Good afternoon. My name is Lauren Shernoff and I am calling this curriculum and instruction meeting on May 7th, 2025 to order. Um, I am the chair of this committee and I am joined tonight by my esteemed colleague, Dr. Deans. Uh, Dr. Rashid will not be joining us tonight, so it's just the two of us. Um, we will begin our meeting with public comment. So tonight we have one speaker, so you will have three minutes. And our first speaker tonight and only is Ms. Andrea Wesoff. Go ahead when you're ready. Three minutes. I have time to teach you all about adverbs.
Let's do it. Um, don't tempt me. Um, I do have a good ad verb joke, but, um, so I was reading over the policy about generative ai, which was a little difficult because there are so many attachments, but not on you. It's good you had that many comments on it, but it's obvious that no one in here has ever been gaslit by a student, um, pretending that they didn't use ai. Um, very obvious, none of you have been gaslit by a student,
uh, saying they didn't use ai. I am concerned that it says teachers are supposed to have transparency, but students are not. I would also like to see that students should only be using it under teacher direction. Um, I, I, I'm not a ludite, but I also don't use a lot of generative ai. I am afraid of becoming more stupid. Um, but students need specific guidance when to use it. The policy, I believe, just says they could use it for
learning and creativity, but they need to be told to do it only under teacher guidance. Thank you. Black Lives Matter. Thank you. Alright, that concludes public comment for today. So we will go ahead and move on to our agenda items. Item 3.1 is approval of the draft minutes for April 2nd meeting 2025. Are there any changes or needed adjustments for the minutes? Okay, I will make a motion to approve the draft minutes for April 2nd. Do I have a second?
I second. It has been properly moved and seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? None. And so the minutes are approved. That takes us to our action items tonight. Um, 4.01 is policy 54 40, the literacy plan. This was brought to us last time as an information item and then went out for feedback from our various groups. And so I will turn it over to Mr. Neil Slevin to intro it and then we can have some discussion. Thank you Ms. Shernoff. I am going to have no introduction and turn it over to Mr.
Ley. Thank you. Uh, and it's all good. Joined as well by, um, Ms. Neal here tonight to talk about the feedback that we see from the policy and some, um, small adjustments that we made and also wanted to address, I think the focus of a lot of the feedback and how we might incorporate that, um, in other ways. So we made one small change to the policy based on, uh, feedback that came from an LCPS employee and the public feedback. They commented that, uh, the, the wording that we used in lines 25 through 27 was not clear. Um, and so we did make an adjustment there to, uh,
say providing additional support for students who demonstrate substantial deficiencies on student assessment screeners and diagnostic tools, which may include reading intervention services. That's a, a slight tweak of what was there before, but hopefully clarifies that. Um, we're using our tools to identify those students who need additional supports in literacy as part of a plan. Uh, I also wanted to, based on the other feedback that we received, um, the purpose of this policy is really to outline exactly what goes into our division literacy plan
and to lay out the components of it. A lot of the feedback that we received was really valuable and I think can drive some good discussions as we talk about what goes in our plan, what's part of our curriculum. So we did not make any changes to this because this policy really does lay out, um, the components of the literacy plan as outlined in the Virginia Literacy Act and the feedback that we received. Much of it generates some good, um, information for us to use as we go about revising the plan and including those discussions as part of our curriculum, um, discussions and, and things of that nature. And that plan will come, um, I think to CNI in June
with our revised plan to take into account K through eight, um, as we expand the Virginia Literacy Act next year. So, happy to take any questions or any, um, additional concerns or comments from the feedback that we've received as well. Dr. Deans, did you have any comments? No. Okay. Um, I was going to say something very similar, so thank you Mr. Rounds. I know CEC is a little bit behind in their policy review. They're reviewing it tonight, so they will let us know. And then when it gets to the full board, they feel very comfortable with it going to the full board even though they're reviewing it tonight.
Um, and like you said, I was able to talk to MS. Karate last night and it sounds like a lot of it is related to MTSS structures, different interventions, accessibility, um, different sensory opportunities for all learners. So I think all those things are more plan oriented. Uh, she did ask me if there was gonna be a regulation and I sort of said, I think the regulation in this case is the plan. Uh, and that seemed to check that box. So I think we're good to go. Uh, as well as M sac, I found their comments to be so thoughtful and, you know, I echo so much of that in terms of the love of reading and kids seeing themselves in books
and having diverse texts and, um, I was really encouraged by what they said, but it was like, this is a plan thing. So I I understand that rationale and support that as well. Um, and then I, um, am going to make a motion here in a minute to add the word, um, on, to add a word on line five that just includes research and evidence-based. Um, I think, I don't think that that would give staff any heartburn, and I apologize for doing it in the 11th hour. Um, but I think I would hope that most based
things are research based as well. But sometimes those things, as we've learned in the past, don't necessarily go hand in hand as the pendulum does swing. So I will, um, make that motion in a minute. But other than that, uh, I also feel confident that this is a good high level outline and that it's ready to move forward. So, So staff has no concern for evolution. Wonderful. So with that, I will make a motion that this committee move the literacy plan policy 5 4 4 0 to the full board.
Do I have a second? A second. Excellent. And then I will make an amendment and I would like to move that on line five, we add the words research and before the word evidence. And so it would read the vision for the liter. The vision for literacy in Loudoun County Public Schools is to provide every student with high quality research, BA research and evidence-based literacy instruction necessary to become lifelong readers, et cetera. Okay. Is that captured? Do I have a second? Second.
Alright, so that is properly moved and seconded. So we are voting on the amendment. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? None. So we will go ahead and move to the base motion now, which is to move this literacy plan policy to the full board. Um, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? None. And that is done. Alright, with that, we will move to item number four point. Are we on four? Yes. 4.02 policy, 54 30 use of gen, generative artificial intelligence.
Um, is there anything that staff would like to go over before we make a motion? Thank you. So, um, like the literacy plan we're, um, we received thoughtful feedback from our community and we appreciate that input. And based on that feedback, staff has made some edits to the policy that I'm, I'm happy to walk the committee through. Um, first, there, there are many themes and questions about the, um, appropriate use of AI related to student, uh, use, similar to the comments made by our, our public speaker tonight.
And, um, like other comments within the feedback received, many of those concerns are addressed in the regulations that will accompany this policy once it's passed by the, by the, um, by the board. And those are posted in public, in, in board docs. And so for example, there is a regulation on pathways and citing of artificial intelligence where it outlines different scenarios where a teacher would, um, permit students to use generative ai, different models and different purposes within, within the classroom. And some common language within LCPS when we're talking
with students about the use of ai. Um, there's also information in there around how we would disclose the use of ai, um, in work products, um, at the direction of the teachers as well as site the work, um, professionally because that's a, a world in which our students will be entering. And there is also a regulation around privacy and data, um, protection when using artificial intelligence, um, which address many of the concerns raised in our feedback from the community. There were also some really, um, good ideas and, and comments on the policy itself. So I'll start with, um, line 35.
We changed section C from monitoring review and appropriate usage to monitoring review. Um, simply 'cause the public feedback was you're actually not talking about appropriate usage in this section. Um, you have a whole section about staff use and you don't do it in section C. Um, so we focus that on monitoring review where we talk about the annual review and compliance oversight of the tools that we use. Um, on section D 2D, we did strike out only using generative AI tools that are provided by the school division to ensure the adequate data and privacy protections.
Um, that was based on the feedback that why are we saying that to teachers and not students, like they were wondering why, um, it wasn't in both sections. And as you'll see by my next comment, um, we did add, um, a section four under section D regarding the prohibited use of generative ai. And that is where we added the using tools that aren't approved by LCBS. And that would, uh, apply across all of the three groups mentioned in the policy. Um, I'm not sure which particular group suggested adding a
prohibited use of generative ai, but just because of the importance of this topic, we thought it was good feedback and added that in so prohibited use of generative AI using generative AI tools that are not provided or authorized. Um, the second section B four B was actually feedback from CAC. Um, they gave input about using generative AI for eligibility decisions, IEP generation or placement decisions without the review of a human, um, which is something we is really important to us as we think about ai. Um, so we expanded that to grading and course design.
We don't want a teacher just to develop a lesson plan without actually reading it and making sure it meets what we're trying to accomplish in our classroom. And then finally the big one section, uh, four c sharing personally identifiable information with generative AI programs. So, um, with that I'm happy to answer any questions, um, or receive additional feedback on this, um, policy. Um, we did have a spotlight last night, so I just wanna thank John Champ High School and the teachers there for sharing a little bit about some of our high schools are using that, that tool. And I think the, the instructional technology facilitator
did a great job of, um, how the work we've been doing has been supporting him and his role. Um, so I'm hopeful this policy and the regulations, um, will support our teachers as they move into the world of generative AI in the classroom. Thank you. Mr. Slevin. Um, Dr. Deans, do you have any comments? No. Okay. Um, I have a question in relation to our public speaker tonight. I'm wondering if in section D for student teacher and staff use of generative ai, if,
I know that a lot of this is outlined in the regulation, but I'm wondering if it might, if it would, if it might be helpful to add in the section under students, um, a bullet, two bullets. Actually a d that would maybe say only using generative AI when directed by a teacher or an educator. And then maybe adding EII like the point about transparency. I think that the honesty and ethics are clearly addressed, but I do like the idea about transparency. So possibly in section E and I literally just drafted this,
so would appreciate your feedback. Maybe saying something, being transparent and honest about how and why they use generative AI to support their own learning so that it kind of mirrors the teacher piece on transparency. So it's A, B and C now that would add a d and an E. Thank you Ms. Dr. Ellis. Would it be a similar statement, transparency for students transparency about how and why they were using gender To support their own learning? I said to support their own learning. Yeah. So being transparent about how and why they are using generative AI to support their own learning. It kind of reiterates that part about the honesty part is already addressed,
I feel like, but I feel like this being transparent is just saying why you did it. Mm-hmm. And I, I do think that there is some nuance in terms of knowing when or not a kid used it and this would back teachers up in that. I, I, I don't have a concern with that. Okay. I'm, what I'm mulling over is, um, is the, is the, is the, are our future classrooms, and this is a sincere question. Yeah. Going to be lock step in any move a student makes with using an AI tool will be directed by the teacher.
Um, and so when you think about, um, the Pathways document related to like using generative AI as a coach, um, yeah. So is the, so like it says here, the teacher will help decide which tier applies to an assignment. Yeah. Is the, is the spirit of the amendment to, um, be responsive to the direction of the teacher regarding the use, the appropriate use of AI for a particular assignment as opposed to a big carve out of like what if a, what if a teacher, what if a student potentially is using it to keep themselves organized Way? Yeah, no,
I hear what you're saying. And I was thinking about the presentation last night from the teachers. They said like, well, we would tell them to do this, and then they, through their questioning they would discover that this also could support them and then they would come back. And so it wasn't always like the original assignment was directed. So, Um, Maybe, maybe we need to do some more thinking about that before it goes to the full board. But I do like the idea of adding a section D on with the transparency piece. Does that give you any heartburn? Um, so you would be concerned about
sending it to the full board Without No, no. I mean I'm, we're gonna send it tonight hopefully if we get the vote, But potentially bring another amendment Potentially if I can Yeah. Reach out to educators and you know, talk about that piece a little bit more. Right. About teacher directed. 'cause I hear your point as well, but I would feel comfortable adding in the amendment for the transparency line tonight. I think there's a way I, I don't, I'm not concerned about the transparency. Okay. One and I think there's a way to word it that really supports the intent of the regulation and just would leave people there. Yeah. Um, so I can work on something as well
and we could have some conversations about that as it moves to the full board, if you're comfortable with that. That sounds great. So with that, did you have anything you wanted to add? So with that, I will make a motion to move policy 54 30 use of generative artificial intelligence to the full board. Do I have a second? Second. All right. And then I'm going to make an amendment. So I'm going to make an amendment that after line 58 we add a section D to the student use of generative ai. And we're going, it's going to say being transparent about
how and why they use generative AI to support their own learning. Do I have a second? Oh, sorry. Second. Is there any discussion? No. All right. And Then E would be, We're gonna mu that over between now and when it gets to the full board. Okay. 'cause we're uncertain. Okay. Um, alright, so we have a motion and it has been properly seconded. So we will now vote on the amendment to add a section D. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye.
Um, there are none opposed. So that passes and now we will go to the base motion as amended and vote for the policy to be sent to the full board that has also been properly moved and seconded. So now we will vote All those in favor? Aye. Aye. None opposed. So policy 54 30 will also move to the full board. Thank you. And now we will move on to item number 5.01, which is our information item tonight. Review of policy 50 70 field trips. And I will toss it over to
Ms. Mitchell and Mr. Ferry. Good afternoon. So we're bringing this policy back. Uh, the rash, the reason for this policy's review is it's under its five year review. It's part of our strategic plan. Um, goal one, goal one, empowering students and aligned actions. 1.2. Um, a little bit of background, the last time this, uh, policy was revised was December 3rd, 2019. Um, we brought forth this information on April 2nd.
We, uh, received some feedback from the committee and added those uh, points into the policy. And we also know that there was some concerns about adding some language to the regulation. Um, the regulation hasn't been approved yet by cabinet, but I'll tell you the language that I was looking for to, to address the inclement weather, um, that you brought forth. It did go out to public comment. Uh, it did receive, um, one, um, one public, uh, feedback comment and that was centered around if there was an appeal process.
If a principal was to deny the request of a field trip made by a teacher. Uh, there is no appeal process. Uh, that's an operational decision. Uh, the approval process is outlined on page two. Um, under letter C, the approval process field trips will be approved by the school principal and the department of school leadership. Um, also, um, the only other changes that you might notice from the red line version to the clean version is we identify definitions
to align with the regulation and also align with current practices and terms that are used when we're entering trips in a trip finder. And obviously having common language between school-based administrators and, um, our support staff at transportation. I believe there's a question about discipline and that was, that's actually already cited in policy under letter E on page three, student safety, accountability and supervision. And at this time I can read the statement, um, Ms.
S Shernoff that we were looking at adding into regulation. 'cause I know we discussed not adding, uh, inclement whether statement into policy, but you would prefer to see it in in regulation. So we said the superintendent or their designee has the authority to cancel or postpone field trips due to inclement weather or other conditions that may pose a risk to the safety of students and staff based on the recommendations from the chief operation officer, transportation services, facility services, and the Office of Safety and Security.
If hazardous weather develops during a field trip, the designated field trip organizer may assess the situation and consult with school administration of relevant division personnel to determine the safest course of action. In the event that a school sponsored trip or activity is canceled, students and staff are prohibited from self transporting to participate or represent their school at the affected event. I am available for questions. Thank you. I'll have to think about that for a minute. Uh, Dr. Deans, did you have anything you wanted to add about field trips?
Who contributed to that statement that you just read? I shared it with Ms. Mitchell and so I'm on most of these calls when we're making weather decisions. So those, um, people involved, I don't meet with the superintendent, but I do meet with the Chief operations Officer, transportation facilities in the Office of Safety and Security. Um, basically a few, well, anytime we know that there's potential inclement, whether we meet probably a day before just to start developing a plan, uh,
the final decision always rests with the superintendent or designee depending on his availability or her availability. So has there been question, uh, about the self transporting et cetera that should not be a choice of the families? Right. So the reason we brought this up was in the last meeting, Ms. S Shernoff, uh, discussed where there was a competition for our fine arts and Tysons and we closed schools that day
and some sponsors took it upon themselves to go down there and parents self transported them, but they're representing our schools, right? So if there's an accident, we would be viable for them transporting themselves. And obviously even though we canceled schools, that sponsor is an employee of LCPS and we did close schools, which means we canceled all activities but they chose to go down there. So this po this language would prohibit that from ever occurring. It wasn't never identified in previous
regulations as prohibited And are spon, do sponsors have access to the policy as well as the regulation? Uh, and if that is so then yes, it should be put in while you're putting it in the regulation instead of in the policy, I guess is my question. So regulation is something, uh, it was never written in policy and honestly when, uh, Ms. Shernoff and I talked last week, or actually on April 2nd, sorry, um, she mentioned it would, she would like to see a statement drafted in
regulation regarding this. So I added that was because of the circumstances that we had in over this past winter involving an ice storm and students wanting to go compete at an event in Tyson's Corner. I definitely think it should be added. I'm not sure that some of the regulations are hidden from the, the, from all eyes because I wouldn't know to read the policy and the regulation until I got on the board. But don't you have sponsors who are community people, would they know to read the policy
as well as the regulation? That's a question. So are, um, yes these sponsors are actually LCPS staff members. So they are responsible, they sign a contract. Um, so they're responsible for knowing and operating under our policies and regulations. Okay. So yes, I would say add it and what you read, I guess you would send that for comment back. We Don't really improve that. Cabinet does. Cabinet does. Okay. We would just make you aware and the next step update once, once the regulation's approved by cabinet.
Well I say yay. Yay. Thank you. Yeah, I don't know that I would be totally opposed to adding a cancellation piece into the actual policy since there is planning and stuff in here. Um, one of the things as I combed through very lengthy regulation, which is I think why it's probably not all policy 'cause it's lengthy and it, a lot of it is dependent on different circumstances. So I think it would be excessive to be in the policy. Um, but I don't, I don't know that I,
I mean there's approval of field trips in here. I know the planning pieces in the regulation. I don't know, I'm gonna think about, can I think about that a little bit? If the cancellation piece, some piece of that would be in here. I mean, I, I don't know. It's, but they're tied together so I don't, I just need to think about it. But I do appreciate the statement. My only comment to that is, is there provision for, I mean like we talked about, is there provision for if there's a nice day in LCPS because of something in the west but the DC area is unaffected and they still wanna go, like would LCPS make that call?
Is that sort of assumed or it's like school's out too bad because for some of these, these are really big opportunities for these kids that I would hate to see them miss if it's a nice storm in ville and it's really not gonna affect those kids. I mean I know it's hard to make those game time decisions based off of policy and regulation, but could there be a clause for something like that or is that too sticky? And we have participated in events when schools are closed, so, and we typically make those decisions around noon that day.
So like, you know, you'll hear that, uh, after school activities, a decision regarding them Okay. Might be made at noon. Um, so obviously most of the times when we close schools it's, you know, based on a forecast, um, and sometimes it forecast is are correct, sometimes they're not. And when you're talking about the DC area, um, we do, we are aware, like we give a list of the priority of the these events like a state level competition. It's, and when those events aren't going to be made up or provided an opportunity, we do take that into consideration.
So, so does the organizers of those events. And I understand sometimes, um, unforeseen sort circumstances doesn't or prohibits those organizers from being able to reschedule those events. And it's unfortunate for our students. Uh, but at the same time we try to think through and make sure we're making the best decision possible. And sometimes I'm gonna give you some scenarios. We have provided alternative, um, meetings, SP spaces because we know like we weren't, our facility service team wasn't able
to get in and clear the parking lot. So we might meet at a secondary location so we can ensure getting these people to their either regional or state level competitions. But um, those are all things that we do consider when we're making these final decisions. So Do you think that that statement that you just read prohibits that ability? N no, because it's allowing us to make a recommendation Okay. In the superintendent. So while my name's not identified as one of those people in there, I am on that committee. Yeah. So I always advocate for the safest possible
Balance of opportunity. Right, right. No, I appreciate that. So thank you for your work on that. Um, I feel confident moving forward. I think it provides a little more clarity and consistency for us, which will be helpful. Um, in terms of the policy, I had a couple of, um, we went through this at the LEAF committee and sort of had a couple of things. I do still think that it would be nice to have some language either in the opening paragraph or in the section about student safety and accountability about where applicable like that,
where policy discipline policies are applicable and SR and r it still applies when you're not here. Like when you're not on school campus, but you're on a field trip. Like those things still apply. So just some extra clarity on that. Okay. I don't know if at the end of the first paragraph, something like all LCPS policy, applicable LCPS policies, you know, will be enforced as this is seen as an extension of the school setting. I don't, something like that makes it a little bit more obvious that we're still holding you to those standards even though you're not at school.
And, and that is, that is addressed in policy 83 50 'cause school sponsored activities. Okay. Um, but I can, I can try to add something verbiage here of course. Reference it at the end. It It is, it is. It is. It is. Okay. So maybe we don't even, I don't know, I just feel like it's that section on safe, it just feels fluffy to me. Okay. So just a little bit tightening up. Um, and then this had slipped my mind from the fall, but in terms of choosing a field trip location, I know, um,
we talk about accessibility, we talk about safety, but also I know that, um, and CAC just sent me their stuff like just a few minutes ago, so it's not on board docs. I'll send it to you. Um, but it talks about adding the word inclusion. So it, I think there have been times where different places have been selected for field trips that may endorse signage or different things that would make particular groups of students feel uncomfortable being in that place.
And so by adding the word inclusion, I think that that tightens that up a bit. Um, so whether that's maybe in section B on number seven, just adding, that's what I was thinking. Accessibility. Just adding the words and inclusion of the field trip for all students. I think that that sufficiently addresses that. Um, I know we did get a lot of emails back in the fall and one of the leaf members did remind me of said circumstance, um, and how that affected their child. So I think that that is something worth noting. We wanna be true to our values here in LCPS
and I think that that extends to field trip opportunities as well. That was really it for me. Just a few things. Okay. Dr. D you have anything else? Yeah. Yeah. So I think with those couple of things, we'd probably be ready to have this as action at our next c and i meeting. Okay. Thank you. Thank you guys. Alrighty. Um, with that we will move on to item six, new business. Is there any new business tonight? No. No. Okay. Seeing none the May 7th, 2025 Curriculum and instruction meeting is now adjourned. Drive safely.