Okay. Good afternoon everyone. Welcome to the May 15th, 2025 Policy Management Committee meeting. I would like to first let my colleagues introduce themselves. Going to my right.
Good afternoon, Brenda Wolff, district five. Good afternoon. O'Neill Silvana, student member of the board and going online. Good afternoon. Carla Silvestre, school board member at large. And I'm Julie Yang, district three. All right. Thank you for
the staff member who are joining us today. And first I would like to give I would like to see if there's any questions, concerns regarding the informational summary for the February 27th, 2025 meeting. None. Seeing.
None. All right. So then we'll get this moving. We will review the following item today. It's a big meeting. All right. Policy IGS educational technology policy Da. Fiscal responsibility
and control policy D operating fund. Investments policy. Gig funding, retirement pension system. And for each of these four policies, staff will present recommended amendments
that we develop after receiving extensive stakeholder engagement. A summary of the engagement will also be provide. Before we move to the presentation. I want the staff member here first to introduce themselves. I would like to
start with the board staff first. Hi Patricia Ursprung, I'm the staff liaison for the Policy Management committee. Victoria Van dike. Board staff. And staff
at the table. Kimberly Fields, chief technology officer. Hi. Kara Trenkamp, director for digital innovation. All right. Good afternoon. Leslie Turner Percival, legal director in the Office of General Counsel. All right. Thank you so much. And we
have some other folks in the audience. If they approach the table, we'll have them introduce themselves. Now, today, in addition to these four policy, the committee will also receive an item of information on M.C.P.S. Regulation, which had
been approved by the superintendent's office since the committee's last meeting. So with this overview, are there any initial questions from the committee members? If not, I will let the staff start their
presentation. Thank you, Miss Yang. Greeting board members. Miss Wolff, Miss Silvestre and Mr. Sivana. Today we are bringing you policy IGS Educational Technology for the purpose of updating it with board priorities around
artificial intelligence or AI for the integration of this emerging technology into the instruction and operations of M.c.p.s. Today, you will be considering approving revisions to the policy for tentative action by the full board, at which time the full board would
decide whether to send it for a public comment period. We have given the policy a new working title of Emerging Technologies and Education to better reflect the very first sentence of the purpose of the existing policy to establish guiding principles
for the integration of technology into teaching, learning and operations of M.c.p.s. We suggest that the new working title better establishes that there are always emerging technologies being produced that we must evaluate to make sure
they align with clearly stated principles and priorities, and to make sure they are a good fit for our purposes. This conversation on Artificial Intelligence and M.c.p.s. Will provide the committee with draft policy language to address the
board's principles and priorities regarding artificial intelligence, as the Committee requested, and a strategy for the committee's consideration that sees AI as yet another emerging technology about which we have almost identical concerns, as we have for other
emerging technologies that educators have integrated into instruction and operations. Doctor Trenkamp will be providing you with a brief look back at some of these other technologies that were once new. And if I may, one of the realizations that has become
crystal clear to us in working on this policy is that everything old was new. Once in this discussion, you will also hear about staff and board members extensive engagement with the community and our stakeholders, concerns regarding AI best practices and
recommendations from the AI field, and a suggestion of how to move forward with policy and regulatory development. So we want to just say a word. Next slide please. So I want to say a
word about where we are at the moment, what we are asking of you today and the decision before the committee. Does the committee want to move this draft forward to the full board for tentative action? So I want to say a few words about what we ask of stakeholders during this
phase of policy development. First, let's highlight the board's policy on stakeholder engagement to inform board decisions. Policy, ABA and the four different purposes of engagement that align with nationally recognized models of
engagement. For example, level one is inform and this is what M.c.p.s. Typically does with news feeds, informative videos or presentations of a completed plan. Inform means just passing
along information. Level two consult is what we do during traditional public comment period. When we say here is the draft language. What do you think of this language? Today? You're going to hear about a kind of stakeholder engagement
that involves and collaborates with stakeholders for the purpose of drawing out concerns and formulating ideas. This is a very resource intensive process. It takes a lot of staff to pull it off, and I think it is a
tribute to how many staff worked on this phase of stakeholder engagement to produce outreach videos, conduct meetings and have a lot of conversations. I cannot underestimate how much effort and resources went into
this, and if I may put in a plug for the tech teams slick outreach. This particular team had a lot of tricks up their sleeves. This is the kind of engagement our colleagues are going to describe in a moment. And how do we do this in this
early stage, we ask open ended questions and focus groups of people with expertise and in study circles and in conversations with the opportunities for follow up, follow on feedback questions like what are your concerns?
What do you hope to see addressed in policy or regulatory procedure? What do you think are benefits and risks? The point is that at this stage of policy development, before we start writing, we seek to understand concerns and
aspirations before we can begin to formulate policy language. Next slide please. Our team members will return to this analysis in the discussion. But just to set the stage policy,
IGS was last revised in 2020. And as a tech policy, it's due for a refresh. The team heard repeatedly these themes that the board anticipated in the last revision. These themes already present in IGS, albeit in need
of updates, are also themes that are also currently addressed in other policies, such as the equity policy, the grading and reporting policy, and the Behavior Intervention policy. And we see the themes you likely anticipated as important to
artificial intelligence, including academic integrity, equitable access, data privacy, and ethical use. The revised draft we provided for your review captures seven major
themes, with instructions to the superintendent in the Implementation Strategy section to develop and regulation the guidance, procedures and professional learning needed for the successful integration of this emerging technology in M.C.P.S. Instruction and
operations, and student and staff learning. As I said, everything old was new once, and many of these new technologies have their own regulations to set forth procedures, just to name a few technologies with their own regulations,
electronic signatures, the provision of computers to students, internet filtering and email best practices. And following this meeting, the writing team turns next to regulatory development to be completed prior to the start of school and shared with the committee. At your first fall
meeting, I'll. I'll now turn it over to Miss Fields. Good afternoon, President Yang and members of the committee. As we know, technology is constantly evolving within our society. With this update to the policy, we are going to include
artificial intelligence, as this is an emerging technology that we need to address. Artificial intelligence, also known as AI, is when computer systems are designed to think and learn, like us, to assist us in solving problems and providing solutions. It can power things
such as speech recognition for accessibility, comprehending visual input, language learning, student support, to name a few. Next slide. To better understand the needs of the schools and community, we obtain rich and
thoughtful stakeholder input that we will share today as we review the process. So as you can see, we have our different processes as we've gone through, educate, collaborate and collect process, we created a process to allow for us to obtain feedback from a variety of stakeholders.
It was important for us to build a foundational understanding by engaging teachers, school based administrators, community members, parents, guardians, students, and others. In addition to attending K-12 events such as the consortium for School Networking, also
known as Cosyne, that promotes partnerships and awareness of emerging technologies amongst technology decision makers in K-12 education in the US and the International Society for Technology and Education, also known as Isti, which is a nonprofit organization that
focuses on accelerating innovation in education through the smart use of technology in education, as well as the Maryland State Department of Education and others. When we look at our next item, analyze and identify themes, it was critical to engage the various stakeholders to understand the
concerns, challenges, needs, and positive benefits. The results of the feedback is ating in establishing the language being included in our emerging technology education policy. Our next area is cross reference for policy alignment and working with the Office of General
Counsel. It was important to know what would be impacted based upon the themes identified in the feedback we will be sharing, and finally, recommendations and next steps we want to ensure to include the board's priorities, to then establish further procedures and regulations, which will have a
common theme in the feedback we will be sharing. Next slide please. Obtaining feedback from a variety of stakeholder groups we knew was going to be essential to knowing how to align with the educational goals to educational and operational resources for the use of AI
tools. Understanding stakeholder experiences were important to provide critical insights for learning, engagement and classroom dynamics. This feedback will assist us to identify whether technology supports or hinders instructional practices, addresses diverse learner needs,
and maintains equity, fairness, and transparency. We are excited to share that we had 11,282 responses from a variety of stakeholder groups, different ethnic backgrounds and roles. We want to especially thank Mrs.
Garcia, Office of Engagement and Mr. Everett Davis, office of Well-Being and Student Engagement, for assisting us in gathering students and community to ensure that reaching that, we were reaching our key stakeholder groups of those stakeholder groups. We were able to determine the responses, even as you can see on the screen
between our different grade levels elementary, middle and high school levels, the Na means they did not identify a level we. So we facilitated in-person virtual sessions, webinars, PTA
meetings, parent work groups, social media, and sent emails. Next slide please. As we work through updating the current policy, the continuous dialog will be key to making informed decisions, refining
implementation, and maximizing the benefits of AI in addition to other emerging technologies within the district. We understand that further collaboration with additional offices, based upon the feedback that there are a variety of instructional methods and modalities in support of active,
engaged, meaningful and socially interactive learning. Core themes identified are driving the conversations we are having today. As you can see in the table, learning how to use the various tools efficiently is important based on the use, concerns and challenges in the
data privacy and using the AI tools ethically and reference to the Needs and Requests column. Having the guidance and appropriate controls will be critical. Also, we have included a subset of the feedback we received for review. As you can see in the bottom left hand corner, the voice data. I will
now turn it over to Doctor Trenkamp to continue with the presentation. Hi. Good afternoon, President Yang, members of the board. Thank you for having us here today. Cara Trenkamp, director for Digital Innovation. I'm really excited to talk a little bit about AI and some of the issues that
surfaced through our extensive feedback. If we could go to the next slide, please. So before we dig into a little bit of the specifics around the AI issues that our stakeholders shared with us, I would like to just take a walk back through memory
lane a little bit and think about the many different innovative technologies that were new at one time. They each brought potential transformation, but also worries. In fact the inclusion of chalk. Believe it or not, chalk was considered an
innovative technology in the early 1800s. Absolutely. So much so that it actually was the source of riots on campus, because people were irate that it would dumb down the rigorous thinking and academic rigor that
Yale would bring to specifically mathematics classrooms. Sounds a little familiar when we think about these technologies today, right? So not a new issue surfacing here. Graphing calculators, email, internet,
laptops and electronic signatures were all also once new, as we heard a little bit earlier. And let's think about the kind of issues those brought as well, right? Similar to what we just talked about with chalk, many were afraid that it would prevent students from actually doing the thinking and the
learning. It would prevent them from learning how to think mathematically and actually do those calculations. And there is a little bit of grain of truth there, right? The question is in how are these technologies being used? Not if they are being used. The internet also came
with its own challenges around thinking about how our students and staff will access accurate content. We know there's misinformation on the internet, how they are going to access that content safely, and how we
are going to make sure that student and staff data is protected. In each case, we see the potential and value of these technologies, but we also engage in conversations about how these emerging technologies should be used safely and responsibly. And
AI is situated right in that same conversation. Next slide. So this graph here today is a graph from the future jobs report of 2025. And I know the text is very small, but if you
look at the bar graphs from top to bottom, what you will see is people were asked to rank the most important skills needed in their job place in 2025 and going forward, with the top of the graph being the most
important. Down to, I don't want to say least important, but in this ranking in this graph least important first on the list is analytical thinking. That is the number one priority for future job skills. And when I say future, I mean 2025 and forward
close behind it is technological literacy. And that's that second red arrow there coming down from the top and coming in at number 11 is AI and big data. The arrow down at the bottom, not not too far down but still down is reading, writing and
mathematics. So it's not to say that these are not important because they're very important. But when we think about reading, writing, mathematics, we have to think about it in the context of analytical thinking, critical thinking, synthesizing information and using that, being able to read, write,
speak, and think mathematically in order to make sense of the information coming in around them. This prominence of AI creates an essential need to incorporate AI literacy into our K-12 education program, but we
need to ensure that we do this thoughtfully, tending to the issues that have been raised in research, in existing policy documents, and from our stakeholders. These include outlining how AI can be safely and thoughtfully integrated into curriculum instruction, which
you'll hear a little bit about today, how we ensure for student data privacy and security, also an issue we will surface today, how we will intentionally and carefully use AI to help with customizing learning, and how we bring awareness to ethical and
responsible use while safeguarding against bias and inequitable, inequitable use, which is also part of our presentation today. We conclude today with the importance of high quality professional learning for our staff. Because if AI literacy is something we want our students to have, we
need to make sure our staff are able to do this as well. Next slide please. So this is the first of a few slides that I want to touch on briefly around what AI is in teaching and learning around some of the
themes that we just mentioned. So this theme is around curriculum and instruction. It's really the ways in which teachers can use AI to build effective lessons and help to better meet student needs. So I also want to, as we touch on these, elevate some of the
issues that also surface as we think about these examples. On this slide, you see an example of a teacher using an AI platform to help build an elementary mathematics lesson that incorporates several visual examples for helping build core
concepts with students. This technology not only helps teachers to plan to meet a wide range of student needs in their classroom, but it can also serve as a tutorial for teachers who may not fully understand the math concepts themselves. In
this way, AI is not only a lesson planner, but it also serves as a just in time professional learning tool for teachers, helping to deepen their understanding of core mathematics concepts. Next slide. When we think about the
potential of this innovative technology in helping to support improve evidence based teaching practices, 90% of educators see the potential and are eager to use it to support tasks including planning, assessing, grading, analyzing student data,
and customizing learning how they use it and how these tasks are done with attention to data privacy, ethics and responsible use has been the focus of almost all of our feedback. Next slide.
When we talk about data privacy and security, we mean how student data is collected in platforms and then is used. For example, does the platform use student data to train and improve itself? Does the platform share data with third parties, or does it sell data to
companies? And finally, how does the platform secure data to best safeguard against hacking and security breaches? All of these concerns and issues exist with AI, as they do with other technologies as well, and we need to tend to those as we look
for our policy and regulation and guidelines around how we're using AI technologies in teaching and learning and in the school district in general. Next slide. So part of the policy also touches on learning interests, needs and modalities.
As you've heard before, many of these emerging technologies also address and help to support customizing learning. And so we want to touch on that here as well. One promise of AI is that it actually can go further than our existing emerging
technologies by providing scaffolding and support to customize learning in ways that we haven't been able to do before. The example on the screen is of a student this time asking for help within a closed garden AI platform. On a math
question, you first notice that the student is typing in a language other than English. AI is able to break down language barriers by allowing students to write and engage in customized learning help in their first language. So in this particular
case, the student is asking for help in a mathematics word problem, and they're using their first language to get that help. The second thing you notice is the response from the AI assistant. It isn't just giving the answer, it's breaking down the word problem so that the
student can begin to conceptualize what is being asked, what is the mathematics concept being asked, and how they can break that down into pieces. And if you think about the students interacting in this way, while the teacher may be pulling small groups or working
one on one with students, doing some reteaching and reassessing, you think that in this way each student has their own customized learning tutor right there in the classroom. This is similar to the example we saw earlier, where the teacher was working in an AI platform to plan a lesson
with multiple models. This kind of customized, just in time help for students in breaking down and visualizing important concepts is critical to helping to support students in their learning. Some of the concerns it raises, however, include some of the things we've already talked about and we'll talk
about next. Student data privacy, ensuring that technology does not either inaccurately respond or respond in a way that provides the answer and reduces the thinking and eliminates the academic rigor from the classroom. We definitely don't want to do that. So again, thinking about
how we use these technologies is important. Next slide. Similarly, I can be used to provide immediate feedback to a student before an assignment is submitted for agreed. This feedback can be prompted from a rubric and details that the
teacher has uploaded. And that's the example you see on the screen where a teacher a student is, has put in some student work and the AI platform. The AI tutor and assistant is using the teacher's rubric to provide feedback to the student and
provide suggestions on where the student needs to make upgrades to their work before it's submitted. Again. This kind of feedback is evidence driven and is a core part of high quality teaching and learning, yet also needs to be taken into consideration with student data privacy, academic integrity,
ethical and responsible use, and attention to bias. At this time, I'm going to turn the presentation back over to Miss Fields to talk further about some of these issues. Next slide please. So in discussing ethical
and responsible use, as we know, I can enhance learning, personalized instruction and support teachers. But it also raises important considerations around privacy, fairness and safety. AI should support the teaching, learning and technical literacy, not replace the
relationships essential to education. The tools are used to enhance instruction and empower students as learners, not automate everything. We want to make sure teachers and students recognize their rights, responsibilities, and opportunities in using the technology tools. Next section.
Next slide. In reference to bias and equity. As technology continues to transform, we will continue to monitor and evaluate the various emerging technologies that can cause equity implications. As you can see from the chart, we want to be conscientious of the bias
that can be inputted and outputted by the user from the tools is critical. When you know about the complexities, you can identify the bias, prevent a reproduction of the bias, and prompt engineering thoughtfulness in the ask next
slide. As it relates to our professional learning under our implementation strategies within the policy, professional development is critical for equipping K-12 teachers to effectively and responsibly integrate AI and other emerging technologies into education.
Understanding how to use various technologies to enhance instruction while safeguarding student privacy and promoting equity. We want to develop the resources to ensure effective implementation and teaching, learning and operational practices. Continuous training ensures that educators are not
only competent users of emerging technologies such as AI, but also thoughtful leaders in shaping its role in schools and in the community. We have continuing professional development courses that have been created. One is called AI for Educators Productivity and Collaboration, and our other one
is called AI for Teaching and Learning. The support. We are actually launching these this summer. The courses are currently full with waitlist letting us know there is a high demand for learning about this particular technology. Doctor Trenkamp will continue. Next
slide please. Next slide please. So we're wrapping up here in our presentation. And you can see on this slide this is one that we started with earlier. We're circling back to show based on the extensive feedback over
11,000 people participated in in gathering feedback across various stakeholder groups. You can see again the theme echoed down the left hand side, and you can see the summary of what what each stakeholder group shared, and then where those themes can
be found across different policies and what people recommended in terms of next steps, of what of language they wanted to see. We've incorporated much of this language in an updated draft that you have around the emerging technologies policy,
and we are looking to create a regulation that will move forward this summer into the fall for the upcoming school year. Our next steps also include expanding professional learning. This summer, we have two CPD courses launching directly related to AI, along
with extensive workshops. We also are working on a potential pilot of one of those walled garden platforms where teachers and students are able to explore the power of AI and some of the things that we shared today within the safe confines of a
walled garden type of situation, and continue to learn and grow and strengthen not only our policy, regulation and guidance documents, but how we actually improve teaching and learning through this powerful technology, miss fields, next
slide please. Our next step is to begin bringing together different offices and departments to work on the regulation and provide this committee with an update at the fall meeting. The regulation can be targeted for completion by spring of 2026. We just wanted to also share a few regulation
subject areas that will be addressed in the regulation next slide. All right, Miss Yang, we turn it over to you for the for discussion. Thank you so much
for that presentation. First, I would really like to thank you. In your presentation, you laid out really clearly the reasons why we are updating this policy. And you also laid out very
clearly some guiding principle as you are doing this, looking at privacy, looking at biases, looking at the uses enhancement for education layout. So that's very clear. And also would like
to compliment you for the extensive community engagement that you did for this policy and the regulation that we are looking into develop. I myself was able to attend one of it. And so I think it's tremendous
that you engage the community, stakeholder, the staff at different levels, leadership and the parent community. So kudos to you. I'm going to open up to for questions and comments from my colleagues. I'm going to see,
oh, of course, our student member of the board, Mr. Savona, has questions. Go ahead. Yes. So first of all, I just want to thank you guys all for the outreach and the work that was done to make sure that there was, you know, consistent community engagement on this. I
mean, looking at the list, we can see, you know, a lot of people were looked at and talked to about this. I mean, over 10,000 responses on that Google form. So just a really, really big pat on the back for that because that really is incredible. And a specific thank you to coming out and meeting with the student groups across
the county to make sure that students were well represented in this work. And so I just want to start by and lead with that in on page on page two, in terms of the summary of key themes and alignment, not in the actual
policy in the presentation. Sorry, we one of the things on oversight and accountability is creating an oversight committee to vet tools for ethics and safety. So I mean, I, I didn't really see too much of that being kind of written about
within the policy itself. I looked at kind of the notes where it said to, to look, and I didn't really see too much about that. The thing that I would kind of just say around an oversight committee is, you know, whenever we're talking about things that are being used to monitor students or being
used with student data and stuff like that, we always like to have a student on some of those committees. So just going to throw that out there as a point of comment, other than that, I think that there is I have a couple more things, but I'll let my fellow board members kind of
get through it. Miss Wolff, do you I want to thank you for the presentation. It was very thorough and left very little to ask. I just have a couple of things that I wanted to understand or get clarity on, on, on your next to the last
slide, what did we learn? Summary. Under Concerns and Challenges, you have personalized learning and diverse student needs, but I thought that was a positive in your discussion. So I was wondering what was it that they
said that had you put it in that column? I think that it is a positive and we want to capitalize on that for certain. One of the things that students and staff surfaced was to make sure that we kept the rigor as we were customizing, learning.
So where we've seen in some other situations where we've customized learning has not always meant staying true to the learning standards for that particular grade level. That's a caution. That was a caution that came out that we don't use AI to, you know, lack of a better
phrase, dumbed down the standard in some way. But to provide the scaffolding for the same level of rigor across all learning modalities. Okay, that's very clear what you just said, but that's not what I would have taken from that. I don't know if you're sharing this with the public, but maybe you could put down something about the rigor.
I think they would understand that. And the only other thing I had is, you know, development of the regulations is going to be the key for this, really. And so under the subject areas, where is ethical use, I mean, of the ones you've identified, where
would ethical, you know, use be. So first. Sorry, I'm looking back through the policy where that already is there. Yeah. So
one of the things if you look back to the slide around the biases and the ethical use, there are a couple pieces. First, making sure that not only staff but students understand that the output that they're
getting from AI is only as good as the data it's trained on, or the prompt that we are giving it and the lens from which we view it. So that ethical responsibility of making sure that we are constantly we are the human in the middle right,
we are not deferring to the computer or the output of the computer. We're constantly analyzing that result and questioning that result and making sure that we're aware of that going forward. I think also ethical uses around the integrity of the academics who
owns the work. Right? So when we think about the plagiarism and the cheating. That's right. Thank you. Thank you that that's what I was really looking to hear. So other than that I think it's great. I look forward to it. I, I hate to admit that. I
mean, in the open, I are good friends. We are good friends for getting the wording. Thank you. I'm wondering whether Miss Silvestri has any questions online. I don't see a hand right now. Mr. Yes, I'm just checking.
Hi. Yes? Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. I just I wanted you to. If you could please help me understand the chart. That is, that has the issues that you heard from, from the public, the
recommendation, where is where it is in the technology policy. But what is what is the final three columns? What does that mean? Do you know what do you know which chart. It's not number so I can't it says issue
recommendation IGS ica ACA. Yes okay. Yep. Sorry my version was a little small. Yes. So what we did is we took the themes that we heard from the stakeholder feedback, and we cross-referenced existing policies to find where those
issues are referenced and already outlined in current policy language and documents. And so when you look at relevant policies. So if we just take the topic that Miss Wolff raised around the academic integrity, plagiarism, naming our sources,
I being one of those sources, if it's used, that can also be found in in the grading and reporting policy around academic dishonesty and pieces around, around those policies exist there. So what we did is we took
those themes and cross walked it across major policies that also intersect with this policy to show that these themes are represented not just in IGS, but also in some other policies as well. But why does it say could
be added, could be added, could be added. So what we did is we took a look at those policies and we found either exact language or language where we could have put, you know, a comma, you know, and enhance slightly to make explicit
reference to AI if needed. One of the things that we caution about putting explicit language about any specific technology is that it changes so frequently. So where we put, you know, explicitly artificial intelligence, we might put
explicitly arvr or augmented reality or the internet. So many of these emerging technologies have the same issues. So where we put that, we said we could either put explicit language there or, you know, make an edit, or maybe it was right
there as is, and it was enough in order to just draw that reference. So, for example, for grading policy, you're saying that the grading policy, ICA does not have any language that cross-references with this
policy currently. So I'd have to take a closer look at ICA. But when we did take a look at it to prepare for this table and presentation, it does have language in there in general around academic integrity. It
does not reference I specifically. Okay. So just in in general terms. So the
teachers will continue to get professional development in terms of how to use it. And this will be an ongoing and evolving process. Right now. Is there are
there standards or state guidelines in terms of using AI for example, if I want to write an essay? Are there any guidelines in terms of how to use AI? You can use it just as
long as you cite it. I mean, in the workplace, you know, you use AI to draft your reference letter. For example. I did that recently and then I edited it for my purposes. But it just how
how much how far along are we in terms of allowing students to use AI for the first draft and then. Of anything of an essay o, and then kind of enhancing it or
making it their own, or is that not allowed because we want them to create that content from scratch. And if this goes beyond, above and beyond this policy discussion, please let me know. I can quickly try to answer that. So we put out some
preliminary guidelines about a year ago because we knew this was quickly emerging, and we were getting that very question from teachers across the county. And so one thing to remember is that each of these AI tools, we think about ChatGPT, we have Google Gemini, that is a walled
garden for us because we do have the Google Workspace for education, but they all come with age appropriate guidelines to them. So we adhere to our online digital tools practices where where a platform is 13 and
above, it may be available to our high school students, but not below. If it's, you know, middle school and above, then we may turn it on for there. So it's a really a platform by platform decision around what is available for students. And then it's a teacher by teacher
conversation where these tools are available to students, whether we turn them on or not, they leave and they are available, particularly as the students get older. And so what we've worked on with our guidelines, with our teachers is to clearly outline to students
what is the acceptable use of AI for an individual assignment. And so what we see are teachers really leaning into it. They're actually prompting students to use AI and then to actually critique the output that AI brings them. That's, again, that
higher level thinking skills where they're actually critiquing or enhancing the output that they received from from an AI tool, or they have to copy paste their series of prompts that shows their iterative thinking as they're working through something. Some
teachers have said students may use AI as a thought partner, but they need to list it as a reference. So they have to actually show that academic integrity that that is a source. Some assignments say it's a hard no on AI for this particular assignment, or it's going to be a hard no. It's very similar to
when we had the calculator and the graphing calculator. There were appropriate uses for that. And then there were times where we put it aside because the assignment called for us to not use that tool. And I think that's where our guidelines have been right now. And we're going to continue to work with teachers around fleshing those
out more and more. But this signals to our community and our staff and our students that AI is a tool and it's here to stay. And we have we have to figure out ways to use it appropriately
and enhance learning. 100%. Yeah. Thank you, thank you. From what I'm hearing referring to back to Miss Silvestre's question is, at the moment, our guidelines give teachers a lot
of autonomy in deciding how to incorporate AI in their instructions and in the student assignments. Once we have this regulation that you are putting
out, are we considering taking a more system wide approach in in addressing those issues? So I'd say yes in a couple of areas. So
our teachers do have a lot of autonomy in how they implement in their classrooms. But I would say that these documents, along with guidelines and professional development, seek to put the guardrails on. So and they also
allow us the opportunity to provide us the opportunity to have system wide tools that are available, age appropriately and follow our online digital tools processes. So it isn't the Wild West where teachers are using, you know, all these open source
AI tools. Student data is flowing across the internet in ways that we would not want to promote. So what we want to think about it is, you know, how do we put some guardrails in place to ensure that we have
safe, responsible ethical use, that it's age appropriate use that we have some concrete examples and ways in which AI can and should be used at different grade levels and have concrete examples and guardrails
around where it should not be used in those ways. And so I think that's that's really our area of focus is around getting those guardrails in place with these documents and with the professional development and with our upcoming pilots around some very high quality tools
that really help to promote a lot of those core principles that we just talked about today. Thank you for that. I have a question in terms of page three of the our proposed emerging
technologies in education, and there's item D guidelines for students and staff should be reviewed and revised on a regular basis to respond to the rapidly evolving nature of AI. We all understand the evolving
nature of AI. What what how do we how do we ensure that this happen? What what are our practices in terms of revision and frequency? I'm trying to
understand frequency and all. For review so I can address that. Okay. Hi, Sally. Hi. How are you? It's nice to be here. Please introduce yourself for the audience. Certainly. My name
is Sally Davis, and I'm the supervisor of policy and regulations in the office of the General Counsel for M.c.p.s. So regulations come up at the instigation of, you know, we hear from staff that there's
something current coming down the line. We know from our regular updates from the Maryland Register, there are new state regulations being promulgated. We know from our board liaison there are new laws being regulated, all new laws being passed that require us to
develop regulatory language. So the impetus for change comes from a variety of levels. We know with tech we do need to keep an eye on it, and we do need to monitor, you know, quick change. I will say there are
certain regs that are just frequent fliers. I don't know what else to call them. You know, the graduation requirements are almost always being changed because the state is always making some modification to the state required testing. I would say we're in that range sometimes
twice a year. I would say that there are other regulations that, you know, the state law that it's based on really is very stable. It it is not changing. So it depends on the nature of the beast. I will I
would just put it that way. I would say with our tech policies, we're just going to need to keep an eye on this one. Particularly. You know, I would say with electronic signatures. We had a couple quick revisions right off the bat just to get it
right, you know, and then we got it, you know, new new technology for badging. We had to kind of catch up our, our badging in Key's building process. That had to be updated. I hope that answers your question. There is not a set schedule. It is not
like every three months because, you know, recall, we have somewhat close to 300 policies and regulations, and we have to be strategic about which ones get updated. When does that answer your question? That does, but also also this is something
that just because the nature of AI, the evolving nature, that it will be something that for us, especially in the policy committee, to be mindful, to look at it regularly. Right. Thank you. Thank you. One last
question. It goes together with this is we are an education institution. We have a lot of expertise. But because of this, this field, how ever evolving it is. What are some external partnerships that can help
inform our work and keep us forward thinking in this space? So I'm really glad you asked that because we have already been involved with several different local and state initiatives and more to come. So
we engaged in last December, participated in a statewide AI symposium where representatives across every county came together to talk about AI. There also were partners from different national organizations as keynote speakers, as
sponsors. Some vendor partners were there as well share some of their continued growth and thinking about tools that may help support some of the things that we talked about today. In addition to that, several of us attended a national research
symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Education hosted by University of Maryland in College Park. About two weeks ago. There, we were able to spend some time with Senator Hester and some several Congress women who were there also that would like to partner with
Montgomery County Public Schools and with Kid Museum, who is also there on several panels to host an intergenerational AI showcase and Emerging Technologies forum. So very early concept, but really excited to explore what
might be possible there and obviously be a part of that. So really two, very three very concrete examples of, you know, how we are continuing to partner. I had an opportunity to network with the CEO of Estey at
University of Maryland, who is interested in partnering with Montgomery County Public Schools on looking at how we not only develop our AI regulation and guideline documents, but our professional learning that we're working on developing and
launching this summer and really tag teaming with them as they have a national effort to help develop a national professional learning on AI for teaching staff across the country. So we're looking forward to continuing that partnership as well. So it's a learning journey
for all of us. We're really excited to be, you know, with a bunch of pioneers on this journey and really look at ways, evidence based ways in which artificial intelligence can really help really transform teaching and learning for the
better. Thank you. Miss. Thank you. And I'm going to do one comment, one question, and that'll be it for me. But I just want to take a second to also thank the students who had come out and done some presentations to staff. If you guys want to
talk about that for a second. I know there's a number of student groups, particularly pertaining to AI, who came out, you know, really lobbied for this policy to be to be adopted, like walk through the pros, the cons and some of that initial research.
So I'll just give a second. There are the students have been incredible. They are overwhelmingly excited, positive, enthusiastic and innovative forward thinkers around the uses of AI, not just currently in while they're in
school, but for the future. We are looking to capitalize on that energy this summer. As you know, we have our mobile classroom that takes emerging technologies out into the community. We are looking to take that mobile classroom, our mobile bus, on the road for AI
experiences, and we're hoping our students come along for SSL hours and to help really teach the community about AI and what it is and what's possible there. So really having our students as learners or as teachers in helping to really grow awareness
for the younger learners, but also for our community members at large. So we're looking forward to continuing that partnership and really capitalizing on the student energy. So thank you so much. You're the voice of the students was incredible. Yeah. So I'm just going to kind of riff off that for a second. But say, you
know, I think we should really capitalize on on all the community support that we have around some of the work that we're doing here to make sure that we're really, you know, giving the best experience for our students. And then the final thing I wanted to comment about, I guess, is more of a comment rather than a question. We have
some things in here about student use. So I'm looking at line 96 or 95, 96. In the in the updated policy, student use is subject to oversight to support active, authentic learning and transparency about AI content in
student work. So two things here. One thing I, I think we should have, you know, kind of the same standards for teachers using AI within the classroom on that sort of scale. I know we have AI oversight, the AI Oversight Committee, to look at the types of AI that's being
used, but the ways in which it's being used, and a review of that on a teacher by teacher level, because, you know, we don't want to foster inequities within our classroom. I think that's going to be really important. And then the other half of it is also just making sure that when we
talk about the actual. Human overview part of it, whenever we're looking at things around academic dishonesty and things along those lines, I think that's really important to very clearly line out. And this is more for regulation thing, but
very clearly lining out, how are we going to be using these review processes? I mean, I know within some of the data that, you know, and in some of the feedback, it's been said that, you know, teachers will, you know, put a paragraph into AI and ask, was this generated by
AI? And, you know, maybe that part of that's professional learning, professional development, but that's really not how AI works. Right? Or even just putting it into an AI checker doesn't really can can't give you 100% definitive answer about whether it was AI or not,
but making sure that within the regulation there's it's very clear about, you know, how that human oversight element is included. And then within the policy, you know, talking about teacher oversight in terms of how AI is being utilized there.
So thank you. Thank you. We can move on to the next policy. Thank you so much for this presentation. Next, our policy is we're going to move on to policy Da physical
responsibility and control. Thank you Miss Yang. Joining us at the table now is Mrs. Yvonne Alfonso Windsor Chief Financial Officer in the office of the Chief Financial Officer. Also in the audience is Susan Chen controller last reviewed in
2002. Policy da. I'm so sorry. Miss Turner, I need to interrupt you for a second. Let me wrap up the last. Discussion neat and tidy. That's right. Because we will need to move this to the
full board. So for tentative action. So I will need to have a motion and a second so that we can formally do this. So move to move to move to the full board for tentative action or move to the full board for tentative action. Second, all in favor,
please raise your hand. That's unanimous from the committee. Thank you everyone. Miss Turner, you may proceed. Thank you. So last revised in 2002. Policy Da fiscal responsibility and control has been the subject of
conversation with the board's Fiscal Management Committee over the past several years. If I may turn your attention to the summary of stakeholder engagement in your materials, the Fiscal Management Committee began to consider revisions to policy Da in September 2023 and
most recently in September 2024. Staff began began consultations with the Budget Advisory Committee and the AD Hoc Policy Da advisory Group to formulate the policy recommendations before you today, and I will turn it over to Miss Alfonso
Windsor. Thank you, and good afternoon, President Yang and members of the Board of Education. I do want to say, I don't think this three policies that I'm going to present are going to be as exciting as the transformational technologies presentation that you just heard. But it is exciting for me
because it is all specifically, this one is about fiscal responsibility and control. Maryland law requires county governments to adhere to a specific fiscal accounting procedures, and county boards of education are required to follow not only state law, but also the
laws established on the procedures at the county level in which they are located. We have revised this policy or we're proposing the revision to this policy to document the continuous need for robust fiduciary control and to continually evaluate those
controls. If we turn to the policy now to the draft policy, I want to direct your attention to the draft language in line 66 to 67 about the financial manual. The financial manual was developed in 2007 and is updated
regularly for technical changes, such as changes in M.C.P.S. Organization and reporting structure, as well as any changes in law, policy and procedures. Examples. Or those are any changes to Kumar Kumar or for example, we just went through the Hub Plus
implementation, which would require us to update the financial manual for payroll processes. As a result, items detailed in the remainder of the document have been redacted as they are redundant with law, county procedure, or fully addressed in the financial
manual that we established in 2007. We are recommending adding the direct reference to the manual as well as the updated language about monthly reports to the boards that are referenced in line 70 to 73 of the updated draft. As you are all aware, we provide to the
board monthly financial reports as well as Cat category and object transfers, reports that are done quarterly, among many other financial reports that we provide to the board. With your approval, we are recommending that this draft policy language
be reviewed by the Fiscal Management Committee, and that we report back to you on any adjustments they request at a future Policy Management Committee meeting. With that, I return the discussion to you. Miss Young. Thank you so much. Okay, colleagues any questions?
Yes. Yes. So I'm just going to ask real quickly I mean from 7.7 through 11 online, 81 through 106. I mean, there's a lot of stuff that we're taking out of
the policy here. So I mean, just from what I understood from, from the, from the presentation, we're doing it because it's already said in our, our in our manual. Or is there things that are that is being taken out that are just permanently being taken out? No, it is either. Sorry. It
is either reference already in our manual, it's part of our procedures or is part of the regular county charter or the state of the Maryland State of education laws. So it's already referenced in other areas, in other statutes. That's what
we're recommending, the removal. Ms. Wolff. I just wanted to say that I, I fully support taking that out because I knew it was duplicative and referring it back to the Fiscal management
committee. Okay. Miss Silvestri, do you have any questions or comments? Yes, I know that I will get to talk about this again in fiscal management, but I just wanted to ask Miss
Alfonso Windsor, there's no mention here of external auditing, is there? Because if it's a fiscal responsibility and control, the policy as written is we're going to. The board is
the sole check and balance on the administration. But I know that external auditors are also a tool in the toolbox for fiscal responsibility and control. So could you speak about that please? You are correct. It is
not it's not referenced in the policy, but that is because it also is required by Maryland state law for us to have the single audits and the audits on a yearly basis and to produce the annual comprehensive financial report. So that's one of the reasons that it's not mentioned here, because it would
be, again, would be duplicative. It's part of the responsibilities through Comar. And as a result, that's what we're recommending not including it in this policy. But what would be the harm? I mean, I
think somebody reading this policy would have no idea to check Comar. Sure. So we can go back, you know, if that is a recommendation, we can definitely go back and include it. And at some length around the auditing. Absolutely. Thank
you. Thank you. I have a question. So this is a policy on fiscal responsibility and control. And one of the big things that in the financial world we always talk about risk
management okay. So is that reference anywhere or is that. We have more policy coming up. But. I'm just wondering should risk management be in every
single physical policy? I really sincerely because we have a huge responsibility to provide education and also. Pay our staff this is and be solvent.
Right. And so I want to gather your thoughts. Sure. And I think, you know, it is not included here because when we're looking at fiscal responsibility and control, we're looking more about our processes. We're
looking to. Let me give you an example. You know, how do we manage Picard's. You know, we have updated the processes for ensuring, you know, that that cars are used properly, you know, so we review that process every year. So this policy and
we can consider that we can consider that in any fiscal policy. But this policy is specifically is more about the procedures that we implement to make sure that there's fiscal responsibility and control. I tend to think it might be a
guiding principle for us to state right our what guiding principle we have for risk management in our fiscal policies. Okay. Thank you. Absolutely. So, Miss Yang, stating it as a commitment to
responsible risk management procedures. Is that what you're envisioning? So tell me in other policies, in other of our financial fiscal policies, are they a section for risk
management? I will have to get back to you on that. I haven't reviewed all the policies at this point, so I think it actually is important for us to develop some guiding principle for risk management. And if you have various policy, but you you
have it at under one, you can reference to it. But if we don't have it somewhere or anywhere, that would be an area I would like to see. I myself see it as a good thing to have for us to
be an oversight body, that we are very clear about how we manage risk. Thank you. So with
that. I don't see any further questions, but I would like us to consider that before we move to the full board. Would that be all right? Okay. Miss Wolff, I'm
not sure that I agree with that. I just want to understand why we would put this in a policy about procedures. Yeah, that's that's a good. So if we, if we have if you can get back to me to say,
hey, we have risk management regulations or practices, it's in some manual handbook. It doesn't have to be in policy. I just want to understand what we are doing in terms of risk management. You want to make sure that it's documented. Yeah.
It's documented that our practices. So. I think with that you're right, Miss Wolff. It doesn't have to be in a procedure if it can be included
somewhere, somewhere else. So. Ask them to get back. We could ask policy to, to get back to us on whatever is included in risk management and move to board with tentative action now. Okay. Can we do that? I thought that I
thought the action was to move it to the Fiscal management committee or move to fiscal management. That's what I understood. And if I just may I was just looking through the financial management manual, and that is a chapter in the financial manual risk management. There is a chapter
there. Yes. You answer my question. Thank you. All right. My note says this is moving to the full board for tentative action. Can we double check. Is it to the fiscal management committee or is it to the full board. So the plan was to move
it for tentative action for the full board, with the understanding that the Fiscal Management Committee will review it before it gets to the full board for tentative action. So your your approval now would be to move it for the full board. And then fiscal management will review it. And if they have substantial changes then we can
adjust. At that point. Are they meeting again before the next board meeting. The plan currently I believe, is not to bring the tentative action to the full board until the fall, so they'll be plenty of time for fiscal management to meet prior to the board taking tentative
action. The fiscal management meets at the end of June, so they would be able to review at that time. So does it make it make sense? But maybe we should move it to the fiscal management Committee to look at it. And if they don't have we can move it
for the full board for. Yeah, I thought if we moved it to the full board it would come up at the next board meeting. So maybe what it wouldn't, when would it come up? I believe it's scheduled to come to the full board in September. Okay. Well then that gives some time. Yeah,
that gives some time. So then I'll move for tentative action to the for full to the full board for tentative action. Second. Well, excuse me, don't you have to say somewhere put in there that it's going through
the fiscal management committee. There will be I would like I will feel more at ease with that condition. So move to the full board for tentative action with the condition that it goes through the Fiscal Management Committee for review prior to
that. Second, all in favor, raise your hand. That's unanimous. Thank you. Everyone. Okay, now we can move to review policy d I g. Thank you. So
policy d a g operating funds investments. This policy was last revised in 2011. The policy needed updates to bring it in line with current practice, and to bring greater clarity to the document. I want to make sure
that that we clarify that this is only applies to operating funds investments, as indicated in lines 18 to 19. This is the funding that we get from the county council, our state aid, the money that we get quarterly
or monthly. It is. It is it is not the pension fund. It is only the operating fund. The pension fund we're going to be discussing in the next policy. I also want to emphasize lines 27 through 29 on the policy, which
state that M.C.P.S. Draws funds needed and does not hold a substantial balance for long term investments. And as is stated in the policy, certain investment practices are prohibited in Maryland law, specifically, borrowing money for the purpose of investments.
M.C.P.S. Fully complies with Maryland law. M.C.P.S. Only makes short term investments. What we mean by short term investments is, is our agreements or terms that are less than a year, with the flexibility to be able to cash in and out daily to avoid cash
flow issues and minimize and maximize our investments. Some of the board meetings and Fiscal Management Committee. When we review the monthly reports over the last few years, we've talked about our interest revenue. You know, we have collected over the last 2 or 3 years between 5 to
$7 million every year from this interest revenue. That's a result of this operating funds investments. The other piece that I want to highlight is the New Language Alliance, 5043 to 59, which is states objectives
for investment activities. And this establishes a specific guidelines around the liquidity. We have to make sure that these funds are constantly able to be liquidated so that we can pay our obligations, make our obligations, our payroll, and so on. Additionally, we have added
language to talk about the prudent judgment, discretion, and care in maintaining the safety of this capital that is needed. I also want to go back a little bit in this policy that it into lines 15 through 16, because this policy is very clear that the designates the
superintendent of school, or designee, as the person responsible for investing operating funds according to the priorities and obligations stated in this policy. I also want to, before I close, I want to turn your attention to the summary of stakeholder engagement. In your packet.
You'll see that this needed changes were discussed in September of 2024 with the Fiscal Management Committee, and then in October of 2024 with the County Finance Officers Association. I know that in the
previous policy, I recommended moving to the Fiscal Management Committee, and I'm making the same recommendation again, but I'm amending that to then to the full board, if that's what the board would like for full action
in the fall. Okay. Thank you. Before I turn it to my colleagues for questions and comments, would you please send me that risk management portion of your manual to us? Because this that governs all, all
these, when we are talking about responsibilities and investment, I just want to that does not take full action. But I would like to for that my knowledge. Okay colleagues any questions. Yes. Yeah. So I mean I think one
of the things that I kind of want to just to, to look at real quick, unlike lines 43 through 47 of the updated policy of the draft policy, talk about the entity will consolidate cash and
reserve balances from all funds to maximize investment earnings and to increase efficiencies with regard to investment pricing, safekeeping and administration. I think there's something maybe we should put something about, you know, adhering to our core principles and values of the M.C.P.S. School system in there just to
make and the Board of Education, just to make it clear that, you know, when we invest, we invest in things that we as, as a school system value that uphold, you know, education of students and things along those lines.
Okay. Miss Silvestre, do you have any comments or questions? Just just a comment. This is such a short and concise policy, and I just wonder if there isn't
a related policy that that could cover operating fund investments as a part of it. Any thoughts about that? We can look into
that. The operating funds investments are so different from our pension investments because they're so short term, right? Because you have to have liquidity of those assets. So we can look at it. But those investments are handled so much different than other investments that I just want to make sure that that we capture that, you
know, appropriately. Okay. Thank you. All right. That's all okay. No questions from me just now. My so will this a question for staff. Would this also go to fiscal management committee for
review before coming to the board. It would be you know, your will. These are all related to fiscal management and policies. So you know, it would make sense for all three to go to fiscal management if that's your desire. Yes. That that will
be great. Just send another set of a few more considerations. So if I can have a motion, I move to the full board for tentative action upon the condition that it passes through fiscal management prior to being read
by the full board. Second, all in favor, raise your hand. That's unanimous. Thank you so much. Let's move on to the next. And is that the next one? The last one is the policy gig funding, retirement and pension system. Yes. So it is our last
one. And I want to start with our summary of stakeholder engagement. I'm sorry I just want to clarify this. The last time that we revised this policy was in 2009. So it's been a while. So when we discussed the summary of stakeholder engagements, the Fiscal
Management committee discussion of this policy began in 2023. Then again, it was discussed at the Fiscal Management Committee in September of 2024. Following that discussion, we sought recommendations in October from the Board of Investment Trustees, which we will discuss
later and return in November to the Fiscal Management Committee for further discussion. In February of this year, we sought suggestions from Gers. Gers is the firm that we contract with for the audit to audit the retirement and pension system. These recommendations are some
that we're bringing to you today. I want to make sure, you know, when you look at this policy in lines 11 to 21, we want to make as clear as possible that we're referring to two different boards when it comes to this policy. The first
board obviously, is the Board of Education and the intent of the Board of Education and responsibility to provide retirement pension benefits to M.c.p.s employees. And I want to make sure that we clarify this is the local retirement. This is not the state retirement. This
is the local retirement fund. The second board is the board of investment Trustees, to whom the Board of Education delegates responsibility to oversee the investment of fund assets. The Board of Education delegates certain powers and duties to the
Board of Trustees through a trust agreement. Additionally, later in this policy, in line seven, 58 to 75, it assigns to the Superintendent of Schools certain responsibilities, which includes contracting with a
credential actuarial firm. In this case, right now, we're contracting with GRS to prepare studies and reports required by the Board of Education and further to meet with the Fiscal Management Committee, which we do every fall, to review findings of this reports and to make recommendations to the
board. The redacted language at the at the end, after line 75, refers to terminology that we recommend be relocated to a new regulation that we would establish. Additionally, as I conclude my comments, I will be
making the same recommendation that we move this to the Fiscal Management Committee for review before going to the full board. Thank you. Colleagues. Questions or comments? Go ahead, Mr. Salvon. Yeah, so I'm just going to make the same suggestion for
this one as I did for the last one around line 38, I believe investment managed M.C.P.S. Trust assets. You know, like in in conjunction with M.C.P.S. Core values and Board of Education core values. But other than that, I also did have one.
One quick question about the addition of a new policy that you kind of mentioned being being created to hold some of the language that's being redacted later down on the line. Just wanted to get a quick piece of clarity on that. So because
the, the policies are usually more broad, we want to actually establish regulation, you know, with the with the details, you know, as to how, you know, the, you know, the funding. Items that we would like to make sure, you know, that in the future, as
you know, there's transition, that they are documented in a place, you know, and approved by, you know, by M.C.P.S. How we would manage this, this fund. That makes sense. So putting it into regulation, Mr. Wolff, you
know, so for me, besides the risk management here. Right. Of course. Right. We're talking about people's pension and retirement. Another question that I think is so important in terms of when we talk about
retirement pension, any investment is sustainability. How do we sustain long term plan. Do we have any guiding principles in our regulation or menu or anything of such. So for
this, this one in particular. Right. We want to make sure eventually that if for any reason we have to pay our retirees, you know, their pension, that we're 100% funded. So that is the biggest thing that we want to do right now. M.C.P.S. Is 85% funded. The
pension and retirement is 85% funding. I think what this policy does, and we always try to make sure, is that we hit that $100,000, 100% mark and through that, you know, we're we are establishing a funding
policies with the board of trustees that, you know, based on the recommendations of our actuaries. So that we ensure that we have the lowest risk possible with investments. There's always a risk, but that's why we review it every year. That's why that's part of
this policy, to see where we're going to be over the next few years. And then this year, which is coming to the board in May in in the next board meeting, you know, the new funding policy, you know, to make sure that we review the investments over the next, you know, ten then, you
know, or plus years. And I want to make sure that what's coming to you, the funding policies and actuarial funding policy that that's that's a study that we requested that is coming to you. And that's to look into our sustainability and risk
management in terms of our investments. Okay. Thank you. And I would also like Mr. Alfonso already said to want to recommend it to the fiscal management committee to take a look. Yeah. So I'll move to refer this to Fiscal Management
Committee for further review. Second, all in favor, please raise your hand. That's unanimous. Thank you very much. Did you also want to make a motion to move it to the full board for tentative action after review? Yes. So then I'll make that motion at this time as
well. Move to the full board for tentative action upon passing review and in fiscal management or fiscal management have to make that or could we make that okay, move to the full board for tentative action upon passing fiscal management, upon reading
fiscal management. Second. All in favor, raise your hand. That's unanimous. Thank you so much. All right. Thank you everyone. That was lots of policies in one afternoon in one meeting. And then four policies
altogether with for the three physical. We will share them with the fiscal management committee prior to bringing them to the full board for tentative action. So I'm going to move on to the next agenda item, which is do you have questions about
item of information that for today that's approved by the superintendent's office since the committee's meeting last time? No, no. Seeing none. Then
we are going to conclude today's meeting. Everyone, thank you so much for participating. And then we will meet next Fiscal Management Policy Committee meeting will be in the fall, am
I correct? Do we have the dates yet? We this was the last meeting for this fiscal year. So the I think the dates have been decided upon, but I'm not exactly sure what right. We have to approve it next school year. Thank you so much. And then
we'll see everyone in the fall. Thank you, thank you. Okay.
Meeting adjourned.