Heat. Heat. forum present. I call this meeting of the board of education to order. The board would like to welcome the audience and thank you for attending. Viewers may watch TCAP's board of education meetings and committee meetings live or on demand at any time at www.tcaps.net/port.
back/port. Please rise and join me in the pledge of >> allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice
for all. >> Okay, we're the review approval portion of the agenda. Um I do believe there is a couple of modifications. Um >> I would like to pull this where I request >> Yep.
>> to pull three policies off of consent and put them into discussion. >> Okay. Um can you state the policies? >> Sure. Um it's policy uh 5407 instructional program and curriculum
development 5411 student promotion retention and placement and 5420 on sex education. >> Okay. And if uh I would just propose
that they go in the existing board policy discussion um under items four, five, and six under item B. >> And Scott, I'd like to pull 5405. >> 545 family engagement.
>> Okay. 545 5407 54 11 5420. Um moving those to uh again board policy discussion. Uh D Any other changes? >> Yeah, on that note, I we did have some
comments about microphones and not being able to hear. So, um do our best to talk into the microphones and remind each other if we do turn them off. So, um any other changes? If not, do I have a motion to approve as amended?
>> I move to approve the agenda as amended. All right. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Second. >> All right. Um I believe clarification on that. When we make a change to the agenda, we do need a roll call vote to make a change. Correct. Okay. >> Yep. >> So Tammy, please roll.
>> Um Trusty Ballinger, >> yes. >> Trusty Schmidt, >> yes. >> Trusty Veraris, >> yes. >> Trusty Hardy, >> I. >> Trusty Moonmore, >> yes. >> Trusty C. >> Yes. >> Trusty, >> yes. >> Just for a point of future order. So it takes a just a majority. It takes a
super majority after the agenda's been started. >> Yeah. >> So that's >> I just had a comment not from a board member here but a different board member that they were blown away that we even have >> more rules than I was like pretty sure you have to. So I just wanted to check.
>> So um okay uh moving on to the next item which is public comment. Uh we do have public comment I take it. So the board has set aside this time for public comment and individuals addressed on the board shall have one more opportunity to speak and it shall be limited to 3 minutes. Individuals should
not make personal tax unrelated to actions affecting the school system and we strongly encourage common courtesy and constructive feedback. Detailed rules and procedures including complaint process are outlined in board policy 25504. Travis
and I should be words her comments, her analysis of our program. So you want to see more on her is her website is matthew 18.org. She used Roman emails or
just matthew to tease 18.org. And uh this is what she said. So I'm just going to read from it. You can read along or these are her objections to what's being the sexed curriculum. has been put forth
to be okay. Sex in the law instructs sex outside of marriage is normal. Teach students how to consent. Um, which so many people would disagree with that right there. Abstinence and refusal
skills. Teach oral analys vaginal sex. Teach pressure lines slashreusal skills. no mention of the benefits to wait until marriage. In fact, what she told me is in this whole program, she didn't see
any mention of marriage at all. I didn't double check it, but I will when I get a second relationships, dating, Bill of Rights, uh, no, but no mention of the purpose of dating mention sexual violence with no
mention of porn. Fact, porn creates sexual violence. HIV AIDS under prevention is abstinence limit partners/use condoms or dental damned fact condoms don't work for anal sexi
many STI are curable and 100% treatable it said no mention of infertility HPV infections spread to areas not covered by a condom condoms reduce risks prevention includes abstinence
100% effective have fewer partners slashtalk with partner. Fact, many will lie when they're talked to like that. And fertility awareness, contraception, and proper use of condoms. Teaches kids various birth
control measures. Spends a great deal of time on how to use safe delivery program and a small amount of time on adoption. Lists places to go for pregnancy tests. And in the beginning asks, are you ready to be a parent and not are you ready to
have sex outside of marriage? But so many people are concerned about that too. Bottom line, for those who are not sexually active, they will feel in the minority and their moral innocence will be removed. For those who were sexually abused, this will be retraum traumatized
them. And for those who are sexually active, this will give them a green light to keep going. Thank you for your consideration. That's the end of public. >> Okay, that's the end of uh first public comment. We do obviously have an additional public or public hearing as
well today on the sex. Um next agenda item superintendent's report to find to Dr. Vill. >> Okay. Legislative update. Wish I had one. Um we are still sitting at no state
budget. um lots of rhetoric conversation um that's happening in Lancing. The speaker did come out with a statement that schools should just do what you need to do and and the budget will be good. >> Um >> that's reassuring.
>> It is. It is because there are some schools that are laying people off across the state, those elements. Um and so uh you know that's kind of the response. That's about all we have. And uh >> Okamus public schools announced that they are not offering free and reduced
lunch. >> Correct. >> Free free meals I should say. >> Yep. And you know most are at this point you know we've got we have money to September 30. So you know we'll kind of see where this lands but there very well may be a conversation that the board has
to have you know at some point here. If we get to that point close and we don't have a budget still um we'll see. So, we'll let you know as that goes, but uh we just don't have any indication of and you know the the sides were so far apart
in so many categoricals. That's the hard part like you know the the foundation's kind of one thing but the categoricals of you know what they allow in it, what they don't allow, like all those components are just really really hard. And um you know so we're I think you
know we we've done the be very best we can with you know our budget as it sits and prioritize things for kids and and uh but this is the reason I will say you know publicly why you do keep up on equity because the reality is is that
you know you are depending on it if things don't come out like we think they might. Um, and so you can at least live a a semester or a year, you know, of of not catastrophic consequences if you have to essentially live off of that
savings. Um, which very well could happen. So, we'll see where it lands and keep you updated if we get any kind of updates, but we are no farther along than the last time we met. One question on that because obviously as it currently stands correctly free and reduced lunch
is like if nothing changed it's done September. >> Correct. And so one of the things we're doing is um Dan and Jesse are doing a great work with all of our team and our food service director. We're doing a mass campaign across the district for those forms. And this is we're asking
everybody regardless of income to fill those forms out. It matters for federal and state grants. our numbers of applications we get um and and for those kids that are our most vulnerable, it could be the only, you know, funding that we get from this aspect is that
federal school lunch program. So, we're asking everybody to fill those forms out regardless at this point. Um many many other districts across the state are doing the same. We're kind of seeing their social media campaigns that they're doing. So, um a lot of work happening at buildings. We're going to have kiosk and back to school nights. Um
we've got social media campaigns, lots of different things going. um explaining to our our families again all families to please fill that form out >> and that well that so can we hit on that a little bit because I think there is even myself is clarifying if if there's
is it the drive to get people to fill out form because they could qualify they may not know >> it it's all the above it's also there's the amount of forms you even get can matter in federal grants you know just participation numbers Um so like 100%
you know uh um of of families applying in that form and again you need one for your all of your students you know and it it can matter. So we want everybody to fill it out if possible >> because I've heard that comment from a lot of people and I also believe that as
well. It's like if I know then I'm not going to qualify. >> Yeah. And I I might I almost feel like a lot of people think that they would be hurting by filling out that form. And so if that's not I haven't ever I've never as a board member even really pushed back on that when people have said that
to me. So if that is the case then if we can get some guidance on I think that's very different to that's actually almost easier for us to say everyone needs to fill out the form and then obviously we can target. >> We covered this this morning in curriculum committee meetings. So I would encourage you know all board
members to review all committee meetings. But they they did lay out their campaign a little bit and explain that part of the federal funding is just simply if our district meets a certain quota of people who fill out the form whether or not they qualify for free, right? >> And and you know, and it could change.
It could be all of a sudden the state says, "Okay, well, we're going to give funding for as many that you had fill, you know, complete a form, >> you know, like that could fall in the equation here in the end." So like the safest thing we can do is get everybody to fill a form. I would just one suggestion just as a parent because um
you know elementary middle school usually parents are more involved but from a high school level like just an email directly from the high school saying we need all parents to fill this out not sunk in like an email like because we get the west updates and sometimes there's lots of links in there
to things but I think just a direct email to every single parent that says we need all of you to fill this. >> We have to be a little softer because we can't mandate it. >> Okay. We would like >> they federal. Yes, exactly. >> We can say that you have yet to fill out the form.
>> We >> if we don't we don't quite I don't have that all that data that >> Yeah, we don't necessarily we can't skim off who already filled it out. So, we could say that to everybody, but then there'd be confusion on what >> and one thing we talked about earlier today, we have a very narrow amount of staffs that even know if somebody's
filled it out and that's purposeful >> um to protect privacy and families uh information. So we, you know, we really have to be very very very careful on that privacy standpoint as well. But >> don't take him. We'll do everything the very best we can.
went to or kid >> went to orientation by himself and um you know so yeah >> I will say that in my orientation it was very clear abundantly clear uh reinforced multiple times throughout
the process of here's the forms please fill out all of them good enough >> very very impressive >> are you going to also do uh other media besides just social media are you going to also on radio, on television.
>> We we do have our newsletter that um has gone out, but yeah, I'm hoping to get with uh you know, here first day of school. I often get asked to be on the Ronali show and others. So, all of those elements I'm making sure to push that conversation. >> And the reason those I think are important is because it's a public forum
that people can call in with questions. >> Yeah. >> And so I think if there's another place where you need to reiterate something, a question can come in where you do that. >> Yeah. it it we have done TV interviews, you know, quite a bit already um on it. Uh the record eagle is going to be
running a story um soon. Um and then but I'll make sure to touch base with local radio media as well. >> Can those forms be filled out electronically with an electronic signature? >> Yes, >> we actually encourage that because it
the the tendency with people filling it out online is they might skip a mandatory step. Well, on a computerized system, it doesn't let you skip it. And if you don't fill it out, if there's something missing, we can't submit it, >> but they can electronically sign it as well. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> It only takes a few minutes. Correct.
>> Yes. >> Based on what you said, >> like I said, we will have multiple kiosks out at our back to school nights across the district. Um, and then for district highlights, um, we're excited to announce that Christine Thomas Hiller, assistant
superintendent for finance and operations, has successfully renewed her business office manager certification through the Michigan School Business Officials Association. Uh, this significant achievement involved completing 90 hours of professional development. It's a testament to her dedication to excellence is set by the
MSBO board of directors through their professional development committee. In addition uh to this rigorous professional development, Christine was also honored as a record eagle leader of Northern Michigan. This recognition further highlights her impactful contributions and leadership within our
community. We extend our deepest appreciation and congratulations to Christine for her outstanding work and commendation. So well done. >> Yeah. The week of August 11th, we welcomed back our administrators and held successful, productive uh meetings with
all of our administrative team, our secondary and elementary principles, and our secondary and elementary curriculum instruction teams as well. Uh the week of August 18th, we welcome new teachers and new non non-eing professional staff members here at Glen Lumis for three half-day orientation sessions. TCAPS is
very grateful for the generous community sponsors who provided beverages, snacks, and lunches for all three days for our new staff. Uh sponsors included Bay Bread Company, uh Books from Birth, uh partnership of the Border to Read and Dolly Parton Imagination Library of
Grand Travers Region, Central Michigan University, uh Dr. Don Funk at Structure and Function Chiropractic, Grand Canyon University, Oriana Community Food Co-op, and TMP Architecture. So, we thank them for all their support. As you all well
know, uh, with Gazsby rules and things, we cannot do a lot of those things that we're used to we used to be able to do. And so, um, support from our community for those things is so so valuable. And so, we thank them for that. Uh, this week, we welcome back all of our
teaching staff for a full day of professional learning with princip all of our principles at Central High School on Wednesday. Um, generous vendors from the community also um have giveaway raffle prizes for staff. TCAPS expresses gratitude to Jimmy John's for their
gener generous sponsorship for over 500 staff members. In addition, uh I want to thank uh Via from Mesa Insurance, uh Seg Insurance, Life Touch uh Photography, and the Harvard Agency for Mimic
Insurance for sponsoring drinks and snacks. So, a lot of support this week. Very appreciated. So, um, and then, uh, as we go through, we are right on the cusp of of, uh, staff tomorrow. And so, uh, lots of of great things happening
all this week and, uh, just excited to get get everybody in and get this thing rolling. So, that's what I have for tonight. >> Any questions? >> Yeah. John, do you think that the legislature could split part of the
budget and basically approve that which they're closest to? >> I I don't think so. And I'll tell you why. Just because of the the component of the roads roads funding is a an initiative the governor has wanted since her initial campaign, the speaker of the
house. It's also one of his key initiatives he's decided he wants. And the problem is you have to figure out where $3 billion comes from. And so what it does is it some way probably affects the school aid fund whether that's taking higher ed especially university
funding and taking it out of general fund and use school aid dollars for that we're pretty against but you know that's part of the conversation and so you know all the way that the general fund and the school aid fund are taken subtracted from each other in that element is just
they're intertwined and because of that there's probably no way to tear it apart. Um, and so I think that unfortunately I tell you if I if I, you know, have the crystal ball, I'll tell you that we will lose some school aid fund dollars to higher ed in order to get a roads deal done. Um, I think that
there's less appetite for that in the Senate. And so I think that's where the crux of the fight's going been and will continue to be right till the last minute. So, they're just using what they've got in finite dollars right now or are they
also going to have to pass more taxes? >> That's a great question. You know, um it all of that's had conversation. Um also, I think that there's talk about reclaiming some money that is an economic development, large projects, money that's been in the Michigan
Economic Development Corporation. Um it's all sitting kind of in this mix of you know there was a large push to get a a large um uh computer chip manufacturer in the Jennese County region that fell through that you know and that was there
was a a huge amount of money being dedicated towards that. I think that there's a real argument and a and a fight for what's going to happen you know with that in the future in dollars appropriated and so it is a complex puzzle because of those things. I
actually think they're very close on a school a budget to be honest with you. From all my insider folks that I know, I don't think that the chairs of the two education committees are that far off in what they already think. I just don't think they have a go-ahad from senior leadership because those other things are not worked out
>> in the dollars and what that's going to be ideal. And I think that it'll stay that way right till the very end. >> You think over under 1:00 a.m. on October one? >> Uh I'll take the over. like the >> last time last time it was like 2:15 they put the once they put the draw
bridges up across the state and the state workers left all their post and people couldn't get to work in first shift that got real and so that's when I think you know it when they lock them in the capital and it's 2 in the morning and people are passing out that's kind of when things all of a sudden you know
get real >> so I've yet to have anyone everyone's no one's thinking it's going to be before at least the early hours Yeah, unless unless they switch, you know, to central savings in time, which I'm not
putting past them temporarily, you know, or Pacific, you know, and then get a bill and then go back, but stranger things have happened. >> All right. Okay. Um, moving on to board committee discussion. Just want to know that in I
think it was in exact I don't think it was at the board meeting we did talk about um trying to make sure that we had all the information but obviously a lot of information is in committees um and we also don't have a lot of report outs as well onto other things that we were
adding. So that was the feedback I had probably need to have it revisit it in the organizational meeting in January to get better guidance from the board of how we want to do report outs. for right now. Um I think we can uh continue as we have been in the committees. So um again
if you want to see a lot of added detail please go to the committee meetings um with that on July 19th first report out curriculum committee by trusty Binger. >> Yeah. So we convened on July 29th um again this morning but that is just kind of an aberration. We'll report out in
two weeks at the September board meeting. So, for July 29th, there were no public comments. There were no changes to the meeting minutes. Um, there also were no additions or changes to the district course catalog. So, that is in the consent calendar this month,
consistent with our usual practice. The centerpiece of the meeting was ourformational item on the the board curriculum learning series on student well-being, safety, and behaviors. We had uh Brian Kay, principal at Traverse Heights, Ben Berger, principal at
Central High School, join us um and and gave us a presentation about um student behavior practices and building a positive culture. We also were joined by school resource officer Justin Noland and Captain Simmerson from the TC Police Department on their efforts um as
partners in our community. And then lastly, we had Building Bridges with Music, which is a Detroit-based um nonprofit organization that brings musicians to our classrooms. Um and yeah, just uh really rich details in the
presentation. Um all board members of course are are encouraged to view that. And we adjourned at 10:30 10:23 a.m. Um oh yeah, there was one interesting thing. We had a power outage for about six minutes right in the
middle which was a new experience for all of us and um I think it was one of those experiences where six minutes felt like a whole lot longer as we scrambled to raise blinds and bring in more light natural light. So um but we got we got back up and rolling. So if you see a
dark period there was nothing nefarious going on. That's all it was. Our next meeting is Monday, August uh let me see. Sorry. >> Yeah, actually our we're kind of a we had a little bit uh of an adjustment. So
again, we had a meeting this morning and then at our next board meeting, I'll report out on our late September curriculum committee. >> Okay, that's it. >> All right. U moving on to finance committee reporting out.
>> It's been a while since we had this meeting, so I had to refresh myself when all went on. Um we've been on the 31st of July at 8:15 right here in this room. Um the meeting started off with a presentation from Manor Casterian Dave
Nielsen on the audit that he's doing. Um it wasn't official because that will be presented to the board in November November 10th. Um but in essence, if I sum it up, he sort of said everything was as expected and that we were doing fine and he didn't see any major areas
of concern. Um so I didn't want to mess around with good news. So we moved on to um capital projects uh which Christine went through. We talked a little bit about the train performance contract and that we're doing
>> better than expected >> as far as getting the work done. Yes. >> Yeah. getting the work done and that we're acrewing hopefully some savings down the road that we are going to depend on. Uh we also went into capital projects um got an update from
uh Christine and Paul Twain um and everything seems to be in better shape than even at that >> finance meeting. Uh we seem to have gained ground. >> Um whether we will tomorrow or not, who knows? But right now we seem to be ahead of the curve. Um, we also were told that
we received a grant from uh the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chipwa Indians um for 103,000 to be used for indigenous education. Um, which is great news and um I think we have some fairly clear plans on how
we're going to use that. Um, we also went into a discussion of LEAP and the student support network. Um, I thought at least from a finance standpoint, we ought to know what the numbers look like before we start making decisions down the road um, strategic
planning wise on how we implement that for the students who aren't right now part of that program. Um, and that was that was a good conversation. So, at least we have a basis now from a financial standpoint of where we stand. Um, we went into upcoming district
purchases and um, I think we asked Christine to sort of reorganize the spread we got based on what we're doing currently, what we have committed and what's been budgeted for future years or even this year. And I've seen that we're
going to talk about that on Thursday in finance, but it looks like I appreciate the work you did on that because I think that was a great response to what we asked for. Um, and then we adjourned and we're meeting, as I said, this Thursday right here in this room at 8:15.
>> I just want to add quick. I mean, what I mean the the it was all great news from the auditor and what I found really good and I'm new, but I mean a month after we finalized our final amendment for last year, 2425, where we thought we were going to draw down 3 million from our
fund balance that we were actually going to add 800,000. Well, it was at 563. That's now lower because our last state in August came in much lower. The revenue came lower than anticipated. We're still going to add to fund balance, but not to
the tune of 500,000. >> So, positive. Yeah. Our our um amendment in February was for uh 1.5 million because the original 3 million we didn't have our budget yet. Um so, the original budget was a 3 million draw and we didn't have a budget from the state. So,
when we did the amendment in February, it was 1.5. And so um we're happy to report unfortunately we've got a lot of carryover. So it always looks good at the end of the year and then we have to add it back on the original budget. So we had about a million dollars in carryover through various uh school
sites and departments. So that'll be added back to the next original budget. >> But good news to John's point about fund balance. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> And can I ask a question? When you guys were talking about leave, >> were you talking about more whether you
were going to drop the costs of what students would pay to participate or were you talking about uh more variety in programming? >> Neither of those. What we were, I think, trying to get at was just what does LEAP
and the student support not cost the budget >> currently? >> Currently, >> how many students do we serve? >> Yeah. How much revenue, how much? >> I just wanted a baseline of that information so that we know what the number is now in case we decide at some point we want to
>> or make changes to its we were just looking at it from a financial baseline perspective. >> Thanks. >> Okay. Um executive committee obviously there were an awful lot of um policies
that were reviewed and put onto consent. A lot of most of these are very small technical changes um with only a few substance uh or issues that needed to be discussed. Obviously a few were moved onto the discussion as well today which
was expected and there was a number that we yeah we we thought that there definitely could happen. So there is a large very large number of policies through this. Um what's I know that there was two or three rounds of updates. Is it this is the last of the big ones? There's one more often now,
right? >> So, they do them quarterly and then every once in a while if there's a significant like court ruling or statutory change that they don't feel can wait till the quarter. That's like every once in a while we see those popins. A couple of them pop up throughout the course of the year. So, we shouldn't see another one now until
probably after the first of the year. >> So, we are because we were behind we were behind from doing it the first time. >> This one right now is the actual quarterly one that we will receive from from true. So yeah, we usually it's not this many this quickly, but we were kind of holding off until we did our adoption
and then just got a little behind. So now we were caught up. So that's exciting. >> We're completely caught up. We're up today. So >> watch tomorrow way that always works. So >> well I mean like just for example whenever you like when they revoked the
2024 title 9 regulations that impacts like 10 policies. So it's one statutory change, but we have to reflect it in multiple policies throughout the book. So yeah, you can see lots of them out of one little legislative or you know judicial move.
>> Um we did have the agenda reviews and again that was a discussion in there. So if anyone wants to go back and look at the exec of the guidance I've been getting from board members is to try and uh condense down some of the reporting out and and leave time for discussion items. that was how we reflected it on
the agenda. Um HR reasonably uh good shape and uh we had they had 18 interviews that week and obviously closing out their busiest part of their uh year. Um but now there is a part-time student position, a three
there was we will see uh this is usually out of date at all times but it's three uh open administrative assistance positions, three custodial positions and obviously most important well not most importantly but always a need is bus drivers. Um so signing and referral
bonuses um are available and uh there were open interviews. I don't know if that's changed too much >> always. So, I'm sure there's different needs, but um that was uh the big changes and the meeting agenda at 4:40.
Any questions on exec um board office hours uh July 24th reporting out by trustee Smith? >> I had one committee member Bill attended. >> All right. um
>> conversation >> that is so that was the one uh so and that was virtual so that the important point to note about we've been trying the virtual on and off and it seems to be relatively again I'm just going to say it continuously we would talk about
in organizational meeting and how we want to engage um with the public as well so the next board office hours is August 28th this week Um, yep. Trusty More in person at the Travis Area
District Library. So, um, >> okay. >> Hi,'ll be there. >> Just a question. One of the things that came up in my prior service was in order to get more engagement to occasionally have board members attend PTO meetings as opposed to the office hours. In other
words, go to the groups that are talking about things. It proved to be more effective. and you're sort of there as a listening, not to do a presentation, >> but there were question there were questions that came up. I did one I
think I did Willow Hill or something, >> but it's just another way to engage the public by going to them as opposed to them coming to us. >> And I do strongly believe that we need to do something differently. We kind of were going to the virtual to see if that would help. I don't think it's making too much of a difference.
>> We talked about having you any idea I think we should get ready for January. That's kind of why I'm highlighting it continuously is because like you we could do quarterly where a couple of board members you can't have a quorum but you can have a couple of board members attend and more of a social like meet and greet um PTO's any way because
people do have questions and that's the um frustrating part is we always hear that there's so many questions left unanswered it's like well sat there for an hour >> you got to ask him at some point >> Bill which was I enjoyed my conversation with Bill but it was uh everyone gets a
dedicated one hour with Bill which is fine but uh we would love more participation >> but I I support that Scott and um I was at in Lancing for the summer institute and that was one of the ideas that a lot of other districts are using us going to them in addition to them coming to us
you know especially things happening in our buildings including potentially tra you know neighborhood associations so community members using our buildings to listen to engage you know not not to present or communicate but to listen >> so work to be done. And I think again
that would be a discussion item. Tammy, if you can remember to add that into so we don't come out of that forgetting. >> All right. Um >> to clarify, you think for the organizational meeting in January or >> Yeah, we've laid out the schedule. No, we've laid I would say just January at
this point. I mean, it's it's kind of a crazy time. >> That's fine. Just want to clarify. >> Um but any ideas are welcomed in the meantime to get ready for that. Um moving on to consent. Uh, do I have a motion to approve the consent calendar
as amended? >> So move. >> Second. >> Second. Um, all those in favor say I. >> I. >> All those opposed say nay. >> Motion carries. Um,
then moving on to public hearing. So, as president of the board, I declare this public hearing open to the public. The additions and revisions of the sexed curriculum will be the subject of this hearing refer to Dr. Markman. >> Okay. So, we had a presentation last
month on that element. We've had a continued to provide materials in those elements. And so, um we do have Dan here just if there was any additional questions, anything from that standpoint. But, uh other than that, we are ready to move forward.
I have a question and that is we added teaching about pornography. >> This this >> that was that was one of the things at the high school level that was sex trafficking. >> Right. And my question is do we have a definition of what they mean by
pornography? >> Is there a definition in there? >> I'm pretty sure the board's hit this before, but >> you can ask you can ask your question, but yeah. >> Yeah. asked this question. >> I don't believe it there is a specific definition in there. I would have to
review it again. >> Okay. No, I think I I think you're right, Dan. >> Yeah. >> And I think, you know, our discussion at the board would have asked it twice because, you know, once isn't good enough.
>> Um has been that people felt, well, you would recognize it when you saw it, but you couldn't define it. And I think that we're going to have to be a little more precise, especially if we're going to be teaching about it. Um,
and I I think that that and when two years ago, was it no, last year when you came saying that you wanted to talk about uh, you know, the whole issue of drugs in uh, women's drinks and date
rape and consent, what how that gets defined. Um, and we went through quite a process of getting a definition on consent. It seems to me we'd be able to get one on pedography.
Um, I' I've brought a couple. One of them was from Miriam Webster and it it tended to say something to the effect of um it would be about sex, it would be
insightful. Um, but it also talked about now you're beginning to see violence come more into to some of the sex in the the definitions of what we
consider pornographic. Um, and so I went to the Oxford English dictionary thinking that was pretty authoritative and they said, well, pornography was
initially associated with prostitutes, harlots, and their their pimps. And it was more in the marketing of sex is the way they were saying. But then they said that it
branches out as part of the marketing thing and it's inciting. So you're inciting uh certain behaviors. And I'm thinking that to some degree
we're going to have to have a definition because it also applies when we get told that we have pornography in our libraries. if we have nothing to put it up against, we have a very hard time saying yes, we do, no we don't.
Um, and so I'm I'm hoping that at some point, thank you for bringing it up through the sex ed, but I think that we're going to have to address it. So if you if you want to email me those definitions,
obviously we're not at a place right now to say, "Oh, we're going to insert this because of the process, >> but that is something I can take to the the committee this year." And that could be that's what we do every year. We tweak and try to make it better. So that
that is something a specific uh definition that we could we could approve and bring forward. We'd look to do that next year. >> Okay. And then another question that I had was
um how long is the term when someone gets appointed or chosen to go on your board? >> The the the policy is it's a three-year term. >> Okay. And we have just sent out notice for this year that we're looking for
more members because some people's three-year terms went up. We did have a couple step down as well. So, there's a number of seats available, but they are in I I put more specifically in the press release this time and in the
application that it is a three-year term. >> Good. >> Some people one year and then the second year they lose interest. That's happened a number of times. Um, if someone fulfills their three-year term, they can reapply.
So, there are some people that might be on this and you go, "Wow, they're they've been on this committee for six years, probably reapply." Um, I get massive amount of applicants. Generally around 30. That's a lot when you have
five seats open or whatever. maybe maybe seven ahead. >> Okay. And how big is the committee? >> It's roughly right around 20. There's no defined number. Um but it has to be manageable.
>> 20 is a lot. >> That's a lot to manage. >> Any other questions? I mean, I would add, Beth, I would love to have a definition, but many many have taken it up and no one's come up with one yet. So, uh, that's why the Supreme
Court punted as well. Um, but, um, but if you can come up with one, maybe we've got something. Maybe we've got something there. >> Yeah. >> Um, is there any other questions from the board side?
>> Okay. At this time, uh, the board would like to invite comments from the public. This is separate to the original public comment. Um, is there anyone who would like to provide public comment? Go ahead. Travis just quickly this is the foundation
right here of the movement that sex curriculum right here this is table 34 from Alfred Kinsey's teaching his scientific studies he was a businessman with a coat and suit you know he hid his
homosexuality he was seriously into that and that's what he was promoting too. And uh working on a six-month old child, it's on the back. I don't think this is in that handout, but six-month-old child
sexually exciting. This person, all these kids that they were, that's the foundation, and these are the guys that are the secret circle that promoted Kinsey's false data. And that's what the
sex ed curriculum is based on. Hugh Hefner was one. He was Kinsey's pamphlete. Did he have anything to do with pornography, you think? So, that's the foundation of the movement that you're voting on today.
And here's this chart is uh after the ball, their plan to you should sodomize your son's emblems of your feeble masculinity. Goes on and on. And that was that's what's
happening. This is what we need looking at a biblical basis basically. Uh just because it's good. Few things commented. Um pornography. You'll recognize it when you see it. Yes. I looked at excerpts from two of those 307 books that you
have in the TCAP libraries and that was enough for me. I recognize pornography. But Michigan is one of 37 states that have an out. If it's for educational purposes, then they can show pornography. Is that what you're you as school board
members will want to vote for just because you have this out? Um and we need some balance on the board there, too. Um I don't see anybody opposing it. And the seven eight points that I made on this handout. Um
read the history of sex education. that first link. Read the steps to grooming which TCAPS is following all three of the ones mentioned by this uh expert witness. Look at the library books that are being hidden from the kids. They get
nothing on the other side of the issues. Look at uh you back. I applaud you for that. But this applies to all the different things parts of the sex ed curriculum and um making awkward feeling kids comfortable
as mentioned in the CIA teaching to these kids. That's a method of grooming too. So I I just to say anybody that's voting for this is voting for the continuation of sexually grooming these TCAP kids. I urge you not to vote for it. Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you. Is there Oh, sorry. Is there any other public comments? Thank you. >> Can I make one one other point? >> There is I'm going to close this portion and then there is a discussion item still. So this is the official public
hearing portion. Um but if there is no further public comment, I declare this public hearing closed. Um and but then we will move on to the next discussion item which is approval of the sex education um curriculum and discussion.
Beth Sorry, I feel like I'm beating it. Um, a horse that has already run its race. I I wanted to share publicly that there are several things that I think are very
um good in this the sexed curriculum. The curriculum does say that absence is encouraged. I mean, it's the first thing, one of the first things it says,
and Dan, please correct me if I'm wrong. So, it's very clear on that. It also speaks about you don't want pregnancies out of wedlock. You know, the whole idea of promoting family, and I think that's
important. Um, I think that the sex ed curriculum per se has come a very long ways since uh the Kinsey report. It's sort of like
saying, you know, there was a time when we never used antibiotics. We've come a long way. Although the foundation of how we treated disease, you know, that was a foundation, but we've come a long ways and I think in
sexed to a large extent we have there is clearly an opt out that parents can opt out of it. Um, so I think that there are elements that make it a a a good thing
to have in the schools because I don't know where else they're getting it consistently. And so that that is what I'd like to put out there. >> So it's state law that we have to >> outside even outside.
>> No, we have to offer it. Parents have an opt out >> as an option, but we do have to offer it under state law. >> Okay. I I thought it was you could choose or not choose offer. >> Okay. >> And there's required components in there and um it's there's there's narrow
windows of it. But I think to your point as well is, you know, I I really don't mind if if people opt out, they can opt out. But like there is there has to be at least a there's a lot of things that aren't taught at home or at least have to understand maybe not taught correctly
at home. Like wasn't that long ago that there was lack of respect for women at all. So like what you you know you have to have certain areas that that is an option and if you want to opt out you can opt out.
I move that the board of education approve the sex education curriculum for imple implementation beginning in the 202526 school year. >> I second that motion. >> Okay. Uh Tammy, please conduct a roll call vote. >> Trusty Moonore. >> Yes. >> Trusty Beris. >> Yes.
>> Trusty Ballinger. >> Yes. >> Trusty Hardy. >> Hi. >> Uh Trusty Pack. >> Yes. >> Trusty Schmidt. >> Yes. >> And Trusty. >> Yes. Motion carries. >> Good job pirate. I wasn't going to give you an I to
support you there, but I uh training. >> Um, don't let them uh don't let them uh bully you there. >> Sorry. >> Okay, moving on to the next discussion item, which is school safety update. Okay. So, just I know we've talked some
about it, but just want to reiterate again that we held our third district-wide mock reunification training event. Uh, and we really learned a lot from this that we still are every day just talking about when you have an incident and and trying to figure out how to mobilize people, how
to be able to reunify students with parents. So appreciate all the work Patrick McManus and uh all of our team has done with that. Um every single time we do it, we learn so much. Um and then as well from a school safety standpoint,
um you know, it's allowed us to proactively adopt the standard re standard reunification method SRM. So it's a again a a very nationally um known best practice um that's being done. And so, uh, again, we're we're trying to always stay ahead of the curve
and learn. And so, the resources that the district has put into, um, school safety and Patrick's works really important. Um, I know also in the last couple months, uh, Patrick and Christine, um, Ion in a in a different opportunity has had the chance to hear
from, uh, some of the folks that were at Oxford, uh, during that horrible tragedy. that just again reiterate some thoughts for us on on are we you know are we thinking through structures and um who's in what buildings and how to communicate and and so uh just know that
we're going to continue to do that continue to be proactive um on that work. I also want to mention um the uh we had the opportunity to have a meeting um both uh uh uh Secretary Ballinger and Trustee Schmidt had the chance to
participate with me with uh the Garfield Township uh supervisor and uh um I guess township manager I want to say Chris Barf and then also the head of the road commission of Grand Travers County Road Commission um as well as two county uh
um commissioners and had a really really good conversation I think about Frankie Road and the work on that the work that's that they're planning on Frankie Road and so think you know the the next step is that they wanted to take back some of the information and conversation we had talk about what might be able to
be done with that road as they're looking at probably in a year from now of repaving that of what kind of measures could be put in place all those elements as well as um I was also charged with contacting um the uh Sean Wy with the uh um Trevor City, city of
Trevor City planners. So uh I did in fact to touch base with him and he was going to touch base uh with uh Chris Barf and and have that conversation with the road commission and then in about 30 days we discuss that we'll try and and set up another meeting to come back and
talk about what ideas they might have. Um, we also had the chance to update uh recently I had the opportunity to meet with the uh township planner and uh the township supervisor um in East Bay Township. So with an extended safe route
to schools grant, there's a lot of work happening there as well across across three mile road crossing that does have flashing lights and some things being put in there. Um they're extending the trail system all the way to East Middle School all the way from
essentially I believe uh like uh 45 north all the way um by TAC >> and all the way by the airport um all the way through. So, um, a lot of really, really quality work that's being done there. And so, um, really good opportunity. And then also to talk about
what they've they've had in conversation, still a long way to go about Garfield Township all the way out to, uh, West High School. Um, but as of today, we have a sidewalk at West High School that goes from the road all the way up to the school that I know was
something we've talked about kids having to walk up the drive and that is there right to the corner. That's awesome. >> Yeah. And uh so I had the chance to go look at that today and and uh progress with that. So, you know, moving steadily on all those those projects and all
those things. We'll continue to look at those things. Um and appreciate the partnership with all of our local officials and continue to discuss and and uh u but it definitely was a good conversation. I think there is mixed views on you know what should can be
should be done there from safety. I think that um you know the the the road commission I think has concerns about a crossing but also wonder are there some ways that there's some different um engineering mechanisms might be able to put into it. So um again they're going
to brainstorm and I think come back with some thoughts for us. Anything to add Jose or Ty? >> No I was very I'd just say I was very encouraged by Gerfield Township officials openness to being part of the solution.
And just make sure Commissioner Fern Spence knows about that. >> Don't worry. >> That was one of my first was that one of our first emails I think as a board was that >> it is there.
>> Yep. Um okay. Um any other questions on school safety update? >> Moving on to the next uh discussion item. certification of board of education voting delegates for the MASB assembly um which is on Thursday,
October 23rd and is obviously in Travis City this year. So um I'm sure our attendance will be a little bit uh higher. So everyone gets to play. Everyone can either be a voting delegate or an alternate. Um, so is there anyone
who would first of all if if you're planning on going and want to be a voting member, let's start there and see if we've got more than four. Who who who would like to be a voting member? >> I'm definitely going to the the assembly >> then. I'm writing that as number one.
Josie, >> I will be going and happily do it. It just so you know, it doesn't necessarily take much work. There's a there's a pretty drawn out interesting process of a number of it's actually quite interesting.
>> I'm not going to say I would choose to put myself through it every time, but when you're there, it's like it can get it's pretty interesting and pretty feisty sometimes. So, um a lot of definitions, a lot of arguing. >> Beth, you would like it. You would
>> lot of arguing over definitions. >> There's no training for it either. There's no training and no process. Yeah, it's literally >> it's it's said it's interesting some of the arguments that they have, but anyone else I I'm happily do it. >> I'm going and I would be an alternate
would be I would >> okay >> serve as an alternate. >> I would sit with you as an alternate. >> I would too. I like how everyone's going and >> you and I put >> you planning on going.
>> I'm going. >> You're I I can You're now voting too. >> And uh are you just say you're not attending? And then >> I am attending but I'm not going to be involved in the first. >> Is there any volunteers who uh otherwise
we can uh is there one who really doesn't want to be a voting member? >> Other than Scott, you've just made it clear. You've got three, don't you? >> No, I've only got two. Me and Josie. >> What about Ty? >> Ty said he really wanted to be an ordinary. >> Voting. I Yeah,
>> it doesn't. It's not the most serious. Uh, >> no, I know it's >> I mean, it is serious, but it's not like a >> We probably will be sitting. >> It's not a roll call vote. It's a voice vote. So, >> you get cards, >> honestly. Yeah. >> Anyone else? Fourth member. Fourth
member. I can leave it at three and then do four alternates, too. So in fact it doesn't matter because then the alternate becomes a voting member so it doesn't matter because because if there isn't a fourth right the alternate would automatically become a voting member. >> Sure. >> So all right.
So uh Josie Beth would you I I feel like you would actually like it Beth. >> I'm not joking. >> Oh okay. I'll do it with you. >> And again if you choose not to then we >> you have a free you have a free registration this year don't you? >> I did. Yeah. I'm just a little bit on my
calendar. I'm hesitant to >> I'm also but then everyone basically that's why we got the alternates anyway. Right. >> Um, so if um I'm h I could happily read if everyone's wants me to do the thing, but um I move that the board of education certify Josie Ballinger, Scott
Newman, Bale, Scott Hardy, and Beth Pack as voting delegates and Erica More, Sarah Bear, and Scott Hardy. >> No, it's got twice. >> I withdraw my motion. Um, I move that
the board of education certify Josie Ballinger, Scott Newale, Scott Hardy, and Beth Pack as voting delegates, and Sarah Bger, Erica Mumour, and Ty Schmidt as alternates for the Michigan
Association of School Boards 2025 delegate assembly on Thursday, October 23rd, 2025. >> Second. >> Second. All right. Uh, Tammy, please conduct a roll call vote. Uh, Trusty Newman, >> yes. >> Trustee Moonmore, >> yes. >> Trusty Bajaras,
>> yes. >> Trusty Ballinger, >> yes. >> Trusty Hardy, >> yes. >> Trusty Pack, >> yes. >> And Trusty Schmidt, >> yes. >> All right, motion carries. And that's why they don't I don't motion, I guess. So, uh, moving on to board policy. We
now have seven uh items on the agenda for board policy and going to Connie Taylor. >> All right. Well, I'll address the first three because these are the ones that we had carried over from the previous board um meeting to make some modifications that I told you I'd come back with. Um the first of which is 2305, the board
member reimbursement for travel expenses. And we had talked about there are certain places that you go that sometimes may exceed the limits that are in the in the board policy itself. And so basically what I was asked to is just to give an an option that if there is a request that there are going to be
projected expenses over that based on the location thus M such as Mina Island that that individual could then go to board finance committee and seek um an exception to those policies. So I built those in that's just built into the policy as an option for folks moving
forward. So I added that language. Um the second the 3116 is now B 3116B. Um, couple things that come up around that. Previously, we had added that policy. Now, keeping in mind this policy, the social media was the NEOLA policy that
we had had for a number of years in the district. Um, but there was not a corresponding one under trun and there had been an ask on behalf of the communications department to bring that policy over. So, as we had our previous discussions, I had placed it in one area, but that was more student focused.
So, there was a request to move it more to general operations. So, we have done that. This is now kind of piggybacking with our our general acceptable use policy which is applicable across all districts. So the social media policy now 3116B um would align with that. And then there
was also some concern and to be perfectly frank um our communications department had talked about those crossed out sections that I provided for you below the the the um lettered numbers there. They were really ambivalent about whether or not those needed to be included anyway. They've
been there. they've not really utilized those pro provisions, but there were some concerns on behalf of board members that were they necessary and they really weren't. Um, the rest of the policy really got at what they were looking to do and that was just the ability to under certain circumstances if certain items were placed on our website that
they could remove those if they fell within those, you know, five identified areas. Um, so we removed the the remainder of that policy um and then just left that there. And again, um this was the policy we've been using, but just did a few minor tweaks for all of
you. And then lastly, we had talked about the um the last one on our homeless students really with Mckin Vento and there had been some questions as to about the district responsibilities and Dr. Van Wagner and I thought that the policy reflected what was required under McKenna Vento but
indicated to you that we would go back and verify and that really is the students option to immediately enroll in their origin school in the event that their homelessness arises some point after their enrollment or during a summer between periods that they do have the ability to return return to their
school of origin. Um even if that was a school of choice for them previously that would still remain their school of origin. So, their ability to go back there to limit the disruption to homeless students is what's required by statute. I went back compared our policy right to the McKenna Vento um statute
and it's essentially word for word. So, we said we would make some changes if in fact that was not the case, but just bringing it back to you to let you know that it does align with the statute almost word for word. >> I feel like we should probably start by on those three if everyone's okay just
and then we can come to the additional ones that were um pulled. So, as far as those three go, any questions on those three policies? >> Okay. >> I don't have a a question. I have a >> Well, maybe I'll make it a question.
My my issues with the term hate speech and um it seems to me that's a judgment call. And usually the judgment is applied to someone's opinion about someone else's speech. So, it's sort of
like an opinion of an opinion, which it just it seems to me if you keep it civil um that that would be what you needed. If it doesn't sound like it's civil,
then then you can say, "No, thank you. You can't list it here. >> It sounds more vague." >> That was the term we talked about before, right? It's legally defined and required. Well, it it and it's really there's not a legal definition. I want to clarify that hate speech is a
terminology that is utilized by the courts. And I'm let's be honest, hate speech is protected by the first amendment. In general, hate speech is protected by the first amendment. So people can be as offensive as they want to be in general terminology. The one carve out and that's why it's really
specific and see it says hate speech directed at race, color, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, ethnicity, age, religion, or disability. So anytime that offensive, you know, hate speech is directed at a pro protected classification, that's really where the
courts have drawn the line and said that no longer renders first amendment pro protections. Similar with obscene speech, which we've talked about, threats, defamation, violent content, all of those are carveouts to the first amendment extension of free speech. So hate speech in general, if we just put
out there, hate speech is prohibited, that would be overreaching. But saying hate speech directed at a protected classification is really the carveout that we've seen by the courts. And that's just the terminology or phraseiology that they use >> because I was thinking they pretty much
covered the gist of what you didn't want to show up without referring to hate speech per se. That was just my feel to me. It's it's like something that's going into the uh vocabulary
that has emotional charge. >> It goes to I think and we talked about this last time. The difficulty is I'm not sure there's a great way to phrase it. Like if we start saying offensive speech, people will say, well, what's the difference between offensive speech and hate speech? It's offensive. It's crude. It's, you know, you know what I
mean? I I just think you it's a slippery slope that it is one of those things when you say that you feel like you you can go out and just say I think this entire world sucks and everybody in it it's evil and awful and terrible and whatever but as so long as you're not saying it directed towards a an
individual or a protected classification otherwise it's protected. We may not like it but otherwise it's a it's protected. sort of reminds me when Bob Hope um was talking about how he stayed in the hotel
and that the ceilings were so low that even the rats were steep shouldered. And the hotel manager came back and said, "How dare you say that? You know, you can't." And so Bob Hope's correction was, "I apologize. The rats are not
stoop shoulder." >> You know, it it kind of is that kind of flavor. >> I move that the board of education approve policy 23053116B and three uh excuse me 5307 as presented.
>> Okay. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> She'll second. >> That was a tight one. Um okay. And then Tammy, please conduct the roll. >> Uh Trustee Schmidt. >> Yes. >> Trusty Moon. >> Yes. >> Trusty Peris. >> Yes. Trusty Ballinger. >> Yes.
>> Trusty Hardy. >> Yes. >> Trusty pack. >> Yes. >> Trusting. >> Yes. Motion carries. And then staying on this discussion topic, there were four items um pulled from agenda the agenda. Um first one we'll just go in numerical
order. So 5405. I think that was >> so I I pulled this in March and and I and I fully support these amendments. There's a lot of there's a lot of changes. This is the one that had the most red on it. Um, so I and I just had a couple questions and I sent those ahead of time. So hopefully there's no >> We very much appreciate that. And you're
right, this is the most revised policy. So warrant some addition and >> really positive like if anybody watched curriculum like we all know that family engagement is critical to some of these, you know, these goals that we're about to approve. So um I I just had questions about the providing parents information about proficiency levels students are
expected to meet. I'm assuming that's we all expect them to be high or high average rate on NWA. Is that right? Yeah. >> Yeah. >> And then just providing those to parents. We do that uh parent teacher conferences and mail home not only MSTEP but MWA scores course showing that proficiency.
>> So we will talk about MSTEP with them as well as far as proficiency or >> those get mailed home. I don't know if there's an actual discussion about proficiency with those families. But we do discuss the NWA reports because they come out so much later you're talking to the parents from the year before with a different teacher. And I like this part
like that that the policy will be jointly developed and annually reviewed, amended and distributed to parents um and family members of participating students in the local community. Um and that information about how parents can provide input will be posted on the district's website. Do we know yet when
this year 2526 those um jointly created policies will be reviewed, amended, and distributed? >> We actually talked about that today in our communications meeting. Um, and so we're going to work on getting a page out there and when we do get that out there, I can send you the link and stuff. But we were talking about just exactly what you're just hitting on,
like how are we going to get that out there to parents? How are we going to make sure our sites know about that? So, we're working on that. Yeah. With a new website. >> Great. So, with that, I'll just make a motion that we approve policy number 5405 as presented. >> All right.
>> A second. >> Second. Um, Tammy, please conduct a roll call. >> Uh, Trustee Schmidt. >> Yes. Trusty Ballinger. >> Yes. >> Trusty Bajaras. >> Yes. >> Trusty Hardy. >> Trusty Moonmore. >> Yes. >> Trusty Pack. >> Yes. >> Trusty.
>> I I'll give you the >> Great. >> I can't do it continuously, but I do it once. >> You win the >> Um Okay. Next. Uh was 5407 instructional program curriculum development. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. Um in section D on that I would just ask that all complaints when they hit complaints coming from parents, the public, when they get to the point of committee review level that
the board be informed that there's a complaint about material coming and it's going to be reviewed in a committee setting. Um, right now I guess the way it works is they would do a complaint if it's
with material in a classroom, it goes to the building principal >> in writing and then he discusses it, he she discusses it with the teacher. >> The parent I don't think is part of
that. It's all the written material that's been sent. and then within a certain period of time stated in the policy that information then is given back to the parent on what their decision is regarding the material.
The parent can then uh say I accept that and it's settled or they can say no and then they can appeal to the superintendent level and then the superintendent level the superintendent can form a committee and it goes to the
committee and then whatever the committee decides that's what is final is is the way it is. Um, and I just thought, well, if they're complaining about something and it's going on to that level, it might be good to have the
board, not that you're weighing in on it. We are not the committee, but just to be aware of it, what the complaint is. >> So, you're talking about notice when the um when the when the parent submits the
written appeal to the superintendent, >> when it goes Yeah. when it starts to hit the committee level, then that's part one of of how to complain. If you've got a complaint about material that's in the library, and that's where I think it was originally
um in the old policy, then the librarian teacher takes that to a committee. >> She forms a committee or they form a committee for review including parents, teachers. >> Yeah. and then they make a decision and
I think that's final is that >> correct the committee's a decision is final in both cases >> right and so again I think it'd be good to know what's coming in to committee level the other thing I have issue with is then what happens is there's a
moratorum and you can't challenge on that material for five years I think five years is a long time So yeah, and and so these were some of these ones I don't just to set up and and support
Beth for a second here. I don't think a couple of them necessarily in her questions are necessarily something that even Connie may or may not agree with. I think it was just like they were outside of the scope of where Connie can make there a substantive or some substantial change that we have to weigh in on as a
board. So, um I just want to preface it like because I'm not necessarily opposed to having the notification requirement. In fact, previously I think there was a notification requirement that we just get noticed. We're not involved. >> But I kind of would like to know because when someone approached me, I would like to know what's going on. So, um
>> what's what's the background on why that got dropped then? Do we know? >> I don't remember. >> I don't there was not a notification requirement. >> I don't wasn't there one because we someone you had to notify me. >> Correct. that that was at that final stage because it it was that I didn't have any say.
>> Yeah, it was a really win. >> It it basically said that it I had to notify the board president of them appealing to me, but it didn't give me any authority to make any decision that it had to go to the board president to notify them of the appeal. >> Yeah,
>> it was really weird. The whole thing was weird. >> Personally, I think this just opens a can of worms. I think that if it comes to the board and you're saying you're just going to be notified, it won't just stay with a notification. I think then board members will start to ask questions. They'll start to want resolution. I think they will start to
insert themselves into the situation, which I don't think the board has any um control or power over where uh where this the committee would make their decisions. Um in my own opinion, that's just my own opinion. I'm even thinking
about the library. um you know they rolled out that new policy since I've been a board member and um so if someone opposes a book in a library there's a really specific process that includes community members to teachers to staff
that re have to read the book and then sit and review and then come up with a resolution together. I just can see the board being notified of these ch of a challenge and then trying to insert themselves to please the public or or something like that. I just don't think
we have the I just don't think it's in our role. I'm not you know I you have to leave it up to those that are involved with curriculum in curriculum or to make those decisions. My opinion >> I do get your point. My only point was that I know that I'm going to get asked
by people and so then I have the basis not to rely on their one-sided that I know what's going on. >> But wouldn't you redirect them to curriculum? I would always redirect I mean we're not involved at that level. Yeah, I'm I'm fine with it. Like I'm not I'm not I it's not something I feel
strongly. I'm happy to have that notification. >> I agree with Erica from a different perspective. I don't want the general public thinking that because we're notified they we can intervene in the process. >> Correct. Or be influenced, right? >> Yeah. And I just don't want to be part of the solution because it needs to stay
internal. >> Um I do think there should be a notification at least at the end of it like there was because that was always I mean it happens anyway. you could say that this doesn't need to be. Do you think it'd be helpful to just add a provision that the board president be
informed as anformational item and then you have the judgment of whether you know you want to share that? >> I mean it's final at that point. I would say um that at third level it says the committee's decision is final. They have to issue a written report within 30
calendar days. Um >> I think at that point it is done. >> I was thinking is you know we get notified whenever EMS is called. accounts. Not that we go in there and say what happened and who called and was
that appropriate, but you don't. We're just aware that EMS was called to a school. >> I think that is a completely because you're know you're going to get called as a board member for knowing, you know, my kids at West and there's a lockdown
or something. As a board member, I think that that would be different than like a curriculum. Well, see, I think if if they're challenging something for whatever reason, if you end up with five challenges on accuracy to a certain
thing, you know, it it might be good to hear that as opposed to hear it around circular word of mouth through the the community. >> How often does this happen?
>> That's the other good question. happened one time since I've been here. >> It's not going to happen all this library not instructional material. >> So we did we split it. So there are two. >> So Beth, you're asking for this amendment to be added to this policy. This this these three bullets here.
>> Yeah. >> Again, this is like this is the whole point. I want to be clear on like how we do policies because this is the only way to ask these questions. So we don't have they they come through here. we we talk about it and um as I said I don't
necessarily disagree over a notification at least after it's done um but I also don't mind that much >> do we get notified of other similar challenges >> we get notified of a fair amount of things that we offer >> like challenges to things that are in school do we get notified
>> not like a disciplinary challenge or >> unless a person writes us you know we get emails >> that we >> usually usually have to rise is are we going to question about it anyway that we need to know that we may as well just do it so we ahead of time. Usually I
would say that that is the case. They're so infrequent but as soon as it happens we do need to know about it because we're going to get questions about it. I don't mind either way. I really don't I think we would get notified. I think it's not an issue >> like in that last sense the committee will issue a written decision within 30
calendar days receiving the appeal based on the factors the committee decision final and the superintendent will forward the final decision to the part >> that's I would at least say that that is >> I think so >> I don't think it gets the best point but I think it at least allows
>> done at least you know and you can understand what the committee's thing was >> and it doesn't insert us in a process >> which I do agree with as well >> yeah it's a good compromise I think. >> Okay. >> So, we'll add that language and bring it back next month.
>> Can Can we just >> No, we can probably amend it right now. >> It's a pretty simple >> done with it. >> Yeah. Yes. Yes. >> You might get to restate it. >> Yes. >> Do you want that in both the m media materials? >> Yes. >> And in the um the instructional
materials, both spots. >> I would say that that would be >> releases. >> Yeah. And I'd get rid of the, you know, the timeline on, you know, you can't challenge materials or you can challenge materials, whether it's two years, five
years, a century. >> We debated that a lot though to not just have numerous people doing it, having making us go through the process again and again and again and again and again. >> That was the debate the board had. >> It's a very timeintensive process to pull that committee together. It has to
have parents on it from both sides of town, staff members from both sides of town, administration, you fully read the text, which a lot of times we have to pass around. Um, and what we saw was there was some movement to get rid of a book. And so the minute our committee would rule, they would just have
somebody else, >> which is typical what we had >> and it was just very exhausting for staff to be honest to then go right through the process again. And and the thing don't forget that we have a full staff of teacher librarians, right? We have four certified um teacher librarians who are constantly vetting
our collection um and they can remove anything that they have concerns about. So, and they're doing that every year. They look at you know gaps and needs and you know usage and they adjust collections based on that. So,
>> but going through the process just to to the point when we had the situation there's two things. One is our policy was really bad at the time. It was kind of didn't make sense. We had clearly inserted one policy into the other and there was lots of dead ends for even us
implementing it. Um so we needed but then I so that's why I was so involved in that one otherwise I probably wouldn't have been because there was so many inter or you had to give me notice but then I didn't know what I was meant to do with it and we had to figure this out. >> It actually didn't say what to do with it. >> It didn't say what to do. >> It just said I had to notify the board
president. That's all it said. >> Yeah. didn't say anything about anything. So we had to obviously talk about this. Um so I became quite involved in that process. Um and one thing I was shocked at which I think is the most important thing coming out of this is the seriousness of how they took the whole process. I mean this as you
said it was ruling. It was committee. It was it wasn't simply like hey what do we think? Yeah we like it. Good. Let's go. It was like if you you know book club uh reporting you know testing at the end to make sure that everyone knows what they're talking about like detail
breakdowns of like it wasn't it wasn't uh >> that was before AI though. >> Yeah. >> So it was it was I would I just want people to have confidence in that process was a was a fair and detailed hearing. So just if I'm hearing you correctly, what the recommended
revisions would be in the section B complaints about instructional material um under the final under three committee review for both instructional and for media it would read at the end of the sentence the superintendent will provide
a copy of the final report to the board of education >> on both spots. >> I had one question about that same paragraph three comm you know committee review. So I did notice and everybody can see this because it's it's a struck
out word in red with the track changes. It says the committee will review the parents written objection, the building principles response. Previously it was written response but the word written has been struck and then the parents written
appeal. So I was, you know, that just seems uneven to have the parents, you know, >> position in writing, but not the principal's re uh response in writing. Do we know why? >> I think it was because the principal
could have a conversation with the parent about it versus having to issue a formal written um response. And if the parent wasn't um agreeable to that conversation with the principal, then they could appeal it in writing and then it goes to the committee.
And the committees would be written, the final decision would be written. >> Do parents ever go to teachers very often and talk to them about things that are in the curriculum? >> Essentially parent teacher conferences
>> when that happens. We do have back to school nights happens a little bit but generally in a parent teacher conference >> and I would say a lot of our our assignments and opportunities for students we have a choice selection right like they may use a text from this list of five
>> um and that allows parents some you know freedom to make some if they if they really don't want that specific test text there are alternates we almost always I'm trying to think of a time in which we require every kid to read a specific text a lot of it we have an alternate need.
>> Okay. >> Okay. So, that word was struck in three committee review, but then in the next uh complaints about library materials, paragraph 3, the building principles written response, it is still written there. >> So, it's just that's intentionally different.
>> Okay. >> Yeah. instructional materials. There's a lot more discretion, especially I won't get too far into the weeds, but the the only Supreme Court ruling on it is is there a lot more discretion as it relates to instructional materials versus media because parents have choice with what their kids looked at in the
library versus what we put in front of the kids that may not necessarily have five choices, you know, so parents have much more, you know, significant objections to those at times, but there's a higher standard of when we're going to remove those, you know, and they've been identified. We may get more clarification with the recent Supreme
Court ruling on that in the future. I bet with policies. >> I was thinking about that. >> Parents can also >> It's not there yet, but I I'm sure it's coming. >> I'm sure it's coming. >> Parents can also put a list of what their kids can't check out too at the library. So, if they don't want them to read X, Y, and Z, they and the child tries to check it out that they won't be
allowed. >> I don't know if that should just be like one one point in this policy as well. That that's an option too for parents. I know. >> I mean, most of the time is there a motion. Do we have a motion?
>> Well, we got two. We haven't, but I think Connie was Connie still finished clarified on the second. So, you've got your clarification. >> I have my clarification. So, I'm just adding that to the >> Okay. So, those two I think are covered. I think the board did cover about they
don't want to change the five years. Is >> leave it be. >> Leave it be. >> Are we going to make a motion on each one of these? I you can do that or you can do four in one go. Why don't you just do Why don't we do a motion on each one? That way we'll keep it clean and we'll just be done. >> I move that the board of education uh
approve board policy 5407 with the changes adding um at the end of the sentence like we discussed. The superintendent will provide a final report to the board of education. >> I second that motion. >> Okay. Um Tammy, please conduct roll. >> Trusty Moonmore. >> Yes. >> Trusty Beras.
>> Yes. >> Trusty Ballinger. >> Yes. >> Trusty Hardy. >> Yes. Trusty Pack. >> Yes. >> Trusty Schmidt. >> Yes. >> Yes. Um and then I believe we got one other >> two more. >> Two more. >> 541 or 541.
>> Uh on student promotion, retention, and placement. I thought that at some place in that policy, the policy needs to state when and how the parent was notified that a student was getting a grade of nonproficiency.
Um, and it seems to me that the earlier the parent is notified, hopefully the better you can begin to address it both from the parent as well as the teacher with the kid. Um, to wait
until a grade comes out may be too long. >> Grade is what kind of grade are we talking about? MSTEP results or are we talking about an actual grade in the classroom? >> I'm talking about basically a grade. >> Well, every power school every
I don't think all parents know how to use that. And the reason that I'm I'm asking is a a parent that I was talking to and and I've told you about her failed five of her academic classes. And I asked the parent, "Well, when were you
notified that there was a problem?" And she said, "I was notified when I got a call from the truency officer. I was not notified until then." I said, "Well, absenteeism
probably figured in." And she said, "I knew she was absent. I I knew that, but I didn't realize the extent to which it would affect her grade. And it seemed to me that there needed to be a little bit more communication. She said she didn't
hear from any of the five teachers at that point. So I thought in this policy maybe we should say that we need to say how do you notify the parent? Not everybody apparently uses powers school. I I've gotten notifications from
teachers that just say, you know, so and so's assignment hasn't been turned in or or you know, I mean, I think it is up to the teacher, but I, you know, um or, you know, we're waiting on something or something hasn't been turned in. Um >> we also have an email that goes out and
it creates a PDF that shows you all your grades every week. >> Every week >> at the high school level, right? >> At the high school level. >> In middle school and middle school, parents can sign up. I'm looking at the analytics on our on our uh powers school. About 22% of our parents opt to
sign up to receive reports that are pushed to them. 97% of our kids have logged on to P school and looked at their stuff and 50 59% of our parents have used it this last year. >> So you opt in to get the grade. >> You can opt in to get the grade alert.
>> You said it was 20ome%. That might be something to add to like a newsletter or something. I I always just we put that in there. this is how you can opt in. I forgot I >> maybe even just show the parent >> which which does actually come back to like a fair point like
>> do we require we have to require opting in right we can't have it you can opt out >> for the alerts you have to opt in for those but we do push like they said the PDF grade reports every starting the third week of school we push those every week to all of our secondary students
Scott's question is is could we say everybody happens to everybody unless you opt out. >> What's the What's the power school or the >> the tech ramifications of that? >> It's probably just um changing the formatting. And
>> I guess my only my only fear is that, you know, if we create a policy and then we're holding our teachers accountable or our administrators or our staff accountable. Um, I just, you know, there's nothing wrong with a parent saying, "Every Friday, we're going to
sit down and go through power school and with their kids and putting that onus on a parent, >> but I think that some parents aren't doing that. I could be wrong." >> Correct. >> I understand. But then I'm just >> I'm not what I'm but what I was saying is if we can do it reverse it the other
way. I feel like that takes care of Beth's issue and we don't have to put in policy >> and we will agree with it because we know that I'm guessing that the people who haven't opted in like are less engaged with their right >> they are by definition. >> Can we can we take a look at that and punt and
if so >> yeah I mean I think we need to look at what is our >> be right back here in two weeks. give us a chance to look at that and if there's a way for us to reverse that, we'll let the board know. If not, you can take it back up. >> And I just have one more thing to add. I mean, so the push notifications weekly.
That's for middle school and high school. Correct. And And I'm sorry, that's not an opt-in. Everybody gets those. You can't opt out. We email all parents. I'm sorry. We email all parents the grade reports every week. There's no opt out. Here you go. The opt out is don't open the email. I I mean, that's
your opt out. Um, you can opt in for like an alert that when assignments are graded by teachers. We have 22% of our parents that like to see every single assignment and they get an alert. I would hesitate on opting all of our parents into that because >> yeah, you know, we were just talking
about the PDF. >> Everybody gets the PDF. Everybody. >> That's what I thought. >> So, if she gets an email or has an email address connected, >> it could get >> unless she's K through five. Junior K through five, right? They're not a >> difference. Junior K through five. We talk about proficiency. If there's any
issue with proficiency on the fallenw that student automatically is receiving tier 2 services and parents are contacted and you have a task team, right? Teachers addressing student concerns. And then secondary, you also have SST of student support teams. We had one at East Middle. So if someone's failing five classes, there's going to
be communication home um automatically. So there are all these students receive that support. we just don't hopefully put it out there that we hope they read their email. Like if a student is failing in school, there are several different safety nets that every student
uh is addressed in in in schools and we all have a pretty good structure now, you know, preK12, JK12 to make sure that if they're if they're not proficient or if they are failing, it's more than an email. Yeah, we pull at the secondaries. The counselors pull the grades every
Monday and they huddle with their assistant principal about where the D's they pull D's and Fs every Monday at all of our secondaries. And then a lot of times they'll do what they call family meetings. If they see a student is on it either multiple weeks in a row or like Dan said, five out of six or six out of
six like critically there's issues and we need to brainstorm family meetings for those. So it's >> we have a lot of those systems in play. I I was just really because I' I've not been through this system. >> Yeah. >> And I'm I'm concerned about this one
child that is falling through the cracks. >> We get those progress reports >> is what I'm thinking. And then the second thing in the policy is it seemed to me that there should be a general discussion or recognition regarding
remedial work because these are the kids that are not hitting proficiency but yet the class is going to keep going forward. So they've got to catch up but they also have to stay on target. And it
seems to me that you can get further and further and further behind and getting that kid re-engaged into the subject area can be really really hard. And I I don't know if there's a a way
around that whether you know maybe some of the academic coaches can be part of the discussions if there are discussions that are going on when you start talking remedial. Same case I asked and I I asked the
student I said well what are you going to be doing over the summer to make up for where these problems are? and she said, "They told me it wasn't really that big a deal. I needed to turn in one or two assignments. I'm going on to the
next grade." But she didn't feel that really it was that important and it seemed to me that that should be foundational and it should be important. >> I don't know if I mean you could definitely make comment. I don't know if it's going to be like obviously a board
policy. I think that's a discussion to have with administration passing of >> or it's some kind of verification with the other end and whether that teacher did tell that student all of that and there's a certain amount of rationalization going on.
>> I'm not throwing stones. >> No, no, no. I But >> I think we have to be careful when we're just listening to one side of that and not like Scott said, getting the other end of that because I think a lot gets lost in translation there. Mhm.
>> And I think some people handle the unusual easier than other people. >> Sure. >> You know, and so finding out that your child is failing if you yourself didn't graduate from high school um and you're a single parent, I I How
in the world do we pull this together? So, if at all possible, these people make it up. But I think that's that is what if you have specific instances as you send in the administration that is that job to do it. >> That's not a policy issue. Yeah.
>> Right. Okay. >> I don't think we can write a policy for that particular problem. >> Okay. Um and then the third section was in section D in the non-traditional programs.
Um, it says something to the effect the district may operate or provide non-traditional programs may opt I can't remember the specific language as written um that these programs are intended to meet
the needs of students who may do better outside traditional classroom settings. Uh and then in the third sentence include that the student as well as the parent would be in the placement discussion if the discussion is going to a
non-traditional thing for for future work that somehow the student should be part of it. If you're talking about going to TC High as an option, the somehow it seems to me the student needs to be part of that discussion
or at least that should be recognized as an important option. >> Currently, it reads right now um the building principal or designate will attempt to consult with a student's parent before finalizing a decision to move a student to a non-traditional program. >> Right. you were suggesting it says
student and their student and their parent is what you >> I would think that that's what we would do anyway. So >> well let's talk about that. I mean a parent has the choice you know in that has the authority in that element to
request placement even if a student doesn't want to >> you know like yeah unless you're emancipated element but >> I think that we've said that that lies with the parent >> and that's what the policy says
>> I mean I would guess >> just say as consultant >> 999 out of a thousand times the students involved in it Yeah, you you pretty much want the adolescent on board. Yes. >> So So basically the recommendation student and parent
>> and Yeah. >> consult with the student and >> and it doesn't say decision of. It says consult with >> before finalizing a decision, right? So I'm comfortable with that. >> I'm comfortable with that one. >> Yeah. >> I think maybe it would it could actually enhance buyin if a kid is transferring
high schools. >> I think as John said, it probably happens. I think it already does. I don't know of a situation where it doesn't but >> so we just so I think we're okay with making that >> change. >> I can make the revision that it would now read the building principal or design will attempt to consult with a
student and parent before finalizing a decision to move a student to a non-traditional program. >> Perfect. I'll make that motion if Connie can't, but uh as presented by Connie, >> you can use the uh you can use the
recommended motion in D and just change the number to 5411. Um you don't even have to say the in >> section D or whatever. >> Yeah, you just literally say I I in fact I can do it if you want. >> Just go ahead. >> Um it doesn't have to be specific. It
says, "I move that the board of education approve board policy 5411 as amended." >> I second. >> Or I second. >> Yeah. You second three. >> All right. Um Tammy, please conduct a roll call.
>> Trusty Nand Bale. >> Yes. >> Trustee Ballinger. >> Yes. >> Trusty Varis. >> Yes. >> Trusty Hardy. >> Yes. >> Trusty Moore. >> Yes. >> Trusty. >> Yes. >> Trusty Schmidt. >> Yes. Yes. Um, so motion carries. You
wrote me off now with that with that. Uh, okay. So, motion carries. Um, now on to 5420. Sex education. Beth, >> sex education. Um, the, um, policy that as written seemed
confusing to me. There were two part A's. um the terminology would be um one thing in one area and something else in another. And so I I just
am proposing just some organization and editing. Um I gave a copy to Tammy. Tammy gave a copy I think to everyone. What I'd like to do is if we had time to just wait,
see what Connie thought of the proposed and then bring it back again for policy vote next next meeting. >> Some of what's been proposed is pretty extensive. So, we may want to like bring this and punt this forward to the um
executive committee to review um because if they're substantive changes, I can't propose those to the board. only you can make those changes. If it's just clean up and moving things around and those sorts of things without substantively changing, I could make those and bring them to the exact board to bring forward for consent. But if there's any
substantive changes, those would require board discussion. But I do like your suggestion in terms of moving it forward because there's a lot here. >> So, one question just out of which is the easier one? Is it is there a reason it's a a b? >> I don't know. I'd have to go back and
look at the formatting. It could be a formatting issue. >> Okay, that one I cuz I definitely agree that there was two A's. That was an easy one. Um, >> that was easy. >> But then as far as the rest of it, what >> there anything cuz I don't want to necessarily have Connie and the board do
I don't want to have administration do a bunch of work only to bring it back to have a a flat no. So if there's anything that you any clarification or the board can vote obviously as is but like if there's at least at least a little bit of gist about what we're delaying for. Can >> we just vote to defer a decision on
this? >> I can but I also don't necessarily want to send Connie with >> uh down a path that she has to go down and then her to bring back changes and then us as a board to be like yeah we don't like any of those and we weren't ever going to think about it anyway. say, >> well, I'll just say that for example, it
says the board may choose to provide sex education within the constraints of state law. We don't have a choice. We have to provide sex. I mean, so like there's some of those things that I can point out right away, but otherwise, I mean, just if the difference is and I'm going to be perfectly honest, I haven't >> had a chance to like compare our current
policy to what's been proposed to really give you any sort of a recommendation tonight. see the red line or to see what I agree >> because really the only change that had been made from the previously approved board policy was just taking out that second redundancy that they had you know included the red line that was already
stated in paragraph A already. So that was the only change. So this was the policy the board had previously adopted. Um so the suggested changes are not related to the recommended revisions from true. The other thing I'll mention that I would ask Connie too is generally
processes of what happens within committees is in administrative guidelines. And so you know that that falls under the purview of administration. And so I would say and we've we've gone through the work of doing some administrative guidelines. Trun generally doesn't have those. You
know it has but we've had some that really kind of lay out the how to conduct. So that's something that I think we might think about is putting some of that in the administrative guideline as far as processes for the committee versus in policy. >> And Jesse, I wanted to let you know too,
one of the nice things I mean there's certain things that I liked about the previous like format of that Neola search functions that the the new diligent platform does not have. But one thing that the diligent platform I know had been a previous concern of yours was well not everybody goes to the administrative guidelines section of the
Nola. Now, if you were to go in, for example, and you were to put in the search function sex education, it'll pull up the policy and if there's an AG, it pulls them both up. So, you don't have to go to two different locations to try to find the AGs. And we spent a
significant amount of time with the curriculum instruction team. I mean, days of going through every policy that Yola had an AG for. Do we still want that AG? Is it up to date? Does it reflect the policy? and have subsequently tied those in um
particularly for the the personnel section and also the curriculum and instruction section. So if there there are those that we need to create, we can easily do that for sure. >> Yeah, I just took some of that section for the the responsibilities of the sex
ed advisory board and just put them into there. Just organized them there. And there were times there was a couple of paragraphs where it's almost it says the same thing you know that it has to be taught by a certain level of trained
person that says that in two places >> but that was what they were suggesting removing. So I think that's that was the redundancy that they took out in the revision. >> So there was some stuff like that. The one thing I did add and that was
um in the curriculum thing material covered addresses but is not limited to human sexuality including anatomy, sexual maturation and biological responses, family planning, social and emotional
issues regarding sex and sexual activity. There's a whole slew of of addressing family and economics and all that kind of thing. And you're only going to do it in the context of the sexual activity.
disease information specific to each sex as well as sexually transmitted diseases, not dangerous communicable diseases which include MS and measles and pneumonia and TB, but you're looking specifically at sexually transmitted
diseases. And then it w may also may also include information discussion opportunities regarding dating sexual con consent use of social media which the other policy
doesn't mention and hygiene which the other policy does mention. >> So I I'll just caution like again if you look on this policy this if you see there's several statutory references under the MCL. So typically we are required that language is not
discretionary like that language is coming right out of the statute that we're dropping into the policy. So anytime you don't see those statuto references that's basically we've got discretion on how we how we word things. But if we see those that's pulling directly from the statute that was similar with the McKenna Vento some of
those others. So not disagreeing that there could be better better ways to say it, but that would be something that they would need to have a legislative change to change the statutory language that we don't necessarily have discretion to do. >> Assumption is this has been legally vetted also. So we >> that's what true includes a law firm.
>> Yeah. I mean policies really want to plug in with something that's legally vetted and we can't then >> well and Dr. Van Wagner and I talked about this today. say, you know, anytime we're going to suggest any mass changes, and that certainly is the prerogative of the board. I can give you my opinion, but if they choose to do that, we would
need to take it back to TRUN and have them review to make sure that whatever we have done has not compromised the legal defensibility of the policy because that was really the whole purpose of going to these policies that are mandatory and statutory that they're our law firm that's going to represent
us in the event that we're challenged. So, the language has to be pretty specific. So, anytime we start word smithing, certainly they're your policies. You guys can do that, but it could, you know, set the district up for additional liability if what we've done is now rendered it non-defense cost to
review in the first place. So, either way, we're spending money. But um >> and I'm a little just just if we're just speaking out loud the sexual adv sex education advisory board structure I think we just have to be careful with that because I think as Dan has reviewed with us that you know um sometimes they
don't fulfill their terms sometimes they have to you know one time he said we had 26 members like I think they um so I >> this is why in administrative guidelines I have the ability on the fly to change if necessary it has I don't have to wait a month or a special meeting to bring
board in. Yeah, >> if there are those kind of things. >> Actually, if we could get rid of that section, I think that would be absolute. >> I think making it >> more tur. I think sometimes we're so >> again there's so much of this low. I
mean, I read the when I read the law, it's >> very specific what has to be on it >> as far as clergy, those things are specifically read in the law. Like even with the public hearing, there was certain words in the public hearing that you have to say, which is why I re read
it literally word for word, even though I feel like there's a part of it that doesn't sense. >> So I think that the board at this point has given Connie enough direction. I think give us a chance to take that back. I'm going to see about putting administrative guidelines with it that can maybe spell just the superintendent's, you know, work to do that.
>> Um, and bring that back to you to see what you think. >> That's Yeah, that's good. you guys. Yep. >> Okay. Um, >> do we need a motion? >> We need a motion of 54. Did we do a 541? >> We did.
>> Okay. Then we don't need a motion for that because it's there's no action. >> Nope. >> Okay. >> But it was from the agenda. So, do we need to have some kind of motion that we do? >> No, because we're administration want to send it back to anything to approve.
>> Thank you. Sorry it took >> that's right I said that in our setup though we have this is the is the only way of having this discussion um so moving on out of board policy to
the strategic plan um to talk >> okay so we uh this point again we've made more revisions based on input from the uh board and so uh both Dan and and uh Jesse have some of
those to be able to go over any questions or whatever you might have. Um but I think that we're getting close, but again, we don't have an expectation of adoption or in place of when to do that. Again, we do have a board meeting coming up rather quickly. Again, um you know, if there's some things to take
back or thoughts, but uh I guess I'll open it up. Do you guys want to start? Do we want to take questions? What are you guys' thoughts? I thought we'd take questions over based on what we said and change it if you have anything specific to address with either metrics or strategies. >> Yeah, we really tried to listen to your
input um and we went back to our teams and had some conversations um and tried to narrow some of uh the metrics down for you guys and we also tried to get it on a more readable document. So that document that's linked in there has all five of the goals on
like one page two-sided um with their metrics, but then linked into there is that more extensive document about each one. Um and then also the strategies know that those are um living breathing strategies and as we as the board says yes, these are our goals. Yes, these are
our measures of success. We'll go back and work with the folks closest to the work as far as what and look at research of what are our strategies and what makes sense. Um, and if we need to come back to you guys and ask for some resources or additional allocation to implement a new strategy, I I would
anticipate that kind of being eb and flow back and forth. >> Do you by chance have uh sorry like a marked up um copy of the track changes like with the policy revisions like something similar so we can see what was
crossed out or what was changed. I don't I I saved the originals and made copies and then made the changes moving forward. Um but I don't I did not like >> and I did a sideby-side comparison on paper. I just wondered if there was something on >> I don't I'm sorry. >> Show on the screen. Okay.
>> Well, I I'll just say that I think it's great. Um I love that we reduced it by 12 goals. You know, I still think 22 is too many, but I it's a step in the right direction. Um, again, I I'm I'm really excited for the specific goals around our kids living in or near poverty. Um,
and I'm excited to hold hold ourselves accountable to to make sure that the staff and administration have the resources to do it. I love that it's five years. Um, I really appreciate it that it's outcomes based instead of activities based. I think that's a great improvement from the last plan. Um, you
know, the one big change I I maybe just to hear from growth to proficiency, um, which I'm fine with. I'm just kind of curious about that decision- making for goal one. >> So for goal one, I I I still had a target if talking specifically about we
went to 25 and both goals even previously was about proficiency. It was showing that upward trend of showing a proficiency a growth of proficiency of 5%. as just as conversations that we had here that we wanted a more robust goal that was something that we thought we
could achieve more and so instead of just doing a 5% proficiency uh we moved up I think we moved from it looks like 10% for all students and around this is for ELA and math are pretty similar for that 25 data um moving from 54 to 65 in
ELA 56 to 65% in math um so that was about for all students for was about a 10 10% more students being proficient and then for our so um our economically
um challenged students would be about 15%. So it would also do two things in one, right? It would show I think a little more um robust goal and then also close that achievement gap more. >> And we know it seems like a lot with six
in that academic achievement, but number one, Dan and I love that this is number one goal. I don't know if they're ranked in importance, but that really I think and our teachers and our administrators thought that was they felt value in their work, so they appreciate that. Um, but the sixth number really all of our
teachers, no matter what grade level they teach, feel like there's a goal that they have ownership of, right? I was working with the middle school principles. They're doing their PD on Thursday and they're I mean, the student and Mr. Ranger are really they're highlighting with their staff what that middle school goal is, right? And we're
measuring it with our exit um performance of our eighth graders. And then they've got this like plan to back it up. And as a sixth grade teacher, what's my responsibility? as an art teacher, what's my responsibility in this? And they feel like that goal um really lends that to everybody in those
buildings can say, "Oo, I have a role in that and I can help out in that." Um and so I I know it seems like a lot, but it also I feel like with the way we have our buildings um separated, it it really does give some ownership to all of our teaching staff. >> Yeah. And just to echo that is just the
idea of using NWA with with our elementary 25. This is data they have in front of them all the time. Not only just in the fall, winter and spring, but they have it in front of them also with their winter data meetings in front of them with parent teacher conferences. It's common language that we can use throughout the building all the time. So
when you hook your strategic plan to it, you know, your strategic plan becomes meaningful to, you know, every teacher in the district now has has some play in it and it's it's already embedded in their work. It becomes more viable. I have a question and that is how does
this feed into uh science and social studies as well. >> Our our number one connection is reading. >> Um so we talk about proficiency with reading uh our learning starts I believe with reading. So that science and social
studies that understanding of the concepts you know it's and and Jesse talked about this today with science and social studies. It's getting less and less of that idea of memorizing dates and formulas and things like that. It's connecting those concepts not only within the subject itself but also with
other subjects. >> There's a lot of um numerical analysis in the math like can you read a graph? Can you make sense of data? And when you think about that, you can use census data, you can use population shift data, you can use some type offormational text from a science data, and our teachers in
those other areas are really going to look at like how do I use my content as a vehicle to develop those skills. Um, and so the the connection with science and social studies is as a home run. Um, with the SAT, typically one of the essay questions they have to read is
anformational text and it might be a piece of historical writing they have to analyze. It might be a graph or a chart they've got to look at. So I that connections is going to happen pretty pretty easily and seamlessly. It's a little bit it's a little bit trickier for us in like the non-core areas like
art, like PE to think about how do they connect into this and and how do they build some skills? And they're building a little bit more of those soft skills. How do you set goals? How do you work towards something? Um why does it matter for me to know what reading level my kids are at when I'm an art teacher? Well, maybe when I'm explaining a
project, me knowing that some of these students can't just be handed something, right? Um because I have some kids who are struggling readers in my classroom, like I need to differentiate my instruction that way, too. >> Are you'll be using more your mathematical background in symmetry and
weight and whatever, calculating how much you need to to make something. Um I did I think just to try and summarize a few things from the board which I think will maybe cut out a little bit of time if I can deliver this right is I think when you change it to
proficiency everyone I think it reads a lot better. The problem becomes is we're I don't think any of us including any person in the district any baron any public any board member is okay to say I
think we can get to Our goal is 55. Obviously, our goal was greater than that, but we have to make progress to that. So, when we're talking about growth, it shows it was very clear that we're making progress. When you just say proficiency, it it doesn't have the context behind
it. >> So, I think if we took what because I like how you've written it and it's so much simpler and it's better for communicating, which makes the goal better. But if we could add, which I don't like to clutter it either, but I do want to just put where we
currently are because I think that would add the clarity of the growth. It kind of gets the two. It's not saying that because again, I don't want anyone to say, okay, well, you know, if we that we're happy with 55% because we're we're not, but we we realize where we are and
what where we what we need to do. So that's my feedback. So where there's a hyperlink for the baseline data, you'd rather have them replace it with what the five average >> I would just have like with a target of 80% of all for instance the first one um
fiveyear trend with a target of 80% of all students reaching the benchmark data. I would just put in in premises what the current baseline is >> right which is >> which is in the baseline data I guess. Yeah. But then I feel like when it reads you, no one's going to click on the
baseline data. So it I feel like just moving that one I we will but the um >> just just putting in the baseline it doesn't even have to have just put baseline x you know or currently x >> in parenthesis
>> in parenthesis that that to me was >> a range too right like are you going by a range over the last five years you know when you have that target just that SAT 11 goal for literacy of 80% that's compared to the 67 to 76% for all
students over the last five years or are you taking the midpoint of that as your baseline? >> Yeah, I'm kind of thinking about what does that trend line look like and and sort of where are we oscillating around? Right. If you want me to benchmark it, I guess my question would be are we putting this stake in spring 2025 as is
the which is fine. >> No, I don't know either. So, this is like I was trying to I was actually just trying to take the because I think that is where you're getting the >> because I think everyone's going to say I like really like how this reads and it's really clearer to communicate. Um,
and I don't no one disagrees with the numbers. So, like I think the hard part's done and then I just want to make sure our messaging is clear cuz I think that I tell me right if I'm wrong. >> No, you're right. And I think it's up to us to be able to message because like we had an email today that it breaks our
heart that we have a goal around 60% of our economically disadvantaged kids not being proficient. And it breaks my heart too. But if you look at where we want to go, I think we, you know, we this this will be a big achievement for the districts if we get here by 2030 and hopefully when we're probably not all
here, the next board who follows will aim higher. >> Exactly. >> Right. Then in >> So like it doesn't it doesn't need a massive change. It doesn't even need necessarily the baseline, but a way to make sure that it's communicated that like the that there is a growth. It
could even say, you know, 15% growth. So you don't have to you and in the baseline data you could you could choose that. I don't need I'm not looking for an overly complicated addition here. Just to basically say that we are we are happy with that number because it shows
growth significant growth. >> Okay. >> Well, I'll just point out like in goal two, you have the target and then period baseline data colon one number. Mhm. >> You could do that, you know, for each of these academic goals
>> and then maybe link to historical, like if somebody really wanted to dig back five years. Okay. >> And and you know, I think you guys have rightfully been reluctant to just put that five-year number as one number because you've given us a spread of five
years because of all the variation with COVID and different cohorts. So, it's like it's smart to show I think that range rather than just one number, but if you do pick one number, I guess it has to be the midpoint of the five years. >> Yeah, I would just comment that, you
know, our NWA growth um norms are changing to every five year they change our growth norms. So, I was just going to benchmark spring of 2025 as their starting point because it's hard to reference norms or our data before this point if they're even relevant to I'm not sure exactly where they're going to
come out. Um, I don't think just based on some um different meetings I've been a part of with NWA, they're not going to be way off the chart, but I think they're going to be different enough that we should start I would benchmark it on and it's a five-year norm. So, it's nice with a 5-year goal. That norm
won't change in the next five years. >> You said it was be spring of 2026, right? >> So, wouldn't that be our new >> that would be our bench for for the elementary goals? That would be the benchmark. I would that would >> our baseline >> baseline. Yeah. So that's like TBD right now. We exactly, you know, and and we
could see a 8 percentage point increase from you know what we've been accustomed to, right? >> It also gives you time to recover from the COVID debacle that we're in and and to get back to some sense of normaly I would hope from an instruction.
>> It does. There's a and also there's our math data is a little off because they've made some changes the last two years. If you notice, our math is a little higher now than our our reading, but that doesn't actually line up to our MSTEP right now as far as proficiency goes. So, letting us wait till spring of
26 uh for that baseline for both NWA math and reading, I think will be a more accurate representation of where our students are to start with. >> I'm fine fine with that. But then what do they give us a I think we did one reconciliation before recalibration.
Sorry. and they had some write up of like the effect of previous system, new system. Do they actually provide like obviously you're going apples to oranges? Is there like a conversion chart like uh of any kind? >> From what I've read, there's not a
direct conversion chart because it depends. I think the impact to different students is what they described as far as that low, low average, average, high, and high average affects those different students differently. That's why I think if we just do a full reset in spring of 26, then that's where our starting point
is. And we know that spring of 2027, we're using the same norms. We'll use the same norms for the next five years. >> So Dan, with the NWA grades two through five goals for ELA and math, then we set targets of 65% of all students and 55%
of economically disadvantaged. We might get that spring 2026 NWA data and we're really close to, you know, we're closer to that. would be closer to that and we might look at that as a board and say, "Oh, we need to raise it by five." >> Which is why we said we would visit each
year. I think that the sentence we included um at the very top is just said just to kind of memorialize that in our >> all goals will be monitored and reported on an annual basis with the whole board. >> That's the one that we know right now is
is vulnerable to >> very much so. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> And I Oh, go ahead. No, I I wanted to make two points on this. What there's two risks in what we've done here. One is we're using MWA scores and this is I'm thinking of the public reviewing
this right now. That's going to be a foreign concept to a lot of the parents out there. They're going to see MSTEP scores >> and we're going to have to do some explaining as to why >> we're doing it that way. I think that the public that doesn't have kids that will be but I think the parents most
parents know NWA and are used to those writ reports. >> Correct. >> And I was also thinking about this to your point Scott. I was also thinking about this is everyone's like why aren't you talking about the MSTEP is like >> clearly one thing I think we can universally say is no one's really happy about the state of the US education
system or or and it's not us it's like the whole system is is changing. Um, so the fact that they're relying on something that everyone wants to talk about is is like it's actually a pretty cool concept to be like, you know what, let's actually focus on data that actually means something and we can reflect upon. So
>> I know that, but for I I don't I have grandkids in school, but I don't get all the reporting information. >> My group wants to know one what the word proficiency means and they think the word proficiency is basically adequate. You're proficient. You're not
accelerated. You're not I I'm just telling you it's and the MSTEP scores are the only thing they see because they see them reported once a year in broad US News and World Report or Trevor City Record Eagle, whichever documents you want to talk about. So we I'm not saying
don't do this. I'm just saying we're going to have to do some explaining >> and those are also proficiency sets in MSTEP. >> So why Well, we kind of talked about this briefly two weeks ago, right? And I think was it because of some board members saying that they wanted fewer
targets that you dropped the MSTEP from this or was it >> Yeah, fewer targets and I think with the parent like you said the parents in school get those get the NWA reports at every parent teacher conference. Um so every because we have almost 100% as far as attendance goes by parents at the at
a fall parent teacher conference and that's the report they give them. You're right. The transparency for people who aren't in school, they they might not know the delineation between the two. You know, another thing about NWA, if we were to bet money, I don't know if Dr. Van Wagner thinks it's also, but the
idea of NWA is probably going to be around in five years, and we're not entirely sure M stuff's going to be. I was talking in curriculum community. The state of Texas right now is is is has law on the table to get rid of their their Texas summitive test and go to a three uh benchmark test similar to NWA
or I ready >> as their state as their state test. That >> don't get me wrong, I'm this >> is fine. It's just there's a criticism of public education >> that if the test scores are bad, it's a bad test. >> And I don't want to get into that
argument. I really don't. So >> yeah, I want to just say a couple things for the record. I love what you guys have done on the academic front. I am 100% with you. Goal one, make this as robust as you see fit. I am not an advocate of let's just do fewer measures
for the or targets for the sake of having a smaller number. I think do what is meaningful and makes sense what you have done. I to your points though about MSTEP. I've been thinking about what you shared with us Dan last time about the NWEA being recalibrated next year. It
made me think we should revisit this MSTEP metric you know just for V, you know, because that NWA is going to change and just that that public transparency. I would I would be remiss if you know some members
of the public thought TCAPS is trying to hide something. They're doing NWA. They're not sharing MSTEP scores. What's up with that? >> You know, >> just there's school of choice out there. I just I just wouldn't want an adverse reaction like that unintended consequence out of it.
>> MSTEP scores would still be shared. Correct. >> But it would be that's not a we're not hiding anything. We're just our metric for measurement is based on NWA which I think probably every educator would say
is a much more >> robust logical efficient way >> to analyze data. >> One thing um just to mention that our um private and proial schools that do test in the area use NWA only.
What I would like to see is so I'm looking at our website and currently we have my school data which is all of our state assessments and I've said this before like 16 times but to Scott's point about us being able to message why just a really nice dashboard just a button at the top everybody has access
to it we all understand the 60th percentile equals proficiency with literacy so but I think it's up to the seven of us to be well verssed in when because our summer 2425 state assessments could be made public here shortely shortly. Um, we all need to be
ready to speak to why and I'm fine with it, right? I've been advocating for public information because as a public official, but I'm I'm fine with it as long as it's very transparent on the website um and not a buried spreadsheet like somewhere that you have to dig for
it. >> I have an instructional question for you guys that could be key. I mean, >> we covered the are we off the MSET load still? Okay. >> Yeah. just I mean in terms of motivating you know the teachers to
um achieve in literacy and math is there anything about MSTEP versus NWA that we feel is out of alignment with our curriculum that would cause any issues by still having both as targets. >> The only thing that doesn't align in my
mind isn't necessarily instructionally. It's just buyin from staff and and what's the purpose of having the assessment right? Again, we've all we've all discussed how MSTEP's going to come now in probably two or three weeks when they don't have the students in front of them. Um, and the data that MSTEP
provides outside honestly outside of social studies is probably the best data we actually get because it drills down to standard and question. Uh, while ELA, math, and science do not. They just give you a broad representation by a shape, whether it be a square, a circle, or a diamond. Whether that that's all you get
as far as broad >> there's different colors on the shape. different colors. I apologize. >> Um, as far as how strong or how weak you are compared to the state in that particular standard. And then what you have to do is we've done this before with teachers when we've used MSTEP and
gone through some process of of trying to trace back and try trying to use crosswalks as far as making some connection um to the to the unit that you're teaching to somehow connect to this large state standard. And they're not very firm connections. it doesn't
actually inform instruction, right? The the MSTEP is for a lot what you say, Scott, the MSTEP's for the public. The MSTEP may be used at some point as far as large curricular and it's looking at large data as far as moving curriculum along to a a new curriculum to see some
measure of how that curriculum performed over the last 5 to 8 years. But of any kind of informing instruction, we don't use it. We can we can pretend to we can go through protocols and have the scores in front of us, but for 95% of what we're using as far as informing
instruction, if you take NWA and compare it to MSTEP, 95% is going to be NWA. So maybe if we just as far as that transparency piece goes, maybe we just have to to work um as you continue to with local news outlets to to make sure
they're aware of what those scores are and make them more public. Yeah, we just got to do some messaging on this. >> Yeah. >> It can't be because we didn't like the way they tested us. Um, >> no, I I I think the scores actually line up pretty well as far as proficiency. One doesn't show us better than the
other. It's just a matter of what we use those scores for. >> And one point I'll make in this, I appreciate what you did too, and I'm 100% supportive of this. this will rise and fall on how well teachers adopt it
in the classroom those targets. And so somehow we've got to show them or prove to them or incent them is all worth it. This is not simply being used as an evaluative tool to decide whether or not you move to the next tier. This is the
survival of what we do here in our curriculum. So this is about public education. But I I want to make sure we acknowledge that we're asking teachers to stretch and some of them to stretch hard because they're going to have some kids that are going to have difficulty getting to
these levels. All of the numbers on the sheets we've never reached before, Scott. So, um I will say when we put it in front of the building administrators and teacher leaders, there was a little bit of woo. Okay. Okay. And so I think as we come
back with strategies, I do anticipate there will be some asks about resources and allocation of things um that we'll have to figure out does that make sense for us to move the needle that direction. >> Well, and I know we're not allowed to acknowledge those performers who do hit
these or exceed these goals, but somehow we've got to subtly be able to acknowledge that. I and again I don't know whether that's a MEA issue or TCEA issue or what it is but somehow I'd like to be able to acknowledge those top performers
>> and again I'm talking I've said it before and nobody's listening >> it is 20% of student uh teacher evaluations right >> is student growth yes but we we weren't planning on necessarily using these metrics to use to evaluate our teachers
I think we were more the mindset of Scott let's use these goals goals to collectively work together and define what we value as an organization and what outcomes we're striving to achieve, not um how we're going to evaluate you in the class. >> Yeah, I'm not suggesting use it for
evaluation, but I'd like to acknowledge people that do perform well and do hit these goals or exceed these goals. I think it's important in this process. Well, well, you would, but you'd have to also you'd have to obviously have a growth as well as achievement because different teachers have a different
population center. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Then you define the criteria. >> It's the kids that are going to be the ones that make those proficiency numbers. >> Absolutely. >> It's the kids. And so, it's the
engagement. And the point very well taken, no two classes are the same. Every year they're different. >> And the same thing for the kid. You can really get it together with one class and one teacher and then you can get
into a whole other personality thing. >> Those are part of the barriers we all have to work through. But >> that's life. >> That's that's life. >> All parts of life. Yes. I think one of the um stories I want to share with the board too, I shared it this morning at
cabinet was what I appreciate about these goals is they're not 100%. So I was sitting with Miss Choek this week as we were going through her new intakes. Um she's got just over 20 new to TCAP students that were um are going to join us at uh Traverse City High School and
all 21 22 of them are off track for graduation and will not meet their graduation on time. they are not proficient on any of our state assessments, nor do I anticipate that's a goal of theirs. And she kind of looked at me and said, "Oh no, can we not take these kids because I already know this
goes against the board's strategic plan." And I said, "Oh, time out. This is still part of the board strategic plan is that we educate every kid. Every one of these kids can reach a high school diploma and we mapped out a plan for success." So, we still want to have
goals that we think are rigorous um and attainable and um have the opportunity for our students who have fallen off to come back to us and earn a high school diploma. And I think that's really important. Um and I really appreciate that there's a place
for that in here as well. >> I appreciate >> that. Um you also increased the graduation rate goal to 93%. >> I did. I did, but I didn't increase the academically disadvantage as much as your input was. And part of that was
this like literally we're looking at these 22 kids in their transcripts and they've already missed their four. >> I appreciate it. And you know, and I and personally, I look forward to those asks because it's going to about to get trickier for us, I believe, as we appropriate dollars, >> you know, to achieve some of these goals
that, to your point, we've never reached before. So, I'm looking forward to those asks that that I think this part's the easy part. It could get more tricky next time we amend this budget. >> You got to ask us the tough asks. We're asking you the tough asks you know at some point. What resources do you need
to get there? >> Like the tier 2 support for math and middle school. >> Like how much does that cost? Okay, good. >> We'll have to put our money where our mouth is. >> So just closing out a couple of items to give some So MSTEP I think general consensus is we're okay not to have
that. >> Yes. >> As long as it's on the dashboard, right? >> As long as it's on the dashboard. Yeah. would you want to have it there? And obviously messaging is important behind that. Um again I I would like some way it can it can even be in a link if need be but I do think that we need to make sure that
there is a clarifying way that we are focused on growth and is as you said this is better than we've ever done before. Um so let's focus on that as well. Um and we don't want to discourage taking
people or like you said as well. educating kids. That's important, I think, for and you guys have been really strong on that with all the moves we've made in particular at our alternative high school, right? We have a two-year waiver to go longer. We have the virtual opportunities. We've done a lot to bring
in kids who have realized I need to finish my high school to pull on 15 rather than 18 >> and we're seeing we're the only one left in the region. >> Yeah. >> Right. So, when I say alternative high school, >> well, high school and everyone else is like discouraging everything because
>> it's not a face tof face option. >> And when we're say when I say these 20 plus kids, they're not kids that live within our TCAPS boundaries. So we don't have to legally enroll them, but we choose to because we know we can make an educational plan with them, which allows them to reach a high school diploma,
which is fundamentally all of your goals. I've heard that loud and clear. So that's right. So on one I think the general consensus is we like all of it with maybe a few clarifications but in um we're really
close on all of it. Um any I we don't have to go goal by goal. Is there any other what other feedback is there on the goals? >> I mean I I'm I love that we have a school connectedness goal like that. So
this is the only goal that's that's new that's not being carried over from the last one. And and again I fully support after school and summer as a way to to measure belonging and feeling valued and safe at school. I think it's a great um
way to measure it. I just I've said this last time. I think re if we can just somehow say 75% of students are connected to a club uh an art and athletic program versus trying to raise registrations by 700
over five years. That's just my I think it's just a me better measure of belonging which is the whole purpose of this connectedness goal. Um so I'll I'll leave it at that. I I love that it's in here though. It's
connected to goal one. It's connected to goal three. It's connected to goal four and five. So, um, >> do you think just a general K12 goal then that someone has some connection extracurricular outside of school? >> Just like Jesse did at Central with the freshman boys, right? I mean, and I know
it will take work. Um, but if we're truly talking about school connected positive cultures like we heard from Ben and Brian um at curriculum last month, I'm I'm okay having this registration goal. I know kind of why it's in there, but if there can be a goal for
connectedness to programs, um I just think we we'd be really proud of it over the next five years. Um um like even like Northern Express has Jay Burgerer in the paper talking about free opportunities for after school and our like will he be able to will that
count towards some of our after school? Um >> leap >> connect. I mean I but again >> I think I think to the problem I think I think most people would agree with Tai is like it's just a connect. >> Was that correct? It's the tracking of
it. And that's what I was going to say like to be a smart like I'm surprised I haven't because I'm a big into like goal setting and there if you want to do research look at smart goals they're very it's like very things that you have to hit to have the goal be effective >> and I struggle with the amp which is
measurable and I but I I'm I'm >> the only reason >> willing to find a measure but >> it's been done relationship mapping's been done at central right is it possible at 16 of our buildings I don't know but if we're really serious about positive culture and school connected
Um, I guess I'm fine with just registrations. I know it's an easy way to measure, but sometimes the easy isn't the best if we're serious about this. Um, I just and maybe it's not realistic and I don't want to create more work for staff, but I I I saw Jesse do it, right? I >> I think we've got a lot of work to
figure out what it is. So, here's what I'd ask. Keep it what it is in a year from now. If we think that there's a better measure, we figured something out, >> we can change. >> That's fine. >> And I do agree with you, Tyler. That is the ultimate goal. Uh but how do you >> we've got some things to learn how to measure what data systems we have. What
can we get people to do? Like we've got >> to learn internally because again they they've done it >> and it was there. I think it's harder at the elementary level for sure. >> You know what I mean? And so like we we need to think about like like what how do we do that, you know? And so like we've got something at least now and with this number and we may figure out
hey here's a better way to do this that we can bring in a year and go let's think of it this way. >> That's fine. And part of our next step is to meet with Sophie, our data kind of guru for the district, and go through each of these and figure out how do we measure and track these um and then how
do we track that that subgroup that economically disadvantaged in a way that's it >> and and it's going to take more than just power school. I mean, we use final forms for athletics. We've got LEO is it that we use. I mean short of asking the student if they participate in something and relying on that data it's it's a
huge system but you could I mean you could start there but >> like I said we're going to figure a starting point and find our way >> we do track in power >> we do track in power school we have an activity field at the high schools which is how we got that number of 61% and then Sophie did a dump with every kid who had an activity field and those are
ones that don't roll so every year it gets wiped and you have to read >> that's yeah and it's some manual >> ask point to Tai's point, I think the success or failure of hitting these goals is going to be very dependent on that middle group, the group that
doesn't have an advocacy group, that doesn't get tracked with TAG, that doesn't have free and reduced. It's the it's the ones in the middle with parents who may not be involved, who are apathetic at best about school in general, but have the ability. That's
what's going to move the needle for us. I mean, yeah, I I know we need to focus on free and reduced, but I I worry about that group in the middle because they don't have anybody really advocating for them. It may not even be their parents. >> So, that connectedness is I I think is
important if we can even figure out a way to do it, whether we can track it or not, get them involved, get them connected to something >> and that is the goal. >> And and you know, we see this as a phased in process. I mean, over five years, it's not going to happen tomorrow. We're not going to come to the promised land in year one, but like
we're this will be the things that we think through now that we have of what is a year one goal look like? What does a year two, you know, what are the data systems we have? What are they capable of? Like we've got a lot of thinking into this. >> I just had a quick clarifying question to Jesse. You just mentioned there's a
field that the kids fill out. >> No, there's there's a field in Power School. The kids don't fill it out. we uh any adviserss or coaches turn their rosters in in the AA's market uh the admin assistance market and so when I got that 61% I took the high schools we
use that field a lot to know like what groups in model UN what groups in we even mark like who's in quiz bowl who's in the C club who's in the >> like some clubs that you know meet in the library how is that tracked >> whatever advisor or uh faculty member
who oversees that every student club has to have not somebody not an adult who runs it because it's a studentr run club but has to have an adult who just supervises and they had a roster and so we got those to the wing assistants and then they would mark the kids in that activity field. >> Okay. >> Even if it's like a chess club at lunch
or something. Okay. >> Okay. That was just my question. How how are those kids being captured? Because there's there's a good group of them that meet >> at lunches and things like that. I guess one clarifying question cuz like the goal is student wellbeing connected connects and safety mental health but
are we trying to measure I know it's both but is it connection to the school or connection to because as you said Ty like there's external organizations they may not participate in school activities because they got a really busy schedule with everything else at the moment which
okay >> what is the goal >> I think we are saying school I think you know like And >> I'm fine. I >> I'm an Eagle Scout. I was in Boy Scouts, you know, like like I just like that's great, but I think we do want to see is there a way they're connected to our school community?
>> Mhm. >> So I I think that's the way that we've thought about >> and that's what I was thinking of too. I just wanted to check that that's what >> like that question that says is there the one person at school that you can trust and go to and like us as a school board that's what we're trying to
achieve. >> Right. Okay. And what I think the challenge and we've talked a lot about this like we're gonna we've got something set up with Jay is like is there a way for us to bring that into our system like how can we work it doing that >> like under our umbrella of of LEAP or
whatever it is like how do we have that where we have some connection to it versus it being just an external organization that's just maybe using our building like >> how is it more ingrained so >> we're having a lot of conversations about what that looks like. So >> I just wanted to clarify that. Again,
another tip would be the YMCA, which is within a short walk from West Middle School, but it's not a TCAPS program. So, those kids would fall outside of this measure, but there could be 30 kids. >> But to give you example, we have the YMCA, but you know, they use in the
summer that Monasuri and that we have a program there like does that count? Like we that's all the things we're going to have to talk about and figure out how that looks like and works and data systems and all. And then there are some kids that are transient, you know,
because just their family situation. >> All right. Um, any again, these are good comments. Any further comments on any of the other goals? I I do read that we're basically probably have to have I think we're the
feedback is so far that we're pretty good with everything. We may have some slight tweaks, but it's hopefully good enough for you to at least start thinking about implementation, how to do it. >> Are we are we at a point where we think of the next board meeting to consider final? That's what we just add the
clarifications and we'll hammer it out of the next board meeting to finalize. >> So, we'll go ahead and then if the board is good, we will add an agenda item then of adoption of the the Compass 2.0 strategic plan. >> Yeah, because we need to add that. Mike,
can we bring the amended values that we did at the offsite workshop? We tweaked them. >> Mission, vision, values. >> Well, the values we tweaked a little bit. Can we just because to the whole point of like the mission to educating kids to Jesse's point, like I think we need to the mission, the values, the the
vision and the goals as one complete. >> We will have that all. >> Yep. Did I forget the amendments we did to the values? But >> when we approve it, but it's everything like we're focusing on the goals because we have we get everything.
>> We'll make sure we'll pull off from the charts what those were and provide. >> I think they were fine. I just don't >> we'll try and get that done here and get them to you guys. >> See it. >> And and here's the last for me, one of the last questions. Are we going to treat this as pretty much written in
stone or are we going to be able to amend it >> for a year? Every year. >> Every year. >> For a year. So I think that almost is a >> and then for us the implementation components of of strategies and those things it is a living document
>> because it may turn >> as grant opportunities come up as different funding source and different things like >> right >> you know we'll be constantly trying to feed it >> that will guide our decisions y >> so any other again because so knowing
that this is coming back hopefully for final approval the next meeting you know I do think this the time is worthwhile spent on any feedback on any of the goals. Are we good on three, four, five? Is there any other feedback on any of those? >> I didn't have anything on
>> three, but four I do have a couple. Um, do you want to pull it up on the screen that this is the postsecary readiness? The >> um, somebody already acknowledged the on-time graduation rates. Those have been lifted from the previous version.
I'm good with that. The second bullet on 75% of on-time graduating students will engage in a post-secondary experience such as AP course work, dual enrollment, etc. Um, so that's 75% of all students. Did we talk about adding a target for
disadvantaged students there? >> We did. I just don't have any baseline data right now. Um, this is one that uh we took a little bit to mine. Um, but we can we just need to figure out we might add a field that says a graduation plus so that we can dump that out easier. But
I I I >> you don't have anything now. >> I don't have anything right now. I tried to go back and get that and because I couldn't come up with a baseline data, I had a hard time. I don't know what the target is if I don't know where we're at, you know? >> Yeah, I get it. >> And I just >> So, could we revisit that? Maybe in a
year we'll, you know, start working towards the goal. But I think that's one to put on the list for get a baseline. give us a year to figure out the baseline of it and take a crack at that. >> And and I just want to mention something in terms of resources for you all to to
know if you know one AP class costs $100 and we've had the scholarship fund at our at our two primary high schools for that. >> It's a state it's a state categorical. It's not really a scholarship fund. >> So you had expressed some concern that that categorical might fall away.
>> Correct. And I think, you know, I just thought about, well, if we had 300 low-income students who wanted to take an exam that's $30,000, that might be an ask you have to come to us with if that categorical falls away. You know, I'm not going to speak for all, but but
that's the kind of thing that I'd rather be asked than, you know, just have it be assumed that we can't do it because I want >> once we know the number and that, we'll let you know. >> Yeah. >> I don't see John being shy on that one. All right.
>> Okay. Where are we here? >> Um, my only question on goal four is um there's one that says 95% of students report that they have a plan and goal for life after high school. And I I love that it's there. I want to increase it. Do you believe and if you say yes, I'm
great with it. Like that that moves the needle in everything else we're trying to do. I was trying to give a nod to to the students having a voice um by leaving that one on there because that is a self-reported right that we send a student survey twice a year to all of our high school students and that is a
question we ask them. We don't then say is your plan after high school of value, right? Like we don't like their plan after high school might be to live at home and and work part-time. I don't know, Scott. Um >> my goal work at Tiki Hut and the
Caribbean. It's just a matter of do do the kids feel like they have a plan. >> So, it was sort of a nod at at putting that student voice in there. Um, so, but I'm up for any feedback you guys. >> I'm okay. I said I I just wanted to make
sure that we're focusing on anything that is relevant another um and is that going to move the needle? Well, they did have in your original version in addition a measure of 100% of students having a post-secondary plan
>> baseline being 88%. >> And that was dropped from this new version. >> I think we were like, well, is that because it's 100% required, but then so it's required anyway. So, we're not going to focus on something that's required and we're doing everything we can. >> So, it was required even when we had the
88%. Yeah, we um to get that baseline there, we read through um a bunch of the EDPs um weaving, myself, Ben, and Joe um and we felt like some of them although they met the state requirements that we've placed a little bit more of like
that's not a very robust plan. So there are trying to bring that up too. >> We are Yep. I've got two counselors uh one at each of our large high schools who are really working at putting together a comprehensive career and college readiness um system. And I'm actually hoping to bring them aboard curriculum at some point this year um to
share their work and stuff like that and and how do we but that's more of a strategy Josie but um I'm fine with taking that out. It definitely >> I'm also fine to leave it in. I just don't want to point like if we're looking at things that going to move the needle then we want as few and the fewer
you have the more focus you have on everything else. >> So I'm okay if everyone wants it. I really really do not have a problem with it just to be clear. I just that was one that >> fine with me >> um which one do we want it does it does
do you want it in or I'm okay doesn't hurt my feelings let's just vote >> 95% of students I I I >> I like it >> I do too I think >> it's in >> okay >> thing I like to be careful on is this
sort of implies postsecary readiness meaning either community college, four-year college that I don't want students feeling nervous or embarrassed to say that they have a trade school plan or that they have a trades plan.
>> We include CTE certification in their work experience and career internship. >> Okay. I'm not sure that CTE necessarily, it may be that what they really want to do is own their own auto mechanic shop. That's their plan. And I don't want them
thinking, "Oh, if I don't say I'm going to go on to a CTE program or community college program or whatever, then I can't submit this plan." I mean, you know what I mean? It it's always been college is the next step from high
school. And I think now we're seeing more and more need for the trades, for electrical, for HVAC, for whatever car mechanics. So, I just want to make sure that they're comfortable saying that's their plan. >> Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. That that is
one of the tracks. Military as well. We have students who say, "I'm not going on to like a military academy, but I'm going to enroll." That would be counted as having a a post-secary plan. And that CTE certification and that on-time uh students percentage right above a lot of
our students, almost every program now at CTC provides some type of industry credentiing for those students. So they can walk out of there with their OSHA done or with their um there's different every program sort of has a certification or something. >> Yeah. That they can earn that translates
to last they have to do as a professional um to be employed. >> I just want to make sure that we're doing >> No, I absolutely agree with you. >> Okay. >> Yeah. The small business owner won't necessarily have to go to
Michigan. >> Correct. Absolutely. Not every kid is is going to go to a four-year institution. That's okay. But we want to make sure you have a plan for what your next step is and you've started exploring that journey. So, you know, that plan is viable, right?
>> Yeah. It it would be nice to hear from the students. You know, you you have kind of an employee climate and culture and and things like that. The high quality staffing recruiting goal five. You've got quite a few lists, but it
would be interesting. Was there something in high school we could have provided that you think we didn't, you know, kind of a more open-ended sort of thing and it's a hard thing to get to and then how do you quantify it because you could get
such diverse answers. Um, but it it's sort of like was it was it a technicality or was it actually something that it gave you what you expected, what you think you needed?
And that one's a hard one. >> So, I think just to try and uh I know this is a a lot of uh focus on here. So, moving on to goal five. the only one that I thought there was too many goals in goal five that there there didn't need to be quite as many, but I don't
disagree with any of them. The only one that I would potentially remove is just a sourcing. Um expanding the recruiting pipeline is obviously important, but I think that's just kind of eb and flow with also retirements. Um what you're planning to need like
there may be years that you really don't need to go out. Obviously, if we get to a position where there's, you know, let's say we had a recession, then yeah, that would single-handedly potentially change that whole number anyway. So, like I would I would like
less goals in that section. I >> would pick that one out only because I was trying to like I I like the other ones as well, but um that's my only one. >> It's fair. I could agree with that. Again, I would like less, but I feel
like everything else is >> for us, these were more measures of success as opposed to goals. So, if you clicked on it, what we tried to do is just take each of the there was one goal under recruit, one goal under retain, and one goal under um develop. So, if you click on that piece, it takes you to the other we we truly tried to narrow
those down. Those were measures of more measures of success. But, oops, I think that's the old one that didn't get updated. to Scott's point, I think some of these goals that are in there are more departmental goals than they are necessarily district goals. >> And we're going to continue to do that. One of the things we hear from people
frequently is, you know, like, are we targeting the right network? And we always post on these certain websites or should we be more specific for certain jobs? So, should we attend different types of recruiting fairs? Should we do, you know, different things? So, we're constantly trying to figure out how to expand our p pipeline, but not that it
necessarily has to. It's just a a metrics for us, you know, on our return on investment. Did we, you know, we we did 10 more >> job fairs. What was our return on our investment from that >> I'm more than happy to >> I definitely see goal five is Connie Taylor and her shop.
>> Yeah. >> So, we got you. >> Again, I I feel like whatever if you feel like this is appropriate for your purposes, you know, I'm supportive. But >> yeah, I just said I just didn't want to put goals in that are reflective not of
the department but the need like the current needs and that was one that I felt could be highly up and down. >> I could see it there could be consolidation of the industry too like not university teaching programs so much as like if there are employment agencies or something.
>> Yeah, there's a lot of >> Yeah, I don't know >> the internal promotion rate. Do we need that for for the students as well? >> Well, again, I'm trying to get less goals, not more here. So, >> yeah, >> that's on here. >> That was tongue and cheek, Scott.
>> Yeah, I know. I'm But on that point, like again, I don't know if the board feels strongly that's the only area, but I would like to see cuz as soon as you look at this, no one's going to remember. I can remember the other four goals pretty much. >> I'm not going to remember. I remember
one or two of these. I'm just that just makes me worried about the adoption of them. So >> I I >> I don't we don't need to do any >> I'm really good with setting the bar super low. I'm good. >> Do less. I'm all about it now. >> Do more on the lesser. No. So I that
would be my only feedback. I don't know if I have board support that I would like a couple of less goals. I picked out one in particular, but and again I actually don't hate the goal. It's just I would like goals >> targets. >> Yeah. And I I think that God willing we can figure out a way to expand the
postsecary readiness, >> but not at this point. It may take settling the plan. I think you're right, John. >> Settle the plan. >> Connie, I just had a couple a question about the candidate experience feedback
that you previously had, >> but that was dropped. That was the one where you wanted to measure the application, interview, and onboarding process. We're still going to do that. I mean, part of you guys wanting us to scale down the goals, I mean, our job is always going to be from a retention standpoint and recruitment standpoint,
how much is their experience part of the recruitment process, right? It might be part of the retention process and we're going to continue to do those stay interviews with folks in the the culture interviews and how was your experience and how do we improve the experience, but it doesn't necessarily need to be reflected in the goals. It's just part
of what we're going to be doing on a day-to-day. We were just trying to like hone it in for all of you to for your previous suggestion. There's all kinds of stuff that we have ideas about doing. I'm just not sure that'll have to be codified in the plan. >> That's just part of what we do.
>> That second to last bullet, the evaluations and feedback. So that was the increased timely feedback for all staff through from a baseline of 70% to 80%. Um can you just explain what are we talking
about here? So right now you'll have you ask staff if they're getting from their supervisor and that was done in our previous cultural survey was do you feel that you receive timely you know and relevant feedback from your supervisor and at that point we had 70% of people that said yes we want to increase that
by 10% so that people are feeling like whether it be for a formal evaluation process or just your supervisor consistently giving you you know feedback on your work that it's something that's vocalized and understood and that people are that they're they're acknowledging that they're getting it. Do you all have a definition for timely? Because I feel
like that could be very subjective. >> So, we actually within some of our negotiations this year talked about that within a five-day period of time, for example, of a walkth through that in order for them to use information observed during a walkthrough that they need to be giving that feedback to the
staff member within 5 days. So, we're really trying to say like, you know, not waiting and holding on to everything for a summitative like end of semester evaluation or end of the year evaluation for our non-eing staff to say here are the things I observed. If you see see things constructively, they need to be
in order to be put in there. There's no gotchas. And so, that's comes from both sides of it, right? You're not going to try to to mark somebody down in their evaluation on something that they observed eight months ago during an observation or an event versus also people need to know that they're doing a good job. So, we need to be giving
people that timely and consistent feedback. >> All right. >> Where are we? >> But with >> I'm done. >> Is there a half? >> Sorry. Do you have any Did you have something? >> No, I was just going to say for gold five. I mean, I appreciate what you have
here and and being able to measure and so I would just leave it up to you as to Yeah. I mean, >> yeah. And I won't be upset with wherever you come back at. I just I generally am trying to drive them down less so you can remember every goal. I want to remember every goal and I'm going to struggle on that one which is my fault.
>> Um >> valid goal. >> So yeah, I think it's harder every year. Um so I will So I think if you don't have any other questions, we'll leave that. We don't need a motion or anything. It will come back at the next
board meeting for final approval. Um and we'll put that on the executive um on the agenda uh for next meeting. Uh moving on to second public comment. I take it no public comment.
Um and then moving on to close session. Uh we do have a close session and may I have a motion on my board to go into close session? >> I move that we move into close session. Um, I have to have you withdraw that and
you'll have to whoever reads the motion has to be very specific in reading uh I would suggest the recommended motion. >> She's got it. I withdraw that and I move that the board of education go into close session for the purposes of strate of strategy connected with the
negotiation of multiple cl collective bargaining agreements as allowed by the open meetings act PA267 of 1976 section 8 parentheses one parentheses C.
>> All right. Any discussion? Tammy, please roll. >> Trusty Pack, >> yes. >> Trusty Murmmore, >> yes. >> Trusty Beris, >> yes. >> Trusty Ballinger, >> yes. >> Trusty, >> I. >> Trusty Schmidt, >> yes. >> Newman,
>> yes. >> We are now in close session. Hello there. Heat. Heat. Hey, hey, hey. Hey, hey, hey. Heat. Heat.
to open session. Okay, we're now in open session. just uh quick closing um remarks is that the only thing I I have had a lot of questions from board members about changing
all sorts of little things such as and not to pick on one but there's been multiple things even in committee meetings whether we change how we do public comments whether we do um there's been quite a few of just
minor minor changes And I think just to clarify with the board is we deal typically with all that in the organizational meeting in January if there is any changes anyone feels strongly about procedural wise um such
as alternates we've done before like we laid out when we first started how we did it alternates and all sorts of other things how we do another example earlier with uh office hours. >> Yeah, this >> lots lots of comments. I'm fine to deal with them earlier if we want. If if if
board members feel strongly that we need to deal with any of them, happy to we can, you know, put it on the agenda and talk about it. But other than that, I was leaving off I've kind of pushed a lot of you back to let's talk about it in January. And I feel like I've probably done that with a majority of
you at this point that I wanted to at least say >> so. It wasn't personal. >> It wasn't personal. You were you were >> you were the last one who asked. So um but there has been probably a majority of members have asked about something that I don't feel I have the ability I mean they technically have the ability
to do but I feel like we should deal with that in January. If there is anything that you feel strongly needs to be dealt with before then we can happily deal with it but um at the board level um >> but that's uh that is the only uh
comment. Um, with that, do I have a motion to actually before I say that, next board of education meeting is Monday, September 8th, 2025, uh, rapidly and obviously in committees and appreciate all the extra meetings that we've had to have. Um, so with that, do I have a motion to adjourn the meeting?
>> So moved. I move to adjourn the meeting. >> Right. >> Second. >> Second. >> All those in favor say I. I. All those post say nay. There's the