will have for this uh fiscal year, which is June 30th, 2026. The Board of Education meeting for which adequate notice under the Open Public Meeting Act was provided by written notice on January 6th, 2026 to the Courier News, the Echo Sentinel, the Star-Ledger, the Tap into Warren, and the clerks of the
Borough of Watchung and Townships of Green Brook, Long Hill, and Warren. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Decker? >> Present. >> Ms. Bowser Osmerski? >> Here. >> Mr. Gallick? >> Here. >> Ms. Lee? >> Here. >> Ms. Potter? >> Here. >> Ms. Prosa? >> Here. >> Ms. Rexford? >> Here. >> Ms. Redente? >> Here. >> Ms. Trumpore?
>> Here. >> Mr. Burnbreg? >> Here. >> Will all please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance? I'd be great that we get rid of the flag. Do we have the flag? Hold on. Well, there is a flag over there of some sorts. Right? And they
Hold on one second. Just Okay, good enough. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you.
In accordance with the provisions of the New Jersey Open Public Meeting Act, be it hereby resolved that the Board move into executive session to discuss confidential personnel and legal matters in the CSA evaluation, after which action may be taken. It is expected that the matters discussed in executive session will be
made public as soon as the need for confidentiality no longer exists. May I have a motion to go All those in favor? Aye. Okay, so we are now in executive session. We expect to be back about 7:30. Appreciate everyone's patience, and we'll see you
shortly. Thank you. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Okay, great. Welcome back. Thank you everybody. Appreciate your patience. Um board correspondence this evening.
Okay. Dr. Jewett, do you have any comments you'd like to make? >> Um the only comments I would like to make is just uh to mention how graduation was really outstanding this year. Uh it's it's always a beautiful ceremony every year, but I really want to commend our you're probably getting
sick of me commending our buildings and grounds staff so much. Um but they they and our um sound crew from our pack, they did such an outstanding job with with organizing that. Um our principal working with uh
Mark Snowden, I know Dylan was involved in the sound for it. So it just it was a seamless, you know, it it takes a lot to to um make that look the way it does. And it really we had wonderful weather, so whoever arranged for that, I appreciate that as well. Um and the graduates
were a class act. They were just tremendous and I know we have one uh board member who had a graduate. I think that's the only one, right? So congratulations to you and your family. That's right. And our uh Lisa DiMaggio who uh was on the board through December, um her daughter graduated, but
I just uh everyone involved um and you know, the graduates really I just thought that their decorum, uh you know, was outstanding. It was it was really a a beautiful morning. And now we're already in full swing for the summer. It seems like that was forever ago. ESY started yesterday.
Um our other uh summer enrichment programs and credit recovery programs will be starting soon as well. And we have a tremendous amount of work going on throughout the building to get us ready for the start of the year next year. And I was actually just talking to Mr. Snowden that they're already trying to you know make sure we
have enough time before school starts to get everything done that needs to get done. But it was the the school year ended tremendously well and we're already looking forward to next year. So thank you. >> I did all those remarks. It was great congratulating and celebrating class of
26 of the best class ever. Um It was just a great morning. It's always great to see the graduation. The you know it's kind of bittersweet when year ends and all of a sudden like Dr. Jewett said the next year begins. There's no rest uh
for the weary but good luck to all the graduates as they uh move on to their next step and uh in a couple months we will welcome uh uh the new class of freshmen which will be exciting and
and it will start again. Billy, any BA comments? >> I do. I know everyone looks forward to this every year with the bus evacuation drills twice a year. I hate to report on those. Uh I just want to report that they were held on June 9th in front of the school. Uh all routes participated
in the drill. 39 in total. It was supervised by the transportation coordinator Kelly Sheehan and Dr. Labrero and all went very well and no issues. >> Tonight we have a special Thank God for that. Uh tonight we have special recognition of a student. Dr. Jewett, you're
already headed up there. Great. >> Sounds good. >> I'll use this. And I'm going to pull this one down. >> Perfect. So, I am honored to be standing here with Anya Garg. She has been named high school champion in this year's Fiserv Future Tech National Pitch
Competition. Anya's project SafeSend truly stood out, and I'm going to read exactly what I've written here because I don't want to um screw up what her project was because it was outstanding um and way above my pay grade. >> [snorts]
>> The judges were especially impressed by her compelling product vision, clear road map, and strong alignment to Fiserv's mission. Her ability to pair a thoughtful problem statement with practical concepts like risk scoring, trusted contacts, and pause to verify
showed both innovation and real-world impact. From her strong design principles and focus on customer experience to her use of concepts like AB testing, she demonstrated a deep understanding of how to build and refine a fintech solution that matters. SafeSend's goal of helping prevent
scam-related losses, especially for vulnerable populations, is incredibly meaningful, and her work reflects the kind of forward-thinking innovation that will shape the future of financial technology. So, Anya, on behalf of the board, >> [snorts] >> I would like to present you a certificate congratulating you on being
named the high school champion for the Fiserv Future Tech National Pitch Competition. So, congratulations. Thank you. This is for you. And congratulations to your parents as well. Thank you for sharing her with us. You've obviously done an outstanding job.
And you are welcome to stay for the remainder of the meeting. You're welcome to take some refreshments and go, whatever you would like. >> Congratulations. Uh we will move into committee reports. Janine, education, please. >> Okay.
Uh the education committee met on June 17th at 2:00 p.m. In attendance were myself, Mr. Vernberg, Ms. Lee, Ms. Trampor, Dr. Jewett, Dr. Caro, Dr. Librera, Librera, uh Mr. Sabino, and Anthony Maluso.
Um we discussed a lot of policies and regulations. So, I will try to be brief and summarize what we discussed. Um policy 2200, which is curriculum, is being revised. The um regulation that
goes along with it um is being abolished. Um basically, the two have been combined, um and the changes relate to uh updates in New Jersey Administrative Code regarding New Jersey Student Learning Standards, um including careers and civic life in
addition to college prep. Um these have been changes that have been implemented already, um but they just finally caught up with the changes and um revised it. Uh P2411, Career Education and Academic Counseling, is being revised, and the
regulations uh for guidance counseling is being abolished that goes with it um because it's been incorporated into a more comprehensive revised policy. Career Career Education and Academic Counseling. Again, this is um uh it it's
a a New Jersey Code related update. Um and it uh requires schools to offer opportunities to students to explore career interests. P5460, High School Graduation, has been revised. Uh this policy has been also updated to
align with changes that have also been in place for a number of years regarding graduation credit requirements in each content area, as well as career readiness, life literacies, and key skills. The graduation test requirements have also been updated for future graduation classes
um as it had only been addressed through the class of 2025. Another revision um in the current policy guide includes section B, which is high school diplomas. This section has been removed from policy guide 5460 and has been incorporated into a new separate policy guide 5461,
high school diplomas. Okay? By the way, also these are all in the education folder if anybody wants to go in and deep dive. Um policy 5460 includes the requirements of the new administrative code and is
aligned with um code section 6A851 and 53. Boards that do not have high school students do not need to adopt a high school graduation policy. Okay, this is a mandated policy.
Uh and the code uh requires a board to adopt a high school graduation policy. Okay. Um and that only applies to schools with or districts with high school students. Um 5461, high school diplomas. The section on what is required for a board
of ed to award a high school diploma was removed from what I just explained and incorporated into this new policy. Regulation 2460.30, additional compensatory special education and related services, is being abolished.
Um this regulation was in response to COVID-19 pandemic to offer an additional year of compensatory special ed and related services, including transition services to students with disabilities, if a determination was made by the IEP
team that the students and the student's parent, which is a part of the team, that the student required additional or compensatory special education services. The statute stated these requirements would not extend after the 23-24 school year, and as a result, the provisions of regulation guide
are no longer effective. P2624 grading system and regulation 2412 home instruction. When reviewing these policies, board council week recommended a few minor edits including clarifying language. R5200 attendance. We're replacing the
current regulation with a much more streamlined and simplified version that aligns to our student handbook and updated NJDOE guidance. It should also be much easier for students and parents to understand. Uh 2365
Is that a policy or regulation? It doesn't say. Um acceptable use of generative AI. Um Here's a brief summary of the highlights. Teacher discretion. The use of generative AI is authorized district-wide, but its use is never
mandatory for students. Individual teachers have full discretion to remit or restrict AI usage based on the assignment. AI use scale. Assignments will clearly communicate the allowed level of AI engagement using a standardized scale.
Level zero, red, no AI used allowed. Use allowed. Level one, yellow, AI limited to brainstorming, outlining, organizing, and formatting grammar assistance. Level two, green, co-creation with AI is allowed, but students must maintain oversight and fully comprehend the final
product. Prohibited actions. Violations include submitting fully AI-generated work as one's own, using AI to bypass critical thinking, generating misinformation or harassment, and inputting private student or staff information into public
AI models. Plagiarism and due process. Teachers will not rely solely on automated AI detectors to determine dishonesty. Flags of 25% or higher trigger a human review of document history and a student conference where the student has the
opportunity to defend their work before any disciplinary action is taken. Citation standards. When AI use is permitted, students must explicitly cite it as an external source which includes providing the primary prompt string or a link to the chat tran- transcript.
Approved platforms. Approved tools that have complied with data privacy standards include Google Workspace Intelligence, Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, Canva, and Adobe Creative Suite. The meeting adjourned at 2:55 p.m.
Did I get all the I did. Okay. Any questions? I know that was a lot. >> Yeah, I just wanted dive into the AI thing for just a second and see where we are. Is this a policy that we're passing anytime soon? >> So, we have the our PLC has been working on it for the past year, and the plan is
it's on for first read tonight. We want to get it it can be done first read in July and then second read in August. We want to get it approved before the start of the year so that the teachers and the students have guidance to use. We've been using the guidance the
guidelines throughout the past year, you know, somewhat, but we want to formalize it so that everyone has a clear understanding especially when it comes to violations of the integrity policy and also, you know, professional development aligned to it. >> Okay, let me just make a general statement that
um AI is pretty much taking over every aspect of our lives. And certainly as an employer in this space and in other spaces um the one of the major benefits to a
potential employee is the ability to prompt and prompt well and to build in AI. There is zero, and I mean zero, credit for given for doing it for themselves. Zero. So, now I that is in in retrospect
of getting a gold done in business. In other words, business doesn't care how you get the gold done, you just got to get the gold done. I think we do a disservice to the kids if we don't have some attitude that the ability to prompt and prompt well
into these systems and not just a particular set of systems and you have a set of systems here that are probably not the best in class. In fact, they're not. And so, you're hamstringing the ability of our students to learn and
get prepared for the real world. That's number one. So, I I definitely would definitely I I would definitely start a conversation about why other models are not allowed. Like, why isn't Claude allowed? >> Um it has to do with security for students because some of them aren't
accessible to students yet and um we can't like there I think some of them don't even allow them for don't even allow if you're under 18. I'm sorry, Nicole. >> Oh, open AI is open source. >> do with um yeah, I know some of those were chosen because they don't use the
information that's inputted to it like through the the the district for its own purposes. So, the personally identifiable information >> just categorically not true. Um AI takes everything it gets and uses
everything with the exception of a contracted API key as a corporation to another corporation. Other than that relationship, AI takes everything. So, it's a misnomer to think that, you know, Gemini's not taking everything.
The other part I would struggle to understand is how you're going to identify how the school will identify in a normal way uh what is AI generated, what isn't. Because there is no way at all to
distinguish AI from not AI. There's zero. And there reason >> Students won't use a computer, won't be able to use a computer. It'll It'll be an in-class some type of that. >> Okay, so that's what but what so all of the But that's not what it says here. It says 25% >> by the way, we have not figured this all out. So, I do I I just
want to I'm not pretending that what what we're trying to put out there is guidelines for us to start working with because it's going to to evolve. Um but Dan, I yeah, I certainly don't disagree with that. >> is flags at 25% or higher, according to
who, when, how do you defend yourself? The fact that you can't put a staff information into a public AI. I mean, good luck with that. How are you going to like you're you're making criminals or you're making people who violate this
this uh of of every 100% of the population in the school. Cuz there's no way that we can expect a student not to use AI on a regular basis all of the time. We should be encouraging And so, now this is
obviously just >> [clears throat] >> one of 10, you know, take it or leave it. I have fairly strong feelings on on AI because I work in it every day. I deal with the the consequences of AI every day. Th- this is coming a lot faster than we
realize. And Liz, I commend you for trying to tackle this piece. This is a This is the beast. Um there is part of me that says maybe we should have no AI and that's what I think Summit just did. They
banned all AI in all the classes, which is actually a little bit easier to defend than, you know, it's in pieces. Or you lean into it and we say all AI all the time. And I don't mean that it has to be red or black, but I mean white or black.
It just the this particular thing saying, you know, we have a flag at 25%. Like that kind of metric doesn't exist and it even if it existed today tonight at 25% it doesn't exist in the morning. Because it's a recursive reiterative
learning artificial intelligence that changes all the time. So, I'm just putting out there that this is a a little bit of a monster and I would personally I would lean on lenience and the use of it just like we
use calculators. You know, there was a time when calculators weren't allowed. But then we went to engineering and like everyone's sitting there saying why aren't we allowed to use calculators and then graphing calculators etc. etc. And what it comes down to and this is again my personal opinion. You got a bunch of Luddites who don't want to move into the
next century, you know, selling horse whips, buggy whips, whatever they were called and it's time to move on, you know, it's anyway, that's my soliloquy on AI. >> Are you proposing that we allow the input of private student or staff information?
>> Into public AI not allowed? >> not allow it. See, you can't be over someone's shoulder all the time watching everything that's put into open AI. And so you make you make a I want to say a disciplinary action
for saying you know, who's the best student in the school? Or I think so-and-so is the best student. So-and-so is the best English teacher. Yeah, of course I'm taking the positive. There's a lot of negative. >> staff information.
Right? I read this I read this to be you can't put in a picture of your fellow student and have generative AI create some sort of >> Oh. >> video of them in a compromising position. >> Right and that is covered in regular law. >> Right.
>> need this policy for that. >> So, I just I mean I don't see why it is a problem to tell our students they can't put private student and staff information into AI. >> It's also It's also for our staff. I mean, in terms of
>> Yeah. >> Right. I I don't >> just did an online um uh course that uh the presenter was excellent because it was it was for administrators and it was how to do data analysis with student data, but wiping the data clean of the identifiable
viable student information before you put it into AI. So, I mean, there's a lot of work around that that we we as educators are learning so that we make sure we're not inputting data that has student identifiable information with it if we want to do data analysis. So, I
mean, there's a lot around that. So, there's there's a lot of, you know, things that we and we have to operate differently as a school because stu than you know, you would to out you would out in the real world and I I do have to say our I know our um IT director who spoke with Ed Committee
about this and he could speak in detail about more of these questions, but that's why he selected these particular platforms because they have agreements with schools about the not sharing student information. So, you know, that he's curated all of that, um but he can
certainly speak in more detail about it. >> Yeah, I I personally would not want us to allow AI at all if we didn't have restrictions on using it for things like generating misinformation or harassment. >> Well, that's already covered in regular law. That's already covered. I mean, we can
reiterate the regular law that's out there. That's fine. I don't I don't have a >> problem. >> finish my sentence, or inputting private student or staff infor Like, I don't see any problem with having restrictions on doing that and making it absolutely clear to the students and staff that if you abuse AI or use it for any of these
things, you will get in trouble at the school. We have plenty of things in our policies that would also be covered by regular law and, you know, I just don't see an issue with that. And maybe we could get some clarity on what exactly a flag of 25% or higher means.
Does that mean if you put a student's essay through an AI detector software, it indicates a 25% likelihood that AI was used or that AI was used for more than 25% or what what is the >> I can ask the
I can ask >> [clears throat] >> Mr. Maluso that. >> Yeah. >> Some clarification on that would be >> that right now. Not through AI, but if someone copy and papers. >> We use Turnitin for >> Yeah, so you know >> something >> So there is that kind of >> Yeah, I mean I read the I read the
plagiarism and due process paragraph to basically say, we're not going to just stick your homework in an AI detector and if it says AI was used, you're done. What what I read read that to mean was if a certain threshold is passed, then a human has to review it and you have to
have due process and you have to have a right to defend what you did, etc. So that there's no we're not using AI to catch AI and you and you're done. But it would be helpful to know what a flag of 25% cuz if if it's going to be in the policy, we need to make it clear
what that means anyway. >> Should should there be a class for incoming freshmen on proper use of AI? According to our policies and also to teach them >> So one of So one of the things we're
still working on, you know, we're not requiring staff to allow students to use AI because staff are still learning to use it. So we haven't gotten there yet. So that's why these guidelines too are so that if staff are going to allow students to use it on an assignment,
there's a common language. That's why we have that 012 so that because a teacher in in one class might say, yes, you can use AI on this and you use it to completely generate an assignment and the teacher's okay with that and in another class the teacher says you you use AI on this and the teacher in their
mind meant, well, I just meant you could do some research using AI, but then you needed to create the project yourself. So, this is our first initial step of getting everyone to have a common understanding of the different levels of use and what it really is capable of. Um but yes, we need to do a lot of
education of the students and the staff with regard to it. Mhm. >> Well, yeah. >> Liz, if you don't have a class, no one no one's going to look at this policy and understand what's what's expected and what's not. >> Mhm. >> Just to clarify, we do not currently
have an AI policy right >> We do not. >> Can I ask a question? >> Go ahead. >> Who are we? Is it only our IT director that we're relying on for AI in the school as far as who we lean on? >> No, we actually have a number so he and our director of math, business, and
assessment, Mr. Delessio, um ran the PLC this year that had Well, do you know how many teachers were on that PLC? >> Um I could look it up for you, but we actually we had another high school district who is like a little bit, you know, further ahead in terms of AI. They came and presented to a group of the
teachers about what they've gone through, kind of what they've learned, things that were, you know, difficult. So, we've had a PLC. It's a group of teachers, administrators kind of working on reviewing the policy, you know, looking at how you communicate with students about usage and then kind of
reporting back about how that worked in their class. >> So, when you say they're ahead of us, why and how are they ahead of us? >> I think it's on an individual level. So, I think if you have an English supervisor, for example, that is really um like into learning about prompting
and how do I get students to be, you know, very good at prompting, perhaps they've done that, you know, in their class when they can. And so, I think that, you know, it was good to have another high school come in and speak to us about what they've gone through as
we're going through it. >> Okay. >> I'll just I appreciate Daniel's comments with respect to I just appreciate everyone's comment, but my concern with AI, you had whether we have it or we don't have it, you mentioned Summit does not allow it. The
question for me always is when is the right time in effect introduce AI? So, I go back to my pre-date calculators. So, I look at calculators which you referenced. And before that I had to learn the time table. So, I
grew up in era where it was you learn your three Rs, reading, writing, arithmetic. You develop the foundation in those items, those areas, and that was your foundation for everything else you learned. In effect, it helped teach you the whys of what's going on. So, I I
get the prompting, so it's just you know, I have a you know, family who are analysts and they just plug in numbers and it generates numbers. Well, that's easy cuz anyone can do it, so you could eliminate all the people who do that and just say, here's all the data, plug it in, but
someone at some point has to now interpret that and understand the why. And I'm always scared that the if too much of this AI, you eliminate the thinking component and the whys. It's just part of it. So, the question
is when does it get introduced? So, here we're introducing Well, certainly in high school if not beforehand. So, are the second graders getting it or the third graders? At what point are we transitioning into allowing full AI? And are we too early for that? Should it be
later on when they're 20 or 16 or 14, whatever that age may be. I don't have the answers. It's just the things that I'm thinking about with technology. There's nothing wrong with having it, but at some point I could be completely wrong. You need some sort of foundation, so you
understand it because cuz otherwise, you eliminate you potentially eliminate creativity cuz you can use chat GPT, you enter in four keywords, and they'll write you a song. And that song is one could argue as good as any other pop song that's out there
or any you know, sure you could do a classical piece that could match Mozart or Beethoven. You could do almost all that stuff, which is great, but then you just eliminate the need for people, which is fine also, I guess. An argument could be made for
that. So, at some point I just think that it's important that we don't eliminate the ability to think, the eliminate the the creativity and all that. And AI in my mind allows for all that. You
eliminate a lot of that, so it's a delicate balance. It's here. It's here to stay. The genie's out of the bottle, so to speak. And uh so it's just you know, it really has nothing to do with the AI policies in general. That's really not
it. It's just that we as a district have to be careful cuz we're still molding kids in the high school that we create an environment where they can think for themselves, they can act for themselves, they can do for themselves, and do all that. And so, they're better people to some extent, not just
better students because again, there's you know, with respect to the workforce, the employers come out, and they know everyone's using AI. Everyone's you know, you know, grade inflation that exists, so they don't trust anything that
the students are doing because they just can't accept it cuz they just don't know. And it's a it's a bigger question really. It's nothing to do with AI policy, but since you you alluded to it, just those are my thoughts and things that I'm I'm just wrestling with inside my head. Only cuz I went through
it with the calculator world. >> Yeah. >> I think we do them a disservice if we don't allow them to learn how to responsibly and accountably use AI. Because if they come out of high school and have never learned to use AI, they will be at a disadvantage in the real
world. It is a tool that is out there and they're going to have to be able to use it. Having a policy that clearly defines the levels of permitted use and holds them accountable for complying with that and emphasizes the importance of human oversight and human judgment
and, you know, what if you're trying if you're in a course where the creativity of the content is important and that that that creativity be your own, I think is very good preparation for the real world, but it does require a policy like this. Cuz otherwise, if every teacher is out there making their own
rules, there's no consistency, there's no framework for the kids to know what they're supposed to be doing, and then the we don't have a consistent way to hold them accountable. >> I I will share all this feedback and and comments with Mr. Meluso, Mr. D'Alessio, and um Nicole Did Check. We had It was
the two of them and 35 staff members that were part of the PLC this year, um whose work led to this draft. And and I am sure I have no doubt that I will be, you know, if once this is approved, I'll be bringing you a revi- a revision, you know, next year because it once we
actually start implementing it, um we'll figure out things that are either missing thing that uh we need to clarify, but I will um bring all these questions and comments to him. >> Liz, is it appropriate to uh move forward on something like this on first reading if we don't have a parameter of what the 25% means?
>> That I mean, that's a board choice. That's something that, you know, we can certainly get for second reading, but if you That's why, you know, we we had discussed when we were putting them on for first read tonight that it's not an issue if people wanted to wait until July. So, whatever the board is comfortable with, it doesn't present a
problem for us if we hold off. >> knows, it was my decision to put it on for tonight. Um only because we have two meetings in the summer and Liz said it was important that we get it done before, you know, at least had the second read by August, whatever the day we have the meeting.
Um Again, we've had other um first reads or second reads for that matter, which we've adjourned, you know, to follow means. So, we certainly could do that. There's quite a whole bunch of policies, so we can carve them out. It's really just I only put
them on tonight was to keep the ball rolling, so to speak. But again, that was me who did that. It wasn't Liz. I don't want anyone to think that. And just so um we're clear, the rest of the policies look great. >> All right. I'm This is the most No, and
look, this is certainly the most complicated. Um so, I >> [clears throat] >> you know, the these questions are appreciated and valid, and um we can continue the conversation. >> And again, most of the we have a two-read policy because
it allows ample time to discuss the policies. And >> [snorts] >> uh >> Um It's probably in the A's. All right, then. A-15 and 16. >> Yeah, so it's the second one, I think. >> Yeah.
We can always pull that specific one. >> So again, we can pull them or or we can approve it and then pull it for the second. Whatever everyone's comfortable with. There's no right or wrong. And again, I know again,
it was discussed a little bit at the education meeting. I know it went against my view that policies be done as a whole, but I hate to defer to Liz in having this group because they're a bunch at the Ed Committee at least for our first review. But again,
as you mentioned, some of them are, you know, easy and some of them take some thought and uh >> Can I just ask a question? Um so if we wanted to approve AI, you know,
everything including the AI and and then in between this reading and whenever we do the second reading, get all those questions answered and and whatever before the second reading and that's it's okay to make the change to make changes between first and second
reading. >> Okay. >> Then does it become another first read if we make the change? >> No, we've actually asked the attorney that question before. Yeah, unless it's like a material change where uh you know, we decide like, I don't know, our policy says you're not allowed to smoke on
school grounds and in the next meeting we decide we're going to change it to you are. I'm thinking of that as a bit like that would be a big material change that would have but this is not a it wouldn't be a material change to the policy that actually changes other practices, so um we're fine going from first >> I I don't [clears throat] have a
problem. We we can table to the next meeting. It's not whatever everyone's comfortable. If it's not >> This is something we absolutely want to have done by September. This this particular one is important for September, I would say. >> Well, I would I would say it's important to have it done and done correctly.
>> Right, but >> not do it and do it incorrectly. >> So, I my whole thing is is it's better to have something that's not perfect in place and then say, "Okay, let's not forget about it. Let's put this in place and then let's now revisit some of the
issues that we might have and see where we could tweak it." And also we would have some like experience implementing this thing and see how it goes during the school year and that would reveal some problems. I mean, I think that's that's that's
being a little dramatic, but um you know, like No, that's not what I'm saying. So, don't put words in my mouth, but I I have faith in our team here that we're not going to be looking to prosecute people. This is this is
something that we're trying to explain to kids. We take this seriously. You cannot pass off work as your own if it is not. So, you know, if that's the one you're standing on, you know, that's the first one we'll take a look at.
>> So, is it because also even have it more of a we pass it if we pass it so it's all set for the school year, but let's say we say, "All right, in 6 months let's take a look at the end of the first semester to see if all of a sudden, you know, we're finding it's a huge
amount of people that are are flagged and stuff. It kind of is a trial um and that that there's an understanding that this is a a learning curve. And so, anybody that is is we're get we're getting a lot of of numbers, that's then revisited and and taken into
account. >> So, then are you saying have it that if if these kids do get in trouble that they won't get in trouble? Like you will see for 6 months it's just a trial and we're not going to implement any any things if they do it wrong because
you're waiting to see. Is that how you're Is that Am I hearing you right? >> don't you know, if if we don't know exactly how we're tracking it and we don't have that data cuz we don't know what what we're using the 25. I I do think that's going to be an issue to all of a sudden to say, "Here's, you
know, if you're you're having all these kids doing 30, it's coming back 30%," but the human review is looking at it and it's not, then obviously we have some issues. So, and that's where I like the human factor of coming back and saying, "Let's review." The human looks at and goes "This is we had issues."
>> The biggest piece >> Well, so ahead. I was going to say this. Go ahead. >> Oh, I know Dan and Dan keep saying you can't tell. But, I will say having I read a lot of proposals from Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts for their high awards.
It is extremely easy to tell when a high school student has submitted those proposals using AI. >> For an adult, I would agree with you. If we're an adult and then stuff, I think once you get to college and adult as they're getting used, I think it's a lot
harder to tell. But, when when I'm reading these these these works from these students, it's very obvious when it it has been submitted via with AI. >> Or your expectations are super low. >> Having done Having done it before AI was
involved to now this past year, you're start seeing it a lot more. >> Well, let me struggling in English and you write Shakespeare, yes. >> What we need to do as educators is >> Sorry. >> Go ahead. No, it's okay. I just think This is it all centers on assessment and the fact that we need to rethink assessment as educators because
it Yes, now there's AI, but before AI, there were adults at home that some kids had the help of their parents for homework and assignments and other kids did not. >> Which is why I always, you know, stress that homework should only count for a very small portion of a student's grade
because you don't know you can't control what a student is doing outside of school. Um and and we we can't police what, you know, who they're getting help from. And so, you can certainly you can put guidelines in place. Um but, it's it's, you know, it's just that's that's an impossible task. To And And again,
some kids have parents at home that are able to help them and provide them assistance and and others don't. Um some might have, you know, experts that they can go to for help on a project, you know, that's outside of school while others don't. So, that's why I I really do think it's become more of how can we
structure real-time in-class assessments where students can use, you know, different resources, but it maybe I mean it colleges are going back to blue books, you know, because they want to know that work is authentic. And I'm not saying we're going to become archaic, but there is a time where you want a you know, to
really see what a student can do, you know, with their own skills. Um and so, that's something we've been talking to the to the staff about as well. And some of them are getting creative with that of okay, when you're outside of here and you're preparing for this, use whatever resources you want. Um use AI, you know,
before it was just it was Google, but use whatever you can to get the the information that you need. And then when you're in class, you're going to need to synthesize that on your own to, you know, turn that into a result. So, that's really because I don't all of these things we're
talking about and that's why I'm sitting here like I don't have an answer for that because the AI detectors are terrible. And we actually had a whole professional development session on that where you know, they they demonstrated that. So, that's where as educators we really need to rethink assessment of students
and how we're going to to appropriately do that. And at the same time equip them to be able to use these tools when they do leave high school. Um so, and you know, responsibly and whether it's citing them, but making sure that the mistakes they
make too with using them or with improperly using them are made here rather than when it costs them a job or you know, gets them expelled from a college. Um so, that's it it's our job to do that and help prepare them for that, but it's certainly, you know,
we still have work to do. Um so, that's why I but I wasn't comfortable going into the year without having any guidelines for staff and for students to start with. Um but that doesn't mean that more work can't be done on these before we do that. >> ask >> a question? You just outlined something
that seemed extremely reasonable. Um in your >> Mhm. >> definition of what you think is, you know, homework with the kids at home and blah blah. >> Mhm. >> Um that policy that you just iterated seems like it makes a lot more sense than what we have in front of us right
now. Just saying. >> I mean, I I probably over simplified it a little bit, but uh it's something that I've talked, you know, >> Okay. >> It sounds like the biggest issue I'm hearing is is the A use of the AI detector and the plagiarism of the AI >> find out the
>> So, AI I don't know how it compares to current due process with plagiarism and that maybe we're mostly uncomfortable with because it's new how it's going to be implemented. And so, maybe having that not having a
a level of a flag, but everything is any concerns you're it's someone's looking at it. >> Mhm. >> But, you can have look at what is it and what are they coming back for and have make that part more evolving as we learn more. >> Okay. >> Can I Can I ask you also, why did Summit
decide to do no AI? So, what was their reasoning behind it that they said they weren't going to even >> I hadn't heard that they did. >> [laughter] >> Yeah, I I wasn't aware that they did, so I'd have to I I can find out. Oh, so it was recent. Okay.
For the high school? Oh. >> Even for the high school, they banned AI entirely? On the procedural question of whether we can vote on it on first read tonight um and then make subsequent changes to it and whether it would count as a first read or a second read.
That's in policy 0131. And if we make substantive changes to it, it counts as a new um policy and has a new first read, but if we're just making editorial changes like if we're simply if we're keeping the 25% flag but simply defining what that is, I
would argue that's not a substantive change. So, we can vote on it for first read tonight if we want and then if we make subsequent changes and they are non-substantive, we can have a second read or we have if they're substantive, we just have to start the process again. >> Or you can vote no on the second
meeting, you know, if you're whatever. if you're not happy with whatever we come up with. >> What what is the current We don't have a policy, but what's the current like in the handbook or however we want to say it for if we think
someone is you know, plagiarizing. You're like, what is our process right now? >> I'm sorry, I was just looking up the Summit information. I see where the Summit Town Council banned AI centers in the town, but I didn't see anything about That's what it looks like that they
banned um Yeah, data centers, AI data centers. I'm sorry, can you repeat your question? >> Yeah, it's okay. >> Cuz that was very good. >> What is our current like I'm not going to say policy cuz we don't have a policy, but what is our take right now on plagiarism if we think someone is plagiarizing?
>> So, we have an integrity policy about I guess they're integrity guidelines that have different, you know, for your first offense, second offense, third offense, it's progressive in terms of the infractions. Your first I should say infractions in terms of you know, losing credit for
an assignment, losing credit for a class. >> of of detection? How do we know if they have done that, you know? >> So, there's actually different um there's different definitions of it because it might be two students turn in the same thing and then, you know, we're
doing an investigation to find which has happened before and we were we were able to look on Google at the Google history of and pasting those types of things. There's also Turnitin. Um with regard to AI, I mean, that's still evolving in terms of determining, you know, whether something is AI. I
think part of it is asking a a student, you know, for their sources or teachers have them work um specifically, you know, in a Google Doc and make them show their drafts and their edits because, for example, it'll go from nothing when you look at
the edit history to a whole paper in 3 seconds. >> So >> So, I mean, there's things like that. >> of reiterate something >> I'm not being facetious, but that's exactly what Yeah, so >> But what if I mean, I to me, asking them to defend their work is a good way to decide if someone has done that or not.
Someone who's done their own work or can can rationalize, "Well, I've used AI for this or then I I took that and I blah blah blah." should be able to explain, you know, right? If you just have no explanation, you know, it's kind of damning, right? But what if we kind of
take what we currently are doing, which we know is not perfect, and reiterated here, and then with the intention of, "All right, let's kind of tweak it as we >> I can find out the origin of the 25% and where that came from in their conversation. I that I don't know the
details of that, but I can certainly ask that. >> I read it, the question seems to be that 25% number. If that number was 10% or 50% or 80%, the same process that exists, that's
only a trigger point. You still have to then It's an if-then. If it's triggered, no matter what that trigger is, whether it's 10, 20, 30, or 40, which is the same as our uh our other integrity policies, the student still has the right to
defend, improve, and that's what this says, that triggers a human review. Whatever that means. Um so they still have the fan. One just triggers, "Hey, we think there's an issue. Hey, Billy, come on in and tell us how you
did this." Whether it's a 10, 20, 30, 40, if our only question, if our issue is really what's that number, but everything else good, then why don't we just discuss what people are comfortable with with that number, if that's really what our issue is.
I'm just I I I ask I'm just trying to simplify >> to >> question. Because again, it says it just will then tr- One triggers why we're going to look, because it gives an objective standard of versus a teacher just saying, "Oh, I
think Billy cheated." And now you have to defend it versus, "Hey, Billy, it failed AI based on this criteria. Now, why?" And Billy, I >> Well, and I think there's a step >> you would never do that. >> I think there's a step between poor
Billy having to defend and the trigger, which And that's what the human review is. >> His whole budget was AI, guys, just so you know. >> I read Well, >> That's how you get the budget, right? >> That's the budget. Um >> [laughter] >> I read this to say when there's this trigger, and my only pointing flagging the
trigger, by the way, is I don't know what the trigger means. Like, I just If I don't know what the trigger means, the students don't know what the trigger means. And if it's going to be in the policy, we should make it clear what the trigger means. But whatever the trigger is, once it's triggered, the human review, to me, means then the
teacher has to review it and make a determination themselves as to whether they really think there is an AI issue. And then Billy has to come in and review it. It's not just There's a trigger and then Billy has to come for a conference. >> That would mean the teacher would have to know the difference between AI and
not AI. Which I don't even know what that is. >> It's They have to look at the document history. So, I don't probably similar to what we're talking about in terms of the Google history, etc. etc. >> No, that's how I said that's that's how
they determine that when they look at the previous versions and they realize that at 7:00 there was nothing and at 7:02 there's an entire paper. >> Well, if they're using the school laptop >> So, >> right to look at their Google history. >> They have We have the right to look at >> They shouldn't be looking at stuff they shouldn't be looking at.
>> on their computer. We already have stuff monitoring their Google stuff. >> Yeah, right. Yeah, yeah. >> Um >> our laptop >> I'm being facetious. >> Yeah, yeah. >> I'm saying >> But, what you're saying is the teacher some teachers make them work within the Google so that they can see the history just like we used to have to do it with
math by hand and show your work. So, that makes perfect sense and what you're saying too that makes perfect sense because then if whatever I think the question is what's going to trigger it, right? What kind of what are you putting it into that's going to trigger the 25% arbitrary 25%? But, at that point
I think it's a great idea to have them work within something that you can see the start of the project to the end of the project. But, that being said, I mean, I don't want to beat a dead horse, but >> Move on. >> So, did we decide if we're Are we pulling that? Sorry, I just
when Billy does the the the resolutions or Okay. Got it. Sounds good. >> All right, so much for getting out of here by 9:00. Okay. Keep the coffee on. All right. First [laughter] opportunity for public comment. Note, the first public comment
period will be limited to agenda items for this meeting only. The second public comment period will be open to any topic. All comments are limited to 5 minutes. Do we have any public comments solely with respect to with items for this meeting.
Okay, seeing none, we will close the first round of public comments. There will be a second round for public comments where they can talk about items unrelated to the agenda but relating to the district. Okay.
Well, board discussion, we have on here policy and regulations. I think we had a healthy >> [laughter] >> discussion already. So, uh unless someone wants to uh rehash that again, I think we can move forward on that. Okay, great.
Thank you. Uh discussion of addendum items. Uh The addendum items we had were personal matters that were discussed already. Is that correct? And we have no other uh addendum items, I believe. I'm sorry?
Oh, I'm sorry. My bad. Okay, is there any discussion with respect to those? Otherwise, we certainly can discuss those uh as eight items uh when it comes up for the votes. Unless anyone wants to talk about them now.
Otherwise, we will move on with regard to action items and within 3 4 minutes, we will come to those eight items. We can, yeah. Okay. >> We can separate one out. >> Those last eight addendum items. >> The last two A items should probably
just be a separate like let's do the A A1 through A >> Yeah, so >> Okay, fine. >> No, it's A A15 and 16. Unless nobody has an issue with Oh, okay, yeah, I guess so. Yeah, yeah. >> Somebody call.
>> Second. It No, but >> Do you want there's also a 14 and a 16? Oh, that's fine. Sorry. >> If you don't have the AI ability. >> Second if it has an opinion. >> Roll call, please. >> Mr. Decker?
>> Yes. >> Ms. Fausone-Rasmussen? Mr. Gallic? >> Yes. >> Ms. Lee? >> Yes. >> Ms. Potter? >> Yes. >> Ms. Prosser? >> Yes. >> Ms. Rexford? >> Yes. >> Mr. Ridente? >> Yes. >> Ms. Trampour? >> Yes. >> Mr. Bromberg? >> Yes. >> Move A9 through A13.
>> Wait, wait. >> One second. >> Second. >> Any discussion with regard to those items? Roll call, please. >> Mr. Decker? >> Yes. >> Ms. Fausone-Rasmussen? >> Yes. >> Mr. Gallic? >> Yes. >> Ms. Lee? >> Yes. >> Ms. Prosser? >> Yes. >> Ms. Rexford?
>> Yes. >> Mr. Ridente? >> Yes. >> Ms. Trampour? >> Yes. >> Mr. Bromberg? >> Yes. >> I'll move A14 and A16 and A15 with the exception and I'm pulling uh 2365. >> I I thought we're going to vote on it.
>> Yes, we're going to vote on next. Otherwise, you're going to >> Oh, you're going to separate. I got you. I Yeah, that's fine. >> Yeah, okay. >> Good. >> Second. >> Any discussion on those? Roll call, please. >> Mr. Decker? >> Yes. >> Ms. Fausone-Rasmussen? >> Yes. >> Mr. Gallic?
>> Yes. >> Ms. Lee? >> Yes. >> Ms. Potter? >> Yes. >> Ms. Prosser? >> Yes. >> Ms. Rexford? >> Yes. >> Mr. Ridente? >> Yes. >> Ms. Trampour? >> Yes. >> Mr. Bromberg? >> Yes. >> I'm going to >> Move A15 number 2365.
>> Second. >> I'd like to make a motion to table for until we get the better uh information on what 25% is. >> Is there a second with respect to table? >> Second is. >> Any discussion with respect to table?
Okay, let's vote on table. >> Mr. Decker? Okay, Mr. Dector? >> No. >> Ms. Fausner-Grusmski? >> Yes. >> Mr. Gallick? >> Yes. >> Ms. Lee? >> Yes. >> Ms. Potter? >> No.
>> Ms. Prosser? >> Yes. >> Ms. Rexford? >> No. >> Ms. Redente? >> No. >> Ms. Trumpore? >> No. >> Mr. Bromberg? >> No. >> Okay, so now we have both
discussions. Okay, with >> So, uh motion to move 2365 >> on the table. You just got to call the vote. >> Was it seconded? >> Oh, okay. Got you. >> As long as the discussion's over, you call the vote. >> I thought that tabling it we didn't uh whatever. >> table it, so it's still on the table.
And the motion's carried. Not carried, it's >> Why, but it was a motion to table. We didn't have a motion to >> No, there was a motion to table. There was a motion to move, and then he moved >> Oh, all right. All right. I thought it's confusing. >> But there is a second for 2365. >> Okay. >> Yeah, it was seconded. >> As long as we can vote, it's fine.
>> Again, just to remind the public, this policy and all of our policies go through a first read and a second read. Uh three five of the policies have already been approved for a first reading. The policies do not go into effect tonight. There'll be a second
reading when we have our next meeting in July. At that point, there'll be a vote on whether or not those policies go into effect. So, regardless of the fact that something passes tonight on a first read, that does not make a policy. It has to get through a second read.
With respect to the policy and just the tabling, so the public is aware of what just transpired, it was just whether or not to have tonight be a first reading with regard to the 2365. That was uh that did not pass, so we're going to
vote on the first reading. But that again does not mean that's going to be a policy, and the public is aware that there was certain discussion with regard to that policy. And uh um the applicability of it, uh the language
of it, the use of it, stuff like that. And that either way, whether it passes on the first read or it doesn't pass on the first read, we will certainly go back to the policy. Dr. Jewett and anyone else who has comments, take a look at it, uh and see
where we can tighten up the language, work on the policy, and try to satisfy a majority of the board, what I might call a supermajority of the board, not that it's required for the vote, uh so that there's a comfort level, cuz we certainly like everyone on the board to be comfortable with it. So
that will be the instruction one way or another. And again, whatever happens tonight is not binding. It would be on for second read, and also the public should be aware all of our policies are fluid. What I mean by that
is at any point we could kind of abolish a policy, which we've done in the past. And uh pursuant to discussion that Ms. Potter led, uh some of these policies that were were on first read, we'll be abolishing other policies and
putting new policies into effect. So that's always there. And and I certainly understand and respect what's going on with the AI. It is a I don't want to say I'm Well, I guess it is a moving target, and it's a fast-moving target. Uh one that we have to be aware of, we can't be afraid of.
We It's here, it's here to stay. And we're just trying to take some sort of control of the situation so that we can do what's best for our teachers, what's best for our students. Um and just try to, you know,
take control of it and uh again, even if we pass a policy today, you know, we can evaluate it and look at it 6 months, a year from now, but, you know, things move and similar with almost all of our policies. Uh 20 years ago, a lot of these policies
didn't exist, suddenly they get created because uh certain events take place. There's advances in technology, there's uh you know, you know, the laws change, the uh societal morals change, and different things, just like harassment, you know,
those policies didn't really exist 30, 40 years ago. Then we realized, "Hey, this isn't good." And we created a policies to kind of uh control behavior to some extent. And policies in general, laws in general, are kind of there to control behavior
to some extent because uh we want to have some sort of uniformity within society with respect to behavior. Um But, brings me back to the Shakespeare quote uh with respect to if we don't have these
laws, the first thing you do, you know, if you want to have anarchy, you kill the lawyers. People don't realize what the what's the precipice for that comment. So, you you want to have some laws, you want to have some policies, you want to have some guidelines for society, and that's really what it's about. So, with that said, I apologize
for my soliloquy, but that's what I enjoy doing. Call the vote, please. >> All right. Mr. Decker? >> Yes. >> Ms. Valenzuela Rosmerski? >> No. >> Mr. Gallick? >> No. >> Ms. Lee?
>> No. >> Ms. Potter? >> Yes. >> Ms. Prosser? >> I just wanted to comment I'm really torn between understanding we need a policy and voting yes on something that everyone here seems to agree is fundamentally
flawed. >> Not everyone. >> You don't think there's any possible flaws in this policy? >> say that. You said it's fundamentally flawed and I don't agree with >> Oh, okay. You I you think okay. That I'm I'm sorry. >> flawed, not >> That Well, I don't know about fundamentally, but there are there I
think everyone thinks there are flaws in it. Potential flaws. That it um So, I just have a hard time voting yes on something that I think has a lot of flaws. So, and we have two more meetings
to um ratify a policy. So, no is my vote. >> Ms. Rexford? >> Yes. >> Ms. Rodante? >> Yes. >> Ms. Rampart? >> Yes. >> Mr. Burnberg?
>> I will vote yes because we will move it along for the reasons stated. We can always hold off on the second reading. And with regard to the flawed comment, uh no policy is perfect. I could tear apart
probably any one of these policies and find an issue that I personally have. But, we in general try to do what's good for everyone. And sometimes I take a backseat to my personal opinion, but do what's best for
the district. >> Can I ask a quick question? Who do we propose between now and the second reading if we have questions? Do we email you, Liz, or >> Funnel everything through Liz. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And just to be clear, the
the we're not voting or we didn't just vote on the bullet points contained in the minutes of the education um committee. Like that's what we were using as the highlights for our discussion. >> Yeah. >> But before the second reading in July,
if you haven't done so, I would recommend we all read the actual policy, which is significantly more detailed. Unfortunately, still doesn't explain what the 25% is, but lays out a lot more clarity in terms of the rules and their application than just the highlights that Ms. Potter read
from the minutes. >> When is the What's our next meeting? >> July 14th. My Well, I'm surmising, by the way, I just don't want to miss speak that the 25% just means if it's put into a plagiarism tool or an AI detection tool and it detects that 25% of it is AI
generated, it doesn't mean we're automatically, "Oh, AI, you're done." It means that those additional steps outlined in there will be taken, so that the you know, the teacher will review it, they'll meet with the student, they'll look at draft history. So, that's but I will verify that that's what um that number means
and I will talk to uh you know, Mr. De Lascio and Mr. Maluso who led the the group that came to this uh to these guidelines. The I will talk to them about the discussion that was had here about the 25%. >> This is what I'm going to suggest, Janine. Who's on the committee with you
at committee? Trish? >> Catherine. >> Okay, great. Heather. Carol's not. Heather, Trisha, you, Catherine. Yes. Okay. >> Yeah, and I was unable to make the last meeting or I would have asked the
question at the meeting. [clears throat] >> No, that's fine. All right, so what I'm suggesting is all the comments funnel through Liz, and I don't want to be a hardship, but since I am not having a retreat this summer, which I wanted to have,
>> You said that last summer. You you you say it every summer, [laughter] you never do it, so. >> Uh we that we have a education committee meeting where we solely discuss this item. >> fine with >> Uh I will take myself off the committee.
Uh Carol, if you want to be present this way uh because again it was 6-4 and I don't want to feel like uh uh the education committee is uh skewed one way or another. So, if we can have equal representation with regard to those
Yeah, I don't want to say it that way, but this way >> Well, who voted some voted yes versus some voted no. So >> Michael, thank you and and I would like to, but I have to tell you I'm basically a um AI dinosaur. >> Okay. >> So, probably anyone else at this table
is a better [laughter] choice for that committee than me. >> I I I defer to you. You say no. Christina, you All right, so then Lori Lori or Dan want to be part of somebody just not me. If somebody wants to be part of that
No, no. Then Lori. Right? You're Lori, you're not on the committee, right? >> Offer it up. If they don't want it >> I I'm Right, I'm offering it. >> How about you tell them when it is and who can make it they can decide. >> Okay. I just want to be fair.
I just want to be fair to everybody so that there's going to be No, I I understand that, but right now if you look at the five people that's on the committee, four were part of the yay vote. So, I'm just I'm taking my seat away and giving it to somebody else. That's all
I'm trying to do. So, if somebody wants it, it's theirs. That's all I'm saying. So, please comment. Uh again, like Trish said, read the policy in its entirety. Again, these were bullet points. You know, highlight it, redline it,
whatever. Comment. Funnel them through to uh Liz. Schedule if you can Janine, Liz, whatever. Schedule a meeting. And then put it out there. >> I'll see what Anthony says. >> Just have >> it solely re- >> So that they can come and speak to it. >> Yeah.
And then Liz >> look, it might we might end up waiting until August for the second read because I'm not sure when schedules will, you know, coincide for July. So >> And Liz, maybe if you can uh in the next week or two speak to some of your uh uh co-educators uh in other districts,
superintendents, to see how they're grappling with this since, you know, you you now see what the issues are that's confronting us and see how they're dealing with it. >> We actually have a number of I mean, what the PLC used for this, Strauss Esme gave us a a sample outline, and then
they created um a notebook LM of policies and guidelines from many, many districts um in our state and without it. So that's where that came from. Um but you know, I so that we've actually that was what the past year was was finding out what all the other districts
are doing, and we're kind of in the middle of the mix, kind of what Nicole alluded to before. Um we're ahead of some districts, and we're behind some districts in terms of our implementation of its use. But I can certainly see what else I can find in terms of this summer and policy. >> What I'm gathering, correct me if I'm
wrong, we all believe that we need to A address AI. We need probably need to have a policy with respect to AI. Uh there's some good stuff in the policy, maybe there's some bad stuff in the policy.
And we just have to craft it so that we're satisfied and that we can all live with the policy versus just not having a policy at all. >> I think >> So I think we're kind of rowing in the same direction. I don't think we're really at odds where we've been with
certain other policies. It it's just more uh maybe it's a semantic issue or technical issue. >> up was the 25%. Wasn't it? I think that was the only sticking point after the discussion, I thought. >> in the >> Okay. Okay, so well for myself personally I
think it's just punishment without knowing what the standard is for that Like we don't want anybody being punished, any of the students having any kind of ramifications without really knowing why those >> Well, that exists now anyway with regard to integrity in general. But the point I'm making is I think
we're rowing in the same direction. We're just rowing at a different speed and we just have to get aligned. That's just how I look at it. >> And are we going to also see about doing a class or something for the incoming freshman? >> Oh, yeah, yeah. >> And have a part of the curriculum what
you had suggested. I think that's really important. >> in my notes. So it probably would be part of their English, their social studies, part of one of their, you know, classes where the teachers would need to talk about it. >> one. Yeah, that they all >> To to me to me it's almost like just a a good orientation process at the
beginning of the year. Doesn't have to be an entire class. >> Well, and I don't think I was going to say I don't even think it's only for the ninth graders. I think it's everyone. >> as they as you catch up and you have something every year that you can see. And Liz, if you could also speak to the K8 districts and see if they're doing
anything with AI. I'm just curious and >> I Yeah, I know, you know, a lot of um lower schools have just banned the use of it. Um so I'll find out specifically from our K8s. I uh but I do know a lot of um
>> I'm just curious. I just, you know, I mean, it's a simple phone call and >> Liz, I was going to say that um when I did the eighth grade um their their competition um one of the comments that they had said is this that was the first time those eighth graders had
utilized AI for a project. >> Okay. And so one of our questions was kind of talking to them about how what they felt about it, how what it was. It was all in classwork. So that leads me to believe that prior to that they're not using AI. >> All right, let's move on. >> I'd like to make a motion D1
through D5. >> Second. >> Any discussion with regards to those? Roll call, please. >> Mr. Decker. >> Yes. >> Ms. Fazzalaro-Wierzbicki. >> Yes. >> Mr. Gallick. >> Yes. >> Ms. Lee. >> Yes. >> Ms. Potter. >> Yes. >> Ms. Prosa. >> Yes. >> Ms. Rexford.
>> Yes. >> Ms. Rodente. >> Yes. >> Ms. Trampour. >> Yes. >> Mr. Birnberg. >> Yes. >> I'd like to make a motion D1 through D41. >> Second. >> Uh discussion? >> Did you >> 40 41, he says. >> That's >> I'm just going to It's too many. >> Yeah.
>> No, no, no. They're fine. Perfect. I just wanted to make sure. Uh roll call on those, please. Mr. Decker. >> Yes. >> Ms. Fazzalaro-Wierzbicki. >> Yes. >> Mr. Gallick. >> Yes. >> Ms. Lee. >> Yes. >> Ms. Potter. >> Yes. >> Ms. Prosa. >> Yes. >> Ms. Rexford. >> Yes. >> Ms. Rodente. >> Yes.
>> Ms. Trampour. >> Yes. >> Mr. Birnberg. >> Yes. >> to make a motion D42 to D48. >> Second. >> Any discussion? >> Are you guys actually Can I actually include D55 in as well? >> So it's the next page? >> Yes.
>> Okay. Fine. Uh okay. Uh okay, roll call on those items. >> Mr. Decker. >> Yes. >> Ms. Fazzalaro-Wierzbicki. >> Yes. >> Mr. Gallick. >> Yes. >> Ms. Lee. >> Yes. >> Ms. Prosa. >> Yes. >> Ms. Rexford. >> Yes. >> Ms. Rodente. >> Yes. >> Ms. Trampour.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Birnberg. >> Yes. >> I'd like to make a motion D49, >> Second. >> D54, and D56. >> Second. >> Any discussion with respect to those addendum items? Okay, roll call, please.
>> Mr. Decker. >> Yes. >> Ms. Fazzalaro-Wierzbicki. >> Yes. >> Mr. Gallick. >> Yes. >> Ms. Lee. >> Yes. >> Ms. Potter. >> Yes. >> Ms. Prosa. >> Yes. >> Ms. Rexford. >> Yes. >> Ms. Rodente. >> Yes. >> Ms. Trampour. >> Yes. >> Mr. Burnberg? >> Yes.
>> Okay, brings us to the second opportunity for public comment. Again, this is an opportunity for public comment with respect to items Look, so we can't talk about the agenda items that we just voted on or uh but items unrelated just with respect
to the district. Does anyone have any comments at this point? Please come on up, state your name and where you're from, please. >> Hello and good evening, everyone. Whoa. I guess it is I guess it is working. It works. >> It came on. >> Woke everybody up. Um not that you guys
aren't awake. Um but thank you. I'm Murat Djavit. Um I'm here at 17 Whispering Way in Warren. I'm one of the parents of uh of one of the students here. Or actually, well, I guess one only now. One just graduated. So, thank you. >> Congratulations. >> Thank you very much. Uh thank you for
all that you guys do. Um I'm here along with a number of other parents that you see. Uh we're here with regard to uh a coach in the lacrosse lacrosse program, uh Coach Prudente uh and the renewal of his contract. I know we're not going to go and ask for
anything that was private or confidential, but there's just things that we wanted to raise as to the process and sequence of events and also just to advocate the level of support, you know, that we have. Um what we're looking for ultimately is something that's mutual, uh measured,
and collaborative approach uh for the reasons behind which his contract, you know, was not renewed and we're advocating that it be renewed. I think there's a lot that we actually agree on. Uh one, that we're always looking for a safe environment for our for our
athletes, for our students, uh for our kids. Uh we want a constructive environment in which they can grow and learn and become better athletes and better students. Uh, we are you know, we we understand, uh, even from the letter that we got from the principal, that we're agreed that
continuity, uh, and that we have not had in the lacrosse program, uh, is that's simply just something that's lacking of the last couple of years. Uh, and that continuity ultimately is what develops better athletes. Uh, and without that, it's very
difficult. Uh, number four, I think, you know, there's a range of potential solutions, you know, that could be had, uh, with Coach Prudente. Um, on one on one level, school could elect to just keep him and
not do anything, and, you know, that would be one extreme. On another extreme, the school could just release him and then, you know, start the process over again and continue the lack of continuity. You know, we are parents here saying, let's say we're advocating for something that's a
little bit more measured, a little bit more balanced. You know, we fully recognize and appreciate that he has opportunities to improve. He is not the perfect person, but, you know, neither am I and neither are any of us. Uh, and from everything we've done,
every person we've spoken with, um, you know, he has not done anything, uh, that would just warrant some, you know, complete violation, uh, which we cannot step back from. So,
so, what we're asking for is to bring him back with appropriate guardrails, uh, and to put in some performance expectations around, you know, what is expected and, you know, what he will, you know, can and can't do, and then to, you know, hold him by that.
So, you'll hear about a number of points, uh, from from the parents here. Uh, many of a few of whom could make it here today, but many of whom who couldn't. Um, and we're hoping for a a mutual solution. Now I see some sort of heads turning so I'm I'm getting a feeling
that you don't have contacts to what's going on with the lacrosse program. Would that be an accurate assumption here? >> No. No, they answered. Sorry. >> Continue. Okay, so I'm so just looking
at that then so I'll just give you some context that what happened is that a couple of parents had complained. I think there were four students and one or two parents and a decision was made by the athletic director to not renew his contract.
When we met with the athletic director a number of our parents a number of students all advocating for at least a more measured approach. We were told that there was a thorough investigation done. We questioned what was done with the investigation and as
it turned out there was actually very little done other than listening to those complaints. None of the other students none of our kids were were interviewed. None of us were ever asked and we were at games we were at practices. So you know
that was that would sort of questions the adequacy of our you know of our process. So the coach was not renewed and that's what we're advocating for but I know my time is limited so I'm going to turn it over to the next set of parents that are here.
Thank you for your comments. >> Anybody else? Great. >> Good evening. I'm Danielle Kelly. We're from the Watchung district. I have a freshman currently and I also have a 2025 that played lacrosse and football.
So this is um we were part of at least my 25 had three coaches in four years. Um he was a student athlete. He sat with Mr. Root and Mr. LaBrera um at a student athlete awards ceremony. So, I totally
value the idea of a student athlete. He's now currently playing college lacrosse. So, we totally believe we completely believe in the process of of having support and having the ability to use this as a springboard into moving forward. So, we are really kind of
very frustrated with the lack of support or lack of what we think is a thorough investigation to have some solidarity and continuing to help build a program that my younger son now was so looking forward to being a part of. Um we are
not asking the board to discuss personnel tonight. Obviously, we know we can't do that. We are asking the board to commit on the record to reviewing how the decision was reached. And to give us a substantive written response, hopefully very soon. We're asking maybe
for July 7th, not just a meeting recap. There are contradicting accounts of how this decision was made and who it was made to. Mr. Root told the lacrosse players who went to his office that the decision wasn't his to make and it came from higher-ups. When parents met with
Mr. Root directly, he told us the decision was entirely his. And the email response to our letter states that decisions are made by the athletic director in close collaboration with the principal and superintendent. Three different accounts of the same decision. We want clarity in writing on the
investigation process and on who actually holds decision-making authority. And we would like some answers of ways to move forward. Thank you. >> Additional comments this evening? >> Hi, my name is Gretchen Minieri. I am Actually, my first child entered in
2017. My baby is a rising sophomore. And we have been involved in eight sports across There's overlap with them, but they've all three-season athletes. I think that us as a family and I really value having the sports, having
athletics on top of academics. None of my older two are Neither of my older two are playing in college. I don't know where my other My 10th also have a rising senior. But across those eight sports in general, we've had less than um
stellar experiences with coaches in general. I completely value the teachers that are giving up their time for very little pay to spend time with the kids, and I think they all have been trying their best. Um but we like literally didn't have a swim coach one year. My
son did the lineup for every meet in his junior year with his friend. They did the lineups for every meet. We had a lovely gentleman who was a retired teacher who came back in to fill for maternity leave, who was a volleyball coach, and forever grateful for him stepping into something he didn't know
what to do. Um and we've had that experience as well. I mean, for 5 years my track runners didn't have a track. So, when my youngest had this lacrosse coach who actually knew lacrosse, I was it's my first experience where we actually had an experienced coach who
knew the sport that my child was playing. And I My child had a great experience. I understand there's room for maybe other children, parents didn't. But the way the process went down was just a note that we were no longer having that coach. There was no
discussion. I do think that many of the coaches possibly could be re-instructed in how to speak to children. I think people get very uh invested in the sport, so I always think that it across everyone it's always come across from a good place, but for sure we can work with how
we speak to children, how we uh how we uh lead by example in our behaviors. Um but for this particular one, it really seemed like a it came out of nowhere. And I think that's why a lot of our parents and chil- and the
children, the players are surprised by the decision. And as this is a sport that really does need somebody to understand the sport to do it, it's not sort of as um familiar sport, it's not as easy for somebody to just come in. It's not I can't get one of the children can't
They're on the sidelines and do a lineup like my oldest was able to do for swim team. I would just like to reevaluate um the decision not to renew Coach Prudente's contract. And if it's decided that there's some personal stuff that you can't share with us, that at least
you make a very concentrated effort to find a lacrosse coach who is experienced because again, in my experience, that has not been how Watching Hills hires coaches. That's all. Thank you. >> Thank you. Appreciate those comments. Anyone else?
Anybody? Oh, great. Thank you. All right, so this will end our second opportunity for public comment. Appreciate all the comments as always. Um we will move on to other business. Um with regard to other business,
uh last meeting uh we talked about a resolution that I had There were two resolutions. One was a resolution that the um the NJYS BA had come out with and I had said that I was going to write my own
resolution that was more tailored to our district. I did receive some comments. I heeded some of the advice. I ignored some of the advice, but I was the author of it and anyone else could write policy and bring their own policy to bear. But let
me I make one comment with respect to the comments that know I shouldn't do but I just can't resist. We have to be very careful when we mention things in public and the effect that that may have on those people. Uh there's a reason why we as a board
cannot speak publicly about staff members and teachers. And there's also a reason why even if we do want to speak about them in private, we can't do that unless we determine as we would price them, which means give them an opportunity to A basically know what's
being discussed. That they're being discussed. And gives them an opportunity to basically be present. Or even they could ask for public comment, a public uh meeting of sorts. So, you know, we take confidentiality
very seriously. Uh certainly with respect to our personnel and we don't let things out because it can be misconstrued one way or another. So, you just as a public will, you know, again, the public can do whatever they want. They're not bound by the same
rules and the ethical concerns and the legal constraints that we deal with. But we just I just want people to be aware that there can be uh side effects to certain things. But I certainly appreciate all the comments and I think
as a board, you know, we're probably in agreement with regard to ends. We certainly want what's best for our students. I say it all the time whether it's curricular or extracurricular. And uh there are times that we uh just disagree on the means
to that. So, with respect to the resolution that I drafted, I apologize that you only got to see it tonight. But I don't know if there's any additional comments. Basically, what I did was I eliminated the literacy cuz I reread
the uh uh again, the state, their position is really literacy with the respect to the younger students. So, maybe that's good even though I still can't figure out why I was able to Well, maybe I wasn't able to read in second
grade, but 50 years later there's still issues. Uh so, I eliminated the literacy comments and I also eliminated the uh the high school where fourth, you know, bringing it down to a 30-year, which I still think it's good and maybe that could be a separate issue. So, really
try to focus strictly on finances and where we could benefit financially and uh so, that's I tried to incorporate that. So, I'm not sure if anyone certainly can take a further look at it and discuss it further.
But, I cleaned up a little bit of it. And uh but with regard to my uh you know, what my view is that we're looking for again you know, the items that were of concern just to reiterate for the public. And the reason why I have in the resolutions
for the state to help us a little bit. Again, there's this 2% cap and nobody wants taxes to go up. Unfortunately, it becomes an a necessary evil at time. And all we were asking were we're asking where I am uh just give us a little bit
of leeway. Right now, the law allows us leeway with respect to uh uh health care waiver that's built in. We don't have to go through a separate vote. Um uh As issue one, issue two had to do with
uh uh figure out a way to address the health care in general and what they could do about it. Other area special education. Again, the state has been talking about helping districts with regard to special
education. Again, our average student per pupil cost 25,000 or something And you factor it all in. Is that correct billing in that range or Okay. Uh and a special ed you know, can run the gamut between you know, 30, 40, 50 and a couple
hundred thousand when you factor in uh you know, whatever the needs are and also transportation which is never reimbursed. So, uh every student should certainly be have the opportunity uh for an education, an opportunity to
learn. But, at what cost and at what cost to our district specifically versus the state as a whole helping out. Uh and then also uh rewarding us to some extent if we're doing a good job.
Um you know, the state wants everyone to do a good job. Well, if we achieve that goal of doing a good job, we should have some sort of reward. So, that's all that this resolution says. It's really just a you know, cuz as of now, again, most of the money uh
that we spend on education, you know, the school system is for self-funded or you know, we self-fund with our real estate taxes. We get a very small part back from uh the state. The state has a huge war chest uh from wherever they get it, whether it's from lottery sales or wherever
they're carving out the money. And uh I'm not saying that we should get a per person or per capita uh reimbursement, but for the extraordinary expenses, again, like special ed,
we should get you know, a fairer share. I hate to use the word fair cuz what does that mean? But, it's certainly a proportionate share. Anyway, that's really what I wrote. I don't know if anyone has any comments, we can certainly discuss it next time
around. I apologize that I didn't get it out earlier. I've been I was so busy writing my speech for this cuz uh I made sure not to use chat GPT or AI on this speech. So, I actually had to do it myself and not my strength cuz I could have written an equation, but no
one would have understood it. So. Yeah, I would appreciate it. Uh >> I think it's a lot more persuasive and targeted than um the generic one that was suggested by the association.
Um and we'd gladly stand behind it. >> Yes, Mike. >> Um did you give any thought about uh signing both the NJSBA document and putting your document as an addendum to it? >> Uh twofold question.
Uh I certainly would not make mine an addendum. I don't really want mine to be a part of that. With regard to, you know, if people want to say that we want to submit both, that's >> question. >> Right. I mean I I I
I'm not a fan of A the way it was the uh the state it was written. But, you know, I get the point that they had. I have no issue with it. It doesn't really Yeah, it can be an addendum to mine, exactly. It doesn't say anything. >> an addendum to yours. >> Again, as
>> It's got more heft only because there's it's a much broader uh it's from a much broader scope of schools. >> What what I was trying to do is the state the NJSBA said, "We have a problem. State, do something about it."
That was it. My view is the state knows there's a problem. We think they're doing something about it. But, you know, my view is, "Hey, there's a problem. You know, here's the problem. Here's a solution, if not the solution."
There's no solution in that other addendum. She's right. That addendum the SBA [clears throat] >> [laughter] >> That was the only reason why I had issue, because all it says is, "Uh state, do something." Well, >> not like what they do. >> Well, that's a separate issue.
But, again, if we want to sign on to that one, I mean, state's not going to take retribution against us, one would think. What do you think, Billy? You think they'll take retribution? On either one of them, for that matter. >> on it. I don't think it could hurt to
include it, but they might look at it where if you don't include it, well, you're not part of the the grand scheme with the all through district of the state-wide amount of districts including in it, right? So. But, again, I just put something down
cuz A, I said I would, and B, I truly believe that. It But, we just keep hearing things from the state, and they're not doing anything. And uh they may file us in the cylinder file as well, but
just It It again, it was just prompted because the state you know, they they the you know, the uh they can't you know, the the school board administration uh came out with something. I I didn't even thought about it, but I said, I can I think I can build a better
mousetrap in this case. That's all. So, I mean, if you want, you know, tell me what you want to do. Whatever, you know, if everyone's good with mine, I can sign it, we can send it. If everyone thinks I should sign the
other one as well, I'll sign that, too, and we can submit that as well. I mean, >> Sign this one this month, and that one next month? >> I could do that. I could do that. >> to breathe. [laughter] >> I could Yeah, we don't want to shock the governor right off the bat.
She's still relatively new to the job. >> So, is the appropriate thing to make a motion to adopt this? What's What do we do? >> Yeah, I think so. What do you think, Dana? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, let's do do so there's a record of it, and yeah.
>> So moved. >> Okay, so there's second. >> Second. >> Okay. So this is just voting on mine. >> [laughter] >> Well, can we vote on both of them? Can we have a separate motion? Let's do one at a time.
Okay, roll call. >> Mr. Decker? >> Yes. >> Ms. Fazzalari Rosmerski? >> Yes. >> Mr. Gallic? >> Yes. >> Ms. Lee? >> Yes. >> Ms. Potter? >> Yeah. >> Ms. Prosser? >> Yes. >> Ms. Rexford? >> Yes. >> Mr. Dente? >> Yes. >> Ms. Trampour? >> Yes. >> Mr. Birnberg?
>> Yes. Look at us rowing in the same direction. Look at that. >> [laughter] >> Hey, give me a little something. >> Yeah. >> Go ahead. >> So I move to sign the also sign the NJSBA doc.
>> I'll second. >> Any discussion? Roll call. Decker? >> Yes. >> Ms. Fazzalari Rosmerski? >> [laughter] >> Come back to >> Come back to you, okay. Mr. Gallic? >> Yes. >> Ms. Lee? >> Yes. >> Ms. Ms. Potter? >> Yes. >> Ms. Prosser?
>> Yes. >> Ms. Rexford? >> Yes. >> Mr. Dente? >> Yes. >> Ms. Trampour? >> Yes. >> Mr. Birnberg? >> Yes. >> [laughter] >> Ms. Fazzalari Rosmerski? >> I wanted to. >> Yeah. >> Okay. All right, great. Uh
Is there any I appreciate that. Thank you. I'll take care of that. Is there any other bus Yes, sorry. >> I do. Um I met with the Superintendent of Schools at Long Hill Township a while to present him with the our statement about the regionalization study. I know
I'm a month behind the other towns doing Anyway, um so he was We had a very nice talk about our statement and uh he certainly concurred. Um but, we have some good news. Long Hill has adopted the same math program as Warren.
>> Wow. >> Bravo. >> So, we should start seeing some real parity in this school district. >> Yeah. Come on. >> So, that was just an aside to the meeting, and I was I thought everyone would be glad to hear that, so. >> Appreciate that.
>> Is there any other business before we move on to the next order of business? >> Is this for board, everything, anything? >> Yeah, anything. >> At the end, like I want to make sure I'm saying it at the right time. >> Yeah, cuz after this, we're going to >> Okay. >> We have to go back into executive session, cuz there are things we were
not able to finish. >> Okay. Watchung just wants to The town of Watchung, the council, everyone wants to thank Dan and Michael for partaking in the hundred our hundredth year celebration. And I want to make sure, especially Dan, you with your uh George Washington, and Michael, I
learned a lot about your childhood and what you had to do there, but the town was very appreciative of that. Uh you guys were there. >> Great. Thank you. Anything else? All right. So, as I mentioned, again, we had executive session between 7:00 and
7:30. We were not able to finish everything at that time, and at the interest and the fairness to the public, uh didn't think it was appropriate to extend that longer and then delay this meeting. So, decided to do everything we need to do
business-wise up to this point. Uh I'm going to entertain a motion shortly to go back into executive session. Uh we have some matters to discuss. After that, we will come out. There will be no uh business after business taken. There'll be no voting, nothing done, and
we will be moving forward in the meeting and adjourn. So, with respect to that, um >> So moved. >> Second. >> Okay. All those in favor? >> Aye. so now we're back in executive session. So, thank you everybody for coming.
Get it.