Board of Education Policy Committee - Regular Meeting

We are at 6.30 p.m. on the dot for policy committee, September 15th, call to order. I have the first item on our agenda. I'll read and get a second from a committee member. Be it resolved that on the recommendation of the superintendent of schools that the board of education approve revised policy 5131, suspension and expulsion slash due process. Do I have a second for discussion? Thank you, Andy. Oh, and for the record, we have three members of the committee present, myself, Antonia, and Andy out of the five, so we do have a quorum. Okay, we have a second on the resolution. I'll open the floor to administration or Dr. Talley if you want to provide any context before we have comment from committee members.

No, no, no real context. I think it's rather self-explanatory unless Chris Soles wants to provide anything else.

No, I think it's pretty clear there's really two amendments that we're making that were brought into legislation towards the end of this past legislative year. One involves suspensions for students preschool through grade two. The other change was for alternative educational opportunities. for students 16 to 18 who've been expelled on their first or second expulsion. Previously, it was just under the first.

Do we have any questions from committee members? Going once, going twice, none. Any from Board of Education members? Dr. Hamm.

Thank you.

And I just think it's important. I asked specific questions. And Mr. Soles got back to me, but I want to make sure the public knows these questions. What's the difference between serious physical harm versus any physical harm? Because I realize it was done specifically, you know, for those two groups. Sorry.

Yeah, that was the change there. It really changed the standard for the ability to suspend a student. This would apply only for students in pre-K through two. Unfortunately, the legislature did not define the term serious physical harm. And the previous standard was physical harm. So absent a definition in the statute, we would go with the plain meaning. So I realize that there is some discretion involved in how one might interpret that. But there was no definition provided by legislature.

So I guess then that's the next question I have. So if they use the word violent, and then I went into the policy and I looked at specific violence, striking or assaulting a student, theft, profane language, violation of smoking. I'm just given some intimidating school staff. Here's another interesting one, defiance of school rules, Destruction of property, you know, so I guess is the are the administrators in the, you know, the follow up going to define violent because it basically you could go and be violent and get away with something. I mean, it's very rare you would suspend a K first or second grade student, but my concern is what's the gradient for violent?

So Dr. Hammond, this is Dr. Talley speaking. Let me just, you are correct. It is sometimes rare that you are going to suspend a student in K1 and 2, but it is not something that doesn't happen at all. I have seen that happen across my career as an educator, as I'm certain you have as an educator too, especially when students are doing some things that are inappropriate, such as stabbing another student with a pencil or creating a fight where a child is actually involved and causing a fight with another student. So what tends to happen is the principals will work with their assistant supes when they have the need to suspend a child and we'll talk it over with the assistant supe to determine if this is appropriate so that the principal is not doing this in isolation of him or herself but working in collaboration with their supervisors. I hope that helps.

Well, it does, but I think for parents, when they have students that are well-behaved and then a child gets pushed and their head gets bumped and then they're not suspended, then what does that say? That you can come and basically be disruptive anyway. It doesn't matter because you're not going to get disciplined anymore because it's not violent. Now, that was not the best example, but basically you're saying that it's going to be depending upon how the wind is blowing that day or a team will make that decision. Because what happens, you and I know, it's one to two, maybe 3% of the youngsters that do have a hard time. And our job is to help them be the best they can be. But is it fair to all the kids being good if... Some of those on the edge or on the line are, oh, they're back in school again today and it was okay that they cussed at the teacher.

So there are a couple of things here that need to be said. One, as Mr. Soles mentioned, this is state legislature that was passed. So I think it would be important for parents and board members, if they'd like, to speak to their representatives about the law that was written and passed. That's one. Two, with regards to not every... One of the things that I have noticed in my career is always that parents sometimes want... want to control the way in which other children are disciplined. They can't. It's just not possible. So I tell parents that all the time when I was a principal, you cannot determine how we're going to discipline the other child. And so it's a case-by-case basis. It is not a direct black and white situation. There is gray to all of these situations. And I think when you are an administrator, You probably found for yourself there were times that you decided to suspend and other times that you didn't. And it would depend upon the circumstances about the situation. Each case is going to be different.

Okay. No, and I just think for the public that are listening that it's important to know that, that it is our politicians that have made this decision. And again, what's new, it's not always defined.

Thanks, Dr. Hammond. Yes, statute definitions can be pretty weird sometimes, but appreciate all that insight on the administrative level, Dr. Talley, that you and your team are going to put behind this policy. Are there any other questions from Board of Ed members?

I just, one more. One more. So just because it is open-ended more so, but we have professionals in place that will handle it as best they can. Um, you know, and we do have policy guidelines that are followed. I noticed number one through seven, I don't have the page number, um, but restorative practices, um, supportive interventions, different things like that will be used to help our kids be successful. Um, And I just want to make sure that parents know that even though the politicians changed the verbiage, that I can't imagine that our administrators and teachers aren't on top of this and will continue to do the best that they can. And there will be policies in place. It doesn't change the discipline policy, right? There is still progressive discipline.

Yes. All right.

Right. With that being said, I'll move this to a vote for the committee members. All those in favor of approving Resolution 69, please raise your hand. One, two, three. Thank you. That's unanimous. So this resolution will go on to the consent agenda at our regular meeting at the end of the month. Our second item tonight is resolution 70. Be it resolved that on the recommendation of the superintendent of schools that the board of education approved policy 6172.3, parent managed learning. This is a new policy for our books. Do I have a second for discussion from policy committee member? Thank you, Antonia. Dr. Talley and team, I'll leave it over to you if you want to make any comments on this resolution.

Thank you. I'll turn it to Mr. Soles for any comment for him about this.

Thanks, Dr. Talley. This change reflects the legislature's decision to provide some parameters for parent managed learning that's going to take place over the next three school years. So in the current school year, 26-27, there's no changes to the way that we handle requests for students to be withdrawn for parent managed learning. Starting in the 27-28 school year, there are two components. One would be the filling out of a formal withdrawal form with the district. The second, which is a pretty substantial change, is the implementation of...

Oh, still didn't get it. Sorry about that.

Oh, still didn't get it. Sorry about that. Can we mute her on both? Thank you.

Okay, so this, starting with next school year, July 1, 2027, if a student is withdrawn from the district to go into parent-managed learning, there is a requirement for the district to conduct a basically a background check with the Department of Children and Families, which really just checks to see if the person is on the DCF registry for abuse or neglect or is currently under investigation for abuse and neglect. This check is really the same type of check that we use for all of our employees. And then in the last year of this three-year kind of progression, the addition of an annual form that is filled out, the parents that wish to homeschool their children, they need to file that intent with the district on an annual basis.

Thank you, Chris. Just something too I'll add before I turn it over to policy committee members. It was intentional to include the phase out formatting of this policy or the version because I think it's helpful for parents and the public to kind of see how this is a gradual process as Chris detailed in his comments. Do we have any questions from committee members? Antonia? I can't hear you. I don't know if anyone else is. Yeah, I can't hear you, Antonia, I'm sorry. She can come back to you.

Can she write it in?

Yeah, we'll come back to you, Antonia. Anyone from outside the committee or Board of Ed members? Dr. Hammond?

Yes, Mr. Sol, just to clarify again, because this is also, I want the public to know that this particular issue, topic, with homeschoolers is also now at the federal level because of possibly FERPA breakage. And because what's happening, no other state in the United States is having to file through DCF or put on that registry. Not private school students, not regular ed students, but homeschool students. And even though there may be a registry and they have to check, Why 99.9% of these students have to be registered or the families when many of these homeschool students are very, very, very stellar students.

Yeah, but Dr. Hammond, the issue has been, and we have seen this across the country, that there have been some students who have been homeschooled, or let me put homeschooled in quotation marks, when in reality, the parents have been keeping them out of school and have been abusing them. And so it is interesting. I can tell you, having worked in another state, in Maryland... homeschool parents actually have to come in twice a year to show to the educators of that school district what their children have learned. And so it is something that states do do with regards to sort of ensuring that the children are safe. And I don't think any of us would disagree with that requirement to ensure children are safe.

Well, let's get more detailed. We lost three of our DCF students because DCF wasn't doing their job. So let me clarify that. And then the other question I have for you, Dr. Talley or Chris, because we're the only state currently doing this, and we want to make sure everybody's safe, but why aren't private school students being expected to do this? Why are our employees, but homeschool parents have to? It just is, the politicians, again, could have made decisions, just like you said, coming in twice a year and checking. That would be a great way to do it. And many ideas were shared with the politicians on the floor when this was debated. But that was they decided to put them under DCF. DCF has not been doing its job and it's not fair to homeschool parents. I won't be supporting this because basically you're saying that all homeschool parents have to be checked. Not private school. I wonder what that has to do. It's certainly not about equity and not our regular ed students, but homeschool students do. So they're sending a message. Again, I encourage the community to step forward because we really had some pretty home, pretty good homeschool laws as an administrator. I saw some great programs. But is that fair to that small subset of, you know, not private school? They don't have to. And they're being outside. You know, they're not within public school realm. So it just doesn't make sense that there wasn't more creativity because DCF is about abuse. And if you're registering for homeschooling, you're basically already being labeled an abuser if you have to go through their registry.

Dr. Talley, right before I see you are muted, before I let you respond, I just need to remind folks, and I will use a point of order if this happens again in this discussion for this item, but we need to keep the conversation germane to the policy in front of us. So please, please keep that in front of mind with all the comments. Dr. Talley, did you want to say anything?

My only comment is, this is a policy that comes from the state. It's a federal, it's a state law and it's a requirement. And so voting against it, I assume therefore you have talked to your state legislators about it as well. That's all I have to say.

Yeah, I did write about it because it was very concerning. I did talk to the legislators who wrote this bill and I was there with hundreds of individuals who, you know, were in front of legislators and it really is not an equitable bill.

Antonio, do you want to check to see if your mic is working?

Yeah. Can you hear me now?

Yes.

Okay, good. First of all, you know, anybody working with young children? they are mandatory reporters. So even if you're in private school, public school, even somebody in the neighborhood that you see an abuse and neglect and something that is happening, you know, the Good Samaritan Law will be for anybody who do a report. My question before was just simple. How many parents do we, or how many families do we know in this community in Stanford that do homeschooling? So that was just, you know, Do we have any number? Do we know?

I do not have that information at all. We can find out and send it to the board. If we keep track of that information, we can see.

And just to kind of comment on that question, Antonia, I think that this policy is intention to almost gauge that, right? Because I think that's where school districts are going to be kind of doing this administrative task essentially, right? So yeah, it'd be interesting to know. I appreciate you looking into that Dr. Kelly. If there is no further discussion, I will move this resolution to a vote. All those in favor on policy committee of approving resolution 70, please raise your hand.

One, two, three.

Thank you. It's unanimous. So this item will go on the consent agenda at the end of the month at our regular meeting. The last item we have is adjournment. So I'll motion to adjourn at 6.49 PM. Do I have a second? Andy, thank you. Awesome. We're adjourned.