We will call to order the November 17th, 2025 meeting of the Williamson County Board of Education. Board members, please uh begin by recording your attendance. >> There are 12 members present. Thank you. Uh, our next order of
business will be the pledge of allegiance led by Melissa Wyatt, followed by a moment of silence. Please stand. >> I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation
indivisible with liberty and justice for all. You may be seated. Before we move into our public comment period, I want to say u thank you to deputies McGari and Rutled from the Williamson County Sheriff's Department for being here tonight and serving us.
Thank you, gentlemen. All right, we will move into items of particular public interest, which is our public comment period. We have 10 speakers who have signed up to speak tonight. So, each of you will have up to three minutes if you choose to take the
full three minutes. Um, I will call two at a time. So, um, first person come on up and then the second person be ready. Uh, just note that on the at the podium there's a screen that will show your time. So, please be paying attention to that as you speak. Um our first speaker
is Nidi Gupta followed by Rooney Goo. As parents we fear when we are not connected to our children 247 via wireless communication devices. My name is Dr. Nidhi Gupta. I'm a mother of a
fifth grader and a kindergartenner, pediatric endocrinologist here in Franklin, screen time researcher for the last 10 years and author of best-selling book calm the noise. I'm not here to repeat the research you all already know
about bell-to-bell phone free school day. The evidence is clear. Simply the presence of smartphones in learning environment affects students attention, memory, behavior, empathy and school culture. Tonight I want to briefly
address five concerns that were raised and hopefully reassure some thoughtful and worried parents. Number one, are we sheltering children from the real world? No. The goal is not to shelter children from the real world, but to prepare them
for it with stronger academics, robust mental health, and real human connection. A phone-free school day strengthens these skills. Number two, shouldn't high schoolers be allowed to use phones during lunch? As adults, we
often take a break by scrolling, but scrolling is not resting. It is stimulating and exhausting. Students need boredom or human conversation during breaks so their brains can reset for the next class. A typical teen
receives 237 notifications per day, mostly during school hours. Checking their texts and scrolling social media during lunch and then expecting them to focus on the next class is unfair. A phone-f free lunch is not a punishment.
It is cognitive reset. Number three, don't students need to learn responsible phone use because they will need these skills eventually. Absolutely. But the key word here is eventually, not right now. Right now, they are developing brains cannot resist addictive
algorithms. Number four, how will parents communicate with children during the day? We once had clear systems in place before smartphones became common. Urgent matters were handled by the school. Everything else waited until
dinner. Those systems are being revived by schools nationwide. Last, how about emergencies? Law enforcement has made it very clear phone use during emergencies increases chaos, spreads misinformation,
and gets in the way of first responders. Students need to hear safety instructions, not be recording videos or calling home. Please let me summarize. Lunch period is not just downtime. It is developmental time critical for
communication, friendship, and building school community. A bell-to-bell phone-f free day is not a restriction. It is a gift, a gift of attention, of calm, of connection, a gift of restoring childhood. In a world filled with
digital noise, I invite the board today to lead not with fear but with evidence, courage, and care. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Good evening. We live in a time when if you ask a high school student how
they're doing, the most common answer is, "I'm tired." My name is Ricky Goo and I'm a junior at Ravenwood High and I'm here to speak directly about the proposed revision to policy 6.312 with this perspective within the community
being directly affected. I surveyed 397 students about their day-to-day lives with phones, and I'll be using that data to support my argument. When the original phone ban was introduced last year, limiting phones and instructional hours, it worked. Students are focused. But banning phones does during lunch
doesn't benefit students or teachers. The justification for this change cites a single article stating that teachers say phone enforcement is difficult. This article was published before our district implemented in-class restrictions. And according to my
survey, 83% of students say phone usage during instructional hours has already decreased or was never a problem. The current policy is working. Lunch is the one time in the day when teachers are not instructing and should not be responsible for micromanaging thousands
of personal devices. The justification mentions mental health. So, let's talk about it. 94.3% of students listed school work, academic pressure, burnout, or anxiety as their biggest stressors. Only four students out of 397 said
phones were the issue. Taking away phones during instruction helps mental health. Taking them away during our only break does the opposite. One student wrote, "We don't get any other breaks, not even recess. Taking our phones during the one non-academic time is
ridiculous." Every single student in the survey said they socialize during lunch. Banning phones doesn't increase socializing. It removes autonomy and comfort during the only downtime we have. Students already talk, laugh, and interact. There may be concerns about
this data only refle reflecting Ravenwood, but in the policy itself, there were notes that Franklin High School saw essentially no students on their phones during lunch with a visit from a school official. The claim that banning forces will phone banning phones will force students to talk is
unnecessary and it's already happening. Since the policy is so focused on what we use our phones for, let's address that. 67 88% of their students at lunch use it for something other than social media. 67% of it used to communicate with parents. The policy says the front office is enough, but what about
schedule changes, practice adjustments, carps, and siblings getting sick? If twothirds of the WCS population is forced to route all communications through the front office, how overwhelmed do you want them to be? And now, safety. Justification says that parents shouldn't text during
emergencies and that's true. However, there are students noting dangers sometimes before the staff are aware. A strict no phone policy undermines that. And in real crisis, parents will not wait for official communication. They will panic and they will come. In Nashville, during the Covenant shooting,
parents rush to the school. In Yuval Day, hundreds of parents revive before official communication. We're not asking for unlimited use. We're asking for 20 minutes of autonomy in a 7-hour day. our one moment to brief. Thank you for listening. >> Thank you. >> Our next uh two speakers uh Clinton
Amanda Browning I believe are together. And then John Paul Kakulka. Good evening. My name is Clint Browning. This is my wife Amanda. We are here tonight to shed light on the failures of the board to follow their code of conduct policy and protect the students
at my daughter's school. Since the start of the year, one child has violated the levels three and four misbehaviors listed in the code of conduct more than a dozen times. And yet, the school board refuses to remove this boy from the school, claiming federal protections of
children with disabilities. The boy has punched both students and teachers, choked fellow classmates, and even assaulted a parent as they were trying to protect their child in the hallway. More than three of his victims needed medical care after the assault.
On October 2nd of this year, this boy tried to take my daughter's personal property from her. When she wouldn't give it to him, he went after her with a pair of scissors. Scissors. Mr. Golden, you know who this boy is. We are not the only parents that have
raised this alarm about this troubled young man. You are failing all our children, including this young man. and every day you keep their asalent in school, you are complicit in the endangerment of our kids. The federal protections provided to students with
IEPs does not extend to the allowance of violence towards others. I believe your lack of action is fueled by nepotism. As this boy doesn't even live in Williamson County, but his family works for the school district. This has gone on far too long. We demand action in this
matter. >> Mr. Golden. I'm speaking on behalf of my child and the other children and parents that have been deeply affected by this and the board's inaction. Williamson County School Board is responsible for ensuring a safe learning environment. But you have failed in doing that. All of last year, my daughter was subject to
witnessing this child's violent outburst, attacks, behavioral issues, and constant disruptions. And when I walked into her classroom this year and saw that this child's name was on the desk, what was supposed to be a new year filled with excitement was only met with fear and anxiety. I received three
emails within a matter of a few weeks regarding this student putting his hands on my daughter and started hearing from other parents regarding the same. My child's only option was to switch classrooms because the other child was protected by policies and laws. Assault is being protected and you have been
allowing it for a year and a half. Sir, we have a running list from parents involving this student and I just received five more today when they found out about us coming to this meeting tonight. How many emails must it take for you to receive to protect our kids from assault? Williamson County schools,
nine plus ratings in education, but you are failing our children in their basic right to protection and a safe learning environment. This is not politics. This is not placating. This is real life. Please do something about it. Thank you.
>> Thank you, John Paul Kulokulka. Chairman of the board, faculty members, and attendees, my name is John Pocakulka, and I'm currently a junior at Ravenwood High School here in Williamson County. I appreciate the opportunity the board has granted to me to speak tonight
regarding the proposed updates to Williamson County Schools policy 6312. We understand its goals to encourage in-person engagement, reduce distractions, and maintain a learning centered environment. However, I and the students here tonight believe that
policy 6312, as written, creates deeper concerns, unintended consequences, and significant trade-offs. In today's world, smartphones are not merely entertainment devices. They are essential communication tools. For some, they are the only means of checking in with parents juggling multiple jobs or
coordinating care for younger siblings. Policies that restrict access to these communications place students, especially those who support their households, at a disadvantage. I want to address something that makes Williamson County truly stand out. I take great pride in attending a district that has
repeatedly put student safety first. When legislature proposed a measure that would allow teachers to carry firearms, Williamson County did something courageous. It said no. It chose a path grounded in responsibility, caution, and care for the well-being of every child. That decision showed students like me
that our leaders value safety, and I ask that the same thoughtful student- centered approach be applied to this policy. However, there is a deeper and more urgent concern, safety. Allow me to place you in the shoes of Sonia Turner, a mother whose experience mirrors the
parents and fears across the country. On Wednesday, September 4th, Miss Turner had been home for no more than 1 hour when she received a terrifying message from her daughter, Abby, a sophomore. There's a real lockdown. I heard shots, but I don't know anymore. Like any
parent, she acted immediately, calling her husband, praying with them, and trying to keep them calm. But soon after, her youngest daughter, Isabella, sent one last message. I love you, Mommy. I'm scared. Moments later, teachers confiscated her phone, severing the only connection this mother had to
her children as the situation unfolded. The Turner children survived. But these agonizing minutes, minutes during which a parent didn't know if her child was alive, should make you all reflect. School shootings are real, lockdowns are real, and the parents and the fears they
feel in these moments are real. I ask every parent in this room, would you want your child's last message to you taken away? Phones are not the problem. The misuse of phones is the problem. And misuse can be addressed through reasonable balance policy, not an
outright ban. We can promote engagement and reduce distractions without sacrificing safety, communication, or the fundamental trust between students and the adults responsible for us. Williamson County has always prided itself on excellence, not just academically, but in supporting the well-being of students across the
county. Policy 6312 does not reflect that legacy. I urge the board to reconsider, to listen to students and families, and to revise this policy into one that protects learning and us. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, next two speakers, Terry
Williams and Brad Davis. >> Mr. Golden and the Williamson County Board. Um I'm a mom of five, one of whom is a senior at um Independence High School. Um I'm also talking about the
Bell uh proposal. Um a 2023 report by Common Sense Media revealed that 41% of 13 to 17 year olds had seen images of nudity or sexual acts online during the school day, including on personal devices, their classmates personal devices, and school issued devices. 58%
of respondents came across these explicit images accidentally. According to an April 2025 GDN report, 60% of teenagers have sent nudes at least once. 30% um did not report due to embarrassment or fear of the
repercussions. 18% do not tell their parents. Girls report 69 in 69% incidents in sending a sex compared to 31% of boys. 13% of teens have shared sex with friends and classmates. Aligning with these recent statistics,
my 17-year-old senior daughter has been the victim of receiving unsolicited sexing images via Snapchat from male classmates at Independence High School dozens of times in the past year. Thankfully, she is now speaking up to trusted adults and therapists and sharing her experience toward healing.
She also made the decision on her own to remove Snapchat and other social media from her phone, but the potential to view explicit content on classmates phones at school has not diminished. Despite the new WCS policy prohibiting phone usage in class time for grades 9
through 12, personal phone usage is currently allowed in every class in my daughter's schedule at IHS as recently as Friday. I can also verify that she's communicating with students at Paige High School during their class time as I've seen the videos of those kids in
their classrooms during class time. What is preventing our high schools from following WCS policy in Tennessee state law? Could an away for the day phone policy alleviate the teachers responsibility of monitoring phones during teaching time? Or would adding a phone monitor who roams each classroom
and lunch to monitor digital content be helpful to to follow the current policy? The secretive design of Snapchat and similar apps complicates monitoring individual phones, especially for parents like me who despite our own exhaustive monitoring are still competing with AI. Coaching our children
around our safeguards. I know that having an away for the day habit in school would not eliminate the risk of sexing from our kids' lives, but it could give the kids a barrier from it for the school hours when parents cannot be with them. Thank you for your consideration.
>> Thank you. This is the fourth consecutive month I've addressed you seeking to understand why students with a history of violence who've threatened to murder our children are seemingly exempt from going to the alternative learning center as state law
requires. I want to be clear. I'm not here to demand justice for what my daughter and three of her friends went through last year. I'm here to make sure that no student ever has to face what they did. And I'm not talking about the fact that they were bullied, attacked, and their lives were threatened. I'm
talking about the horror of them having to face the bully who said he wanted to kill them and see their heads on spikes each day at school. They saw him each day at school seeming to get away with it and appearing to be
immune from the very reasonable and appropriate consequence that death threats warrant. Is the board aware that my daughter's incident last year wasn't isolated? Are you guys aware that similar similar mass casualty threats happened in at
least 33% of Nolanville schools last year? This is according to parents who've reached out to me over the last few months. And guess what? Of all the parents who reached out to me, none of the kids who made those threats were sent to alternative school.
So now, in addition to my initial question, I'm asking another. Why are these incidents being swept under the rug? What decision led to parents not being notified that a mass casualty threat was made at their child's school by a violent student?
Also, why are these incidents being kept from the media? In August last year, a reporter from WKRN channel 2 reached out asking for an interview. I agreed. And the reporter then emailed all the board members asking for confirmation of the story. She wasn't asking for the child's
name, age, school they went to, or any kind of personal information that would have been identifiable and would violate federal privacy laws. She just wanted to know that lives were threatened in Williamson County schools last year.
Three board members have reached out and have said that within 30 minutes of re receiving the email from the reporter, they got an email from WCS saying not to talk to the media about this event. I have no idea what led to these decisions or who they were intended to
protect, but it's clear they were not meant to protect the victims of bullying, violence, and death threats. This needs to change because if it doesn't, it's not a matter of if a mass casualty event happens in our schools.
It's when. So what's at stake for us as leaders of community if we fail to act, continue sticking our head in the sand and pretending this is not an issue? Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Next two speakers are Brian Bowman and Scott Silman. >> Good evening. My name is Brian Bowman. I'm a father of two students currently enrolled in Williamson County schools and I've been a resident of Williamson County for over
16 years. In fact, my family moved here from Nashville so that our kids could be in this school system and we're very happy about that. I'm here this evening to respectfully encourage you to reconsider the amendment to the use of wireless communication devices policy
that passed at the October 20. While I understand and fully support the need for limited devices during class time instruction, not permitting high school students to use the devices during lunch or breaks is overly restrictive.
While not endorsing the increased degree to which our society is relying on technology, the use of wireless communication devices has become a normal part of the human experience and something our children must at some point learn. Frankly, I think the school board is
missing an opportunity to fulfill their mission in educating our children. Rather than fully banning the use of these devices, why not establish a policy that seeks to teach children how to use the devices responsibly and then
administer the policy including accountability for irresponsible use. These devices are a tool and a tool that our need our children need to learn how to use responsible responsibly in an educational setting.
I understand the valid argument that allowing the devices during lunch and breaks may result in some students behaving irresponsibly. But I ask you to consider the following question. At what point do we stop
punishing students who behave responsibly in order to prevent the possible irresponsible behavior of some students? Yes, some students will behave irresponsibly. That's why the policy should enable a
system of responsible behavior with the use of accountability. The amended policy removes the opportunity to learn responsible behavior. Prior to implementation, I urge the school board to reconsider this amendment and return to the policy currently enforced. A
better society is one in which schools focus on teaching our children how to effectively use technology, not one in which prohibits its use. I respect you as board members and thank you for consideration and for your service to the community and to especially to our
children. I have I want to close with a statement from one of your students. Here it is. Schools are meant to teach kids and teenagers. They need to learn how to be responsible. And that's never going to happen if they don't have a chance to try to be responsible. If you continue to make stricter rules, even
more people will try to break them because they want freedom. Each student should be trusted with their phones and use them responsibly until they they do not on a few occasions. And then the rest of the semester, they should not be trusted for good reason. Thank you FOR
YOUR TIME. GOOD EVENING. My name is Scott Selman. Earlier this semester, my 18-year-old intellectually impaired daughter was involved in an incident in her self-contained classroom at Summit High School. She took a used discarded vape she had found on the street to school to
show a friend. That friend also brought a vape, used it in class. then asked our daughter to charge it for her after it had died. This all occurred in a self-contained special education class of six to 10 students and it went
unnoticed by the adult that was in the room at the time. The friend's vape ended up testing positive for THC unknowingly to my daughter. In the subsequent investigation, our intellectually disabled daughter was questioned in an
office with two assistant principles and two school resource officers. There was no one there to support her at all. Her mother and I, as her parents were only
contacted after the fact and after her daughter have been legally charged with possession, something that could haunt her for the rest of her life. We feel there were several issues with the way this was handled. Conversations with the school
administration proved fruitless. So my wife and I reached out to Mr. Golden. After a couple of weeks of no response, we enlisted an advocate advocacy group to assist with our concerns. Only after a formal letter from this group did we receive a response from the
superintendent's office, and the response was only at that time that an investigation would be performed. My wife met with Vicky Hall two weeks later, at which time she was promised a response. After four weeks went by and repeated attempts to elicit a response from the office, we sent an open email
to the school board. Two days later, we received a response that the investigation would conclude soon. To no one's surprise, the investigation yielded no accountability for anyone at the school. Our issues with the response
to our request are that at every turn we have been met with resistance instead of a desire to get better and lack of transparency instead of a spirit of collaboration. Therefore, we ask a few things, a couple of things. Increase supervision in the
special needs classrooms in Williamson County to prevent illegal drugs from being vaped in class and to prevent illegal drugs being given to other students. a specific review of district policies regarding the questioning and searching
of students with cognitive impairments. This is the least that can be done to assist special education students under the Individuals with Disabilities Educations Act. This vulnerable population of students deserves better. Thank you for your time. >> THANK YOU.
THE final two speakers are Ashwika Chitredi and Ailen Wright. Good evening. My name is Ashika Chit ready. I'm a senior at Ravenwood High School. And I'll keep this pretty simple. We're told that the phone ban exists to keep students focused,
present, and engaged. If that's true, then I think we should all be honest about something. Focus and presence don't magically become less important when you turn 18. If phones really take away from engagement, then that applies here, too. During these meetings, during
these discussions, during the moments where we're supposed to be modeling what we expect from students. You cannot call it a distraction in the classroom, during lunch, and a convenience in this room to use a phone. Therefore, I believe we should expand and set this policy to apply towards Williamson
County board meetings as well. You may want to use your phone because of a family emergency. Let me ask you all, do you all want to calmly wait at home when you receive an email that your child's school is in a school shooting? No. There are emergencies. Emergencies
exist, but we can't have that. You may want to use it if you're in danger. You may want to use it in your break time. Yet this double standard sets a louder message than any policy ever will. Today I stand and all I'm asking for is
consistency. If we are setting an expectation for students, then the adults leading them should be the first ones to show what that looks like. This speech stands as the epitome and the success of the education that I've received from Williamson County Schools.
I've been here since third grade. Yet, the funniest part is that I wrote this entire speech all on my phone. Pretty short. That's all I have to say. Thank you guys. Good evening. I'm Alen Wright, a physician who researches technology and healthcare and a mother of four. I'm
here in strong support of the new wireless communications policy, including its bell-to-bell and away and off the body standards. In some ways, this might seem like a no-brainer since when breaks are phone free, students move more and interact more. When phones are allowed, many, not all, but many
sit, scroll, and withdraw. And a straightforward policy is way simpler to enforce. But I want to acknowledge a legitimate question. Wouldn't giving students the chance to use phones during lunch give them a break, a chance to text mom, deal with logistics, decompress, and return to class
refreshed? After all, it's their free time. As a parent, I wish the answer were yes. I wish smartphones could add convenience and help with logistics like they do without creating a dozen more problems for every problem they solve. Unfortunately, the last decade tells a
different story. We've seen a 40% rise in persistent sadness and hopelessness among high school students and a 57% increase in suicide rates. Academically, after decades of gains, US test stores scores began to decline, not in 2020,
but around 2012, the same time smartphones became universal. So, what do smartphones do to the adolescent brain during lunch break? We know from brain imaging studies that they activate the same reward pathways we see in gambling and drug addictions. As users
pull the screen down to refresh a feed, it's like that slot machine lover. The brain is looking for unpredictable bursts of dopamine. And it turns out adolescence are especially vulnerable. Their brains are undergoing significant structural and functional reorganization.
And then the bell rings and suddenly they're asked to switch from a highreward, high stimulation state to a lowreward, higheffort task like algebra. We're asking them to fall off of a dopamine cliff straight into class. So the problem isn't just the 30 minutes at
lunch. It's the 3 hours after lunch. We already know the harms of adolescent smartphone usage, cyber bullying, unhealthy comparisons, inappropriate pictures taken of other students, and a quarter or more of teens admitting to seeing pornography during the school day. This is happening at school, on
school hours, at lunch, in the hallways on the way to lunch, in unsupervised areas of the school because the opportunities there. And you know, I have this image stuck in my mind of one of the first times years ago I observed a teen scrolling on a phone. I was eating lunch at the Adventure Science Center with my kids and there was a
girl, she looked to be about 15, sitting alone on the floor and I just happened to see her screen and she was scrolling through hundreds and hundreds of videos really fast. In seconds, each video flashed sexualized images of girls her age parading around in revealing outfits. I remember thinking, "This is
her lunchtime. This is what's shaping her understanding of herself, her peer, her peers, and her world. A true b-to-bell away and off the body policy is not without sacrifices. It's less convenient. We have to contact the school office. We have to plan ahead. But it creates the best possible
environment for learning, for mental health, and for our kids to develop the crucial face-to-face skills that lead to genuine human connection. >> Time. >> So, thank you for doing the difficult necessary work of creating policy that clears the path for our students to learn and thrive. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you to all of our speakers. Um really appreciate you being here and sharing your views. Um our next item, board members, is approval of our agenda. Um can I get a motion in a second?
Thank you. Uh we'll do this by voice vote. All in favor say I. >> Any opposed? The agenda is approved. Uh we will now move to our consent agenda. I want to make a note that at the request of a couple of board
members, policy 4.401 uh was moved off the consent agenda. And you'll notice it's been moved down to new business item D. So just make a note of that. Um so with that removed, um we will move to
approval of the consent agenda. I get a motion and a second. Thank you. Uh we'll do this by voice vote as well. All in favor of approval of the consent agenda say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? All right. The agenda is approved. And
with that vote, we approve the following items. Approval of the October 20th, 2025 school board meeting minutes. Approval of the 202526 hearing officers. Approval of LEA compliance report. Approval of TISA
accountability report. Approval of the request to lease the cafeteria at Page High School by Oak Hollow Church of Christ. Approval of building model request Heritage Middle School storage building. Approval of building model request Mil Creek Elementary School
shade structure. Approval of building model request Page High School locker room renovation. And the recommendation for field trip fee requests. Next item on the agenda is communications to the board. Superintendent's report. Mr. Golden.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair, and uh thank you board members, uh for your work. I know, of course, we had a work session last week. I will speak to that just briefly in just a second. Uh I I do usually make it a point to address uh the comments
that our public commenters make. I want to first uh um speak to students with disabilities and how we communicate, how we serve students with disabilities. I think we have some room to grow and how we communicate uh not just the parameters but the but the tools that we
have in serving students with disabilities uh and especially in communicating when a concern arises. So I want to make sure you all as board members know that our leadership team has spoken to that and has a commitment to that uh to uh to to communicate more
thoroughly with that. One of the threshold comments we often say is while we can't speak to a particular child uh and we're going to make sure that we do share more uh in in a general sense even though we can't speak to a particular
child's issue with a parent of someone else's child. Uh every child deserves respect, every child deserves good service. Uh and we want to make sure that we're doing that every day. Uh also, Mr. Mr. Chair, I want to thank those uh individuals who made public comment especially of course thank our
students who who uh who come and and speak. Uh uh each one had their unique thoughts and of course there were thoughts that oppose that as well. I will say as you know board members you have had those same thoughts uh in that
in that debate uh that that we've been going through through multiple board meetings and I want to thank you for that good civil debate that you've been having with each other uh through this discussion process. Um uh also related to that the most recent board work
session we had you had a couple of presentations from school administration. One was a discussion of the most recent work of our screen time committee board members. As you know, I'm I'm going to let the folks in the audience know that uh a a few months
ago, starting in late spring and then into early fall, our screen time committee aimed first at speaking to cell phone usage uh by our students and and and your discussion now is a product of that work that they that they did
early. Currently, as you know, they have shifted their work and their discussion to uh school devices and and um providing data to the committee and analyzing the amount of time that students spend on their devices while in
school for school purposes. Uh and that work is ongoing. You will be getting some information in the next few months uh from them as we work towards a goal this spring of having some recommendations for for screen time for WCS work related
to that. As you all know, uh there is there are conflicting needs. Uh I specifically mentioned some of the expectations the state has for testing that we expect to come up uh versus the need to make sure that that there is interaction among our students uh with our teachers uh in the context of
instruction. And you may recall uh Dr. Allen specifically mentioning something to the effect and Dr. Dr. I'm not going to get your quote exactly right. Uh that our number one focus is uh in our instructional time uh our primary resources and that for example apps are
only used or electronic assistance is only used when it's established that that the depth and complexity of what's being presented can't be presented with that with the core content. On that point, we also spoke to the most recent
discussion and planning for the textbook selection process, the the the the core content uh adoption process that that the state is having us go through this year for many of our college and career technical education classes and our
health classes. As you all know, that's a relatively small adoption compared to some of our other years. uh you got a presentation on that. The state has published uh if I'm not mistaken just right before that work session last week the list of textbooks that the state
board will be voting on uh in a few weeks. And so we have that preliminary look. There are a number of of books uh um related to those particular classes. But it has given us the ability to at least get started just a bit on looking at some of those books as we wait for
the state board of education to give us a selection process. Uh tonight we have on the board agenda uh the the textbook selection policy with some proposed changes related to our experience in the past year. Uh just as a reminder also
especially for the folks who are here this year is a relatively small adoption. Next year we will be going through the social studies adoption process which is a very significant very detailed process with a lot of volume of of textbooks. So I do encourage folks to
keep your eye on that uh especially in the context of how those screen time committee work interacts with uh with the materials. Again uh thank you folks for coming and speak to us uh and and uh
related to that um I think if I'm not mistaken, Mr. chair. Uh, Miss Carol Birdong is here and she is going to share some student and staff spotlights. >> Well, thank you, Mr. Golden Board members. Yes, I am. And we are
celebrating all across the county tonight, y'all. And we are going to start with a national award coming out of Fair View High School. This is Mason Hickman. He is the national winner, a national
winner in the 2025 Student Television Network Challenge. His teacher is Rob Gregory. You guys, we had 14 students recently earn a perfect score on the ACT representing eight of our high schools.
So, yes, this is Natalie Chow from Brentwood High School. This is Clay uh Cole Claybrook for also from Brentwood High School. Matthew Greer, Brentwood High School. Luke Hadley, Brentwood High School.
Joseph Johnson, Brentwood. Aiden Crothm. Crothmer uh Brentwood High School from Centennial. Jameson CS also from Centennial. Khloe Tapperson from Franklin High School. James Fru from
Fairview High School. Leah Kut from Independence High School. Coleman Root from Paige High School. Gavin Theier from Ravenwood High School. Justin HL from Summit High School. Saurin McDaniel.
And from Paige High School, this is your Paige High Future Farmers of America team that won the state title in land evaluation. Their teacher is Shana Bautil. Boiler. All right, let's go to
sports, y'all. Summit High School, your TWSSAA state volleyball champions. Warren Riker is their coach. We have a lot of cheerleaders to celebrate. Thompson Station Middle School, TWSAA
Game Day State Champs in the TWSAA large varsity state champs. This is Britwood High's cheer squad. Centennial High's cheer squad. TWSSWA game day small varsity state champs. Ravenwood High
School TWSAA small varsity uh state champs. Brentwood High School in dance. This is their dance team. TWSSA large varsity jazz state champs. Now, let's talk cross country. Brentwood
High School is your TWSAA girls class 3A champion. State champion. And then let's go across town to Independence High School. This is your TWSAA boys class 3A cross country state
championship team. Now for some staff spotlights. We have Superintendent Jason Golden who was honored with the TWSAA 2025 AF Bridges School System Administrator of the Year for the Middle
Tennessee area. And also receiving a recognition, Andrew Hedges from Thompson Station Middle School, who earned the TWSAA 2025A of Bridges School System official of the year in the Middle Tennessee area. Those are your school
student and staff spotlights for November. Congratulations. >> Thank you, Carol. And Mr. Chair, if I may, I want to mention a couple things. One, I had a I had a convers a short conversation with a teacher at one of our high schools who happened not to have had a 30 a student with a 36 in
this batch of uh ACT. And she pointed something out along the lines of, "We had eight 34s. Why don't you celebrate that?" Uh, and I and I will tell you it did remind me that that of of what we talked about last last month at our board meeting when I to when I showed
you that scatter plot from from the state and the TAS system. Uh, our our students as a whole do an incredible job. We are focused this year especially on students with unique learning needs to grow them. Just as a reminder, that's something we're talking we're talking
about. But those those doors that are opening for our students whether they get a 34 or a or a 24 or a 36 uh are something that we constantly have an effort on. Final thing, Mr. Chair, I want to mention, Andrew Hedges was was just uh celebrated there uh at that same
event I attended. He is a middle school teacher who was celebrated as the official of the year for our region. I want to point that out. We have middle school teacher who's going to officiate high school games. uh after hours. Uh
there is a basic shortage of officials uh in Tennessee. So every time we have an opportunity to celebrate those who who serve in that way, uh um I think it's wise to celebrate them. So with that, Mr. Chair, that's my report. >> Thank you very much and congratulations
on your award. Thank you. Um okay, we will um we don't have a board chair report tonight, so we can move right into new business. Although I wanted to briefly recognize I think I saw some scouts in the audience. Are there some scouts here? You all want to stand up be
recognized. Thank thanks for being here. >> All right. Our first item in new business is approval of the five-year capital improvement plan. Mr. Golden. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. As you all know, we presented our draft 5-year capital plan uh prior to our October meeting to
give you all time to to process through that. You all made a handful of suggestions, especially with respect to the proposed dates for new school constructions. We actually moved one or two of those a little bit further down uh based on the feedback we had from
you. I do want to mention specifically the discussion we had related to our enrollment numbers and that document that that includes a heat map of our schools and mentioned one other piece that we talked about at our work
session. Uh we do know that more likely than not we will need to do a little bit of reszoning before we actually start construction on another school largely because we have seen a slight decrease in the last two years of our total student enrollment less than 1%. Uh but
our experience tells us making sure that those schools are balanced with zoning is an important first step prior to making a request of county government. Uh, finally, I want to mention related to that five-year capital plan. That first column is what we intend to make a
request of the county commission at some point during this budget this uh this budget year based on what county administration tells us about how they might propose to fund it if the county commission approves. And second, uh the second column, the intent to fund
needed. Just as a reminder, those new buildings that are on our five-year capital plan that are scheduled to open uh as early as fall of 2030, still a number of years out, we'll get one more discussion at this board next year
before we actually propose funding. Certainly, certainly open to any additional questions you all may have. And Mr. King, our assistant superintendent for operations, is here as well. >> All right, we have a motion. We have now have a second. So, it's on the floor. Any questions or comments for Mr.
Golden? Miss Clemens, >> I just wanted to thank um how you guys handled this process this year. I know in years past it just appeared on our November um agenda. And um I I really appreciate having a two-month process on
this so we could take time to look at this. And I think you guys have done a really good job. I know that in the 201s we were gang busters and getting lots of new students every year and that that has kind of changed over the last four or five years and so I think you guys have done a really thoughtful process on
that. So I just wanted to thank you for that. >> Thank you Mr. Galborth. >> Yes. Um I guess Mr. Golden, thank you for for making the adjustments. So, when after a question came up about what we could uh what the county commission can
actually use um the education impact fee money for, I guess it kind of brings into I I guess I was looking at the at the at the section for new buildings and additions. And I guess maybe Bobby knows more about the education impact fee than
anybody, but um but the performing arts center probably wouldn't be um eligible for that maybe. Yeah, that's that's correct. If they had um uh classrooms that were going to be part of it, then it would >> I think I think we got them. I think we got some of them eligible for that
actually just for that for that reason. Is that right, Jason? >> Uh we we actually did early on. Uh for example, the very first pack that we built was at Hillsboro School and we added two classrooms to it. We're going to be going through that process. This particular one is for Springstation
Middle School. Uh which, uh, for those those of you who've been to the building, you know this. That is the last school that has a stage that opens up into the cafet I take that back. Grassland Middle still has one, but we actually have a performing arts center for that. Brian, you're about to correct
me on one. Oh. Uh, but but we we built a new pack for Grassland Middle, even though they still had that stage overlooking their cafeteria. Um, I will tell you for what it's worth, uh, if county government ask us about that, we'll make sure we gather data related
to what growth has happened since that building was built. Uh, but, uh, as, uh, as Mr. Cook says, generally speaking, it has to be somehow tied to growth. >> Great. So, but other other than that, I thank you. it that's just a really a
really clean clean addition to the things that obviously the with that the the performing arts center excluded just because we're doing that with all of our middle schools just like we have the rest of them but um but these are these are very clearly delineated as as growth
versus not and with everything our growth is we're the the uh the actual building the the vote to approve that is is always going to be contingent on whether we need it or not. So, >> and if I may mention one other thing that was actually publicly mentioned at
one point, it's been months at a county commission meeting. Um, the Triple J project that they've been working on for a number of years now for uh they call it juvenile justice and judiciary. Uh, the alternative learning center or ALC is part of that. They have had some
specific discussion related to potentially funding that out of out of the fund uh because uh it is designed to increase capacity compared to its current state. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Cash.
>> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I'd like to thank Brian King and his staff for staying on top of this. Uh, letting us know where the growth's at and, you know, everything that goes along with it. Um, what's nice about this plan is
we can make adjustments to it. And a lot of times people don't like to see change, but uh, it's got to occur uh, with zoning, especially uh, in the movement of children somewhat. Um, I just wanted to ask you, Mr. Golden with
the large amount of money in the fund uh through uh you know the 1% 1.5% tax we voted on for schools. Um why can't more of that money be released? >> So Mr. Cook may be the one to speak to
that specifically. uh when the county government approved the impact fee uh they based it on a fundamental and Bobby I don't know if it's a particular law for regulation that in that window of time allowed that
but the impact of growth had to be tied to the spending of that fund because it was an impact fee uh for for new folks. So there was a uh if there was a half cent sales tax increase about 10 years ago or so.
>> That does go a portion of that does go to schools and a portion goes to municipalities and that goes towards our operating fund but the impact fee for new construction has to be tied to growth and and Mr. Cook, Rachel, Miss Farmer, if certainly add anything that I
might have missed related to that. >> Got it. >> Yeah, I've got nothing to add as >> well. I I thank you for that. But there's a huge bucket of money there. >> Yeah, there is about 97 million right now. >> That's right. Sitting >> Yep. >> And
uh regardless of whether or not children are moving in at the rate they were at one time, um we can all see growth happening. Uh there's plenty of projects that that money could be used for.
And I'm just saying, well, I guess someone's going to have to start asking that question. >> We we struggle and go through budget after budget and check everything, every line item and struggle to get raises uh
for our workers and our teachers. Uh and we've got $97 million sitting in a bucket. >> Yeah. >> And I I just I don't understand it. I don't think it's fair. Well, county government is the decision maker on it and and they're and they're bound by
those restrictions. I will tell you one of the one of the focus points um we've had with them is when we make those capital requests, we give them as much detail as possible to open that door for them. I will tell you generally speaking, if they're able to use this
fund, that saves them from uh for example um uh going to the bond market. >> Sure. >> Which in turn might save them some interest. uh at the at the county level. >> Thank you, Mr. Gordon.
>> Dr. Johnson, >> I mean, would growth in district 5 be justification to start tapping into some of that money? >> Yes, ma'am. Uh and as as I understand it from their description, regional growth is still growth. It's not countywide. As you all know, we we have some areas that
are growing and some areas that are that are reducing. So what's the process to get that going? Like do we have to put it in this plan or is there another process? >> We are not at all the decision makers on
how county government funds our capital request. So we make a request for capital of them. Uh we encourage them like for example I might say hey you know if you all are struggling with whether to approve this this might be something that you can use that that
impact fee for. Um, but ultimately the process is number one, the five-year capital plan. Number two, when the time comes based on our proposed construction schedule, give that give them a uh a request for funding and then they debate
whether they can afford to fund it based on the available funds. So, I mean, what I'm thinking is moving up like the middle school over on split log just because Paige Middle is pretty much at 100%, Mil Creek Middle's
at 117% capacity. Um, would I need to make a motion to change that or >> motion to amend? Okay. So, I make a motion to amend moving the middle school split log property
ITF of 17 million from next year to this year. So, like moving all that up and trying to use the education impact fee. >> Yeah, I know that's their decision, but I can add that.
So, um, one thing to I would I would raise on that, um, thinking back to our discussion at the work session, I asked the question about how far into a fiscal year can you get before you're beyond the point of being able to actually go
to the bond market and and fund something and get something started. Um, I don't know, Mr. Golden, how how realistic is it that if we move that into the current fiscal year that that's an ITF that we could realistically get um funded? >> Um I'm I'm going to ask Miss Farmer to
to speak to that. She's had more discussions with the finance department at the county with their with their traditional bond schedule. >> Currently, they're they are going um in the month of October, November in that time frame. And so as long as they had it before them, they'll um and approve
an intent to fund before September, um it would be a it would be plausible that it could be done. So you could and yes, you could go ahead and move it up and we could make the request. We'll bring this 5-year capital plan to the county commission starting in January before the committees and
then they look at it in total with the other um budget requests that we have. And so then they may hold an intent to fund until later to try to lay out um all the expenditures related to capital before they approve anything. But that I mean you could and it would be in time
for next year because they've already gone for this year. >> So it would be a scenario where we'd submit the request in this current fiscal year but it wouldn't be able to be funded until the next fiscal year. >> Correct. >> So how do we differentiate that and how
we allocate these columns? Is it is it an ITF that is funded or an ITF that's requested? >> Well, the the ITF is an is an intent to fund. And the process we go through is when we we make a request of intent to fund if it's approved by the county
commission, we take action towards our construction schedule and reliance on that commission vote and then we notify them when we'll need funding and they decide when to when to fund based on that schedule. So the intent to fund for example with it with with us having a
July 1st year if we move the intent to fund to this year um we would probably be looking at early summer to make that request based on their budget process. That's often what they'll say something along the lines of hey make sure we have this information consistent with our
budget process maybe or June. Uh and then we would have our construction team um uh look at the schedule, roll it back a year uh and and back map the schedule for when we would need the money.
>> Dr. Johnson, >> and just so I'm clear, so with this current ask of intent to fund 2627, it technically would not even be funded till 2728. Is that cuz cuz it goes before them in
January? >> Well, it would be based on um our backmapping schedule of opening that middle school in 2031. So, for what it's worth, my my my process of your request to move this up could could
potentially Did I have it wrong? Have I missed a column? >> 2030. >> 2030 2030. >> Thank you. I missed I I slid down as I was going from one end to the other. That we would backmap our construction schedule with a proposed opening in the fall of 29 if this passed and then get
them the request based on that. >> Second. >> So you have a motion on the floor to move the 17 Let sure get this right. the $17 million for the middle school on the
split log property from the 2026 27 column up to the 2526 column. Is that correct? All right. Do we have a second? Second by Mr. Galbbert. Any further discussion or questions on that?
>> Mr. Beasley. >> Yes, sir. Thank you. Um Mr. Mr. Golden, do you recommend approval for this? >> Um, yes. And here's why. Uh, you all will revisit this one more time
before we actually vote anyway. Uh, because you will actually have to vote on the intent to fund. This will give us an opportunity to do the work and and prepare a schedule for backwards mapping. uh and we'll have we we we we
should have a projection uh on uh on enrollment uh based on this coming budget year by then. I can't guarantee ultimately that we're going to recommend that at this point, but this could facilitate that. Any further questions on the amendment,
Mr. Galborth? I guess I just want to I just want to make it clear or just to be clear because I'm not. Um, so is the is the request to move the 17 million into the current move everything over a column move it move start it in the current
2526 fiscal year which I mean if we're if we're asking I know we're not telling them how to fund but they they could they could necessarily fund that with with impact fee funds and wouldn't have to go to bond market so that necessarily
doesn't have to wait until um until November. um or wait until another budget. But so the the question I mean I I guess the question is knowing the knowing where we are um
middle school capacity wise and this is I mean what what those what those the pictures showed and the data the data showed I guess what and and given the fact that we're already having to make this um this projection out three years
three years out or four years out what is the I What's the likelihood there? There's you're not going to see any data before um before the summer, right? >> That's correct. We'll have projections for this budget year,
>> right? >> We won't have actual data until the until late summer >> and and until you until you can commit to building the whole school. It's not going to it's not going to make any sense to to do the to do the site work. We talked about that the
all that site work. you're you're not going to do that unless you're ready to ready to move, right? >> Um we may be able to do some of the site work before we're ready to build. Um because it is that that particular site, as we discussed at the work session, has a lot of rock. One of the reasons that
we have 17 million on this one compared to 3 million on some of the others is because it's more than just architectural work. So, we could do architectural design if we had earlier funding um which which might have the potential to ease the process of
construction and then I think we could do some some site work um a little bit early. Brian, could you speak to that? >> Yes, sir. That's exactly what we would do with the 17 million would be this the site work and the engineering design.
Engineering and design. Yes, sir. I mean, I was I was I was already looking at this at this timeline and just wondering, Brian, what why why it's slated for for fall of 30 when we're when our last our last request is going
to be with a with an ITF, but let's just let's just say that we were assuming that it would be that it would be um requested that in the bond market in October, November of of 28, but then
we're We're not proposing a um are we just thinking that we trying to be conservative on the timeline and not not say okay that that might only be like 10 months and we don't want to cut it close. Yes. >> Okay.
>> I guess I don't I mean I'm open uh to me if you're if you're willing to go and and say, "Hey, we're going to we we've looked at the data. We're going to need this school. We tried to we pushed it back six years already. Um we'd
actually we're going forward in in the fall and and maybe there's a question of whether we're going to ask for it next fall. We might we might push it back one more. But if it's if it's a if it's a when rather than if then I'm okay with
going ahead and getting the site work done. If you're not if you're not if you're not convinced that we're going to need it and it's not just a question of timing, then then I think we wait until wait until next year and and we go on
the 2030 time frame. And I want I mean I've I've been been trying to get this school for for a long time, but um so I but I so I'm I'm definitely um sympathetic to to Margie's request, but that's that's really my question of you
is whether or not you're going to you would actually ask for that >> for that site work to be done. >> Well, we've had we actually had this discussion administratively before we put this together. uh uh based on what we've seen these last two
years, we have seen a slight increase in enrollment at the middle school level. Uh we do believe that it is a when um but we had projected out let's give it one more year. Uh what we're talking
about now is giving it seven more months and revisiting it with a board one more time to come before we come with the intent to fund. Uh and so because of that, I I think it's going to be fine and appropriate for us to do that. Uh another reason for this is the county's
purpose for having the five-year capital plan is for for their bond market and for their bond rating to let um to let those companies that evaluate their bond rating know what might be coming. All
things being equal, we are better off posting something a little early and doing it later than we are the reverse. Posting something late and doing it early because it it shows that we're planning and cons and more consistent. So, I don't see a substantial amount of
harm in bringing it early for those two reasons because you all are going to revisit it one more time before we actually make the request. Uh and because from a planning perspective, it doesn't indicate that um we're bringing something without having known it was coming.
>> Sure. Sounds good. >> Mr. Cash. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I got one more question for Mr. Golden. Uh we're increasing in students in middle and high school and decreasing in elementary school.
>> That is correct. >> Okay. with very little growth or no growth, uh what's the chances of building a school and have it empty out? That's still a possibility. We see that in a lot of in a in a lot of
communities, uh where where there's there's been a stabilization of growth. Uh and I will say regionally we're starting to see that, right? Uh as folks are not selling in particular parts of the parts of the county. That is a possibility. Uh and that's why
We're we need to be thoughtful before we actually spend. >> Thank you. >> I think one of the key points that Miss Farmer made is that the ITF could go in the spring to the county commission. They're they're under no obligation to fund it or approve it.
>> That's right. >> They can sit on it for some period of time until circumstances change. So, but the point is the point of this motion is getting it in the queue. Right. Any other questions or comments on the amendment?
All right, we can proceed to a vote on the amendment. The vote is 12 yes, zero no. Okay, the amendment carries. So that um item has been moved up one year on the calendar or the plan. So, we're now back
on the original capital plan as amended. Any further questions, Mr. Boston? >> Um, I just have a question kind of related to this. So, you know, Margie brings a good point. I'm glad we passed
that and everything. Um, we're talking about growth as far as, you know, building new schools for growth impact, but I know in my district in Fairview and we have a school on there for a new elementary school. Um, how does the commission or whoever look at that as
far as like needs to use that impact fee fund for, you know, updating or replacing old schools? Cuz Fairview Elementary, it's our oldest school in the county. I mean, it's a rough building, especially if you
go and visit any one of these other ones. I mean, it's rough. Um, so I just, you know, I'd hate to see that keep getting pushed back a little bit, but I don't know. Thoughts on that? And do you remember the exact date when it was built?
>> Uh, that that building, Fairview Elementary, actually opened in 1962, if I'm not mistaken or what, 61 or two. Uh and uh it it it does look very different. You are correct. It looks
like a a school, a late 50s, early 60s elementary school. Um we do have that that on the 5-year capital plan. You all may recall when we spoke to this last month in October. Uh we've started conversations with some of the developers in the Fairview area to set
aside some land. Uh what we are projecting we do with Fairview Elementary is to your point replace and enlarge. In other words, build a larger school that can cover that zone and then reszone appropriately when it opens uh
but have a school with a higher capacity. Uh again, we're not the decision makers, but based on my understanding of the of the uh impact fee, if there is an increase in capacity, they can use a portion of that
funding uh to to uh to fund in part that school that that is that combo of replacing and growth. >> So that's that may that may facilitate that when the time comes. >> Yeah. Yeah. I just know like the original plan just I guess for the public or anybody didn't know was to
build like a whole additional elementary school. Correct. And then that's now been revised to not build an additional but >> that's correct. >> Slightly larger and replace >> Fairview Elementary which I I think is is needed. So I mean just by the time you know we're looking at maybe getting that done it's like this is going to be
a 70-year-old building. >> Yeah. It will still take a number of years. >> Yeah, you're correct. So, I just like to, you know, keep that in the forefront as we're thinking through all these things because it is I'd encourage people to go visit visit some of these
nice newer ones and then go visit that one and just see the see the difference what people are working in and where kids are going to. Any other questions or comments? Okay, we're ready to vote on the capital plan as amended.
>> The vote is 12 yes, zero no. >> Okay, the plan is approved. Next item is approval of the 2026 27 calendar with early release and late start days and the 202728 calendar. Mr. Golden.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. you have those two calendars before you. Just as a reminder, we are um here at the second year of our proposal to have two two two years worth of calendars. Uh as you know, Dr. Lee Webb who chaired our calendar committee that include parent,
teacher, and administrator representation uh gave you these proposals and shared a little bit of detail with it. Uh I want to make a couple of comments related to that just as a reminder uh for this coming year which is 2026 27 it includes the
proposed uh uh late start early release days. Also the substantial difference in the following year's calendar 2728 includes the presidential primary in spring of 28. So just you get a visual
of how how many years out we're projecting these calendars may ultimately go. We'll be we'll be dealing with the presidential primary before these proposed calendars are out. So we are making it a point uh not to be open uh on those on those uh those larger
election days. Final point I want to make is uh what we have heard from our families fairly consistently is our structure of of the holidays are working pretty well. uh you all know that we work towards expanding their
Thanksgiving break period and then their winter break, you know, to to surround Christmas uh with full days and uh and so uh we didn't have a lot of discussion about at the work session I suspect because you all have heard positive feedback from our families. So I do recommend approval.
>> All right, we get a motion in a second. Got a motion and a second. Thank you. Any questions or comments, Dr. Johnson. >> Um, I'm just going to bring up what I broke brought up at the work session about the graduation window. And I know that you are going to talk to the high
school principles to ensure that our TWSAA athletes that compete in state don't have to choose between competition and graduation. I know it wasn't changed on here, but I know you are going to do that. >> Thank you for that. >> And and Dr. Johnson, I want to speak to
that just briefly. What we are going to talk about is what days to schedule those within that window. Right. That's the key. >> Miss Wyatt. >> Yes. Thank you. I wondered if you could just share how many of our schools are election sites. I know you mentioned
being closed. So, how many of our schools are used as election sites? >> M. Mr. King, I know you had this discussion last week uh with the election office. I'm pretty confident it's seven. We're up to 17.
>> Not not at every election. Like this next one, which is a small one. I think it's >> just a handful, but your full on elections, statewide, all that. It's 17 schools. Yes, ma'am. >> Mostly elementary school.
>> Mostly. Yes, sir. >> Yeah. Mostly elementary, but there is a mix. There's a there's a couple of high school two high schools I believe and a couple middle schools as well. Yes, sir. >> Any other questions or comments?
>> Okay, we're ready to vote. >> The vote is 12 yes, zero no. Okay, >> the calendars are approved. All right. Item C, uh, two policies for first reading. First one is 3.210, naming of
facilities. Mr. Golden andor Mr. Galbreth. >> Okay. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. We have on for first reading a proposal to add some detail related to the naming of a portion of our facilities. not a substantial change to naming new schools
uh but portions which includes uh some recommendation processes even the potential for honorary naming through financial contributions such as colleges often do etc. Uh do recommend approval uh for this to go back to policy committee for a further detailed
discussion. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any questions or comments on this policy on first reading? All right, we're ready to vote. >> The vote is 12 yes, zero no. >> Okay, that policy is approved on first
reading. U second policy 4.6000 report cards and grading systems. >> Thank Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh this proposal in blue line which is starts on page three of this particular policy
includes detail related to a proposed transfer of GPA recalculation for students who transfer into the district during their high school career. Uh as you recall one of the one of the drivers for this was the most the most noticeable example that the University
of Tennessee has now get granted automatic admission to students who are in the top 10% of their class. And we want to make sure that we define this early and on the on the front end for families uh so that they know the impact of that GPA. We want to make sure we're
fair to everybody and have that defined before the before the uh the good crisis comes when somebody's trying to decide if they uh have admission to some of these colleges for for uh for those bases. >> Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any
discussion? Okay, we're ready to vote. The vote is 12 yes, zero no. >> That policy is approved on first reading. Uh we now have two policies for second reading. The first one that as we said earlier was removed off the consent
agenda, policy 4.401, textbooks and instructional materials. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, as you stated, this has gone through two readings. I do want to especially call your attention to page one, which was part of the reason couple of you board members asked
to bring this uh out of the consent agenda so it can be pointed out. Uh, line 23 of page one includes the ultimate landing of the policy committee that includes one board member shall be appointed to serve on the on the textbook selection committee and shall
subscribe to the oath required by state law. uh and and then the addition that the board member will not be a voting member. Uh there are other changes mixed in, but I just wanted to make sure I pointed out that most substantial most recent change.
>> Guys, could you scroll up uh pull that up and scroll to that change on those lines that Mr. Golden pointed out? >> There we go. All right, we have a motion in a second. Mr. Galborth. >> Yes, thank you. Um Jason, my name is
Hosbrook here. Um and um and I just wondered based on the based on the conversations at the um at the policy committee, we didn't talk about it on at the work session. Um and I
think I think every a couple people didn't know didn't recognize that it was on on consent, which is totally fine. I I get that. Um but it made me look at this sentence again on page two um around around um exeicio members and
gathering information to um to make appropriate approved decisions approval decisions about the textbook adoption committee selection and shall not be mo voting members based on your understanding and I just want to make sure that we're we're all on the
same page. How how do you see that? How do you see that playing out in terms of I get that there will be um I get that there's going to be a board member on the committee um and that I
guess how what's your definition of of how exeicio members are are welcomed by the by the committee? And I I say this just because I want to I want to be clear. I thought um well I don't know where the I don't know exactly where the
policy committee stands on it. I but I I did make the point that I I really don't want the rest of the board members I get not voting um but I really don't want the the rest of the board members doing anything other than observing and I just want to make sure that that's your
understanding of how this reads. Um I will tell you that is my understanding and I think there's some value in having the proverbial legislative history of our discussion related to that. Um as you know I was in a county commission budget meeting when that was discussed in detail but I will give you my opinion
based on my personal experience. I am exeicio. Uh I I observe uh and it's possible I might pitch in something occasionally but I am not an active
participant to the point where I am dominating the discussion. Uh the intent of this is for those members who are voting members to be involved. Now, that's a practice issue, not a a pure definition ex uh uh uh issue related to
the the definition of exeicio. I do want to ask Mr. Cook if he would um to to share his thoughts related to the to that exeicio term. >> Yeah, I I think it's quite clear that the intent here is that the exeicial
member not be a voting member. Um, I like I said, it's it's pretty clear that that's what the ex official member here. >> Well, I guess I I it's clear that they're not voting. Um, I guess it's it's not so clear whether they are able
to participate in in conversation. So, I look I just want to So, we one of our and I've been to both of these. Um, well, have we been to both? I've been to one. I think the the first one that we've the only one we've had. Um and um
but if we if we have a I just want to make a real life example. We have a textbook publisher coming before the board. Um does the is this going to allow multiple board members to um ask questions of the
of the publisher? >> There's nothing in this policy that would prohibit that. your ex official member would be able to participate in those conversations. Their limitation based on the wording is they're not voting members. >> Okay. I'd like to well I'm not going to
I'm not going to offer an amendment yet, but I want to see if anybody else is with me and thinking that that's a bad idea and u want to like to I thought I thought it was and my fault for for not checking when it was on the consent agenda. I thought I thought this was getting changed based on our discussion,
but um so just want to get see if anybody else wants to wants to change it with me. >> Dr. Reeves. >> Uh Mr. Chair, this is a question for you or uh Superintendent Golden. Doesn't the board,
even whether or not we choose to attend um a committee meeting as an exeicio member, we still have that discretion to reach out to publishers and ask questions regardless because ultimately we're voting on the the curriculum.
>> That's my presumption, but I'll Mr. Gold. >> Yeah, mine too. There's no those there's no rule against anyone calling. >> I don't necessarily share your concern. I don't think >> I understand that you are concerned about a bunch of board members attending
and disrupting the process, but I don't I think we've all agreed that that one person who's being appointed to the committee is serving as our voice on the committee. Mr. Welch,
>> thank you. Um, yeah, Jay, I agree with you. Um, you know, no, no matter how well intentioned we are to just observe the the mere fact of our
presence is disruptive. Um, and disrupt is probably a bad word. It's bit porative, but it it um impactful is probably a better word with it. uh you know just being in the school
uh for whatever reason instantly sort of raises the alarm, oh there's you know there's a board member here and what's what's going on or an event or or the games and just sort of the the presence there. um you know there's an awareness and you
know kind of a question why and and what have you and I think a board member speaking up and rendering a position um an opinion on something um
it it makes it hard for you know that young 20some teacher who's maybe a year or two out of college to then disagree um and not want to want to do that. So, I I don't know what it is either, but I I appreciate you bringing
it up and and I think maybe, you know, having something a little bit more in writing that we are there to observe, I don't think it's a bad idea at all. Um, but overall with the policy, I I I know what you're doing on this, Tony, with wanting to get more uh
transfer. I appreciate that. It's just that one little tweak that I have that you sort of brought up and I'm kind of with you as well and it's sort of been a concern in the back of my head of of what is the uh unintended consequences. You know, we've all seen Jurassic Park. So, you know, it's always the monster
always gets out whether you want it to or not. >> Mr. Cash. >> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The whole purpose of this was to get board members more involved in the process.
um whether we have uh I mean we should we should be able to sit down and you know ask ask teachers questions so we have a better understanding of of what they're getting into. I met with groups of teachers and they're
constantly ask me why didn't you ask us when when I can't just call them at home and ask them a question about it. I can't walk into a school and say, "Hey, I need to talk to the teachers on this committee
and ask them a few questions." So, if we if we're not allowed to speak, and I don't mean take over the meeting, um but uh ask a simple question.
You know, a group of teachers may be all excited about something and say, "Clue me in. And I don't care if we have to open with a little speech. I am here to support you. I am here to learn
this. If if we start getting into this and we're not allowed to say anything, then just go back to the other way and we get everything put down. We know that when the meetings are and then we're told what everybody wants, vote on
it. and this is where the problems arise and going to these group meetings proved out that to me. So I don't I don't know are we are we eliminating our voice in this or are we
trying to keep from uh you know someone getting mad at us? I mean I I've never tried to intimidate anyone. uh visiting a school or anything. That's that's not our purpose. Our purpose is
to get down to the root cause and the what's the best process for the students. And if we're not allowed to speak at some of these meetings, why have it? Maybe somebody can answer that. Thank
you, >> Mr. Golden. Can I ask a question about the uh the language in line 23 and 24? Well, it's really 23 through 26 part of 26. So that the first sentence says the superintendent shall be an ex official member of all
committees appointed and shall not be a voting member. That is straight from state law, right? >> Yes. The second sentence before the before any of the changes were made read I believe readmeers of the board
also serve as exeicio members period. Is that correct? >> That is correct. Members of the board may also serve as exeicio members period. >> May and that that is also from state law. >> Um I don't know specifically if the state law
>> well in that particular that particular language is old. that's been in the policy >> that was previously in the policy. Yeah. >> Um I I Mr. Chair, I can't remember if it just was not prohibited or if it was specifically allowed. I'm sorry. I don't know the answer to that. >> Okay. I was thinking back to one of the
policy discussions about where we changed the word may to shall because effectively we were as board members were already defined as exeicial members of this committee anyway. >> That's correct. So why say may when it should be shall because effectively we
already have that role. Is that everybody's understanding? >> Yes. >> So what we've what we've done on that so really those first two sentences before any changes were really functions of state law in in a I think we can safely say that.
>> Yes. Well it's not certainly not prohibited. >> Okay. And then what we've done is added the language about obviously shall and then to gather information to make appropriate approval decisions. So we've got we've added some editorial language there and emphasize
the not voting part. But I guess the question that's being raised Mr. Cash raised it is how do we get to the question of what Mr. Galworth raised about how do you define what participation looks like? Can can you
really put something in policy that defines how much a person can speak um at a meeting like that? If if you're attending and you can ask a question, but you can't ask two. That's where I'm struggling is how do
you I understand the the intent of what you're saying. I'm just trying to think of how you mechanically limit that or define that. I know your question might have been a little bit rhetorical, but it it does depend on professionalism of of of all
of us. >> So, it's really subjective and sort of related to the code of conduct or or behalism. >> Yes, sir. >> Mr. Bostic.
>> Yeah. I mean, when I, you know, originally wanted to make some of these changes was just to, you know, bring the board and the committee and the teachers and everybody closer together during the the process. I mean, that's the heart,
the idea behind it. Um, I guess I hear like your concern like you think about the rogue the rogue members. I know none of us would do it, right? But later down the road, maybe there'll be a board member, right? Um that might try and take over in some
sense. I suppose I I suppose I get that um concern. Um I hadn't really thought about that necessarily. Um I think to your point, Mr. Brown, it's to kind of professionalism and acting in such a way. I mean, just just
for me, and I know I've kind of said this before, but it was it's it's an effort to bring us closer together to be more involved since I mean, we do have to vote on it at the end of the day. And I just think it's important that we
hear, you know, if we take it upon ourselves to go and hear from the teachers, the committee, you know, the stakeholders themselves on it. And um whether that's just observation or any input or no input, I don't know. But I
just the idea is to have it closer so that we can try and eliminate some of the you know well why didn't you ask us or we didn't know what your thoughts were or you know you didn't ask for this or whatever you know some of those types of things I guess that's just my kind of
thought behind it before I call on you Jake guys can you scroll back to the first page please to the bottom sorry thank All right, Mr. Gworth, I I'll say something after you.
I just saw what you saw, but um the um I I'm I'm totally fine to leave it. Uh, I guess to Jason's point of just making it part of the part of the record, get everybody on on the on the same page
that we're not there to um I mean, I guess Danny, you and I might disagree a little bit on on how on how our our questions might might influence the the board. I I I certainly want to I mean want to have opportunity and even even
before and after and breaks and things to to to discuss these things with the with the teachers and and the committee members I think is a is fantastic. Um, like I said, I I went to the first meeting and and Jason and Dave were were
both there and um and we sat like a fly on the wall in the back and just and just observed. And I think in that I I just feel like that's the most appropriate appropriate way to to go. Um like I I wholeheartedly think that there
should be a I think having a single board board member um is appropriate there. somebody who um the intention is to is to be there and participate as a as a member of the of the committee non- voting still um but
um but as as it as it serves when I you I went to that to the first meeting and I was the only board member there so I think when all of us are invited um you know I guess I think there it might depend on the meeting I think we'll think there will be a good amount of
participation I expect there to with when the publishers come and we we get to we get to see the the Q&A there and the presentations. I think that's going to be very informative. That's that's the reason we have that's the reason we have this and the um I mean a lot of the other additional information, all this
is all this is good stuff. I just wanted to speak to uh to that and um but uh but I guess Josh before before I go like I y'all everybody who was I mean most of
y'all were at the uh at the committee u at the policy committee and I'm not sure did we did we come out of this saying that we were going to um that the board member was going to be appointed in and was going to subscribe to the to the oath
um required by state law even though it's not required by state law. I don't I don't remember that coming out of the uh coming out of our committee. >> Dr. Reeves. >> Yeah. No, we left it as so shall really should be may and we left it up to the
decision of the person who was being appointed to the committee. >> That was my that was my understanding. >> Yeah, that's what we discussed. Mr. Golden, can you speak to the the purpose behind the um oath that's
members of that committee take and how that uh might not be something the board members would be required to do given our other overarching oath that we take? >> Yes, sir. And so I'll be restating in part uh an opinion that you all received
from Miss Osbrooks a few weeks ago. She uh obviously she's not here. Um but uh to paraphrase, she apped that the board members already have that financial responsibility as
board members not to be influenced u by um by any financial impact. and that the oath that was described for the voting members uh paralleled the responsibilities that the board had already committed to uh and and and and
again she apped that it was not necessary for board members to sign that and if I'm and Mr. Cook, I can't remember the details of it off the top of my head if it was based on two reasons or just one. Uh, you know, two reasons potentially being uh exeicio
uh and not voting uh plus being a board member. But in any event, her conclusion was it was not necessary. >> Mr. Wyatt, >> thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a different recollection of the conversation. I thought that we agreed if you're exeicio, you're not taking the oath. But
I think the board member appointed to attend and serve on the committee shall subscribe. I agree with the wording as it is right now. I just feel like it aligns the board member with that with the committee and their work. And I'm not I'm not sure why we would I just I
feel like it reinforces accountability and integrity and I'm not sure why we would say no to that. So, thank you, >> Mr. Gberts. >> Okay. I I guess I'm just gonna I'm gonna make the motion for primarily primarily
because I I guess now I I I completely agree that that we there were number of different different opinions shared on the uh on that. But I mean just reflecting what the I'm trying to reflect what the policy what came out of
policy meeting. Um and that's not what we agreed to. So, I'm going to I'm going to amend blind blind 23 to um to May from shall to uh may. >> Can you let's let's be specific that it's the second shall in that sentence.
>> Oh, I'm sorry. You're correct. Um so, one board member shall be appointed to serve on the committee and may subscribe to the oath required. I I just don't even I don't even know. I guess I wish I wish Dana was here and I
and I apologize for not for not seeing this before, but I I don't understand it. It says required by state law. I mean, it almost it almost implies that that the oath is required by the board member, which it's not, which we already have an opinion that it's not. So, it's
just bad language. I I guess I'm just going to I'm just I'm just going to say one board member shall be appointed to serve on the committee. Period. and delete the rest of that sentence. >> It's a proper motion. Is there a second?
>> Second. Okay. Any discussion on the amendment? Okay. To be clear, the amendment is to strike everything after the word committee in the sentence beginning on line 23 and ending on line 24.
Beginning on line 22, ending on line 24. Any discussion? Okay, we're ready to vote on the amendment. >> The vote is 10 yes, two no. >> Okay, the amendment passes. So, we're back on the policy as amended.
Any discussion? Okay, we're ready to vote on the policy as amended on second reading. >> The vote is 12 yes, zero no. Okay, policy is adopted. Next policy is 6.312 use of wireless
communication devices. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As you all know, board members, uh there's a proposed substantial change to the policy uh that you all have discussed for the last two months. Certainly open to any discussions you may want to have
following up on the most recent work session discussion. >> All right, we have a motion and a second. Uh as Mr. Golden said, we have the amended policy that was passed on first reading before us.
Uh, Dr. Reeves. >> All right. I'm going to move to amend policy 6.39 6.312 by replacing the current paragraph under the general section as follows. All such devices must remain silenced and not carried on
the student's person, for example, in a pocket or held in the hand during the school day. Devices must be stored in a secure location such as a school designated storage area within the school setting or a district approved pouch system if carried in a backpack,
purse or stored in a locker or a personal vehicle so that they are inaccessible to students throughout the school day except as permitted under the defined exceptions. Additionally, under exceptions, I move to add a new item that reads, so currently there are four
exceptions, so I'm adding a fifth. Number five, when a student in grades 9 through 12 is in his or her scheduled lunch period, during that lunch period, the student may retrieve their device from the approved storage location and use it only in the school's designated
lunch area. The student must return the device to the storage system upon completion of the lunch period. And would you like me to speak to why I made that motion? Just yes, but I want to be clear. You're amending the amended policy that was adopted on first
reading, not the original policy. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Okay. >> All right. Please go ahead and explain. >> Okay. So, um, I brought forward this motion after going back and listening to everybody's comments at the work session. And the two biggest things that
I heard were um, number one, allowing for for some sort of use at lunchtime. And so, this provides for that. And the second thing is I don't want us to lose sight of the fact that this policy was
brought forward after the committee made recommendations and one of the things they said to us is that they wanted us to find a way and off the body and so this also does that with this um motion to amend. So that's why I brought it
forward. >> All right. Do we have any discussion? We have a second amendment. >> I'm sorry. Yeah, we need a second on the amendment. >> All right, we have a second. Uh, Mr. Beasley, >> thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I just wanted
to, I guess, be clear. I think this is a really good compromise. Um, Dr. Reeves, um, I'm just trying to figure out, we have so many schools and I'm trying to figure out the designated locking up area. >> So, that's what I had a question about.
>> Sure. So, actually, oh, I'm not I can't >> um I'll allow you to respond. >> Thank you. >> So, uh I appreciate the question, Mr. Peasley. The the language is drafted to
provide focus um but also allow some flexibility from school to school. So what Fairview chooses to do, Fairview High might look different from what you know Franklin High or Indie or
Centennial does. So that's why there are several different options. Um, and I don't think that it we need to fully define what those might look like right now. That's another piece of this is to
give the district runway eight months to to figure that out to possibly pilot some solutions as well. So, um I was re-energized by attending the TSBA conference on Saturday. There was an excellent presentation from Warren
County who has adopted a bell-to-bell policy. Um, and also there were vendors who were selling different sorts of solutions. And here is one such solution. I just wanted to bring it tonight. Actually, um, a mom who has
Centennial High School students works for that company and gave me this pouch. So there's lots, the only reason I'm showing this is that there's lots of different solutions out there and I believe that we should give the district some time to figure out what that might
look like to pilot it in a few schools if they wanted to. This particular pouch when you put a device in it, it acts like a Faraday cage. So when the cell phone is in here, it prevents signal.
You can't get text to your smartwatch. if you can't get signal to your earbuds. So, point being, there's lots of different options out there and we, you know, we've pushed the implementation date to
August of 2026 and this gives the district the time to to figure out some of those different um implementation factors. >> Do I need to request again? Come on. >> Yeah. You'll have to get back in the queue. Well, you can go ahead. You had
you had the floor. Go ahead. >> So, I'm trying to understand. And then I believe in some of your language you said that the student they could have the cell phone on in their backpack. Is that an option or no backpack? >> It would be in a secured device in their
back on their backpack. So, say if it was in something like this and and the school leadership decided they can carry these around on their backpack, that would be an option. And the school district would pay for those. >> Yes. Which is well, I mean, it depends
on what the school district decided to do. Um, but that's another important piece to why, you know, if we make this determination now, they'll have time to potentially include it in budget. >> Okay. Thank you, Miss Clemens.
>> Thank you. Um, so I did I didn't get the amendment till I got here tonight, so I'm I might peek on yours for a little bit. Um, but I think one of the things that I was um and I appreciate the flexibility on this and um
but I I don't know. I think I might not be the only one that's had this happen, but um as I was looking over this weekend, the difference between the two policies, like the current policy is just a page and this new policy that's
proposed is five full pages. And we have all been hyperfocused on that whole lunch um aspect that, you know, the bell-to- bell or the high schoolers have it from um are they still allowed to keep it at lunch? And that has been what
we've been so laser focused. And I started looking through this policy and I think there's things that I would like to see changed in process. Um and that we didn't that I didn't really look at it because we were so laser focused on
that one aspect. And um so I think there's some things I would change. um maybe some maybe just to cut down, maybe be a little more straightforward and um not so um maybe remove some language that I think might be unnecessary. And
so I kind of didn't expect the amendment tonight and now coming I'm really struggling on this because there's some things I still want to work on in if we do approve this um policy.
Um, for example, on the second page where it talks about the school setting and we describe all the areas, I think I think we know what what the school setting is and we don't need a list of all the areas of the school. Um, so there would be some things I would want to change in this policy. Um, but I'm
welcome to hear um interested in hearing the discussion on the amendment. So, >> Mr. Cash, >> thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, I agree. uh with Claire.
That was the that was the main thing from parents, from students uh that uh they have some communication and I think this is an ideal way to do that. I I set a designated area or
whatever, but there's like like Miss Reef said, there's different options. But uh I agree with this and I think this is a a real compromise. It still allows them to have their lunchtime and you know just converse one
on one and whatever they're going to do and uh at the same time if you if you need to check in on your phone it's available you can do that. Um,
you know, sometimes I think we we rely too much on communication and students aren't learning to make decisions on their own uh in a lot of cases where they've got to call parents about everything. And I
know some parents will take offense at that, but you know, this is a time for them to learn and it was brought up tonight about learning uh learning responsibility and everything else. And I think this this is a break from the
phone. Um and uh this will this will eliminate the problem in the classroom. I I think this is a good a very good idea, a good proposal. Thank you. Dr. Ree.
>> Oh, I had I Okay, I had push the button, but I'll I'll I'll um speak really quickly to um something that that Donna said. Um well, I need to gather my thoughts. I had a thought and then Yeah.
>> Okay, I'll pass. I'll come >> get back in the queue. >> Yeah. >> All right, Mr. Gworth. >> Thank you. Um So, I think the one Dan just touched on it, but I think one of the one of the
good parts of this compromise to me um is that in is that by I'm I'm taking I'm taking what I heard a portion of what I heard from the students since they since they really weren't asked um all of the asked to
weigh in on all of the all the nuance of the policy, we have to kind of discern what they were saying. Um and and we do have to to make some conclusions, but um what I heard them say when they said that the the pouches in the front of the
classroom were more effective for them to have focus even in the classroom than being in the backpacks. Um what I heard is that just being in the backpack is not an effective deterrent from them
feeling um feeling an urge and um and temptation to to go in there because it is accept accessible. And so while this this does two things, one it it I think it provides more specificity than than I
would than I would like. I I would I would have rather um I would have rather gotten rid of the you know gone back to the un amended without without specifying lunch and then we we can um you know move forward and figure out what the what an appropriate time andor
place to to get access to the cell phones if if it's necessary. Um there might be other communications but be that as may I'm fine with the compromise to say okay at a minimum they would have time to to get get to retrieve their
phone from whatever secure type of storage there would be. I think what I hear Claire doing with this with this amendment is essentially um saying that just being in the backpack um is not an
acceptable form of storage. And I I think that what that does is that that puts it into um into Jason and their staff's um hands to say, "Okay, now now y'all come up with a solution." because
I really do think that um the that the classroom um will be positively the the the experience in the classroom will be positively affected by this change. Um so if if if we think I think
the the reporting that has come back to us in terms of um violations and how well the policyy's doing um I discount all of that um honestly because of because of what I know to be true um and
that is if if the if the reporting back of the current policy said you know what there's too many violations during um during transition time that we can count and our our focus is is to focus
on transit is to focus on the the classroom. So, we're not even keeping track. We're just trying to do the best we can and we actually recommend that that you don't in you don't try to make us the the phone police to enforce an uninforcable policy. I would I would
have given the data much much more credence. Um but but since it's not and then we hear from um from the lady tonight that says that her her child has access to their to their phone during um
during every um at some point during every class period. Um I mean I I have I have similar experience personal experience to say that that's that that's that's true as well for for for
me and my kid. And so like but the fact that that's all been been kind of washed over and just like yeah but it's going well. Um I said yes it it it is I'm sure it is going better than it than it was in the um in past years. And when we
heard from the when I when I did when I was able to sit in on the um on the screen time committee and um and I heard um the the middle school principal talk about how their former policy um they've
been operating under the way for the day for for several years now. Um but but they they've they experienced with with this the start of the school year they experienced a um an increased amount of
focus and compliance and um and I and the the rationale was that there was that it was district policy now and so there was greater um adherence to that. So what that says was they had an away for the day policy in the in the past
but it wasn't being it wasn't being followed it was being loosely followed or maybe followed differently at different schools. Um but I think that so for me the most important part of this um is that it um is that it
reinforces and it and it will it will require much less supervision and um and enforcement on on our teachers and staff dur and and better focus during the instructional time and still allow for those um for those exceptions and for
the the times where the students need to use it. Dr. Johnson, >> thank you. Um, I'm going to go back to what Donna mentioned. Um, I just think that there are several things in this policy that
we need to revise and edit. Uh, even if we make this amendment under staff expectations, it talks about teachers will provide a designated storage area. And then under um let's see and that's on page
four uh line four through nine and then student and family responsibilities talks about you know it's optional. Um one concern I have about a pouch is if we if the district provides the pouch
and then we just something happens to the cell phone in the pouch then are we held liable for that? because right now we're not held liable because it's optional. Um the other part of the policy we've talked about that probably needs to be revised is around
consequences cuz particularly in high school the first, second, third offense is logistically impossible to enforce. Um another logistics I just think about is if there's if the phones are stored
away. I mean, my son has 27 minutes for lunch. He's supposed to go try to get the phone and get back to um I mean, I just don't know how that's going to work. Uh so my concern is that the policy has too many discrepancies that
and maybe, you know, we make a motion to defer it, but I'm not going to do that yet. I'll let y'all keep talking. Um couple things about the pouches. Uh, can can students open those or do they have to be opened by someone else?
>> Can I ask her that? >> You can. >> Okay. >> So, again, it depends on the pouch, right, that the district decides. This particular example, it's Velcro, >> but you can hear it, >> right? >> Right. Okay. >> But it allows for that teacher discretion piece if they need to use it
for instructional time, you know. Um, one of the Miss Pervvis brought up an example of in physics class, AP physics, they use their phones to do slow motion recording videos or something. So, I don't think we should get ahead of ourselves with like making assumptions
about how how enforcement is going to work. Again, that's why we have eight months and the district can do a pilot program or or figure some of those things out. So, um, but I guess that's the concern I have about the amendment. It's just how
specific it is. Um I think I would rather us come back and do a higher level policy kind of to Don Donna's point, you know, the current policies one page and then let districts and the district and the different schools how
to implement. Um but that's good to know cuz you know I've been to zies and those yonder pouches you had to go touch a particular and I thought that would be a like logistically that would be a disaster. So so that's good to know. Um, do you have an estimated cost on
>> I was told these are under $20 a pouch and and then when an order is placed, it comes with a certain amount of excess pouches. >> Okay. >> For for free. >> All right. Thanks, >> Dr. Reeves. You have the floor again.
>> Okay. So, um I did I remembered what um one of your concerns at work session was that you wanted to focus on enforcing the current policy as it's written. And I agree with Mr. Galbreth. I think that we all have received plenty of examples
from parents who've emailed in from public comment tonight that show us that um our current policy isn't being enforced consistently in our schools. Um, and and that's because it's written in a way that makes it hard to enforce
quite honestly. I mean, I think Dr. Webb spoke to the fact that, you know, we right now have we specify that kids can't use their phones during transition period. Yet, you know, teachers aren't going to be in every single hallway. So, as soon as a a kid is out of view, they
have an opportunity to open, you know, get out their phone and and get on it. So, I I do think that this addresses that concern. I also think, you know, speaking to Dr. Johnson's concerns, that I view this as an iterative process. So,
if we give the district the opportunity now to start to think through some of these issues and implementation, maybe pilot a few things, I fully come expect them to come back to us and say, "Hey, we need a tweak to the policy." And I specifically did not include
consequences. I agree with Mr. Bostic when he said, you know, the first consequence should probably be confiscation. I agree with you and I think we would want to bring the policy back to tackle some of those things maybe again with input from our our our
leadership and the principles at at schools because the consequences that are in the policy came from the the committee. Um, so I just want to reiterate that I view this as an iterative thing. I would encourage us to
pass this amendment and um and then pass the policy as amended tonight so that we give the district time to figure out what it will look like. >> MBA. >> Um yeah, I think this is a a very good
compromise. I agree with a lot of uh Jay's comments and that was one of my big issues with the current policy is that um students have the phones in their hands all day long and so this would um alleviate the the the
enforcement uh element that we find um is is lacking and but I also want to have the board consider that um students purchase their own pouches um because then then they take ownership they've I mean the families put money into it and
um because when you give something for free then a lot of times you don't take care of it as well as if you purch purchased it yourself. You would keep it for four years or you know u that type of thing. So um but just generally I I I like the um the amended policy that's
been put up. >> Dr. Driggers. >> Yeah, I've been doing a deep dive for the last two months. Uh first thing I'd like to thank Dr. Gupta. She's right on on the science. You have to have the
phone at least 5 ft away from the person and they have to know that they can't reach it. But it has to be at least 5t away. It can't be in a purse. It can't be in a pocket. It can't be in a backpack if they have access to it because there is still looking for the endorphin release. Okay. Secondly,
uh there are 38 counties in the state that already have a belltoell or a way for the day policy. They have already resolved all the concerns that I've heard for the last two months. They have policies in place and they have
confiscation, disciplinary action, all that kind of stuff. If you're giving them access at lunch, they're still looking at porn. I don't believe that anyone is talking to their mother about their work schedule for 25 minutes at the lunch hour. Okay? Doesn't take 25
minutes to talk to mom. and the girls get back into bullying. If you have a bell-to-bell policy, bullying goes way down because they don't have any access during the day. So does can't really measure the porn. But so if we have the
compromise and they can use with the pouch and they can use the phone at lunch hour, you're still giving them access to a very addictive item. So, uh I'm glad Oh, I'm glad uh for the the pouch. It's better than nothing, but
um >> we're still letting our kids see things they shouldn't be seeing or doing. Ju >> just to be clear, the amendment before us would allow the phones to be in the backpack, just inside of a pouch in the
backpack. >> That's I I heard that. >> Okay. And that pouch could either be in the backpack or hanging off the backpack as I understood it. Um, but they're still good. I'm I'm going more to the lunch break. Sure.
>> When they actually take it out and they actually use it and where they go and what they do. >> Sure. >> That that's all I have. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Welch. >> Thank you. Um, so I I want to go back to kind of what we talked about Thursday night a little
bit too and and bear in mind what what we're focusing on here was just that 25 to 40 minutes during the lunch break still. That was the the big one. Um,
honestly, I I think I would be more in favor than just get rid of it rather than try and slice it up with this amendment. When we're talking about the lunchroom cafeterias, most students
don't eat their lunches there. Um, you know, I haven't been to every high school, but you know, I I've seen Centennials and Independences and and Franklin's and the kids say a majority of them aren't eating
their their lunch in there. So, is this just kind of a backdoor way of trying to create that? If so, then let's just do it. Not not over complicate it. Um, but as we talked about Thursday night, and
everyone knows this, the parents are not for this, the principles are not for this, and the teachers are not for this. And that doesn't mean that we can't proceed forward. But if we're going to
do something that is in opposition to the the wishes of our full community, our parents, our principles, our teachers, then I think we should have two things in place first before we we do that. One is we need to have a good
communication plan and we need to kind of explain why this has happened and bring them on board and we've not done that at at all. And I give us and our staff some grace on that because you know when we implemented this with the timing at the legislature we had to move very quickly to meet state deadlines but
we've not kind of had these conversations and buy in collecting the feedback. I I compared a bit to um when we were doing the um the walking zones to schools and we had you know sort of the town hall meetings and got feedback and we adjusted and everything else. Um
here we are you know making an amendment to this. I I think it was sent out at at 4:00. I I didn't see it till later and I'm not throwing the bus clear. I know you're you've done this, you know, hearing the feedback and and sort of adjusting from that, but I don't think
this is a course correction. I think this is the change in direction right here because it's pretty impactful when you say, you know, you got to do it here, but that's not actually where you eat. when I did my tour uh going around, you
know, and I saw things too like kids in the art classes who were doing their art projects or doing their watercolors and just listening to music on their phones. So things like that and all the little different ways that you take away from it. Um
so you need good communication into and I said you got to be buttoned up and and we've we've not been with that. you know, we talk about the research and we talk about as though it's kind of one thing. You know,
dug into it a little bit more this time and a lot of what's been discussed talks about kind of a a all to nothing comparison. We've taken it out of the classrooms. If you're saying, "Well, it's not being enforced in the hallway."
This really doesn't change anything. Honestly, the kids are already breaking the rules, but suddenly we're going to enforce the rules in a slightly different way and they're suddenly going to follow it because of that. I don't I don't think that's realistic. I think instead we
need to again talk about more culture and everything else and making responsible decisions. And these are young adults that we're talking about. When I was their age, I joined the military for multiple years. So
do a little bit that the the other thing with it and so I hear kind of about a lot this two districts that heard a lot come out about um you know it's uh
Warren uh Warren County and the other one was um oh goodness what was the one in Georgia for >> yeah and can we pull up for county website fourthsize county >> public schools. Can we pull that up on
the website? >> That that may take a minute. Do you want to keep going beyond that? >> Um, how long that'll take you, Tim? There we go. So, this was one of the systems that came up and I I can't recall who who
brought it up, but it was sort of talked about, you know, well, here's a a system that has figured it out. They're they're like us. Um you know they're high achieving. They're on a consortium. They've done the community involvement. If you can scroll down a little bit here on the page
and that second uh button uh distraction-free education and so I I'm trying to keep an open mind about this and so I heard about this and so I went and I I looked at what they were doing and there's a lot of great information here. here. If you scroll all the way down to the bottom, in fact,
um, you know, don't click on, but you know, town hall meeting, there's important links, there's resources, scroll up a little bit. Uh, there was a lot of community engagement and FAQs that created, how to protect my child and all the facts and everything else. So, it was handled in a really good way.
It's you you, you know, seem to get the two things, a communication plan, the buttoned up uh, click on the uh, distraction-free education policy, if you would, please. And so right there under guidelines, high schools, here's their policy.
All cell phones and personal electronics must be turned off and stored away. Read it from here. During the belt school day, however, students may access cell phones and personal electronic devices during assigned lunch periods.
So the the irony here is this was the case study for a district that did it right, that did all the research, went through all the the hurdles, jump through, and they're doing bleb belt. Except they're not.
They're doing what we are. They're treating their young adults in high school as young adults and saying they don't need the phones in the classroom, but they can have it during lunch. And look at the length of the policy.
I did the same thing. I I looked at several different school policies and everything else. Ours is by far the lengthiest and most complicated of anything. One of the things I went to TSBA was was a webinar on policy and TSBA what they
talked about is is policy is not procedure. We're getting very heavy in procedure. The other county uh that we talked a lot Thank you Jim. That's all I I needed if you want to go back. The other county we've talked a lot about is uh Warren
County about what what they're doing and how they have figured it out. Um, Warren County is a very different system from us and and I want to be very careful with this because I don't want to come off the wrong way. Uh, they have
one high school, Warren County High School, and it's a good high school. I looked on state report card. It has a a B letter grade. It has um good academic uh growth scores, but they're in a very different place than we are.
You look at the achievement rates for Warren County for high school and the achievement rates for Williamson County and we're overall 145% higher.
Our achievement scores are more than twice what Warren counties are. In ELA, English language arts, it's 101%. Almost exactly double what their achievement scores are. In math, it's 167%
higher. Again, way more than double. Science. It's closest one. We're still about 70% higher. So, still almost double. And in social studies, we're 340% higher. We're four times higher in
achievement than they are. And again, I I I don't say this to to bash our colleagues. I say it to say they're in a different place than we are to do things. And so if our social studies scores were now
less than 1/4 that they were, I'd want to do some drastic changes too, pretty quick. If you know, superintendent said, "Hey, don't you know, let's let's get rid of cell phones completely." I'd probably go, "Hey, let's get rid of lunch completely, too. let's turn to study hall and they can eat during that. Let's get studying.
Let's look for for changes. That's not where we are with this. And so I kind of go back to, you know, just everything being buttoned up. We're
saying some things that aren't true. We're trying to make some decisions based upon faulty information. some of the research that we've been sent, you know, and it's the research. There's not the research. There's research and I'm sorry, it's a sort of a pet
peeve because you look at all the different factors. Is it apples to apples? What's the the size district? Is it urban, rural, is, you know, is it all or nothing? How long has been implemented? Changing it, everything else.
I I don't think what we're doing is that drastic and the feedback I've gotten has been positive. Um and I I take that I take that back has been very positive information in six months. Is it perfect? No. Not even six months. Are
kids still sneaking and breaking the rules? Well, they're kids. Of course they are. And that's part of this whole exercise is to teach them to make good decisions and get them to being young adults. And so the change that we're doing here, I
think, just complicates the mix so much. And we haven't thought it through. We haven't because again, I just saw this what time it is. It's it's I I saw this less than four hours ago and have not thought through nearly all of the implications. I don't even know. I don't
know what I don't know. I don't even know what questions to ask about it yet. But I do know from what I've seen that we're talking about limited the cafeteria. Those kids aren't eating lunch in the cafeteria,
most of them. Thanks, Mr. Gorth. Thank you. I I guess it's it's important that this the timing of this is really important because I know I mean I know Margie
mentioned something about deferral. I think getting this in place um and giving sending Jason and staff clear clear direction on what we need more information on um to to be able to
a lot of the objections that that that I heard on on Thursday night and throughout this process were objecting to potential um logistical concerns over solutions that we don't have recommendations for
yet. Um, and so what this does, and it is a compromise because we're keeping we're keeping the the lunch for the the lunch time able for um for students clearly that students can access their their devices. And that's going to look
different based on the type of storage solution that um that Jason and his staff come come up with over the next couple of months. And there might be a couple of different ones that are um that might be piloted. Um I don't think this I guess I if we're if we want to
make sure that we're working off of good information um I don't think I don't think any I don't think teachers or students or principles were asked um I don't think they've weighed in on this um on this
amendment necessarily. Um I I don't think this amendment says anything that that everybody hasn't been I guess if you if you take the two groups the whole away for the day and th those who want their their devices available to lunch
like I don't think this says that the devices aren't available um at lunchtime. It says quite the opposite. So so I think it's unfair to characterize the the feedback that we've gotten as as negative towards this. I actually think it's positive. Um, and it
kind of takes a step in the direction and and brings brings both sides together. I I just think it's it's a mistake and I've seen it over and over. Um and we've we've made this mistake I feel with the um with the
start times u policy um in in that we we were trying to we're everybody's we're trying to trying to make a decision based on all of the logistical issues. Um and and it's not it's not the kind of
thing that you can you can't you can't adjudicate you can't write policy off of things that you that you don't know. And so what you have is and and Metro is doing the exact same thing now. They're right now going to they announced that
they're taking a step and being trying to trying to take the first step in leading the community. not just asking them, hey, are you in favor of, you know, what are our current start times like to you? Um, they said, we're going and doing a study and we're going to go
we're going to go investigate and we're with the intention um of of making some changes. Um, and so that takes leadership. So, we can't we can't get we can't crowdsource policy. What we can do
is make a decision that that this is the best thing for our students and then we got to work out the details. But the first thing we got to do is make the decision to move forward because it's the best thing for our students. And that's what we're doing tonight. >> I I don't have a speak button, so I'm
going to insert myself and you can respond to some of the things I'm going to say uh since you're next. Um so a couple of observations. Uh, one is that um I'm looking at your language, Dr. Reeves, and
what's in the second section under the exceptions, what strikes me about that, even though I appreciate the um the attempt at compromise, um it's essentially conceding that we're going to allow students to have their phones during lunch. What I'm afraid it
does, possibly unintentionally, is for some students makes it a practical impossibility that they could actually use their phones. Um, when you think about if they're storing it in an approved storage location, not in a
pouch that's on their person, they've got to go to wherever that location is in the building, get their phone, come to lunch, get their food, go to find whatever spot they're going to eat, and then in the 15 minutes they have left,
then go back and return the phone to the location. So I think practically speaking that that seems to be potentially challenging and I think probably deserves some more thought. The other thing in the first section um all such devices may must remain silenced
and not and not carried on the student's person but later in that paragraph it talks about students having the option of carrying it in a pouch in their backpack which is technically on their person. So, I guess those two things
stood out to me as um things to think about, but but the larger point I think is as much as the pouches have probably worked in other districts and might work in ours. I I just don't think the use
that that tool has not been vetted by our district. And I would be really hesitant to put something in policy that tells us we're going to use that tool when that tool hasn't really been vetted by the district. Um so again, I appreciate the spirit of
compromise. I I think this at least gets us further in the in the thought process gets us further down the road. um at least. So, I'm not I'm just not sure we're ready to vote on this amendment or that I'm ready to vote on this amendment. But I will say
that for me, the thing that I'd like us to do, if I'd like personally, not as chair, as a board member, um my personal preference is that we adopt the thing that we can agree on. um get that on get that on the books as a policy and then come back as
you said as an iterative it iterative process come back and overlay some things if we if we decide through the vetting process that that Mr. Golden does with the team that the pouches are the right way to go we we always have the ability to come back and overlay
that onto the policy that we adopt. So, my preference would be to vote to vote no on this amendment, but to say but to to approve language that allows specifically allows for phone usage for 9 through 12 during the lunch period, which seems to be a consensus. I'm not
speaking for anyone, but seems to now be somewhat of a consensus. And then let's figure out the other details about storage enforcement um as we go. >> All right, you're recognized. >> Okay. >> I'll speak to some of the things that you said first. Um so again I think that
we should be careful not to make assumptions about how this is going to be implemented. Our role as a board is is and is to write policy and to provide direct you know the point the district in the direction that we want to go and
we are doing it now to give the district a long runway much longer than other districts who have done this have had to make some of these decisions. So um you know the concern about not carrying on the student's person and there's a
parentheses there's a parenthetical right after that that says for example in a pocket or held in the hand during the school day. So it's clarifying what that means versus um later in the policy. There are several different
options that the district can choose. So a school designated storage area yes might be an option. Maybe that storage area is in the cafeteria. But again, those are the details that I don't think we should necessarily get bogged down with at this time. It's more of a
decision of is this the direction we want to go in and then we're giving the district that time to to figure out implementation. um when it comes to the exception about lunch that that I mean I'm glad everybody's recognizing that it is a
compromise because it is a big compromise and um you know I really listened to what everybody said at the work session. I left it um the wording is not specific. It says it doesn't say
cafeteria. It says um designated lunch area because I too have gone in and observed lunches at Indie and Franklin High and saw that kids sit in various areas. So to me because I didn't specify cafeteria and said designated lunch area
that it still allows that flexibility. So um you know a couple other points you know we point out Warren County and it's a smaller school district. Their high school has 1,800 kids. So, if a high school with 1,800 kids can figure out
how to do it in one high school, we can figure out how to do it in 10 or 12 high schools. The New York City public schools district, the largest district in the country, has figured this out. They're mandated by state law to have an away for the day policy. Um,
when it comes to communicating this, sometimes you need to the district, we as a board set the policy and then the district executes. And that is what we've seen over and over. So the communication plan comes after we have
set a direction. Um so again, I would encourage us to vote on this amendment. I would urge you to vote yes to it and let's put something in place recognizing that this is a compromise. Recognizing that our current policy as written does
not work the way we had intended it to and that this provides some of that additional count account accountability that um is probably needed. >> Mr. Boston, >> um couple things. So yeah, um I just
want to say um that I do see it as the compromise and I appreciate it cuz it was one of my biggest concerns was access and so this amendment kind of uh fulfills that. So I'm appreciative of
it. Um I also just want to reiterate that I want to commend Dr. Reeves on her work that she put into this. um because a lot of these things um that she wrote into this policy and I know it's
somewhat lengthy but these were a lot of things that the committee asked for clarification on so like definitions you know what do you do with earbuds and smartwatches and all that you know there's language in here for that what do you you know what's what's considered
the school setting and you know there's language in here for that what are the exceptions there's language in here for that these were all things that they had questions about what are the consequences look like. So I I think we need those pieces in part of whatever
policy we look to implement. Um so I'm appreciative of that. Um I did talk with Dr. Webb. We had some correspondence back and forth. I was hoping she would be here tonight, but so I don't want to speak for her other than I might just read a quote or two from her email. But
um I did bring up to her I had a question about like should the first offense be confiscation you know and we talked about that and and she brought up some points about like well you know is the teacher confiscating it and then it gets into like is it in their desk and
then it's like lost or damaged personal property and what liability that might put in and different things. Um which I hadn't really thought about. So, I appreciated her thoughts on that. And she also mentioned, you know, uh, kind of how the consequences are laid out now. I think she feels like those are
appropriate. Um, and, um, they would kind of log the first offense in Skyward. The second offense would also get logged into Skyward. And I think the idea might be that the administrator would call that student to the office to then confiscate the phone. And so, she
kind of laid out some ideas with that there. Um, as far as like needing to get I feel like we need to get them something earlier rather than later because they are kind of waiting to see what our direction on it is, you know, to start
implementing some of these things to work on. Um, which was basically what she told me. But she also said, you know, that um, and I'll just quote what she said here to me, but she said, you know, I trust you on your recommendation. and I'm comfortable with the consequences as presented and uh
just as we have discussed with any other changes, my crew would have plenty of time between now and August to lay out a clean process for implementation and education. Once you guys decide what you'd like to see done, we will make it happen. So they're, you know, they're on board and they're waiting for direction
from us. So, if there was a will of the board overall to defer, I wouldn't want to defer it very long, if at all. And I think there's a lot of good things here. I am in favor of, you know, allowing it for the lunch period. I think that's
important. Um, going back and forth between the the pouch thing once again, you know, like is it in a backpack? Is it in a different area? Is it in a pouch or not? I think I'm assuming and maybe wrongly with this amendment, but would
there be the discretion for the district in that as they're looking into that cuz what if they were to come back and say like we think it should just like be in their backpack or a locker or something like that, not necessarily in a pouch. Would this would this amendment as written now, would it prohibit them from
being able to bring that recommendation or would they have to figure out a totally separate location or a pouch or something like that? >> Well, the way that it reads is there would be options. One of the options would be an off-site I mean a central
storage location somewhere in the building. And one of the options would be the student could choose to have it in a pouch in his or her backpack. So it would be a choice. >> So be those are the So it's like either a location or a pouch like a pouch like that that's on their
personal property in some sense. Not like a just without a pouch but in a backpack. That's not an option, right? >> Not or maybe it would be an option. >> Not according to the amendment. Yeah, >> the amendment requires a pouch or a
storage location as the only options. Am I Am I right? >> Yeah, I have to think about that. >> All right, Mr. Welch. >> Thank you. Um, so I just can a couple comments real quick. One thing, I don't think we can say Warren County has figured this out, uh, as it pertains to
this amendment because Warren County doesn't allow you to bring them at all. So, they haven't figured out in terms of this amendment. Nobody has. This is unique from what anybody else is is trying to do. Um, and again, I think
goes back to the level of complexity that we're trying to to do with it. uh New York. I I can't speak to New York City, but I I did because it was brought up during the uh work session. I did look it up and I I kind of read what the uh governor New York her thing on it and
and their legislation was no unsanctioned use uh during Belltobell, but does give schools flexibility to develop their own phones policies that work locally. So, as I read that a district could could
sanction local use. So, for saying New York is as a state bell to bell, I don't think that's that's accurate. New York also uh provided $13.5 million for storage for the schools and it requires that teachers, parents, and students be consulted in the policy development. So
I I take that back to the two things I talked about being buttoned up. Make sure what we're actually saying is supportive of arguments is actually accurate and two the level of communication with it. Um but I I want again I want to talk to the the timing of this Tony. I think you
asked correct. How would this work? You know and we don't know because now we've got this again another direction change for something that we're talking about implementing in nine months. Let's let's actually think through the
implications of it. Let's get the the buy in and and everything else from our staff before we we move forward with it. Uh it it just feels so much like there's trying to be an end result here and just figuring out well how do we get to it
even if that path doesn't quite work. Um there. So thank you. Dr. Johnson. >> Uh, so again, I bring up I think we all agree and appreciate the lunch being added. I I do have concerns about the
only three choices about secure location, district pouch or pouch or personal vehicle. I mean, if the pouches are $20, we have a little over 14,000 high schoolers. That's $280,000.
Um, and I know I think your spirit is flexibility, but by naming specifics or like I would it it makes it like these are the only three choices. So, like I said, I'm very
in favor of the lunch. I do have concerns about passing the the other amendment and I think that contradicts, like I said, other parts of the policy, but we could fix that later. Dr. Driggers, uh,
>> I think we have gotten into the issue of procedure. It is not this board's function to establish procedure. We establish policy, and then we give it to the district, their staff, their principles, their teachers, and they figure out how
to do this. So, we shouldn't be down here in the weeds deciding what I think are procedure questions, not policy questions.
And that we go back to the idea that they would the district would have until August to figure out those problems because other 38 counties have, 22 states have, and over 50 foreign nations have all figured this out already. We
got a guy who's willing to come up here and brief the board on exactly how they did it. Uh we're also not talking about discipline. What do you do when a student says, "No, I won't get off my phone. No, I won't give you my phone. You can't confiscate it." Well, that's a
whole another issue. But u these questions have all been answered. They're being they're being used today. So, I would like the board to stay in the policy realm and leave the procedures to the district with obviously consultation and everything,
but um we shouldn't be telling the district how to do this. We tell them what we want and why and then they figure it out. That's all I have. So, a question for the
Dr. Reeves, the maker of the motion. So, one of the things that keeps coming up is giving direction to the district, then letting the district figure out the specifics. Um, I'm not making this as a motion
right now. I'm asking a question conceptually. Would you be open to the policy saying that the district must prescribe a policy where whereby phones would be stored except that students would be allowed to use their phones during the lunch period?
And that that forces us into a situation where the district has to now go figure out the best way to create a storage method during the day. Um that still allows for the students to have access to their phones during lunch and become
so it's the general spirit of what you're trying to do but it's less specific. >> So um I would actually oppose doing that. Um, I think the whole point of of this amendment speaks to again what the
concerns that have been shared that our current policy is not being implemented as we intended. We've all heard numerous examples of kids being able to use their phones to text parents, to text friends,
to take photos, to record videos um during instructional time. Um not to mention whatever's happening in restrooms or transition periods or in study hall. So, um, the whole point of the amendment is to address that issue
by getting the phones off students bodies, um, during all of those times that we have already restricted. Um, and so if we remove the secure storage and off the body requirements, we're not really improving the policy. We're just
kind of diluting, we're going back to kind of this diluted policy that we have. Um, so we're all on board with fewer classroom distractions. We we don't want our teachers to be half acting as cell
phone po police unnecessarily and um we want to establish clear expectations for students. Um so I think that the amendment as it's proposed achieves that. Um so I would not be in
favor of of diluting it I guess if you will. Um, I would urge you if if that were proposed, I would I would urge people to not vote for that. Um, and so I mean before you I was about ready to call the question. I don't but
before you started talking. >> Well, I want to ask Mr. Golden now that we don't have any speakers on the board. Mr. Golden, you want to give your thoughts on this and perspective after the discussion we've had? >> Uh, sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am actually intrigued by the the idea
of these Faraday cages, which is an aside some of our students who spoke might be aware of based on their physics class. Uh that cage, that metal cage blocking the signal. U I I too went to the TSBA convention. I'm I'm intrigued
by it in the context of a next step to minimize distractions during instructional time. Uh so that's that's a that's a threshold for me. Uh we actually had a discussion about the potential to pilot something like that. Uh seeing that that this pouch this is
the this is we we we've gotten some samples. The idea that this would be one that the student could open and close on their own is interesting to me. Uh as opposed to the magnet structure where you create a you know a you that that
next step that has to be managed and potentially have lines. and some of those stories we've heard. So, I'm interested in that. Um, I'm interested in piloting that uh finding one of these companies that has that and piloting that to see what kind of impact that might have in the classroom to minimize
the distractions. One of the things we've often heard related to this in instructional time is uh um some of the research has indicated that um the just feeling the vibration is a distractor, that kind of thing. Um now the policies
that we've seen generally speaking say turned off. Uh but if we if we experiment with a pouch, might we hear from teachers and students, okay, so you know, maybe we didn't all turn them off, but when it's actually in the pouch and
I have to peel that peel that velcro, uh it's truly staying in and I've minimized the distractions. Um, as I So, regardless of where you land, I have t I am interested in doing a pilot with with
some classes and and frankly, it might not just be high school. We might pilot it at a middle school because they're they're to have those off as well. Um, now that's instructional time and the board policy as is is instructional time. And you may remember when you
passed the policy uh after the law was passed, we took that additional step uh in at the high school. Well, actually at all grade levels, we took an additional step beyond the law. And at the high school level, we we talked about um not
having it out during during transition time. I'm interested to see if that might actually be a practical means of enforcing that. Um practical, not not uh not you know that they they can just be a
a way to address it without having so many teacher interventions. Again, this is in the context of instruction. When I read the draft as is uh Mr. Bostic, you made a couple of comments that that that um struck me as well uh
related to the the detail of it. As I read this proposal, this this proposed amendment, it really is for practical purposes given us three choices. Either out in your car to to uh to to your point, Dr. Johnson, in a locker or in a
pouch. I know that for practical purposes that means we will need to work on a pouch. Um I like the idea of vetting and testing that before we make a full commitment to that. uh if if you all vote to do it, we'll do it. But I
just know it's going to take that because we don't have enough lockers to go around and I'm still interested in finding out could it help with distractions. Um so when I combine well let me let me let me also speak to
what I have experienced in my professional life as a truism when it comes to policy. inevitably when we make a decision on a policy in in the moment,
we're going to miss something. Uh so my recommendation is if you're interested in this amendment as proposed, include in there that we will return it to policy committee so that we have time to talk about that amendment. If you as
a board believe that this amendment um from Dr. reads is appropriate. Let's have one more discussion at policy committee. Um just to just to doublech checkck everything. Regardless of that, regardless of where you land, I intend for us
administratively to take some action and and pilot this. Uh because like you all at the at the TSBA convention, it it intrigued me. Don't know the pricing yet. Don't know what we whether we're going to require to somebody. Don't know any of that. But administratively, it
deserves a look. >> Mr. Chair, I gave a lot of words to you. Did I give you clarity on on my recommendation? >> I I think you did. Um, so I'm going to I'm going to make an a offer an amendment to Dr. Reeves amendment
for the board's consideration. So my motion would be to strike everything in the first section of her amendment uh and replace it with the following language.
The district shall develop a procedure by which students wireless communications devices can be stored during the school day except that students in grades 9 through 12 will have access to the to their devices during their assigned lunch period.
Further, I would recommend then striking the second section of her amendment as well. So, what would remain in in the amendment would be the language I just read. And just a little bit of color on that.
I feel like where everybody's in agreement is that students should have access to their phones during lunch. Maybe not everybody, most people. Um, I think that we agree that some type of storage system
is potentially a good solution. And I think we don't know quite what that looks like specifically yet and the district needs to do some work in that regard. So this puts this in policy that the district shall develop a procedure
by which those devices can be stored um but leaves leaves out the leaves the possibility or leaves the the ability for students to have their access to their devices during lunch. So that is my amendment. And is there a second?
>> I'll second that. >> Okay. So, we have a motion in a second. Miss Wyatt on the amendment. The amendment. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> I just want to say that I would support that language. I just want to go back to all nine of our high school principles
asking us to allow access for our students during lunch to their phones. Um, notice that in reverse order, you'll know what I meant. Um, so I am in favor of that. Um, I also think that considering the storage devices, like Mr. Golden said, it takes
the burdens off takes the burden off of our teachers for the enforcement and what that looks like. And my main priority is protecting the instructional time and I feel like your amendment um, leaves a lot of room for collaboration and I appreciate that. So, thank you,
>> Miss Shma. Um would your amendment open up the possibility that they that they might just be stored in their u backpacks alone instead of you know because we're kind of taking out the cell phone cubbies. Um, that's and I think that's
alluding to Claire's concern because that is my concern because I don't think the kids have the the impulse control not to go through their devices and that's why we're looking at um a storage box pouches in the cars and things like that. I think
the way I would answer that is that in in her amendment, there was the possibility that students could have the phones in their backpack still, even though they would be in a pouch, but they'd still be in their backpack, which I think was contributing to my confusion a little bit about the the clarity that
we needed on this still. So, is that something that could potentially be an outcome? It could. Um what I think should hap can and should happen frankly is that we adopt if we adopt this language that several policy
meetings between now and the end of the school year should help us maybe get towards a more refined um add add more re refinement to this and more specifics to this again with the direction of the district as they
start to research and vet some of these options. I think the the intent is that it should have more potential specificity or it should cause the district to develop a set of procedures that we can um look at and
vet prior to them being implemented. So, it's not it's not designed to be completely open-ended. It's designed to get us in a posture where the district can do what it needs to do to vet the different options. >> Mr. Chair, may I speak to that briefly? >> Yes, please. Uh, one one of the things
we know from conversations with our teachers is so many of our teachers who are who are placing them in those those shoe racks or the or the cubbies are focused on making sure that they minimize the negative impact on instructional time. Uh, we've heard from some of them that they choose that
because if it's in the backpack, it might have the potential to be looked at um a little bit more easily. that conflicts with the existing board policy that they're not potentially conflicts with the with the existing board policy
that they're not to be used during the during transition time. And so part of what I would want to vet would be is the idea of a Faraday cage a better alternative to either one of those. Uh and so Mr. Mr. Chair, I would want to I
don't know where we'll land yet because I we have a responsibility to have those discussions with our teachers and see what that looks like. >> Uh Mr. Cook just brought up a point that because I don't have a button, um the system didn't recognize me as making the motion. Mr. King, do you want to explain
how that'll get recorded? >> Yes, sir. So, this is a unique situation. We just found a glitch in the software. So, for tonight, we're gonna have to put the motion on somebody else to keep it going, but the official record will show that you made the
motion and that uh Miss Wyatt made the second. I didn't want anybody to get confused uh when it wasn't on the screen correctly, but we'll make sure the record is correct. >> Okay. So, on the board, it's showing Miss Wyatt makes the motion, Dr. Johnson
makes the second, but for the future record minutes, it'll be Got it. Okay. >> Dr. briefs. >> Um, I wanted you to repeat the language cuz I I wanted to write it down and >> really >> Yes. So, the language was
and it would essentially strike all existing language in the amendment you offered and replace it with the following. Um, well, to be more specific, it would strike the first section and replace it with the following.
The district shall develop a procedure by which students wireless communications devices can be stored during the school day. Except that students in grades 9 through 12
will have access to their devices during their assigned lunch period. And then it would also strike the second paragraph of your amendment in its entirety. >> Clarification. >> Yeah.
>> You used the word can be stored. Did you think I mean it said can be stored? Is that is shall better? I mean better there. if you want to take advantage.
Absolutely. >> I'm I'm I'm okay with can right now personally. >> Dr. Driggers. Yeah, we've been working on this for a while given the statute that went into place on one July
and then we kicked it back to the fall and then we said maybe something by January and then we said no maybe something by August because you don't want to start a new policy mid year. Now, if we put this at three more policy
meetings, I heard the number three policy meetings, that makes January, February, March. So, I asked Mr. Golden. If this gets kicked back four months, can we still implement something by August, which is what the
other amendment says. If if this proposed amendment passes, it will give us marching orders to do that analysis starting now. >> Um so I think it'll give us some time. >> So yes. >> Yes. >> Okay, >> Mr. Clemens.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um I I appreciate this amendment. Um, and just for clarification, if it if this policy is amended, we will still have time to go back and work on we're going to throw this back
into policy to to work on some of the we we will have time, right? >> Well, yes, we'll have time. I guess procedurally what happens if if this amendment were to pass, then we're back
on the original amendment that was before us, which was approved on first reading. Um, which is the amendment that's been referenced earlier in the discussion. Um, and if
regardless of whether the amendment passes or fails, the ultimate policy passes or fails, there will be opportunities to go back and re in policy committees in the future to revisit this policy and make further amendments to it. That's always
an option for anyone as it is with any other policy. Miss Edma. >> Um, yeah, I I still feel a little more comfortable staying with uh Claire's first amendment just because I mean I do
believe that the board is or the district is leaning towards, you know, some kind of pouches, but I just need a little more certainty. So, I'd like to personally stick with that one even though I think the intent is to to go in that direction. That just makes me feel a little secure. Um, so that's my
thoughts. Mr. Chair, if I may add to that. Yeah, I'm not prepared to commit to to packs yet. Uh what I what I was talking about was piloting it and vetting it. So, thank you for that. >> I just didn't want the just stick it in your backpack and leave it there.
>> I get that, >> Dr. Reeves. >> So, um the district shall develop a a procedure by which students devices can be stored what can be stored >> during the school day. during the school
day. So there's it totally guts what I have proposed because and Tanya went to the heart of it is it's the whole point is a secure storage. um
in a backpack is not secure storage in a foam pouch is is not going to well we already know it doesn't help with enforcement of what we currently have. So um
I feel that the secure storage language is really important as well as the controlled lunchtime access for grades 9 through 12 and that was like one integrated compromise. Um, so I guess
if you if you have concerns about the current policy that everybody's operating under not being enforced, I think that we have to take a look at and provide direction on secured
storage of some sort. and and Superintendent Golden has indicated that they'd like to pilot um some different scenarios along those lines. So, I would urge my fellow board members to vote no on Mr. Brown's amendment and and then
let's go back and and vote on my amendment. >> Let me ask a procedural question. If I were if I were to modify my language, can I do that now or do I need to call on speakers first? >> You can do that as long as the person making the second agrees with it.
>> Okay. >> I would I would modify my my language to add the word securely in front of the word stored. So now it would read, "The district shall develop a procedure by which students wireless
communications device can be securely stored during the school day except that students in grades 9 through 12 will have access to the devices during their assigned lunch period." Does does the person who made the second agree to agree to that language?
>> I I'll agree to that. >> You made the motion. >> You made Yeah, >> I made the motion. Sorry. >> Yeah. >> Not really. Yeah. I will just say that I agree with that. I think Marty's about to say that as well. I still think that it supports our
teachers in the enforcement and it is a more it is more collaborative than the initial amendment. Thank you. >> Okay. Um on the modified amendment to the amendment, Mr. Welch,
>> thank you. Um Josh, I think you're on the right path with this, but I I do kind of question what does it really do differently from the current policy other than the the direction to as you talked about the um secure storage,
which to me to to Dennis's point, I I think there's a difference between policy and procedure, and I think that's more procedure, and we just give the superintendent the direction to to do that. So, while I agree with you, I I differ on the modus operandi, if you
will. Um, also Claire, may Can I see the pouch right there? Thank you. So, here's my backpack. All right. Here's my phone. Here's the
pouch. You don't get to answer. Is my phone in a pouch or not? Because we don't want to make teachers phone police, right? Because just having them in the hallway spotting it is too much to be
phone police. So instead, we're going to put them in pouches inside the backpack potentially. You just want to raise a question. Raise it here. Is my phone in the pouch or is it my backpack right now? Exactly.
Thanks. To to respond to your question, my intent is to try to give direction without being without prescribing the method by which that happens. Yeah. >> Uh Mr. Mr. Goworth,
>> I guess in the um in the effort to get um kind of a a super majority here and not be not be not be divided on this issue. Like I think we're I think we're almost there. We're I mean we're almost down to
to semantics. Um, and I guess I my question is just to Claire who's going to speak in in a in a minute or two. Um, I mean I think if I I mean ultimately if you if you if you I if you
agreed with his with his language on on secure secure storage, I I still I still don't like Ken versus Shia, but I think it has the same effect. And the the goal the goal is ultimately to pass this policy with an effective date
of August with a clear direction to um to Jason and his staff that they're to come up with a with a plan and procedures for all the things that we need. We need the we need the secure storage. We need a plan on on how
students can can get to an access and communication. All the things that we've talked about enforcement um we're going we're ultimately going to have to come back together to um to go to um to go back to policy to we're
probably going to have to tweak I mean either either way like we're going to have to we're going to have to tweak this. I don't I don't see it as um I mean I I'll support both amendments. I'd rather I'd ra I think if if you
supported Josh's amendment I think that sends a message to to everybody. I think we can all get on the maybe most of us can get on the same page. I don't I don't know we're going to get to unanimous. I don't know want to make that the set that as the uh the ultimate um line in the sand, but I I think it
sends a clear message if we can come to uh to to kind of some some agreement there. But >> Mr. Beasley. >> Yes, sir. Mr. Chair, um due to the duration of this meeting, they had to take a break. Okay. So, I came back and so where what language are we designing
on now? Were you around for my initial motion? >> Yes, sir, I was. >> Okay. So, all we all we did from what you heard heard me state originally was we added the word securely. So, it shall be securely stored um versus just
stored. So, I'm happy to read it the sentence. >> Sure. >> One more time if you want. >> Um so, my amendment to Dr. Reeves amendment um says it essentially would strike all of her language and and replace it with this. The district shall develop a procedure
by which students wireless communications devices can be securely stored during the school day except that students in grades 9 through 12 will have access to their devices during their assigned lunch period.
>> Thank you. >> Dr. Would you consider changing can to shelf? >> You want me to repeat it? >> Oh, okay. I asked um Mr. Brown if he would consider changing the word can to
shall. >> I I think the shall develop forces is is a requirement. Um, and I think the CAN is more about
how it's enabled. So, I'd prefer not to. >> So, one other thing, this is not just a mini backpack. So, it's not like putting a a phone in a pack uh and then within another backpack. This is a Faraday cage. So when you put devices in here,
it cuts off any notification any you you don't get calls the minute you So it's not going to put notifications on a smartwatch if a student is wearing a smartwatch. It's not going to sync to earbuds if a student is wearing an earbud. So I think that's a really
important consideration that we we can't forget and it's just one example of the type of pouch. Um, so I would prefer shall to can, but I could support the fact that you added in the
secure um, storage. I can support that. So, Mr. Welch, >> I'd like to call the question. >> Question's been called. That's proper motion. Is there an objection to the question?
Hearing none, uh, that shuts off debate. We will proceed to a vote on the amendment to the amendment, which is the language I previously read. Is any Is everyone clear on that? All
right, we're ready to vote. Recommend approval. Thank you. Sorry. The vote is 11 yes, one no. >> All right, the amendment carries. So, we're now back on the amendment that was on the agenda tonight
that was originally passed on first reading uh now as amended. Is there we need more clarity on that? Is everyone clear on where we are? the other line.
>> So, so the amendment that was passed on first reading that was Dr. Reeves amendment that was passed on first reading at the last board meeting >> was now before us on second reading. She brought an amendment to her own amendment tonight which we just modified
uh through my amendment which struck her language. And now we're back to her original amendment to the policy as amended. >> Basically, you're voting on
>> so the lang well my language on plus >> the policy right >> but not on the policy >> yes policy yes it is policy 6.312 at as amended on first reading.
So, remember we we approved Dr. Reeves's language on first reading at the last board meeting, and that's the the the five-page um policy that you all have been has been referenced tonight. She was seeking to amend that her her
own policy. We just amended her amendment with my language. So, that that language is now attached to the policy that was on our agenda tonight. So, what we what we're now voting on is
the original amendment that was on our agenda with my amended language added. So, we're not voting on the original wireless policy that's currently on the books. We're we're voting on the amended policy that has passed on first
reading and is now up for second reading. >> That would be effective in August. >> That would be effective August 1st per the language of the previous reading. So, Mr. Russia. >> So this this vote now there won't be another vote. So we
wouldn't vote for this amendment and then vote the policy as a whole. There won't be a second vote, right? >> You will have another vote on the policy as a whole. >> So we'll vote on this amendment which is essentially voting for the the thing we just did twice in a way. >> Well, yeah. Simply I'm just just
>> Well, to be to be clear, >> yes, >> the motion before us was the amended policy that came out of first reading. >> Yeah, >> she had an amendment. >> No, we got we're amending. >> She had an amendment. >> We haven't added your language to the policy yet. >> We need to add your language to the
policy. All we did is agree on your language just now. >> Correct. Right. Well, well, what we agreed to was my language instead of her language to be attached to the policy draft that was before us that had passed already on first reading. >> So, the let me let me see if I can clear
this up. The vote before you, if you vote if you vote no, basically, you're going to be back on the policy without any amendments the way it was presented to you. If you vote yes, you are voting on the amendment that was originally offered that was amended with that
language. Okay? And then we vote and then we vote again. >> And then there'll be another vote on the whole policy as amended. >> So this vote for the amendment is essentially >> voting the thing we just vote just twice basically.
>> Yes. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I I know it's not but it is >> but essentially it's the effect. >> Okay. Well then maybe maybe my comment is for the next round. I don't Yeah. Yeah. I think my comment is for the next
vote. >> One, two, three. Okay. So, what we just did is voted to amend Dr. Reeves amendment. Now, we need to vote on the policy
amendment that was before us as amended. That's good. >> Are we clear on that? >> Okay. >> Is there discussion about >> my language >> added to the policy? Yes.
>> I I recommend approval. >> Any further discussion? Okay, we're ready to vote. The vote is 11 yes, one no. >> Okay, the amendment is adopted. Now
we are on policy 6.312 on second reading as amended which is this the substance of which is the policy that we the language we adopted on first reading last month with the amendment we just voted on added to
it. Any questions? >> Mr. Chair, I don't have any questions. If the if the board does have any questions, I want to make two comments, >> please. >> Comment one is just an aside. Uh Dr. Webb had had to meet somebody at the emergency room and so she texted me and
she said uh she's following this. Uh so just wanted to make sure you all were aware. Uh uh second uh just as a reminder, we we do anticipate we will need to adjust some of the policy language at some point in the future, but from a substantive standpoint, these
changes will go into effect. >> Do recommend approval, >> but not until August 1st. >> That's correct. >> Right. >> Okay, we're ready to vote. The vote is 10 yes, two no. >> All right, the policy is adopted on
second reading. >> Just when you thought we were done, >> we have to we have item E, approval of board norms. Mr. Golden. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh board members, you have you commit to yourself uh with the board norms, school board norms,
which shows up as policy 1.107 107 and per your annual agenda, you review those annually uh and recommmit yourself. So, uh it's certainly open to any questions you all may have or any discussions related to those items on the
schoolboard norms. All right, we have a motion in a second. Any discussion on the schoolboard norms? Okay, we're ready to vote. The vote is 12 yes, zero no. >> Board norms are adopted. Final item for tonight is the approval
of the superintendent's evaluation instrument. Uh Mr. Golden. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. uh as you all know from the work session I am recommending just to keep the standard uh evaluation instrument structurally just as we have in the past with the caveat that we
discussed that probably sometime in late third quarter early fourth quarter I may bring you something for the following year uh to start based on the discussions we had related to school performance metrics that take some earlier planning than our current structure
>> just as a reminder board. We talked about this Thursday night, but that instrument is populated with the goals that we previously set and and approved for Mr. Golden um that we'll be evaluating in June of next year. Any questions?
Okay, we're ready to vote. >> The vote is 12 yes, zero no. >> Okay, the evaluation instrument is approved. Yes. >> Just a quick reminder. >> Yeah. >> Can we turn on Jay's mic? >> He got it.
>> Um just a quick reminder that um I know a couple people said policy committee in January. Um based on the um based on our new annual agenda and our experience last January. So we pushed our January policy meeting to December 15th. So it's
on that Monday. I think that's a Monday, right? >> Yes, sir. Um, so we have we've got a December 15th policy meeting. Um, we won't have a policy meeting in January, but then then we'll go right into the January work session. So, I don't know. I haven't even looked at what's on there. I just know that that's the date
that we set. And and if we don't have any, it's possible that we don't have any second. Well, we we have a fir we have a couple of first readings that we'll have to we'll have to meet. So, >> it's on your calendar as the January policy meeting in December. December.
So to be clear, any items that are discussed and come out of policy on December 15th will be on the January board meeting agenda. >> Right. And have any if anybody has any >> um any items for the policy meeting, just get them to us in advance. That's
really why we had it in January cuz there was there was literally like it was 15 20 business days to get like three days of work um or 15 week days in order to get like 3 days of work in advance of the policy. So that's why we
did it. Just just reminder. >> Mr. Boston, can we >> one one quick procedural thing since and forgive me. I know Melissa had emailed about this but I don't remember if there was a response. So, with the passing of the textbook adoption, did we need to vote to appoint
a board member for this current >> the CCT >> for the for the current textbook adoption or we I just since we're here >> now I didn't know >> now that the policy is approved it would it would direct us to do that but are we
too late in the process to do that now in the current process? >> I'm not sure off the top of my head. I we we've had one meeting describing it. Let us talk about that and get you all an answer by email. That's a good question. >> But you don't you don't the executive committee appoints. We don't vote. >> No, the the board appoints the uh the
board appoints the committee did and did that last month. >> But the but the board member I I think the executive committee appoints the board member. We don't vote on that. >> We may have the power to do that. >> We we'll have a discussion about it and if we can we will.
>> I just popped in my head. Sorry. >> Good question. Thank you. >> We're journ