Welcome, everyone, and good evening on this the March at the South Bend Community School Corporation Administration Building. I'm now calling this, working meeting of the school board to order. I'm gonna hand over the meeting to, Matt Lawson who's been working hard to update our policies. So, mister Lawson, it's all it's all yours. Thank you. So I think to get started, it's important to kind of provide some background as
to where we're at and how we got here. So when I first came aboard in October, I, had met with the Neola reps and started going through our policies to see what needed to be done, how, what updates were still outstanding, things like that. During the course of their evaluation and working closely with Neola, it was identified that a total of 206 policies needed to update. Now looking into that even further, it what what had transpired was is that policies that the board had reviewed or had already had work sessions on and approved, were
not finalized to the Neola process such that it updated on their system. And so one of the documents that I provided the board with today is a spreadsheet of basically the two zero six policies that they said were still outstanding. And on that, I started to document the first work session date, the second work session date, and to establish that roughly 30, I think, 35 of the policies that were on that list, I know for sure, have already been reviewed and approved by the Board. And so, gaining some alignment on that moving forward, I think, is one of the
probably the number one priority, removing those off the list and then also identifying any other policies on the list that, you know, still, that I have not had dates listed for but that were actually reviewed and approved, identifying which of those are also on the list. So I think that's priority one. And then moving forward, I was able to confirm or am confident that, Neil to update 34.1, which is roughly 12 policies, that, those those weren't included in any of the prior
board updates. So I do have proposed updates to those policies for you as well, and with a brief summary of each one of those. And then additionally, I have the superintendent evaluation policy that I submitted in the packet for the Board today as well. And so I would just ask the board first and foremost to kind of look through the spreadsheet that I have. And if there are any policies that, don't have work session dates that you, you know, feel confident that we yes, that we've already gone through, then that would be
okay as well. And so I just wanted to add just for a refresher. So last year, we did amend a couple of policies, 166.1, that's a conflict to interest policy or actually, I'm sorry, the consent agenda policy, we added language in there to have running totals with items eleven thirty, which was the conflict to interest policy, twelve ten, which is a superintendent relationship policy, 1,230.01,
which is administrative guidelines policy fifteen-twenty, which was Employment and Administrators in addition to the Superintendent and then three thousand one hundred and twelve, which was a board staff communications and then the last one was the wellness policy, which was the most recent one we did in October. So Matt has those two, and those were approved after third readings, but we couldn't
get them uploaded into Neola because our prior in house accounts, I think had that access account. So Matt worked on getting himself set up for that, and I'm thankful for that. And so moving forward after today, assuming there are no other additional, policies that have already been reviewed and approved, then I will work closely with our Neola reps to get the these finalized and updated in the system so that way they are removed from our update list. I'll work with our Board Counsel to make sure there are no additional policies on
there that need to be reviewed. If there are no questions about the spreadsheet itself or kind of what that looks like, then I can go ahead and go into an overview of the 12 policies that I have, presented for review today. Yep. Are you gonna read what's being changed? I heard mister Augustine will say something about conflict vendors. What's what's being changed in that? That that was previously changed earlier in the year. What is it what was changed about it? Well, let's look here. There's still conflict of interest.
Yeah. Yeah. So I think it was tightened up. I don't have the red line version here, but I'd have to go back and pull that. But I know we did tighten up a little bit. Conflict of interest was abused in the last two boards. They even held illegal meetings about conflict of interest. It was it was illegal. Let me get a lawyer in here and discuss it. No. I mean, we we have, like, 40 one forty four point three board members or spouses or or dependents are prohibited from having a pecuniary interest in a contract or
purchase to be approved by the board and may not profit from a contract or purchase to be approved by the board. The board should not approve any such contract in which a board member, spouse or board member or or dependent Board member has a pecuniary interest. Because our oath of office also besides their policy, our oath of office mentions the conflict of interest and and you take an oath for that. So so what I'm saying is those were done last year. The board wanted some changes.
Those were done. What did they want to change? I don't remember that. I can't tell you the exact language, but it tightened it up a little bit. I thought that's what this meeting is about. I don't want to if we can't get what was changed, this meeting is kind of waste. I thought that's what this meeting is for. This is for other policies in addition to that, that the Board may want to change and Matt's done a lot of work to flush out updates from Neola comparing
to what's on our system and bringing to your attention additional updates on top of the ones that we did, which were, I'll say, specialized. They were not Neola driven, they were driven by the board. We still need to know what changes were made because I'm looking at the conflict of interest policy in our manual, and I need to know the public probably needs to know as well what was changed on this policy, the conflict of interest. And as mister Lawson goes through the changes that he is suggesting, on our policies,
I think we need to go through those one by one so that we'll actually can discuss those because maybe some of us have some questions about what's being changed and why it's being changed. Yeah. I I think I think mister Lawson could do that, and I'll pull up the red lines from last year on the ones that you already approved and refresh you on that. But I'll do that while he does his presentation. So are you suggesting that this is a second or third reading from the policies that we that you're talking about? Or No. We already had third readings and approval on the ones I mentioned.
Okay. Okay. You you've already had done that. Okay. Mister Lawson is gonna cover additional ones that need to be done. And those are the ones we need to, just to talk about because Correct. Yeah. I need to know what you're changing in this. Yeah. Because the first thing that I see see on my packet is a summary of I can if you can give me the policy number, I can look it in my policy book because I don't have it offhand without me having to look it up. So the the superintendent superintendent evaluation policy was, is not associated with the number at
this time. This was, supplied by doctor Green and asked us, to be reviewed for the potential of a new implementing as a new policy for the district. Oh, so doctor Green made this policy up? Well, it was done in conjunction with, the policy from the Indiana State Board Association, from their best practices. And so it's a it's a it's a, a d not a deviation. It's a, it was that's that was the essence of it. That was where the the basis of it was the Indiana School Boards Association best
practices. And just to be clear, I submitted it to legal counsel for review because the evaluation of the superintendent is based on a policy that I wasn't aware that we even had. So and I I didn't make it up. I based it on ISBA, documents, and, Matt's now submitting it to the board for
its review. Okay. So this is something that should have been done in maybe, a breakout session or a working session where board members would have had input into this policy that you're talking speaking of. That's why we're doing it now. This is well, we should oh, yeah. Okay. Yeah. This is the work session. You're not gonna vote on anything tonight. Okay. This is to create that, moving forward so you understand, have input, and that's what mister Lawson is doing. Okay. Because I wish I'd had this earlier because I would have had a chance to
look at what you're talking about here. Okay. So let's go ahead because the last, evaluation process that we had for the previous administrator was just totally wrong. So we can take step by step here. We'll be looking at I'm ready when you're ready. So the what the the policy lays out is, basically, essentially, the principles, for how these evaluation of the superintendent should be followed. And what I've done is, based on the language from the policy with the United
State Boards Association and what was provided by doctor Green is to provide clarification for board authority, stronger governance language, define goal setting expectations, expanded the performance domains, the documentation evaluation standards and refined the remediation language. Specifically, just making it clear that, you know, certain things are, under the school board as being, you know, shall review or shall, reflect the Board's governance priorities, just things
like that. Just allowing that the process must allow for flexibility recognizing that certain goals may be measured through objective data, while others may be influenced by circumstances beyond the superintendent's reasonable control. The policy is intended to reflect the Board's governance priorities and be supported by clearly defined objectives and procedures, which outlines timelines, documentation standards and the evaluation methodology. Okay. So principle number two, can you explain that to me, please? As I understand, so I understand Principle two to allow for the Board to take
into consideration things outside of the objective, not just the specific goals or measures like the objective data, but to take into consideration the circumstances, the all of the facts and circumstances that surround the performance that's being the performance that's being measured. That's how I interpret it. That it just allows the Board that flexibility to provide what's a fair overall fair process or a fair evaluation.
So something like if there was a pandemic one year and you had certain goals on attendance or other things like that, obviously, that would be something that would impact the superintendent's ability to reach that goal. I think I would agree. Well, in the distinction, I think, ISB is drawing and that we're basing our review on, whether it's been in the past or what we're planning to do now, is that, one, the review is aimed toward supporting the superintendent's improvement in his performance.
And the second principle is that the criteria that's going to be used to evaluate the superintendent including the priorities are done collaboratively between the Board and the Superintendent. The question that we're addressing now as a Board is what will be the metrics say, of determining whether the superintendent has helped to improve the culture of learning?
Is it a metric of test scores? Is it the leadership he's provided with the curriculum department? Is it the which is a less objective measure? But as in his role of, providing oversight over curriculum, is he doing what we would expect? So say, at the evaluation, would he submit documents that he has used to bring
together the principles to have a discussion of how to improve curriculum? Or would we solely base our case on the test scores from iLearn, iRead, graduation rates. But that's that's for the board and the superintendent to determine. This isn't trying to say it's one or the other. Well, because it's kinda confusing because what I'm looking at you said here Mhmm. Principle number two, the evaluation shall not be merely a sub sub summative review of
past performances performance. The process must allow for flexibility, recognizing that certain goals may be measured through objective data, which it should be, while others may be influenced by circumstances beyond the student superintendent's reasonable control. I don't know what that means. But for a superintendent, for us to evaluate the superintendent, we have to we have to look at the overall, objective measures such as, well it says clarity and fairness, but we also, student outcome and district performance.
And that is part of the superintendent's why you hire a superintendent to improve your students' outcome and and and make sure that our, the district is in good standing. It also he has to work, work towards the, work with the district's strategic plan. And so that's kind of confusion, and it says student achievement, which is the standardized testing. And so we can't take that out of it. Graduation rates, college and career readiness indicators, achievement gap, reduction.
So that's all part of that superintendent's goal. So when we are redlining through some of these things, this has to be clear of what we're evaluating the superintendent on. We can't we can't take those kinds of of of those things out of the superintendent's evaluation process. I think they're in there some of the things you mentioned, but and maybe in a different location. At it. No. I don't see it. So Like, under principle 10, you got performance indicators, which includes some of the things
you have mentioned. Okay. I see that one. I think we're going through the general principles and then coming to the potential sources of data is what, Mr. Augustino was pointing out. And that performance the exactly what you're saying, Doctor. McCullough, performance goals shall align with corporation's strategic priorities, the sound evaluation will be on actual performance data. But another way is to analyze the documents or what we're calling artifacts that the
superintendent collects to supplement the use of data. So, if we're again, this is in the abstract. If we're deciding as a board with the superintendent to focus on a culture of literacy or cultural culture of learning or Mr. Costello, you said in the past, we should be looking at leadership. Really, it's open to us as a board to decide what objective data exists to determine whether or not the superintendent has fulfilled our expectations.
And at times looking at leadership doesn't lend itself to necessarily lend itself to objective data as much as the artifacts that the superintendent collects. Does he meet with the principals? Does he meet with other staff in the district? Is he communicating well? How do we know? What has he provided as a way as a means for reaching out to the staff within the corporation? Does he work well with the union? Does he work well, in negotiations? Those are all things that it's conceivable the superintendent would provide in the form of
memos, not necessarily, again, objective data, but that mediations are held fairly, that they're just, that everybody has a voice. But those are, again, things that I think the evaluation that ISBA is offering allows the board to determine this with the superintendent on any given day. So, Doctor. McCullough is absolutely right. You know, we have to decide what will count as evidence. And if we're serious about academic achievement, we're absolutely going to look at objective member
measures. But there are also what ISBA is recognizing is that there are subjective ways to conclude whether the superintendent is doing what we want him to do. That may be so, but we cannot eliminate the, objective. No. No. Because that's critical to the evaluation of the superintendent. Absolutely. And I don't know if we need to lift that up, in some other way, but this we're saying exactly that a sound evaluation system based on actual performance data.
And maybe that needs to be at the top of the document. Okay. That would be a given. The question is, again, it's up to the Board to decide what other subjective measures that we can use to determine leadership, fiscal duties and the like. Fiscal stewardship is the word I was looking for. Yes. So I don't see this as locking you into a specific set of criteria. It gives you flexibility. It also gives you an obligation to communicate that like what's just strategic for this
Board, you get to determine that and lay that out and as a measure. This is we're gonna measure this because this is important to what we want to accomplish. So you get to develop that. It's not preset. And it's collaborative because at the end of the day, the superintendent shouldn't be surprised by the fact that the Board has come up with three priorities. Oh and by the way, we're going to review you on those priorities. And it's also opening up the possibility of saying, look, you've been in this position
for less than a year, we don't expect you have to fulfill all of our expectations. Instead, what we can provide a constructive criticism or advice about how you could be better, how you could better serve us as a board and as a corporation. Please. May I? Yes. ISBA does have a set of indicators that both the board and the superintendent usually agree on before launching the school year.
Right. And I'm sure we can discuss these indicators. At the retreat. Mhmm. I I think those were circulated, not this past retreat, but the one prior. I think those were put out to the Board. I don't know frankly what happened in I was not in the entire session, but there was discussion about that. I don't but I don't think we moved to a review or anything. Right. Over the years, I think between 2020 and 2024 and it was developed in response
to COVID to say essentially we need to give the superintendent grace and it should be based on progress and process rather than how well the district did on these objective measures. I think the concern was in choosing the priorities, they may have been too narrowly defined. The three priorities were literacy, socio emotional, development of our students and graduation rates.
And I think the last year under Doctor. McCullough's leadership, the concept was to we need to broaden those out. So, that's where we are as a Board now. We're looking at a policy that should proceed what we do as a Board in collaboration with the superintendent. And we knew that it would take some time to even agree on a policy, but that should be the basis for moving forward to decide what the priorities are. And again, we can discuss and debate those whether again it's leadership, it's literacy, it's
financial stewardship, any of the things that, ISBA has, recommended. We we get to decide that in collaboration. ISBA has a wealth of information on their website, and and, taking advantage of some of the things that they have on their website is is is really ideal. But we have to fine tune this evaluation because what we don't wanna see is the type of evaluation we did with the previous administration because that was absolutely horrible. So I'm looking at principle five, and I'm not quite sure if we want to
take out STRIVE and put SEEK in there. I'm thinking that we should probably, leave this the word strive in there because that's what we want to do. We want to we want to make great efforts to make sure we attain or obtain, what we're asking this process to do. So I don't know that we wanna take the words, strive out of there. That's just my opinion. I'm just saying. That's just my opinion. Seeks to strive? They have a red line through should strive to accomplish, and then they put seek to accomplish.
I think we need to strive to accomplish the following objectives, the evaluation process to clarify the superintendent's role as seen by the board. We need to make sure. We don't wanna seek. We wanna make sure that's what's happening. So this is exactly what we're supposed to be doing right now. And the process was I submitted this to, to Matt. He made suggestions under principle five, should strive, he struck that out, seeks to accomplish. We can, as a board, decide as Doctor.
McCullough has suggested, putting it back. I mean, what we can wordsmith as much as we like to make sure that this reads the way we want it to read. So, do others on the Board feel strongly one way or the other? Should we be striving? Should we be seeking? Yes. I kinda I'm not sure exactly how this process would work. But looking at the summary of the proposed revisions, it looks like it was written to clarify language to strengthen governance standards and align the policy with the ISBA best practices.
And I'm looking at, you know, the reference there at the end that it's coming from evaluating superintendent, a white paper, American Association of School Administrators, and the ISB superintendent evaluation process. And so if our legal counsel has looked at this and has given us a very specific, interpretation of what he thinks the best words to use for this principle and that principle and that kind of thing. I do would like an opportunity to just vote and adopt this, as it's written without any changes at all. And then if we wanna create a separate document where it's marked up with the
different things people say, we wanna do, you know, for number five to do strive instead of seek or leave that in, then we have that version. Or if we wanna consider each of those changes that may be proposed individually and vote on those, but I don't want to say not take the and not only this, but for all of the things, I think it's important that as much as possible, we stay as close to what ISBA recommends language wise and what Neola recommends language wise. And that, you know, the more you get into tweaks and adaptions and things that
fit us, I don't know that we're so unique that what we need to do is not aligned with what ISBA is recommending as their best practices, and then you just right. It was all where, you know, future boards here with the future attorney, and they're saying, we need to make all these changes to all these different policies because they've been kind of tweaked and deviated from the recommended language and best practices. So I I'd like to at least consider, at some point taking, you know, whatever Matt has recommended, not only for this or all the future policies without any changes
at all, and then consider whatever the marked up one, whether it's one with all of the proposed tweaks or just each tweak individually, you know, that kind of thing. So I I guess in terms of I don't know how we wanna structurally figure that out. How we're going to do that as we you know, I understand it's a working session and different ones of that kind of aspect. But I don't I don't wanna say we're gonna take what he's recommended and then switch it all up, and then that's just the only thing we get to vote for. I wanna make sure we have an opportunity to consider voting for the unedited version
that our legal counsel had said best matches the language that's the best practice that ISBA and or Neola has recommended, without edits or tweaks. I have a comment. I have a comment. And I don't I don't agree with that at all. It makes no sense to me. This is supposed to be a working session. This is a board's responsibility is to do a board policy. You have a documents are sitting in front of us and even though I appreciate the attorney, thank you very much, and I do think that if we have if
we see something that is not quite right with the with the recommendations, we have a right as a board to fix it. Mhmm. We have a right as a board to fix it. To vote on something just because it's sitting in front of us and then come back later on and tweak it makes no sense to me. Why aren't you tweaking it now? You should tweak it now. So I will not I'm telling you upfront, I will not vote on something blindly because it's sitting in front of me just because someone wrote it up. I appreciate you. Thank you so much. But I don't agree with that statement at all.
Thank you. Please. I don't think we're voting on you guys are voting on anything today. This is simply a discussion. It's a working session tonight. We'll do three readings as we always do. Yeah. And we can revise as we wish. I don't wanna get caught in between, but my understanding is that, we have this document, which is the policy. And then when we actually do the evaluation, we can adopt the language we want
that will best serve us and best describe what it is we need from the superintendent. So, it would be we not only we strive, Mr. Eave, we don't just seek that's something we can communicate to the superintendent under no uncertain terms. But I think for policy, what we're looking for if I have this right are a set of guidelines that Neola would approve and say, no, the corporation can adopt
this. That's correct. In in terms of the should strive, you know, the with the ISBA guideline, it says that it should strive, which is fine by me. The only reason that it the only reason it had been changed, simply just as a as a strategy throughout is to just strengthen the language where possible, you know, should versus shall, those kinds of things. And so, to the extent that, the Board wants to leave should strive to accomplish, I would have no, issue with that whatsoever.
And so the proposed language is to strive, we could bring that forward in the second reading and get some consensus from the Board. And as the Board knows, we can either live with it, we can agree with it with some reservations or we could disagree. And I think we'll work toward trying to build some consensus around these issues, both procedurally and otherwise. The other thing, you know, when I look at principle six, I I see this
as we're developing this as policy now in 2026. I know that we'll be giving this over to the next board in '27. And it's essentially saying, as you go forward, and here I'm looking at the future president, the Board's governance priorities shall be supported by clearly defined procedures, outlining timelines, documentation and standards, as well as evaluation methodology. So we just want to be sure unless the policy is revised again that at
the very least we have a blueprint and we should follow these things. This is telling the next Board this is what we need and that has to be communicated to the superintendent. Is that also a fair way to think about this? I think so. Okay. Are there any other concerns about this document? Again, on first reading, we'll have several weeks during which time we can review this policy and come up with more questions. And as we begin to develop our approach to evaluating the superintendent, we're going to
be doing this in action. We're going to have to be doing these things. So we can see whether they fit or they don't fit. How would you want us to do that then if we mark it up? Like, if we have, like, share it with everybody, share it with Matt, like, the best way to do that. Alright. How should we do that? Yeah. I think that of all the policies used in red line version, So which is what we did with the first Yeah. Yeah. Mhmm. Time.
So you can see here's what we check here's what we're changing. That'd be great. So, like, I know Matt's done he's done a Herculean effort, I guess. So I did provide them with that as well. Okay. So, and I know that you have some of these, but I can tell you, for example, on 1520, what you have there is different colors. That's one of the ones that we changed last time, eliminated assistance. So it looks like Matt went back and picked up off of a '20 a
much older version. So we we gotta look at the new but that that's one of the ones that we changed last year. Yeah. I didn't see any. So this is the document we're looking at now. And so what I what I would propose for essentially, it's for Neil to update 34.1, which for each one, give the actual policies, the red line versions, and then a summary of each one of the policies and the changes that are made. What I would propose is that I now submit this to the Board and then
we have a first reading on that at a later time to give the Board time to review ahead of time. That's what I think would make the most sense, at this point. Yes. So it kind of is up to the Board when you want to trigger that first reading, then it will be in sequence, but it can be a second reading could be tabled, for example, third reading could be tabled. You're gonna control the speed at which those come in. Sometimes I ask you to waive the three readings. I think we did that on the wellness call. But you can to get them on the agenda for first reading, I would agree
with Matt, that doesn't mean that's the final version that's going to be done. It just starts the process and then it takes however long it takes for people to be satisfied. Did we answer, the question missus Lee was asking? If we want to, have some input on the superintendent evaluation policy, what's the best way for us to get comments to you? I think just via email would be fine. Yeah. And whatever whatever would be most convenient for the board would be, I would accommodate
no matter no matter what. Does that seem fair, doctor McCullough and others, to to as you have comments on the superintendent evaluation policy, you can send those comments to, Matthew in the next two weeks? You can send them to yeah. Send them to you as long as we do everything in public. And if it means anything has to be done in public. So we can send our comments yet so that you'll know what they are. No. And I'll be sure to compile, you know, a list of all the all the feedback that I received. That way, we can discuss that, you know, as being these were all the changes
that were proposed. This is what, has been implemented as a result and this is what the updated policy looks like. And is there a timeline, two weeks? Whatever whatever the board would require will be fine by me. Yeah. So oh, I'm am I jumping ahead? No. Go ahead. I'm jumping ahead here. Oh, you are. So I'm looking at, policy number 237 o point three point o three, Indiana Course Assessment Program. So the acronyms on here, the ICAP means capacity for achievement.
What is can you can you explain to the public before I make my statement what is ICAP? The I can't it's the Indiana course access program. Okay. Alright. So what I'm looking at is on page the the second page. And so it says here that, now isn't this under the curriculum department, or is this something separate? That would fall under the curriculum. Yes, ma'am. Okay. So having said that, so I'm looking here. And since we're trying to be mindful of constantly hiring people in the administration office
downtown. So I'm looking at this. So shouldn't the administrate the administrator that's the executive director of curriculum be in charge of this? Because it's saying here that, it's it's actually saying here that you, the superintendent, is can can, hire someone to be the where did I see that here? The lead point of contact? The lead contact person? Yeah. The lead lead point of contact.
So shouldn't that be the person that's over the curriculum department or someone that is designated out of her department to do something like this instead of hiring someone? I'm just asking. Any anything curriculum would I think yeah. Would go back to Carla. I'm sorry. The what? Any anything involving curriculum would be under Carla's purview. I I would also agree with that, doctor McCullough. I can make that change, Rob. Yeah. Because it's it's it's the most like like it's saying that we're we're gonna hire someone different to do this this position, and it should stay within the curriculum department,
because, that's that's what they do. So Mhmm. I'll make that change. Now on the and that came to the lead point of contact section, it does say the superintendent shall assign a corporation employee to serve as a corporation's lead point of contact. Wouldn't that suggest that the superintendent could already just I mean, they're not required to hire somebody. They'll just assign it. And if they assign it to the executive director of curriculum, which they probably would, that's fine. But at least gives them the flexibility to assign it to somebody else if for
some reason that was necessary. I think it should be clear. It should be made clear because he has the ability to assign someone. That can mean to me as a come as a person looking at this, a late person looking at this, that he can assign some person that may be hired, or he can assign another person, someone that's not in the curriculum department. I think it needs to be clear so that we'll know that this is under the curriculum department. It should be someone in the curriculum department that's looking at this, Should be the
contact person. So if if he's assigning someone in the curriculum department, then it should be clear what we're talking about so we won't get confused by that. Because I remember the previous policies before. The reason why I'm questioning it so heavy is because I remember the previous policy before. It was so misused. The wording was so misused, and so I just need to make sure that we're clear. It does That we have to have a mentor. So and we might wanna say, you know, not hire a mentor, but assign a mentor. Okay. I'll make I'll make those changes.
So I'm also looking at this next page. So The same, The same, yeah. And I'm looking at the next page. Shouldn't this fall under special ed? Which one? The students with IEPs. Why are we looking at why is this falling under The students with IEPs. Department. I'm looking at students' IEPs and five zero fours. Mhmm. That would be under, special ed. In two wires. Probably the first day of online course, the student's teacher record coordinator.
This show provide copy of the student's IEP section. Yeah. That's so, I'm just maybe, I should look at this policy trying to figure it
out because I'm not quite sure how special ed information is under curriculum department. The director of special ed reports to the executive director of curriculum. Okay. And is this just clarifying how students with IEPs and five zero fours participate in the ICAP. ICAP. Right? Oh. So that's why it's in the ICAP policy? Yep. They can. So This is not a pop quiz, though.
So you you so before we do the first reading, you you can say, hey, let's wait on this one or let's we need more time to think about this. So I don't want anyone to get the idea we're here trying to pressure a fast decision or not. It has to start we have to start somewhere, but we can pull one, we can do first reading on all but one, whatever you're comfortable with. I'm looking at this as it was mentioned earlier as a working session.
Yes. So we're going through the policies making given a working session. I'm not looking at this as as a pop quiz or anything else. Good. If I see something that I'm questioning, I think I I just need to bring it out loud Yep. To see what I'm questioning. And it appreciate the fact that you said that your special ed, director reports to, the the, curriculum executive director, which is fine. Because now that I'm reading this, if that's the case, then this I have no problem with this. I just wanna move on to the next one. So it sounds like we're comfortable moving on from this particular policy then.
So we should also be clear that this is not a first reading, this is a working session to just work our way through and that the first we can decide as a Board when we'll have the first reading, which I would imagine would be in the next couple of weeks. So how should we proceed now? Should we continue on to twenty six zero three following the one on curriculum? This would be school performance Internet dashboard. Is that make So I can I can just give a brief overview of that as well? Yeah.
So, actually, this is the out of the 12, this is the only new policy that is not is a new one, not not a, revision. It is required by the House Enrolled Act fifteen fourteen. It establishes a public performance dashboard on our website that will include the state state board mandated data. So it's essentially just a statutory requirement that we now have. Do our communication department knows about this? It should. Someone else to put on that website. Lots of information out there. Actually, this would fall under doctor Yan's department, data and technology and the establishment of
the dashboard. Are we, taking questions? Yes, sir. Okay. Over anything? Yes. Yes. Under, the governmental agencies, we have the right to come in and question our students. I thought went through very thorough, of what should be done, but I don't don't know why you do not list ICE in this, procedure.
Is there a reason? So this is I mean, sorry to interrupt interrupt. This is 5540. Okay. That's what The schools and government agencies just No. That's just for DCS. This one is just for DCS. Can you clarify that? Department of Child Services. If they if there is an exit, like, an emergent need that they need to talk to a student, they can interview them by themselves if there is an emergency. Usually, a principal following this procedure.
Which policy is that? I'm sorry. 5540. Yes. 5540. Now usually, the principal or assistant principal will act in local parentis and be with the student if we cannot get ahold of the parents and they wanna talk to the student. In emergency cases, this policy, I believe, will give them the authority to do so only in an emergency. What if what if they wanna take the student?
I don't see anything in there, where the what the school should obligation would be. The this one only gives them the authority to interview the student. That's correct. Under the So my question is, what if they want to take the student? What do we what are we supposed to do? What what what would you recommend the principal of a building to do? They they should contact the one of the attorneys immediately. Okay. Well And and the circumstances Then that probably should be in there.
Yeah. I because I I agree with you. Well and I know that in other context, there's been instructions to that effect to the principal, about contacting. They have my cell phone and they have Well four contact, different situations. Okay. Well, I've been waiting for for us to to focus on this, to to make sure that we know that these building, especially the building administrators know exactly because that
time will be coming soon. And they they should know exactly what to do. Mhmm. And can I follow-up on Mr? Costello's concern? The second page of that interview shall be treated as a law enforcement matter and school representative shall not participate, but may remain nearby unless otherwise directed. That gives law enforcement some latitude to tell the representative from the school where to
sit and how close in proximity. But I think the next paragraph here we're at the top, everyone is following me. The interview is taking place, but then along the if immediate notification is now possible, the principal or designee must notify the student's parent not later than twelve hours? I think that this needs to be improved frankly looking at it And and some of these priorities are out of order. So if you have a minor student, you should not allow us to there are
times where there's exigent circumstances, but, typically, parents should be notified. Mhmm. And a pair and and, I think there's some obligation for the school officials to step in in local if the parent isn't there to protect the students. Yes, doctor McCullough. So I have a question on that line. So see, once you I think it's the third third paragraph. Hold on. Maybe a second second or two. But I understand stand that, if the child DCS comes in and had and wants
to enter interview a student, strikes it's a strikeout here. I understand that if the parent is a problem, that we don't have to call and invite that parent. The the the child protection services don't have to do that. But if the parent is not the problem, they're not the ones that's being being accused of anything, it says here, we will make every, reasonable effort to notify the student's parent. I think the word, shell should be, shell attempt to inform the student's parents.
Instead of it it says unless directed not to do so by the representative or the agency. Needs to be put back in there because the court. If you come in there to interview a student, for for for whatever the case may be, I get that part. But if that I don't think that wording should be taken out. I don't know. We can we can make it consistent with what the court may order or not order. Well, and that's that's these all come up in the context. So there may be a specific court order directing something. There may just be an inquiry. So we have to assess, like, what are the circumstances of each specific case?
And I I do think this probably needs to be cleaned up, frankly. I think the shall got taken out maybe by mistake because the shall clarifies that too because there's no Yeah. Should also go to court in the light of I think that shall remain. Shall make reasonable effort. Because they couldn't, you know, try to come in in real time as well. Yeah. And I'm still questioning the reasonable efforts over a twelve hour period. Yeah. So there are I I can think of a specific context well before I was on the board when I was an advocate. And I arrived at school, and police had already strip searched the child before the
parent could come to school. That should never have happened. And I did that at the at the hearing. I'll do it now. That should never have happened. It was a violation of that child's rights. And this excuse that I could not contact the parent isn't good enough. There may be many reasons why the parent was not able to be reached. Yeah. Yeah. Because if I'm a parent and if I'm not the problem, I wanna note I wanna be notified. And and in this case, to have been witness to the cert. Yeah.
Usually, a principal or assistant principal can be in the room or must be in the room. They cannot be part of the interrogation process, but they have to witness. So this is not saying you have to wait twelve hours or you can wait twelve hours. What's basically saying is within that twelve hours, you have to make that contact. It's not telling you take as long as twelve hours or yeah.
No. I and I'm saying it may take that long to reach a parent. Yeah. I doubt I doubt it'll take twelve. But if it takes three or four Three or four. That's enough room for someone to have a lot of latitude. And and even to have an assistant principal in the room with a child who's being strip searched seems unacceptable to me if I'm a parent. I I think this is one of these policies that we ought to, let's rewrite, sit down with the prosecutor's office, DCS, and and other administrators here and kinda let's
create something that actually does work that's sensible. Yeah. I can reach out to the DCS attorney. Yeah. Yeah. And I can reach out to the I can reach out to the prosecutor as well. Yeah. Yeah. Matt's got a good working relationship with, I think that's a good idea. I don't know if you've been in jail. No. No. No. No. No. No. He actually, Matt's got the background in this specific area. So it's it's I think it all should should be expanded to encompass, situations where the court orders the guardian ad litem or Acosta to come and interview a child
as well. We have that somewhat often in our schools that, you know, they come and they have an order that says that they're allowed to interview the child, and yet our schools are still questioning what's going on. Why do we, you know, what do we do? So, in the time that I've been here, I've provided guidance to a couple of the principals on that issue specifically. So, you know, in those situations, there's a specific court order, so it's a little bit easier. But, I think we need to tailor this to align more so with the reality of the situation. Are we tabling it or postponing it?
So I think we'll table it. I'm gonna meet with the the juvenile prosecutor, and then also I'll reach out to the contact, the local office contacts here for DCS and see what, what we can put together as, like, a roundtable. Thank you. In terms of the, and I agree twelve hours seems long, but it seems like that language is lifted directly from, you know, state statute. I mean, I'm looking at the the reference guide of, Indiana laws related to school
safety, And that seems to be, you know, the school principal must make an effort to immediately notify students' parents of the interrogation. Or for immediate notification, it's not possible. The school principal must notify the students' parents no later than twelve hours after the integration interrogation occurs. It's added by public law 67 dash two zero zero seven section one. You know, and this seems to be, you know, word for word for that, which is, I imagine, why that's the ISBA code. So, you know, why I think that's probably seems like it should be faster than
that. If we change our policy, it would not be in alignment then with public law 67 dash two zero seven secondtion one. So maybe we should consider not passing a policy that's different than the word for word text of that particular public law absent, you know, at least significant discussion. Mhmm. And so why we're doing that and what the consequences may be if we have a policy that's giving different hours or something different than what the public law is to the State of Indiana in that regard, regardless of the fact, even if we
agree or think that it shouldn't be as long as 12, I would agree with that, too. But that's what public law 67 dash two zero seven says, then that's also what public law, 67 dash two zero seven says. So we can at least just, you know, make sure we're looking at that in terms of contemplation of making any of those type of changes and whether we can or what implications there may be if what we're doing is not in alignment with
that particular law. I think that's an excellent point. And so I see at the very top I was getting ready to say that we gotta whatever the the the language that we're talking about here with the twelve hours interrogation, we just have to make sure that we're as we said at the very beginning of this policy, to do make every effort to make sure we're protecting our students. And that's that's the bottom line there, is to making sure our students are protected and then they are not put into a situation where they're frightened and, there's nobody there that that's, protecting them.
I agree. Yeah. Yeah. Agreed. Can I clarify one thing? I'm I don't wanna jump ahead on anybody, so I just so I'm looking at, the revised policy, volume 34, number one. Is this this what it says, electronic records, this is basically regarding the financial, department, regarding checks and not student records. Am I right? I wanna make sure that we're not talking about checks, draft, warrants, vouchers.
This is the treasurer. Yeah. Okay. That's what I wanna make sure. I wanna make sure because because that can be read incorrectly too. So I just wanna make sure that's what that's saying. That's on 6105. Yep. Yep. That's correct. Actually, right now, they have to consent to accepting electronic records Yeah. You know, like, w twos, etcetera. And, this is Matt. Just for reference, the public law was saying it's, cited in the Indiana code, Indiana code 20 dash 33 dash 11. There are four provisions there dealing with the interrogation of a student that has that
exact twelve hours language. It does note in there that if you have squalls a policy about funeral for notifications, then that's the language that it's supposed to be. And I it does seem to note, you know, perhaps we could just not have a policy, though that would probably not be a good solution either. But, so just take a look at that, and then let us know. I will. Thank you. I'm gonna have to leave, but, I agree with anything that Mark agrees on.
Okay? And I'm more concerned I'm more concerned of following the policy. Yeah. I think the policy's been followed with our superintendent, but it hasn't been in the past at all. We all know that. And so whatever changes, we need to follow him. And, so I got a kind of an emergency at home, so I'm gonna have to leave this discussion to you guys. Keep them till here till midnight if you watch I think Matt needs to go
home and go to bed. He does. Thank you, mister Smith. Need a night cold break. Oh, something. Thank you too for Thank you. Oh, shit. Oh, man. He made himself sick. Good night. God bless everybody. Good night. Be careful. Since, mister Nardecki alluded to it, I I will also, make a comment that I appreciate, the hard work that you put forth giving us this information.
You know, it's one thing to put something together legally, and then it's another thing, trying to put it together so people understand it. And, and it's very difficult because of the legal terminology and everything. You know, people get misguided by that sometimes and what is actually meant. And, but it's up to us sitting up here as a board, because I'd like
to, maybe in the future or something near future, have an executive session where we can be honest and open, especially with the superintendent's contract, and sit down to see what exactly this is the legal one. And what exactly could we put together to give him a fair and accurate evaluation. And that's what this is all about as far as comments concerning, his superintendent.
And not only just for, mister Reed right now, but for future, superintendents as well. I think, doctor Green alluded to it, that I have always felt the major focus of any superintendent's evaluation is leadership. Because he is the leader of the school corporation. And anything that enters into that area of leadership should be, explored to make sure
that he is doing the things that not only the school board wants, but the teachers, central office people, and the South Bend Community School, community wants. And, that's a that's a very difficult when it comes to superintendency evaluation, it is a very, very difficult exercise in order to get it correct.
And, my problem in the past has always been, there's, you know, there's so many other aspects of data gathering and other ways, you know, people, you know, would like to, put out there, well, graduation rates or some other, how many kids go to college or something else.
Superintendent really has very little effect on that. It's the people in the classroom, day in and day out, for twelve years or thirteen years that really are the ones who are responsible for whether a kid graduates from school or not. By their dedication of trying to assist and help a kid every day, makes the difference. And they should be the ones who get credit for things like that.
Not the superintendent. Now the superintendent, there again, has to make sure those things are being done. That's his job. But it's not to actually educate the student. And we get mixed up on that sometimes. I think as, in our directions of how we wanna handle evaluations. We want to be able to evaluate things that he controls, that he's around.
Not to do things that he has very little direct impact on. So, and in doing that, that's what I'm saying, it's a very difficult process. And, and I don't I don't have the answers for it. I'll tell you that right now. I went through that, many times, as a classroom teacher of being evaluate evaluated by
a principal, and then in my job, central office job of evaluating principals and things like that. And it's and then having boards evaluate me. It it's, you know, it's not an easy process, but it's a process that we have to do. State law says we have to do it. And, and but the biggest at the end, what we really want is a fair and thorough evaluation of a person of what he is actually doing.
So thank you. I have a quick comment or question. Comment and question. So follow on following following on the lines of, what mister Costello, just mentioned, I don't think that when a school board hires a superintendent, they hire the superintendent because he has direct access or or, working with the students, academically. We hire a superintendent for for various reasons and, one of them to, make to
provide leadership and vision to make sure students' academic achievement is increasing. That's why you hire a superintendent. So as far as, hiring someone or making a statement that we know he don't work directly with the student, we already know that. So but we have to make sure that when a superintendent is in place, that is the vision. That is the vision to make sure students' academic achievement is achieving. They're achieving. That is part of that vision.
That's part of the strategic plan. So I just wanna say that. I have one quick question, and I don't wanna belabor any any points here, but so policy number 8305, that's the last one on this list. And I'm looking at, I'm hoping that this does not contradict the policy 8330, which is student records, because when we have third party contractors, vendors, or whoever the case
may be, have an access to students' data, they have to understand that they have to have parent permission slips. So I just wanna make sure that we're not Okay. Adding anything in here that will alleviate that. So we do have for the contractors that we drafted last year to use a FERPA amendment or addendum so that that is additional protection, for vendors that do work
with us. But I but the FERPA, the way I understand it, you still have to have parent permission slips when you are when you come in to to to work with a student or you're asking for student data. You need those parent permission slips in hand before students' data is given to anybody. But but not only that is that once they get that data, we are extending the FERPA protections. We're we're binding the contractors and vendors to, uphold the FERPA protections after they get
the data. So they get they may get it with parent parental consent. That doesn't mean they're free to do whatever they want with it. Oh, I get that part. I get that. That's not what I'm saying. Yeah. I just wanna make sure because it's it's kind of, confusing. I just don't want anyone to read this and think that, Well, I so this is more, I think, in terms of protecting the integrity of electronically, our access to our our information. That's that's a broader scope thing is that we want to have secure keep our
our digital information secure. Feel a little bit like a three zero five information security goes in two different directions. Okay. And I can see where I can see exactly doctor McCullough's point, which he's brought up many times, and that's we need to be careful about sharing student data with outside providers. And in this case, the first part of eighty three zero five, and I'll refer
it to legal counsel, but this is about cybersecurity. The first one, two, three paragraphs including a b c, and then the next paragraph, individuals granted access, that that seems to be a different problem. And it's one that she's referring to. And essentially, what we're saying at the top of the second page is we're giving the superintendent the ability to develop procedures when there I wonder if there shouldn't actually
be a board policy. Well, we we we actually I would say as a matter of practice. Okay. It's not in here, but we have like an add on or addendum to contracts for vendors that do get proper coverage. Yeah. We do. So that they sign off and are bound by the same obligation the school has. And I don't I think it's perfectly appropriate to say or to to add a reference to that, to to Yeah. Address the concern that you have. Yeah. Yeah. That's included in the criteria we use to evaluate any MOU Mhmm.
Yeah. That I think missus Lee revised some years ago. So So do you agree that this eighty three zero five, however, takes us in two different directions with cyber I do. I do. As you pointed out, yeah. I think I think I agree. Yeah. Yes. So is is this is this a new policy? Because it's not on on our website as a policy. It goes from $82.20 to $83.10 to $83.11 and so forth. There's no 8305. It's not even 8305 in the policy handbook that I that I received.
So is this a new policy? I think it is. I understand it. It's not a new policy. Yeah. I but I I don't see it on the regular book that was in there. This is October 21. Yeah. But it's not it's not on our policy thing. So who who who came up with this policy? I I I You did? I'm sorry. I didn't come over with it. I think what happens, you've pointed out, Matthew, that we've gone over some of these, but they haven't been incorporated into board docs.
And that's what Matthew is trying to do now is so it's not so disconcerting but not surprising that you're saying we don't see eighty three zero five because whatever we did five years ago or six years ago never got updated. Yeah. Yeah. Because it's not on the board doc policy manual, but it could have been like the ones we did last year. We did adopt them, but they're not loaded into the Yeah. That's what I said. Well Well. As you Get on it. Right? Well, now speaking with and we have there was policies that were developed that board
members were not privy to, and this is probably one of them. Not saying it's a bad policy, But as board members, we that's our job, policies. And so we need to be aware of every policy that's there, and this it wasn't there. So I was just questioning it. It's not in conflict with the eighty three thirty, which is student records, because we have to make sure we are protecting our students' data. And they have people have to follow the correct process with that. We we have, two companies that we hire. One of them, initiates attacks on our system to see how secure it is, and
the other one sends basically phishing emails to our employees every once in a while just to see where the weak links are so we could, talk to those people and tell them. You know? So we we remain vigilant with with regard to the network. And I think the cybersecurity issue is important and I think we're following up. As Mr. Ida said, the second part of the A305 probably should be either cut from there
or move to, protecting student data. Two different issues. This isn't a cybersecurity issue. But did you mention is it possible to, like, cross reference another policy in, like, you could have it here and then also I believe you can. Yep. Yep. Mhmm. That will be March. Does that cover the main ones that you wanted to cover tonight? It does. And to Doctor. McColl's point, I think that's one of the main reasons I put this spreadsheet together listing all the two zero six policies that Neil identified was to bring awareness to
the board and so that we can be aligned on moving forward these are policies that have been identified and maybe they either have been updated and not finalized in Board docs. Maybe they've been finalized but not updated. Maybe they haven't been reviewed at all. And just to kind of bring clarity to the status of each particular one so that way moving forward, we can start to get things done appropriately and, and and efficiently. I appreciate that. I appreciate that. I have one quick quick recommendation as far as policies.
We've heard this a lot. Is there any way because I know there was a bill on the floor about bullying, and I don't I'm not quite sure. I don't think that bill went very far. But is there any way that we can maybe fine tune our bullying policy here? We have to have a way we have to find a way to protect our students from bullying. It's 50 p o policy number fifty five seventeen point o one. So if there's a way that we can fine tune, that bullying policy, to make sure that students are safe and protected, I think as, if you can maybe look
into that and bring that back to the board with the language or something that we can possibly agree on, I appreciate it. Thank you. Oh, do that. Thank you. I think I think that was another one we did take a look at last year. I'm sorry? We did take a look at that last year because there were some updates. But that might mean something. It'd been a policy, a senate bill on the floor, but I don't think it went very far. Yeah. It does. But we need to develop our own policy and make sure there's something in place
because, parents complain all the time about students being bullied. And we've got to, as a school corporation, make sure that we have something in place to protect our students from bullying. So that's just my my my my thinking. I'd appreciate it. Well, this as I described it into you to you, I think earlier, Matthew, this was a Herculean task to cross reference and come up with that spreadsheet. And this is a good another good moment for us as a Board to be
able to account for all the policies and changes we've made over the last six years and have them in one place, and to keep updating. You know, I think we could keep coming back to ensuring students' safety, protecting students' rights, making sure that there's transparency in everything we're doing, and there's also a level a high level of accountability. So I think as a board if I can speak for the Board, we're very grateful for this opportunity.
And I think that we can move forward to a first reading within the next couple of weeks, but that's something for the board to discuss at the next executive session next week. So thank you. And thank you for those who joined us in this exciting discussion of Board policy. And I would just I know you said over the next couple of weeks, Board members are just going to submit to Matt different changes or ideas or tweaks they
have for certain ones. I would just wanna make sure. I mean, the the main reason why I'd really like to stick with what we already have is just because if it's language from ISB or from the old, we already know it matches. It's gonna be in alignment with the state code, like the one we talked about, the twelve hour thing. And I just think we need to be cautious about making any tweaks that then take us away from the exact same limit. I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea that we have any tweaks. But, you know, just make sure when you get them that you then recheck to
see if, you know, it's gonna be in alignment with the code or at least tell us it's not so that we're aware of that and can think about why we would wanna do something that's not because it's not easy to necessarily look at all of these and know, well, this is this written this way with this particular word, this particular sentence because it matches the language and then you encode them which ones don't. And, you know, that's the only, you know, caution I have about getting into tweaks, not against necessarily you know, if it's allowable and it makes sense, then it's fine.
But it's not easy looking at it to know when it would or wouldn't, conflict with the code. So we just need to be cautious about that. That's all. Comment. So that is the purpose of us meeting again Yeah. With policies is so that we can come together or look at the policies that's that's being, recommended for changes. And if I have a tweak, I'm gonna ask about the tweak. Mhmm. And when it's come time to vote on these policies, you can vote either quarterly or not. Yep. I'm going to, make my suggestions for a tweak whenever I think there is a
a reason to do so. That's what I want you to know. And I appreciate you doing this. It takes a lot of work, and I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you, Doctor. McCullough. Well, with that, I think we'll adjourn. And, our next board meeting, as you know, is March 9, Monday night, March 9. Next Monday. Next Monday.