Good afternoon. Welcome to the October 27th student Behavior and Accountability Program. It is now 4:00 PM and I'm calling this meeting to order. Uh, do we have any public comment today? Doesn't look like it. All righty. No public comment. Has everyone had a chance to read the meeting from our last minute? Um, read the minutes from our last meeting. It was a long two hours. Uh, everybody read it? Yes. No corrections. Everybody's good. Alright, fine. Well, let's move to action item
and I don't see anything listed there. So with that, let's move on to the information item review of student policy 86 55 Student, student personal device use. Before we get to that, would you like to, um, make a motion to approve the September minutes? We could do that. Thank you very much. I got the other motions in the other. You did? I did. Is there a motion to approve the minutes from our last meeting? So moved. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. The move, the motion has been approved and seconded.
Uh, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. Now we can do the review policy 86 55, the student personal device use. I understand that since we have information from the governor, we, we need to take a look at that. And am I correct Ms. Scanlon? You are, but the expert on all of that is actually, uh, Aaron Smith, who is here to present this, uh, policy to you. Thank you so much Mr. Smith. The oh, good evening Board members, uh, we are bringing policy 86 55 student personal device use in front of you tonight as an information item.
As you may recall, we brought policy 86 55 to the committee earlier this year and it was approved as an action item to be sent to the full school board. However, after that vote was taken, LCPS was made aware of new state code section 22.17 9.31 student's, cell phone and smart device possession and use policies, development and implementation, which conflicted with the policy approved at that time. Please note that the updated state code is included in the board dock item and I believe it's in your packet as well. Uh, along with the red line and clean line version of the policies.
The previous, well the current LCPS policy was guided by VDOE model policy, which afforded more latitude in the implementation for the division. It gave us the ability to be flexible. Now with the updated state code or state law, we are much more restricted in what we can do. The team reviewed the code change with Division council to ensure that a policy, uh, that we brought tonight was in alignment, uh, and posted a thought exchange to gather feedback from our community to identify any gaps. While we don't have much flexibility in implementing the changes, we heard some clear, um, topics from our community
that students having access to devices during commutes, bus rides and walking was very important, so before and after school access. And also that the policy needs to be enforced consistently across schools. The, I have a little bit more, sorry, my mouse jumped around. It's alright. Uh, the new code specifically identifies that no student in grades K through 12 can have access to a personal device during the school day. While at school. Specifically, the law makes these definitions bell to bell, which means after the first bell rings at the start of the school day to begin instruction time until the dismissal bell rings at the end of the school day.
Bell to bell includes lunch and in between class periods. And smart device means any personal electronic device that can connect to the internet and wirelessly can, uh, collect process and transmit data. This includes smart watches, tablets, laptops, any personal device that could possibly have an internet connection. So both of these are changes to the existing LCPS practices. The current policy restricts access to cell phones for students in grades K through eight from bell to bell, and restricts nine through 12th graders from using cell phones during instruction. But does allow high school's flexibility for use at other times, including during lunch.
Also, our existing policy allows students to use smart watches and personal laptops instead of the LCPS provided Chromebook. Most students take an LCPS Chromebook about 99.4% of students. Uh, but many choose to work on their preferred devices such as a personal MacBook or Windows laptop. This new law restricts all personal technology devices with any sort of internet connection. So students will not be permitted to use any of those technologies from belt to belt, including tablets, smart watches, personal laptops, and cell phones. Students are permitted to use personal technology before or after school. Devices will be allowed for students in need
of an accommodation, specifically lines 22 through 25 in the red line version, which states only students with documented accommodations for in individual education plan IEP section 5 0 4 plan. Individualized healthcare plan or limited English proficiency plan may possess and use a personal device on school property to either monitor or address a health concern or as an accommodation or assistive technology support. After discussion tonight, the policy will be posted for public in advisory feedback and we will bring the policy and the feedback to the November 24th PAC meeting
as an action item. The timeline goal is to have the full board approve the updated policy at your December 16th meeting, uh, which is the last meeting for this board, um, and allow LCPS to begin implementation of the updated policy on January 5th when students return from winter break. So now I am finished. So thank you and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Okay, thank you very much. Um, do we have any questions? Yes, Dr. Dean, I just had one thought. Should we designate who in the building gives those exceptions? Uh, should that be a person in each building
to give those exceptions for use of those personal devices? So they would be documented as part of the official plan in Phoenix. So whatever team is managing, whether that's a medical accommodation, an IEP, uh, those are different individuals based off of what those plans are. But it would need to be an officially documented accommodation, um, for those students. Right. But but I'm thinking like the kids who have the, the monitoring, the blood sugar, The glucose monitors, Yes. They might have need their phones to keep up with it. Right.
But what, are there any comments saying that they can't let someone else use their phone? I'm just saying kids play games with rules and I just wondered if anything needed to be said about the passing off of those who are allowed to use their personal device. So in that instance, that student would need to have an accommodation documented in their medical accommodations list via the school nurse or health clinic assistant or whomever in that school is doing that, um, for them to have access to that device and their device would only be
able to be used for that purpose. 'cause we do not want a student to have their device for one thing and then use it for other things. So that would be clear as part of that accommodation. So I could take that back as a note and talk to, uh, Mr. Allen and see if we need to include some clarification there around that. Just, you know, I have a 15-year-old that plays games between her mom and me and, um, my granddaughter and I just, they just have so many little quirks where they're always trying to get around the rules until I was just asking. Um, the other thing I know that we used to do when,
back when I was working, you know, in the dinosaur ages, um, the classroom teachers have to be informed of any accommodations that, uh, students have in their programs and they actually have a paper stating what the accommodations are. Is that still in force? So yes. So the teachers are still made aware of any students that have accommodations via their IEP and or a 5 0 4. And so we do have some students that if they have to access a different type of electronic device
to communicate or do work or things like that, um, the school is made aware of those accommodations. And my understanding is that cell phones are not used for these medical accommodations. Is that correct? Um, currently at, we do have some situations for students, for example, that have the, um, diabetes sensor and they have to have their phones, um, for those types of things. So when there is something that calls for a student to be able to access, for example, in a situation like that, um, we would make those accommodations. Um, but for the most part, the students have their devices,
their one-to-one devices, um, their Chromebooks that they would use for instruction and things like that. So because of the guidance, teachers have to, um, create assignments where students might have to do videos or things like that where they can use their Chromebook and not need to access their phone because of the policy and the law. Oops. Thank you. I was, I was merely asking because if as, um, Ms. Dr. Jean said that, you know, they're giving their phone to somebody else when they are only supposed to be using it
for a medical emergency, the teacher would be aware that that student's not supposed to be holding that phone. So that would be correct. Yes, That is correct. And because even prior to, um, the policy, we had some schools that were kind of piloting, um, often away. So now that we've had the policy for a while, most schools, not all, but most have, um, some type of storage or, um, lockers so to speak, that goes over the door
where students can put their phones. So, um, during class time. So there is a way that teachers will know if a student has their phone, what that phone is for. And if they don't need it for an accommodation, then they have to abide by that policy. Thank you. I was at a school the other day where they had an abundance of unused lockers and a student was given a bank of lockers outside her door and the students were to put their phones in those lockers and then she closed them. So that was, uh, a good way to handle that, I think. Any other questions from board members?
Seeing none. Um, shall we vote to send this out for review by other entities here? So moved, Seconded, although all those in favor of moving this policy forward to be reviewed. Aye Aye. Aye. Anyone against? Nay? Seeing no nays? We will call this motion approved. Three to zero. Um, okay, that was the minutes. I think we've done everything we need to do to, oh, no, we have another information item. The policy review, how to turn the page. Sorry.
Um, Ms. Scanlon, do you wanna tell us about that? Thank you Ms. Lall. Oh, and thank you Mr. Smith. Thank you. Uh, yes. The second policy that you are reviewing this evening is policy 82 0 5, um, currently called discipline authority, which I am suggesting, um, a name change to that policy among other revisions. The suggested new name would be Authority to take Disciplinary and Other Action Against Students. This policy sets forth the criteria that have to be in place in order for the school system to discipline
or otherwise take action against a student. As you know, um, the vast majority of time that any action is taken against a student, it is taken because the student has engaged in some kind of misconduct at either, um, on school property or that occurred during an LCPS sponsored activity. So we do, um, recommend revisions to further define and clarify what is meant by school system property so that there's no misunderstanding that that would include,
for example, um, our football field, our bleachers, our school buses, et cetera. We also further clarify what is meant by a school activity. We expand that not just to a specific school activity, but to all LCPS activities, which is what the code permits. And then we tie the definition of those activities to the policy that sets forth an actual definition of an LCPS activity. The policy also, um, is inclusive of
the specific criteria that would need to be in place for a student to be disciplined outside of those times when the misconduct occurs on school property or at an LCPS activity. And those are very specific occasions under the law when students can be disciplined for misconduct that occurs outside of those times. And each of those specific criteria, um, are listed so that there is no confusion question, um, or ambiguity about what criteria has to be in place
for students in those occasions. Any questions? Dr. Dean? One in the first paragraph on page one, and it brings to mind because of the, yes, it says impacts the health, safety and wellbeing of others, should we say, of self and others, because I really believe that one thought that was missed in that whole discussion is the board has some issues with hurting yourself. So I think it's, IM important to frame that in the context
of this policy, which is disciplinary action. Um, when a student, um, expresses that they may be considering self-harm, that is typically not met with student discipline, it's met with intervention, it's met with, um, U-H-U-M-H-T support as opposed to a disciplinary action, which is why the self-harm reference isn't included in this policy. So, Madam Chair, may I talk? Yeah, I figured you weren't finished talking. I am so sorry. It's okay. Um, if he has something in his possession
that would hurt others, it may also be something that would be of danger to himself. Some, I mean, Yes, you're correct. So a student who had, for example, a weapon in his possession on LCPS property would be subject to disciplinary action under A one. The misconduct at question would then be the possession of the weapon on LCPS property, which is defined. The section that you speaking of, I believe is under
If the student's misconduct is detrimental to CBS's ability to provide secure learning environments Is okay. So the reason that is there is that contemplating a situation where misconduct occurred off of school property outside of an LCPS activity. So there is no jurisdiction, um, under a one or a two most misconduct is going to fall under a one or a two, but a three and a four.
What the purpose of those is, is in contemplating that at times misconduct occurs completely off of school property outside of the school day, outside of the school activity. That may, for example, um, be detrimental to our ability to provide a secure learning environment. Let me give you an example. On occasion, we may have a student who on the weekend outside of school, on his or her own time, sends a threatening message to do harm
to another student at school. Once that threat is placed at school, that is adversely impacting the school system's ability to provide for a safe and secure learning environment and an environment where that the target of that threat or the parents of that threat feel safe going to school. And so what this does is it envisions a situation where that misconduct, which did not happen on school property, did not happen during the school. Uh, sponsored activity can still
result in school discipline because it adversely affects our ability to provide safe learning environments for others. I accept your explanation, but one of the recent things that we had was a kid who had all of her drugs with her, not, you know, she's supposed to take one in the morning and one at night and she took them to school with her. That was that to me. I said to the parents that you should be concerned 'cause she may have been contemplating
taking more than the, uh, uh, the, the, the prescribed amount. So it's okay. I accept what you said. I'm fine. But I just think that there also needs to be concerned when there is a harm to the child himself or herself. Yes. Agreed. And I would say in that kind of example, um, regardless of the motivation of the student in bringing that medication to school, um, having that medication, bringing that medication to school is a violation. Uh, that would fall under a one that possession, um,
is a violation of our code of conduct. Then our, um, policy and regulation 82 40 provides for the school a range of responses to that that would enable them to consider all factors. Um, I was looking at a three, um, and a four and I'm wondering if that includes students waiting at a bus stop, uh, if somebody's there with a knife or somebody who has been prescribed from, uh,
trespassing on school property. Property bus stops aren't necessarily school property, but that could be impacting our students that are waiting at a bus stop. How, how does that work out? Can we, can you clarify that? Yes. Um, thank you. So school bus stops are considered, um, de facto school property at such times that students are there either waiting for the bus to arrive in the morning or they're being dropped off in the afternoon. So in that very narrow timeframe and in that very narrow location, the school bus stop,
anything that were to happen at that location during that narrow timeframe, we would actually be covered jurisdictionally under um, a one because that stop is considered school property during such time as students are getting onto or exiting the bus or waiting for the bus. What a three does is it expands the concept of ensuring that our students can get to and from school safely to not just that location of the bus stop, but also to getting from the bus stop home.
Often students have to probably all the time have to, uh, walk from the bus stop some distance to their front door. It also ensures, um, that everyone understands that a student who maybe doesn't take the bus who is a walker, um, and has to actually walk from their home to school or is walking home after school following some school activity, that any misconduct on the part of one of our students to interfere with that child's ability to get to or from school safely also can be
met with student discipline. Do we need to put that in the policy? So that's perfectly clear. I mean, a lot of students might think, okay, he's off the bus, you know, now I've got him, that kind of thing. Mm-hmm. I don't know. Mm-hmm. Well that actually is the intent of a three. Um, saying that a student is subject to disciplinary action when the student engages in misconduct, that impacts any student or staff member who is traveling to or from school, um, Or home. The reason we didn't want to stay home from school is we want to cover wherever
that child is going after school. So some students after school may be going to a friend's house, they may be going to work, um, they may be going to see a movie we want them to get wherever it is, they're going safely. Most of the time they're going home, but not all of the time. Dr. Dean, just one more thought. Alright. The student's rights and responsibilities handbook. How is it delivered to the parents at the beginning of the school year or a new enroll lead or any first contact that family has with the school system?
Okay, So the student's rights and responsibilities, it is done electronically as a part of like the first year packet that all parents sign off on through permission click. And so there are a series of things that they have to acknowledge before they can move further and through parent view. And so the SRNR is a part of that process. So it's done every year. And I believe, oh, Aaron is still here. He, I don't know if he has the question that I believe, um, as you are new to the division, because it is a part of other information that parents must sign off on, it is done, um,
when you're new to the division, um, or even if you withdrew, but you're coming back. So every time you do that you have to, the parents have to sign off on that, is that right? Okay. And it says SR and r plus the regulations or the regulations in that same area with the student's rights and responsibility handbook is, it has two, it references two, um, set of rules
that they should follow, um, in, what did I say in paragraph three? So the SRNR references and tries to simplify the rules and the regulations that are set forth in these various policies and regulations. Um, so the policies and regulations and the link to the policies and regulations that's provided in this policy goes to one area of our public
internet site where it lists all policies and regulations so that a parent could find any policy or regulation that they wish to find. There is also a link and it is a separate link that's going to a separate part of our internet site. So they're both housed on our intranet internet site for the public review, but there the policies and regulations are on one page and then the SRNR is on a different page. And who at the school checks to see that every parent has signed off?
My understanding is that's all done through permission click. So schools get a report of students who have and have not, and students are not able, they're not able to access, like, they can't log into parent view and see grades. This is something they have to do in order to get to that point. So, um, at the beginning of school, we open it about three or four weeks before school and we try and get, I think this year we were about 90% of families had approved and uh, and ready for that. And then the schools work with the remaining 10% to get them, um, to make sure that they've done the process. Any other questions? Okay.
Thank you very much for that Ms. Scanlan. Um, at this point in time, is there any new business that we'd like to, uh, bring up or do we wanna wait before we go forward? Send this policy? Yes, that's what I was just going back. Are we ready to send this policy forward? All those in favor of sending the policy forward? A Aye aye. Motion And if, if I could clarify too, by sending it forward, you mean sending it forward to public comment? Yes. Yes. Is there a motion to send this forward,
uh, for public comment? Motion to and for review. Motion To send this forward to public comment and Review. Thank you Dr. Rashe. I'll second. Thank you Dr. Deans. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All those opposed seeing no opposition. We will send this forward. Thank you very much. Now if seeing as there's no new business and that we've sent both our policies forward, um, we have run out of things to do and so we're going to adjourn the meeting. Thank you. Meeting adjourned at four 30.