions on money, on resources, on all the things that everybody's aware of, I think it would be helpful. And and and 433 02:04:15.760 --> 02:04:32.800 last year, we actually asked for data all the way down to the classroom level. And I I know there was some debate on them, but shouldn't the board know what if there five, six, 10, 20 elementary schools because everything is growing or 434 02:04:32.800 --> 02:04:49.440 middle schools or high schools? Shouldn't shouldn't we know instead of an average what the schools which schools are having difficulty and which which schools aren't because it I think it would help us in decision making. Um, again, in 435 02:04:49.440 --> 02:05:06.239 regards to resources, if we understood that better, when when we see an average, um, it's it's a great number, but but we don't really know who's struggling and who's not struggling. Who's, you know, back to what Matt said, who's who's struggling and who's succeeding. The 436 02:05:06.239 --> 02:05:22.719 average doesn't tell you that. The average just shows you. >> It just blends everybody together. I mean, there's it's that old joke about an actuary who drowned in the middle of the river because the average height of the river was 5 feet and nobody knows 437 02:05:22.719 --> 02:05:39.520 what the middle of the river is. And and I think that's really the >> you're saying for like resource allocation resource allocation. >> I think for me where I'm at is >> and I think I take this maybe from my work at the university and I I know we're not the border regents but I like to think we are sometimes um for 438 02:05:39.520 --> 02:05:56.560 Lakeville and and that is we're at the system level. That's how I think of this and I and I need to see system level trends. So, I appreciate this data, but what I do expect is that the superintendent and staff are monitoring how we drive these system numbers up. 439 02:05:56.560 --> 02:06:13.360 So, it's not my job to understand how you're going to drive the number or where the resource should be allocated. It's it's your job to to bring that to us to say, you know, here's where we're seeing progress. We need to move money here. we need to add staff here or 440 02:06:13.360 --> 02:06:30.239 whatever, but I'm not going to look at building level data at classroom level data and be able to understand from a system perspective my role in that. Um, and and I think that's, you know, when we have 12,000 plus students, our role 441 02:06:30.239 --> 02:06:45.119 is to make sure the whole system is improving and that the staff's job is to bring to us to do it in your daily work and to bring to me to bring to us recommendations. um when when you need our approval, but but your job is to move these numbers 442 02:06:45.119 --> 02:07:02.560 up. Um and however you're going to get there is is kind of yours to figure out. Um not to sorry, I feel like I'm being very like well-handed, but like we want to see the numbers improve, right? And that's the whole point of the the dashboard and setting these goals 443 02:07:02.560 --> 02:07:18.239 >> and we need to keep monitoring that progress. But how how that progress happens is not necessarily it's not our expertise and it's not where where I think our what we're what we're monitoring. we don't have the context for a lot of so even as you're 444 02:07:18.239 --> 02:07:34.480 explaining different programs are in different schools different students are in different schools and so to explain the data to that level is not really >> but but I mean I think there might be instances where you say hey you know after looking at the data we found out that this school and this principal was 445 02:07:34.480 --> 02:07:50.800 leading this initiative >> with this curriculum that was working really well >> and now we're spreading it to other schools I mean that that's kind of exciting things to hear about if you're on the board you know where we found success somewhere we're going to try to replicate it across the >> district. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And again, it's not that I'm going to be pointing 446 02:07:50.800 --> 02:08:07.520 at classrooms. >> I think there's always been an interest though to like compare buildings and to say this school is great and this school is awful without understanding what makes up that statement whether it's student demographics. And there is some in my opinion like people performance 447 02:08:07.520 --> 02:08:23.520 issues at times, right? And I expect superintendent Bowman to address that with principles and then down the chain. But that us comparing schools isn't going to help drive these numbers. I think what what is is making sure our staff are monitoring those things. 448 02:08:23.520 --> 02:08:38.239 >> Yeah, Amber, I want to be if if I may, Brian, I want to be really clear. I think we need to be careful um about this school's awful or whatever terminology you want to use. I'm not suggesting that's what we're saying here. What I'm suggesting is the more 449 02:08:38.239 --> 02:08:53.440 data we understand, the stronger and the better decisions we can make on revenue and resources and that will help. So it's not like you're a bad school, you're a good school. That's not the intent here. I want to be really clear. 450 02:08:53.440 --> 02:09:09.360 >> I mean, we get metrics at the capacity level for each elementary building and and we know kind of like which one's at high capacity and which one is not. I appreciate the average of the of the average which is good but I think what I don't know is like 451 02:09:09.360 --> 02:09:24.880 what like how far could we go because if there's another school that's actually at 95%. Like I like like that number is actually possible because there's another school that can get there. Now again, demographics, who knows? Teaching teaching staff, uh, whatever plays a 452 02:09:24.880 --> 02:09:41.599 huge part. But if there's three schools that are in the 30s and the 40s, and then the rest of them are actually in the '9s, and but yet the grade 2 level is 80%, that doesn't really tell the full story either. >> So, so maybe what we need, not necessarily building level data, but whenever we're looking at stats, what's 453 02:09:41.599 --> 02:09:58.000 the variation across? So, what is the standard dev? you know, if we're looking at averages, what is the standard deviation across the buildings or are there is there general kind of consistency and not naming things, but is this kind of the number we're seeing across the school? So, what is the span 454 02:09:58.000 --> 02:10:15.040 around those? >> But how is it any different from from levels for high school or for middle school or um elementary? >> Yeah. So, everything everybody's saying here is is there every every point is correct and accurate. Our approach is to 455 02:10:15.040 --> 02:10:33.760 establish the standards, establish and take a systems approach. You have every right to expect that if school A is having great success at something and school B is not, you should believe and know that we are uh looking at that and 456 02:10:33.760 --> 02:10:49.920 um through our teaching and learning department and our processes there that we are uh accounting for that. But I guess I have to ask at some level you have to trust that we are going to address these. We have given you a 457 02:10:49.920 --> 02:11:07.040 plethora of data. There's the QDR that we're doing here. There's also a visualization that we have uh prepared for you as a walkup to this. So I think a lot of the data that you're talking about you have. Um and I I want to keep 458 02:11:07.040 --> 02:11:25.199 the conversation focused on what you've asked us to provide which is this QDR in the manner in which we have uh provided it. But um we are embarked on a journey to elevate our performance across the 459 02:11:25.199 --> 02:11:41.440 system. And there's right now we're just talking about um our comparing our data from fall to spring in just one testing band of math and reading. MCA is kind of the bigger thing. Mhm. 460 02:11:41.440 --> 02:11:57.119 >> Um and that's I think Aren't we in testing >> right now today? >> Right now. >> Yeah. So, >> in the thick of things, >> I think there's more as Tracy said earlier. There's we're just I don't want to get bogged down in the 461 02:11:57.119 --> 02:12:14.400 weeds too much and think about on systems. Now when we start talking about resource allocation which I think I've heard multiple times we are resource constrained I think everybody knows this and our 462 02:12:14.400 --> 02:12:30.639 responsibility as an administration is to bring to the board recommendations based on competent analysis with regard to resource allocation. and 463 02:12:30.639 --> 02:12:45.760 answer all your questions about that to the to the end of improving our student performance across the system whether it's secondary or elementary or school to school and I think we can do that 464 02:12:45.760 --> 02:13:03.199 >> um because we have been listening and implementing and we're continuing to do that. One of the biggest challenges we have right now is um doing that data investigation um at a deep level in order to uh 465 02:13:03.199 --> 02:13:21.040 articulate what it is exactly our pain points or our issues that are systemic issues that we can resolve um to get to where I think everybody wants to go. Um, and again, I'm just going to ask you for your trust that we 466 02:13:21.040 --> 02:13:38.719 are committed to doing this work deeply and I think you'll see results um based on how we bring that back to you and the information that we've already are providing you. So, I I just ask for 467 02:13:38.719 --> 02:13:55.040 that. Chair Kim. >> So, I have a question about um the special education data. Um when we're comparing special education students um and as it says on here, this is any student identified in special education. I think the the bigger concern I have 468 02:13:55.040 --> 02:14:11.679 with the accuracy of the data is if the students actually had access to the core curriculum and the core instruction, whether it was pull out um and they were provided an intervention or um were in that core content. because if they didn't have access to the core content then it wouldn't make sense or it would 469 02:14:11.679 --> 02:14:28.320 make sense that their scores would be lower. So, um can you provide some um some information around that? Like are all of these special ed students do they all have access to core? >> Yeah, I I would say yes. 470 02:14:28.320 --> 02:14:46.400 We didn't disagregate the data by that. Um for students who are only re who may be receiving reading services or math services um the data in here is a student who receives any special education services. So, um, know that I 471 02:14:46.400 --> 02:15:02.880 mean we are looking at that and digging down deeper into that because I think that that does skew the numbers on what it is and um gets to >> just for clarification for for the other board members is when a student is identified for special education, there 472 02:15:02.880 --> 02:15:18.560 are several decisions that a team has to make on how instruction is provided. Sometimes they're pulled out of their class for just a little bit of time and they're getting an intervention on skills that they are missing like skill gaps. Sometimes they're fully pulled out because the skill gap is so wide that 473 02:15:18.560 --> 02:15:35.360 them being in that general education curriculum would be too too much for them. We have to go back and and retach things before we can work them back in. So my question is when I'm looking at the special education data and we're comparing it to students that are always in core curriculum gened and you look at 474 02:15:35.360 --> 02:15:50.880 the special ed data that's going to look different if they're not exposed to the core curriculum because now we're testing them on something that they've never been exposed to. So again, I just think that when you're looking at some of those disegregated numbers, you need to be cautious in how you interpret those. 475 02:15:50.880 --> 02:16:06.800 I think it's also with with with the special education numbers, I think it's helpful to like look at subsections of student populations. So, I appreciate that. I'm interested in this in in refining it more. You know, we have students in the gifted programs who receive services, right? So, I want to 476 02:16:06.800 --> 02:16:23.040 be careful too like just because you're receiving special ed services doesn't mean we the district doesn't understand that you're highly capable or you know what. Uh so, I think that's important and I know you know that but >> or EL services. Yes, >> that there's a range in any group 477 02:16:23.040 --> 02:16:39.519 people. Yeah, >> Matt. Yeah. >> Um, no, I do want to say I mean I am encouraged by this and I like seeing the data. We do have I mean we can go school level and infinite campus like all the board members have access to that and so I mean you can see the variation in 478 02:16:39.519 --> 02:16:54.719 different schools and I just think it's interesting. I love hearing what you guys are doing uh and how you're using the data to push this thing forward. Um I think it's encouraging as a board member. Um so then we can track it too, right? Um I do have another question 479 02:16:54.719 --> 02:17:09.679 related to the fast bridge stuff but uh just on a tracking purposes are we able to correlate you know not meeting benchmark scores in fastbridge with students who are then also failing classes and I know that might apply more to like the middle school level because 480 02:17:09.679 --> 02:17:25.040 I don't know that we track failing in elementary school but are we are we seeing a correlation between the fastbridge scores and students that are failing? Yeah, we are seeing a correlation um between those fast bridge scores and um and as what you'll see later on when as we go through the data 481 02:17:25.040 --> 02:17:41.880 with those students who are failing. >> Okay. I mean is it high percentage? >> Um there is a direct correlation. I don't know. I don't have the data in front of me to say what percentage it is but it is a high correlation. 482 02:17:42.880 --> 02:17:59.200 >> Can I keep going? >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Yeah. >> Sure. U we did u provide some additional information around action steps that we're taking um how we're trying to build stronger systems of support for both math and literacy. I can't speak uh 483 02:17:59.200 --> 02:18:15.840 more highly about the systems that um Sandy and her team, our teaching and learning coordinators are putting into place to help support our teachers. You've seen the four phases of our standardsbased review process. Making sure that our teachers know exactly what 484 02:18:15.840 --> 02:18:32.719 those standards are and what students need to know and be able to do and then prov uh finding resources that align with those standards has been really important to get us through this. And so they are doing just outstanding work there. So let's move on to our grade 485 02:18:32.719 --> 02:18:50.719 point average for our students. And um just so you know, for high school, this was at the end of the semester. So this would have been in um January. And for our middle school, our GPA are uh rolling. So our grades are rolling. 486 02:18:50.719 --> 02:19:08.960 There's not like an end point. And so um this is not updated as of today. It's from when we printed this document in the first place. Um but our grade point averages are stable. Our goal was around uh 3.3 for all grade levels and so we're 487 02:19:08.960 --> 02:19:24.000 remaining pretty stable with those um GPA. Uh Sandy, do you want to talk about action steps? >> So some action steps um around the grade point average. Um we have our counselors and our deans and our APS, they're 488 02:19:24.000 --> 02:19:40.240 monitoring um and providing academic counseling to ensure that our students are on track for graduation. Um, in addition, students who may not be on track for um, graduation are identified for credit recovery through our 489 02:19:40.240 --> 02:19:58.800 Lakeville Pathways Academy. Um, and as you know, um, Lakeville Area Schools policy 620, credit for learning, has been revised. Um, meaning that weighted grades will be removed um, for the class of 2030 and any subsequent classes. 490 02:19:58.800 --> 02:20:15.120 How do you think that will affect these high school GPA? I mean, I would think >> we'd see a significant decrease. >> So, I I had actually asked Emily that and it wasn't as big as I thought. >> Oh, okay. >> Yeah. The change. >> We'll see. I mean, it will make a difference because obviously if you're 491 02:20:15.120 --> 02:20:30.240 kept being calculated calculating an average with a right >> fivepoint scale and a four-point scale combined, you're going to see an increase. But it wasn't it wasn't as significant as we had anticipated it to be. I would expect that we would see a shift and then it really does, you know, 492 02:20:30.240 --> 02:20:46.800 take a couple of years to establish a well three years to establish a data trend. Um, so we might see some fluctuation in in the meantime. >> I bet there there'll be probably some kids that don't take AP and take regular and then get A's and then help our GPA. 493 02:20:46.800 --> 02:21:03.040 >> Right. That's true. >> Yeah. >> So, >> or uh concurrent enrollment >> or concurrent enrollment. We just talked about that again today. Yep. >> For sure. >> All right. Uh, moving on to failing one or more courses. Again, this was at the 494 02:21:03.040 --> 02:21:18.319 end of semester 1 or January that the end of January for our high school students and uh this is a rolling um failure rate for our middle schools. And compared to um the students that had in 495 02:21:18.319 --> 02:21:34.080 progress failure rates in the fall to our winter at the final semester, we had um some uh improvements there. We saw the number of students uh the percent of students actually decreased in the number of failures which told us that 496 02:21:34.080 --> 02:21:49.680 our system is really working to ensure that those students are passing their classes and um they're they're learning along with that. Um at the middle school we saw an increase in grades um eight 497 02:21:49.680 --> 02:22:06.399 and seven and a decrease in grade six. And if you'll um uh recall that we talked about in the fall that our students in seventh and eighth grade had the um 50% um uh uh 498 02:22:06.399 --> 02:22:21.040 no fail. >> Yeah. Yeah. No least least harmful app. Thank you. Um and so they are um getting used to a new way of um looking at grading practices. And so um we expected to see a few more failures, but our 499 02:22:21.040 --> 02:22:38.399 teachers and our um staff are working hard to make sure that those students are um turning work in and passing those uh those classes. >> Do you want to talk about do >> we ever hold students back saying you're not ready to move on to the next grade? 500 02:22:38.399 --> 02:22:54.399 Do you want to talk about that? >> So, we do have some retention procedures in our district. Um, and best practice and research really states to do that early on. Um, it does have some significant impacts if you do it later. 501 02:22:54.399 --> 02:23:09.200 That doesn't mean that you wouldn't consider it, but your best success rate is if you do it in K1. Um, and the success rate isn't higher. Usually when it happens in um higher grades, you have a higher dropout rate. 502 02:23:09.200 --> 02:23:24.640 >> So when you say K1, like kindergarten, first grade, and that's it. And so once students are in fifth grade, sixth grade, seventh grade, we're not holding kids back. We're going to push them through no matter what. Is that home? Not no matter what, but we're going to push them through. We're going to get 503 02:23:24.640 --> 02:23:39.600 them. I mean, I I guess I feel like the there's a compounding effect where if you get a C in fifth grade, and then you're not prepared for sixth grade, then you get a C minus in sixth grade, you know, D+ in seventh, unless some sort of remediation effort is coming is I mean, if they're not proficient to 504 02:23:39.600 --> 02:23:55.920 move forward, we is there maybe that's a separate conversation for us, but >> I think what you would want to be putting in place is re-engagement and intervention strategies and work through some strategies and supports that will 505 02:23:55.920 --> 02:24:12.000 accelerate um to close that achievement gap um because the research really isn't supporting that retention particularly at the older grades and as we know those are some things that we're looking further into particularly at the secondary level um where we have some 506 02:24:12.000 --> 02:24:27.680 some gaps and some holes I mean if this is what if I'm reading the math the the percentage it's 24 point 24% of seventh graders are failing one or more class is that how I'm reading at that moment in time. >> At this moment in time, right? So, the 507 02:24:27.680 --> 02:24:44.240 semester is not over. They could get a C or what they could pass or for but at the moment >> 25% of our students are have that seems like a lot. >> I mean, if we've got >> it's because they didn't put the um the assignments in the grade book yet, Brian. 508 02:24:44.240 --> 02:25:00.240 >> Yes. >> That's what it is. Yeah. >> Am I remembering too that is it bar is only nth grade? >> Mhm. >> That's correct. So I think that is an interesting number here. 10% to you know just under seven. 509 02:25:00.240 --> 02:25:16.319 >> Now the other ones aren't that far behind but >> I'm curious to like have you look at is bar effective at helping students with you know succeed academically and do we need to think about bar and all? >> Yeah. Do we need more bars? I mean not 510 02:25:16.319 --> 02:25:32.640 bars but bars. I mean bars. >> Another conversation we just had today. We just met with our two high school principles and our pathways principal to talk a little bit more about bar and how um our system is supporting that work moving forward because we do think it is 511 02:25:32.640 --> 02:25:49.520 so important for our students and we've seen some we've seen uh a reflection of that in some of our numbers. >> I mean the least harmful f right those grade n those grade nine students had that last year and they were able to >> mature or adjust and they're at 6.8% 8% 512 02:25:49.520 --> 02:26:05.760 but again grade 8 seven again I get it I get it's middle school but >> well yeah I think looking at the transition from eighth to 9th that is that's significant in that that's a hard transition for kids right and somehow we're able we have the the lowest issue 513 02:26:05.760 --> 02:26:21.040 with nth grade and that I think that's a really interesting data point >> they get an hour more of sleep >> that's true good point um a large piece of uh bar is looking at data and constantly reflecting on how the students are doing and then helping the 514 02:26:21.040 --> 02:26:35.760 teachers to support those students that um need additional supports. >> So, >> yeah. And I know that I know that we're it's in April and we've got budget budgetary conversations that will need to be had maybe at the next board meeting or coming up because we've got to approve the budget for the next 515 02:26:35.760 --> 02:26:52.160 school year by end of June. And so, um I would assume or I'm hoping this is an opportunity where you've now got data to validate we need more resources in these areas. and what does that look like? But but again, we'll we'll wait for your proposal and say, "Hey, here's where we 516 02:26:52.160 --> 02:27:09.439 want to allocate resources for the upcoming school year and where they ought to go." So, >> on the snapshot of the middle school um failure rates or failing one class, do we know like for this same time period this year where we were at last year? 517 02:27:09.439 --> 02:27:25.680 >> Uh we we do. I just don't have that in front of me. >> I mean, is it drastically higher this year than it was last year or the year prior to that? I wouldn't say drastic, but it is higher. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> But we do have some trend data. >> Yeah. >> And we, >> you know, this is failing one or more 518 02:27:25.680 --> 02:27:40.800 classes. It's like, you know, um in middle school, you know, a lot of this could be just one class. Were there some classes that stood out um predominantly as as being the ones that kids are failing more often >> as opposed to the others? Um it it 519 02:27:40.800 --> 02:27:58.160 varied um between the buildings um which was some of the um data we were looking at. Um it we really looked at uh math and um literacy data were the two that um we actually pulled for our principles to take a look at and between all of the 520 02:27:58.160 --> 02:28:15.680 buildings there were variation. And some of the systems level pieces that that um was showing us is that we have variation between how teachers grade in their classrooms and what their grading practices might be. And so as we are 521 02:28:15.680 --> 02:28:31.280 moving into standardsbased review and we're talking about um do teachers know what they're supposed to teach, right? The standards um do they know what students need to know and be able to do as we're developing common assessments along with that. Now, we have to analyze 522 02:28:31.280 --> 02:28:47.040 common assessments. Are we are we analyzing those in the same way from teacher to teacher, from school to school? And so, we realize we don't necessarily have common grading practices across the board. And so, that factors into some of this data as well 523 02:28:47.040 --> 02:29:03.840 as we're looking at it. I think another piece to add to that is not only to understand what students need to know and do as it relates to the grade level benchmarks, but at what level of rigor. And so is classroom A compared to classroom B teaching it at that same 524 02:29:03.840 --> 02:29:20.000 level of rigor. And that's a really um a huge component of the work that we do in standardsbased review when we're unpacking those standards to really understand what we call the depth of knowledge or the DO because we really want to make sure that if um say for 525 02:29:20.000 --> 02:29:35.760 example the MCA is assessing here at this level of rigor are we teaching at that level of rigor or is there um a disconnect? So that's part of the work in the standardsbased review. So in addition to the grading practices, it's really about delivery of those 526 02:29:35.760 --> 02:29:52.319 benchmarks and at the level of complexity and the level of rigor. And then for those students who might need scaffolding or accessibility in order to reach that level of rigor, whether they're identified for special education or EEL or just a general education um 527 02:29:52.319 --> 02:30:07.359 student, how are we re-engaging the student so that they're be able to access that complex benchmark? >> That that seems like a lot of variability. I mean, that just I mean, >> I don't want to call it scale scale to one to 10. That just seems it seems 528 02:30:07.359 --> 02:30:23.439 high. I mean, if if if we're trying because there's there's no consistency is what I'm hearing. I mean, it depends on which teacher you go to. One teacher might be a tougher grader or maybe more rigorous, more relaxed. Uh, one's meeting standards, one's not meeting, one is not meeting standards, and then 529 02:30:23.439 --> 02:30:39.359 for for the students, where is the consistency for for them as they go to the various classrooms for what needs to be taught? So is this >> and that's really the work of the standardsbased review to ensure that we have a guaranteed and viable curriculum and that it's cohesive across all of our 530 02:30:39.359 --> 02:30:54.720 buildings and that we do have that consistency um and that our principles are supported so they know what they need to be looking for when they go into the classroom and how do they support their teachers. If >> you had to give yourself, if you had to give these schools a grade, not the 531 02:30:54.720 --> 02:31:10.479 schools, the curriculum and the standard base, I mean, are we at 60%, are we at 90%, we're almost there, or or is a variation really bad and we're at 30% and there's a lot we need to do to get recalibrated and get all the staff, not 532 02:31:10.479 --> 02:31:25.680 the staff, but the the curriculum and the standardsbased review and sync. I think um if we're going to speak particularly to secondary, they're just entering phase three where you're really looking at that standardization where you're identifying what that core 533 02:31:25.680 --> 02:31:43.120 resources and you're creating that scope and sequence to ensure that consistency. So in all fairness, we do have some inconsistency in our system because we haven't reached that space yet at the secondary level in our standardsbased review. >> Um and potentially it's too early to 534 02:31:43.120 --> 02:32:00.000 tell. It's just one um snapshot in a larger photo album for the elementary level. But what we did notice is with implementing bridges, we didn't have an implementation dip. And that's usually an anomaly. Usually when you're doing something new, you have an implementation dip. Um but I think 535 02:32:00.000 --> 02:32:16.240 that's a testament to our teachers and their efforts and their hard work and then having a target of which they're reaching which was really delivered by our coordinators to have that consistency. So, um I think we have some space to work in in that standardsbased 536 02:32:16.240 --> 02:32:33.760 review. Um because we do have some unevenness right now. >> It's a wild class. >> Can I ask a question about just the budget cuts that I was quite sensitive to a number of years ago around English and the middle schools? Are we noticing any trends there in terms of any impact 537 02:32:33.760 --> 02:32:51.040 on student literacy at that level? from the data that I've been looking at um and fairly I guess can we still say we're new Tracy? >> No I don't think so. >> Um but at the secondary level I don't think we've seen in that trend data um 538 02:32:51.040 --> 02:33:08.160 any changes very dramatic changes as it relates to our literacy at this point in time. So you feel like the time that they have is sufficient for what in terms of meeting those standards. >> And one of our coordinators at the secondary level um one of her pieces is to work really closely with the ELA 539 02:33:08.160 --> 02:33:24.560 teachers and the literacy teachers in grades six and seven to ensure that we have some continuity and some cohesiveness. Um and it's a fantastic group. They're excited about the work and they're also excited about implementing the new standards, learning about read act at the secondary level 540 02:33:24.560 --> 02:33:40.560 because that will go on board next year for our ELA teachers and they have a heavy lift our secondary ELA teachers. Not only will they have the read act next year, they're implementing new benchmarks and as you know they're going to be implementing a new resource. It is 541 02:33:40.560 --> 02:33:57.560 a heavy lift, but it is a great synergy because they'll be able to directly apply their PD with the new resources and the new um benchmarks. So, it's it's kind of like a um an interesting dynamic. Um 542 02:33:58.160 --> 02:34:13.520 need more people. >> Do you want to move to graduation rates? >> Yeah, great. >> Sorry, did you have a question? >> Nope. I was just just thinking in my head, you guys, you you need some more people. We're a mighty We're a mighty duo. 543 02:34:13.520 --> 02:34:30.640 >> Talk it out loud. >> There a three million dollar number thrown around a couple. >> I thought it was 18 million. >> Taking a look at our graduation rates. Um these graduation rates have just 544 02:34:30.640 --> 02:34:45.600 recently been um called to our attention and sent out from the state level. And so we didn't have these in the earlier um book for you and so we were happy to be able to um add this. Um we are proud of our 4-year graduation rate which 545 02:34:45.600 --> 02:35:03.120 shows from 2025 which is 9 93.1% and this is an increase of 1.5% for us as a district and it is 8.2% above the state of Minnesota. So, we're very proud 546 02:35:03.120 --> 02:35:20.720 of um of that increased number. Um we also look at our five, six, and sevenyear graduation rates. And what I'd like to explain to you is that the 5-year graduation rate is what they do is they'll take the graduation rate from 2024. 547 02:35:20.720 --> 02:35:38.399 In this case, we had a 91.6 graduation rate. They'll recalculate it with the students who have graduated since 2024. and we moved up to 94.6 graduation rate for 2025 for a five-year 548 02:35:38.399 --> 02:35:54.640 rate. And our seven-year rate would have been students, the cohort of students who graduated in 2022. That was 92.7% and we've moved that to a 94.8%. So, we're seeing gains in all of those 549 02:35:54.640 --> 02:36:13.840 graduation rates across the board. Any questions around graduation rates? >> I Well, I appreciate the graduation rate. I'm glad that we've um we've got students with the diploma, they move on with their next chapter in life. Uh I think for me, I'd love to see where is 550 02:36:13.840 --> 02:36:29.920 their proficiency along with that gradu graduation rate. Just are we are we graduating more kids and they're getting and they're and they're smarter or are we graduating more kids the baseline is the same or are we graduating more kids because they just passed all the classes 551 02:36:29.920 --> 02:36:45.200 and they're not at the at previous they're it's an unfavorable trend if that makes sense. I don't see that as a as a metric but again I I didn't ask for that but that would be interesting to see okay we've got kids graduating but at what level are they graduating at? 552 02:36:45.200 --> 02:37:02.319 Make sense? Yeah. And I I think in response to to your statement, um, we understand that and that encompasses the rigor that's in the classroom that are we meeting the standards, but then I 553 02:37:02.319 --> 02:37:18.319 also want to caution that these tests, FastBridge and MCA are one day in time. Yes, >> it's a snapshot. It doesn't show the full students academic history. So >> I thought we were going to capt capture MCA, not MCA but ACT scores. Was that >> we had >> we have that? 554 02:37:18.319 --> 02:37:35.040 >> Yeah. And I think maybe also pairing grade point average with graduation rates, right? I mean you could look at the bands of GPA, >> how many are SUMA and Magna and >> I can add one more piece to that too. Um to your question, Director Thompson. One 555 02:37:35.040 --> 02:37:50.640 of the things that we have tracked over time to the best of our ability to the availability of the data because it's not our own is students that go to a two or fouryear college or technical college and are required to take the English and 556 02:37:50.640 --> 02:38:07.920 math assessment. And so what we've done is um we track over we had tracked over time the percentage of students that were required to take a remedi remedial course before they could access their regular coursework in college. We saw a 557 02:38:07.920 --> 02:38:24.720 decrease um in those numbers over time. I obviously don't like have them readily available in front of me. Um but that's another thing. The problem with that data is that there's so much of a lag on it that it doesn't really give us real time information to engage with in terms 558 02:38:24.720 --> 02:38:40.319 of making any type of adjustment in our system to to meet that requirement. But it's just an interesting piece to look at. Um when we first when the data first became available, this was I don't know quite a number of years ago. um we saw 559 02:38:40.319 --> 02:38:56.240 some high numbers um in uh students that were required to take those courses um and then worked with the principles and the staff there to and saw those numbers actually coming down. So um it's just one more you know it's just one more 560 02:38:56.240 --> 02:39:13.280 piece of information. It doesn't have a super high level of value because we can't react to it sort of like the MCA their post-mortem. Um, but it is something interesting to look at like how many of our kids, where are they going? Um, how are they doing when they get there? Are they coming out of our 561 02:39:13.280 --> 02:39:29.920 system prepared uh for whatever their next step is? And then of course that is only tracking students that choose a a college route. I saw on social media and and I'm not saying it's it's true or not true because it's social media, but I think I think I read something where a high school student sued the high school 562 02:39:29.920 --> 02:39:46.800 because she um didn't do very well at the collegiic level >> proficiency >> and because she wasn't proficient because the high school gave her a certain GPA. I didn't read all the details. It was just >> just to be clear the details is the individual was not from Lakeville area school. 563 02:39:46.800 --> 02:40:04.560 >> Good detail. Good detail. Well, that's that's But it's one of those where Yeah. But it's one of those where we we, you know, we've got good graduation rates, but how do we also then validate that we're graduating, you know, capable, qualified, ready to go on to tackle the 564 02:40:04.560 --> 02:40:19.840 world is, uh, you know, what we want. Um, and you know, there are indicators. I think Lakeville area schools um doesn't fall into the category of graduating um people unprepared. Now you might find 565 02:40:19.840 --> 02:40:37.920 instances um but I get your point and we all understand that and I think it starts before in in prek, right? That's where it starts for us and um I think we're we're on the right track here doing the right things and it's fair for 566 02:40:37.920 --> 02:40:53.920 you to ask that. Um, and maybe we can have an internal conversation about what's a way to metric that better to help you have confidence that our students are graduating and they are ready to go tackle. >> Yeah. 567 02:40:53.920 --> 02:41:08.640 >> I guess like I would look at it I think we're really focusing in on one metric which is the academic success and I think it's more of a profile of a student than academic success because that's going to look different for any student that graduates. Like it's not 568 02:41:08.640 --> 02:41:24.000 just about did you get a 3.5 or a 4.0. I mean, I graduated with students that got a 4.0 and they failed out in college because they didn't have social skills and work study skills and all of those other soft skills that um sometimes they're overlooked and and I look at the 569 02:41:24.000 --> 02:41:41.439 importance of those. Um just entering the workforce and knowing how to interact with people is is a big deal, too. Like those are things that have to be taught as well. Um, so it's more of a profile of a of a graduate than just like a GPA. And and when I think about that, I also think about our students in 570 02:41:41.439 --> 02:41:57.840 special education. I mean, that looks different for them, too. And just because they may not have the highest GPA or maybe they do, I mean, sometimes we're twice exceptional as well. Um, they're they can have success just like any other student and it can look different. Um, so then I think about like the students that went on and did 571 02:41:57.840 --> 02:42:14.399 something. Did they after they graduated, did they get a job? like what are what are those like soft types of survey skills that you can send out to kids after they graduate? Did you go on to a a techn technical school or did you graduate from a college because I think that is a little bit more information on 572 02:42:14.399 --> 02:42:30.960 are they successful with what they have planned after they graduate not just like did you do something and go on to a four-year school and get a degree like I I just think about those pieces as well. And when I think about allocating resources, like like Paul had said, I also think about, yeah, it's great that 573 02:42:30.960 --> 02:42:47.840 we have interventions, but then, you know, our counselors are also providing some of those soft skills when they're doing social skills and our 360 workers are also supplying, you know, resources for families so that they can kids can go home and they have full bellies, you know, when they come to school the next day. And all of those things factor into 574 02:42:47.840 --> 02:43:03.680 what makes our school successful. I think the other piece too that we have on our community facing website is we have some data from sleds which is the statewide longitudinal educational data system. Um it is a little bit lagging um 575 02:43:03.680 --> 02:43:19.120 in its data. >> Isn't it three years or is it three or four years? >> Um and the latest one that we have on our community facing website that kind of speaks to um what Dr. McDonald was speaking to is that 7% of those who entered college needed um some 576 02:43:19.120 --> 02:43:36.080 developmental education. So that kind of leads to um what Emily was sharing, but we do track that data on sleds and it is part of um the report that we send out um to the department um of education um 577 02:43:36.080 --> 02:43:53.040 as it relates to the comprehensive achievement and civic readiness plan. And so that's one part that's on there and it is public facing for um all of our community to see some of that sleds data and where they are. How many of our students go into post-secary education? How many go directly um into the 578 02:43:53.040 --> 02:44:09.359 workforce? I think based on this data we tracked 16% of our grads enter the workforce um immediately after graduation. So all of that is available for our community um on our website. I would just also add that um one of the things that Grace Olsen and I have been 579 02:44:09.359 --> 02:44:25.920 working on is um on our alumni relations and if we really to what uh Kim was saying if we want to look at a more comprehensive uh picture of our students that are leaving our system, we need the qualitative as well as the quantitative 580 02:44:25.920 --> 02:44:44.000 data points. Um, so last year she and her team really built up um access on our website to be able to to capture uh contact information for our graduates. And then our next step around that is to build out a a survey um to help us 581 02:44:44.000 --> 02:44:59.200 understand after they leave our system what was their experience in our system because I think all of these little pieces together give us the best chance of understanding how our system is performing and where we might need to be plugging in a little bit differently. 582 02:44:59.200 --> 02:45:14.800 Now the timeline for the alumni survey got a little way late because we've had a couple levies in between. Her team's been a little busy. Um but we're going to circle back on that as well. Great for sure. >> Going to bring us home with the attendance. >> Um really quickly, I do want to 583 02:45:14.800 --> 02:45:31.840 acknowledge on the graduation rate some of the uh as we're looking at this data. I want to make sure that we talk about the work that our guidance counselors have been doing at the high school. That was a um outstanding addition to our high schools to provide academic support 584 02:45:31.840 --> 02:45:47.760 to our students um when they need it. Um, additionally, uh, Margaret Gar and Janet McBride at Lakeville Pathways are doing an outstanding job supporting our students with credit recovery so that um, students can go to them and they can 585 02:45:47.760 --> 02:46:04.240 take portions of classes that they failed rather than taking courses all over again. And so they have been able to um, support our students in recovering credits more quickly than they would if they had to take a full year or a semester course all over again. So, that's been some great work 586 02:46:04.240 --> 02:46:20.800 that's happening there to support our kids. >> Right. And I was going to mention at our next meeting there'll be a high school update um and that will include counseling update. So, >> it's two. Yeah, we'll have the general overarching high school update from the principles and then we will have a 587 02:46:20.800 --> 02:46:38.800 separate uh presentation on uh the counseling. >> Pathways be there as well. >> Pathways will be there as well. Yes. >> Okay. um attendance data. And I'm going to have Michelle help with this one. I will explain the um uh what the attendance data means. Um the Minnesota 588 02:46:38.800 --> 02:46:54.560 Department of Education has us report 90% attendance data. And so it's when uh students are um present 90% of the time. Um as you can imagine, at the beginning of the school year, they have 100% 589 02:46:54.560 --> 02:47:11.920 attendance on the first day, right? And as we go throughout the school year that uh it we're they're going to miss more days of school um throughout the year. And so that um attendance data will actually trend downwards. So um what we're seeing 590 02:47:11.920 --> 02:47:26.880 though is that our baseline at elementary was 94.47% and at winter we're at 94.67% at the elementary. Uh at the middle we are at 94.48%. 48% and at the high 591 02:47:26.880 --> 02:47:43.279 school we're at 92.1 which in the spring our baseline was 89.76. >> So do you want to speak to those? >> Yeah. So, I mean, I think um I know we've been talking a lot about our counselors these last couple of minutes 592 02:47:43.279 --> 02:47:57.920 and just wanted to put a plug in for them as well when it comes to attendance because they are integral in helping to identify barriers um for kids with attendance and putting in different 593 02:47:57.920 --> 02:48:14.319 levels of support. So um really with the attendance we are in kind of the planning phase this year of being able to track the data. Uh we have established a district-wide attendance committee um which has met a couple of 594 02:48:14.319 --> 02:48:28.960 times already this year and uh really the purpose of that committee is to be developing clear and consistent attendance um practices across the district. Um and then also being able to 595 02:48:28.960 --> 02:48:46.240 as we move on um learn more about what are the additional supports that students may need um to help increase the attendance. But overall I'd say our attendance is pretty strong. >> Does this include both unexcused and 596 02:48:46.240 --> 02:49:02.000 excused? >> Okay, great. So it's not just unex. >> Yes. >> Okay. Yes. And we know our students have to be in school to learn. And so we're very appreciative of the work that Michelle and her team are doing to make 597 02:49:02.000 --> 02:49:18.560 sure to encourage attendance. And that uh district attendance team that she has coming together is really instrumental in supporting that work. >> Any questions? >> I you know it' be just for another day, but it'd be curious like are are we do we have a lot of people taking vacation? 598 02:49:18.560 --> 02:49:33.760 that we take or traveling or are they um actually sick or I'm just curious. I mean it the 95% attendance record is is great. I'm not saying that we that that shouldn't be any higher but it it is it just interesting like hm I wonder why 599 02:49:33.760 --> 02:49:50.600 are they taking time off you know so that's going on in my head. >> All right. Anything else for today? >> All right. With that I think we're adjourned. Thanks everybody. >> Thank you. to vote on. 600 02:49:55.520 --> 02:50:08.279 >> Wait, I want to see what Brian. >> We got 15 more minutes. We got to hit the >> I get addicted to that when I'm just sitting in front of like TV at night. I'm just sitting there playing